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
Quote from: 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"
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
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: dougtone on November 05, 2009, 04:53:35 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
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: doofy103 on November 15, 2009, 10:24:37 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
Quote from: doofy103 on November 05, 2009, 10:31:12 AM
Quote from: dougtone on November 05, 2009, 04:53:35 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
Quote from: doofy103 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)
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
Quote from: doofy103 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.

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
Quote from: doofy103 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!

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
Quote from: dougtone on November 24, 2009, 05:04:45 PM
Quote from: doofy103 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!

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
Quote from: dougtone on January 02, 2010, 05:36:07 AM

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
Quote from: AlpsROADS on January 22, 2010, 06:33:06 PM
Quote from: dougtone on January 02, 2010, 05:36:07 AM

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
Quote from: doofy103 on April 18, 2010, 02:28:08 PM
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
Quote from: doofy103 on April 16, 2010, 06:24:04 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
Quote from: Duke87 on April 22, 2010, 04:07:45 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
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: doofy103 on April 23, 2010, 07:31:53 PM
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: jon daly on April 25, 2010, 09:36:22 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
Quote from: 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)

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
Quote from: doofy103 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

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
Quote from: doofy103 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

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
Quote from: doofy103 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

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
Quote from: 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.  

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
Quote from: doofy103 on March 24, 2011, 03:47:54 PM
Quote from: 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.  

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
Quote from: connroadgeek on March 25, 2011, 06:45:07 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
Quote from: Duke87 on March 25, 2011, 08:24:26 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on March 25, 2011, 06:45:07 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
QuoteDoes 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.

QuoteIf 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
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: shadyjay on March 28, 2011, 09:03:17 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
Quote from: 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.


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
Quote from: 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.
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
Quote from: doofy103 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

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
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: doofy103 on April 07, 2011, 04:50:15 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
Quote from: connroadgeek on April 07, 2011, 08:58:23 PM
Quote from: doofy103 on April 07, 2011, 04:50:15 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.
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
Quote from: AlpsROADS on April 08, 2011, 06:08:58 AM
Quote from: connroadgeek on April 07, 2011, 08:58:23 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
Quote from: Duke87 on April 08, 2011, 09:02:38 PM
Quote from: AlpsROADS on April 08, 2011, 06:08:58 AM
Quote from: connroadgeek on April 07, 2011, 08:58:23 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
Quote from: doofy103 on April 08, 2011, 09:44:53 PM
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.

QuoteUS-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
Quote from: AlpsROADS on April 08, 2011, 09:58:13 PMThere 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:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.divalishcouture.com%2Fimages%2Fnew421.JPG&hash=5f09ade4b765a54a1fdff019688d79d6ef46214f)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.divalishcouture.com%2Fimages%2Fnew422.JPG&hash=f83296907e1508daf42943825f23939c5f69c190)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.divalishcouture.com%2Fimages%2Fnew423.JPG&hash=00e1f9d40a4de49d0aecba2ebfaa5ea727673d97)
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
Quote from: 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:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.divalishcouture.com%2Fimages%2Fnew421.JPG&hash=5f09ade4b765a54a1fdff019688d79d6ef46214f)

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.

QuoteHowever, 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
Quote from: wytout on April 16, 2011, 05:19:47 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
Quote from: doofy103 on April 16, 2011, 01:07:03 PM
Quote from: 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:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.divalishcouture.com%2Fimages%2Fnew421.JPG&hash=5f09ade4b765a54a1fdff019688d79d6ef46214f)

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.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.divalishcouture.com%2Fi84.JPG&hash=44a05ca5deaea28576c875082d03987efac0512f)
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
Quote from: 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.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.divalishcouture.com%2Fi84.JPG&hash=44a05ca5deaea28576c875082d03987efac0512f)
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
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 05, 2011, 10:48:50 PM
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
Quote from: Steve on May 05, 2011, 11:34:44 PM

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
Quote from: wytout on May 06, 2011, 03:09:35 AM
Quote from: Steve on May 05, 2011, 11:34:44 PM

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
Quote from: 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".   



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
Quote from: 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?

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
Quote from: Steve 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.


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
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: connroadgeek on May 15, 2011, 05:25:58 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. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on May 15, 2011, 07:02:58 PM
Quote from: doofy103 on May 15, 2011, 06:32:00 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on May 15, 2011, 05:25:58 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
Quote from: doofy103 on May 15, 2011, 06:32:00 PMBTW: 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
Quote from: shadyjay on May 15, 2011, 07:14:06 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
Quote from: 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!!!

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
Quote from: wytout on May 05, 2011, 07:39:46 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.divalishcouture.com%2Fi84.JPG&hash=44a05ca5deaea28576c875082d03987efac0512f)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.divalishcouture.com%2Fimages%2Fnew421.JPG&hash=5f09ade4b765a54a1fdff019688d79d6ef46214f)
[/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
Quote from: 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. 



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
Quote from: wytout on May 16, 2011, 08:05:17 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
Quote from: doofy103 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

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
QuoteA 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
Quote from: relaxok on May 24, 2011, 06:06:47 PM
Quote from: doofy103 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

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
Quote from: doofy103 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. 

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
Quote from: 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.  

: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
Quote from: 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.

: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
Quote from: Alex on June 06, 2011, 01:35:47 PM
Quote from: 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. 

: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
Quote from: shadyjay on June 06, 2011, 03:40:59 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
Quote from: 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?)

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
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: connroadgeek on June 10, 2011, 09:09:24 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
Quote from: Duke87 on June 11, 2011, 08:35:07 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on June 10, 2011, 09:09:24 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
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: doofy103 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

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
Quote from: 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.

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:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg856.imageshack.us%2Fimg856%2F4126%2Fimg1938ii.jpg&hash=9796d71850a74d87852f7e965d25a54ea43eb943)
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
Quote from: shadyjay on June 18, 2011, 09:34:40 PM
Quote from: doofy103 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

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
Quote from: shadyjay on June 18, 2011, 09:31:38 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
Quote from: Duke87 on June 18, 2011, 10:30:55 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
Quote from: doofy103 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




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
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: doofy103 on May 15, 2011, 07:33:23 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on May 15, 2011, 07:14:06 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
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: shadyjay on July 15, 2011, 06:57:47 PM
Quote from: 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.

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:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.divalishcouture.com%2Fbolton1.jpg.JPG&hash=800b8b0017ed9a8e0c4bbb8c73aec0792fb5cb7c)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.divalishcouture.com%2Fbolton2.jpg.JPG&hash=e68e1ab834ba440816635014f1859f18a0961488)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.divalishcouture.com%2Fbolton3.jpg.JPG&hash=e2c7b4439b4876a1e251c49ef9781764f71d679a)

WB:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.divalishcouture.com%2Fbolton4.jpg.JPG&hash=285c685948ed490cac72022c8300ad8af783ed59)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: hbelkins on July 16, 2011, 10:00:16 PM
I guess those replaced this?

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.static.flickr.com%2F5007%2F5344775275_dd7a362772_z.jpg&hash=831d8e351f0d27d1dd314dee1ab7e55275209344)

(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
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.static.flickr.com%2F5003%2F5344781405_f7b0aeafe3_z.jpg&hash=898fc07f04cee748a482118f767bc46449f70a68)

This one?

And I guess the last one replaced this overhead:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.static.flickr.com%2F5287%2F5344799461_b6265b597a_z.jpg&hash=156180fe45ceb5029fa8e06a8f2c376ce8fd41bf)
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
Quote from: 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? 

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
Quote from: Steve 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.

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
Quote from: Steve 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.")

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
Quote from: shadyjay on July 31, 2011, 10:14:16 AM
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
Quote from: deanej on July 31, 2011, 02:23:03 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
Quote from: mtantillo on July 31, 2011, 02:58:03 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.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: mtantillo on August 08, 2011, 09:48:29 AM
Quote from: connroadgeek on August 06, 2011, 06:40:10 PM
Quote from: mtantillo on July 31, 2011, 02:58:03 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
Quote from: mtantillo on August 08, 2011, 09:48:29 AM
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
Quote from: 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 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
Quote from: connroadgeek on August 08, 2011, 09:09:39 PM
Quote from: mtantillo on August 08, 2011, 09:48:29 AM
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
Quote from: shadyjay on September 04, 2011, 11:43:11 AM
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
Quote from: doofy103 on September 04, 2011, 01:49:22 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

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.divalishcouture.com%2Fnewbgs1.JPG&hash=de2d4ad002f83bf20eac5f730f282a77d11d5313)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.divalishcouture.com%2Fnewbgs2.JPG&hash=27a4fa2c7759f150250e0b7190e46b87337179cc)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.divalishcouture.com%2Fnewbgs3.JPG&hash=ffde29577f6991d5cd93a475f03cdb4523070d69)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.divalishcouture.com%2Fnewbgs4.JPG&hash=e26bace7d01a0e9e8bea1ed11e03e5e161c8e67e)
DO YOU THINK THE OLD SIGN HAD ENOUGH SUPPORT.  LOOK AT THE 3 GIANT I-BEAM BREAKAWAYS

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.divalishcouture.com%2Fnewbgs5.JPG&hash=fb6bd4d349fa79f52b7aa74a204d41efaaa0b172)
NEW BREAKAWAYS IN FRONT OF OLD ASSEMBLY

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.divalishcouture.com%2Fnewbgs6.JPG&hash=c605c898bda114647c6138075e69a2632d826eab)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on October 03, 2011, 08:38:20 PM
Quote from: doofy103 on October 03, 2011, 10:39:40 AM
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
Quote from: 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).

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
Quote from: 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
...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.divalishcouture.com%2Fnewbgs5.JPG&hash=fb6bd4d349fa79f52b7aa74a204d41efaaa0b172)

...


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
Quote from: PennDOTFan 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.

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
Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 03, 2011, 10:15:52 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
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on October 04, 2011, 06:26:14 AM
Quote from: PennDOTFan 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.

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
Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 03, 2011, 10:15:52 PM
Quote from: 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).

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
Quote from: Michael in Philly on October 04, 2011, 10:01:45 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 03, 2011, 10:15:52 PM
Quote from: 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).

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
Quote from: 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!

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
Quote from: doofy103 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

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
Quote from: kurumi on October 07, 2011, 01:59:32 AMAre 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
Quote from: wytout on October 06, 2011, 08:15:30 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..... :)
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
Quote from: Steve on October 07, 2011, 06:45:34 PMLet's fix the Merritt first!

No argument there!!!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: wytout on October 07, 2011, 09:37:07 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on October 07, 2011, 11:46:07 AM
Quote from: wytout on October 06, 2011, 08:15:30 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
Quote from: wytout on October 07, 2011, 09:37:07 PM
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
Quote from: shadyjay on October 08, 2011, 09:38:36 AM

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
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: Duke87 on October 04, 2011, 07:48:20 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 03, 2011, 10:15:52 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)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.divalishcouture.com%2Fhov.jpg&hash=b8fdddb1bbae0fc68fca7b30afbf8e0f0314f85e)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on October 26, 2011, 06:56:19 PM
Quote from: 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)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.divalishcouture.com%2Fhov.jpg&hash=b8fdddb1bbae0fc68fca7b30afbf8e0f0314f85e)

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
Quote from: doofy103 on October 26, 2011, 06:56:19 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
Quote from: doofy103 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!  

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
Quote from: shadyjay on November 20, 2011, 03:12:46 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
Quote from: doofy103 on November 24, 2011, 10:33:36 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
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on December 06, 2011, 10:58:46 AMThe 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
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on December 06, 2011, 06:13:20 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
Quote from: kurumi on October 07, 2011, 01:59:32 AM
Quote from: doofy103 on October 06, 2011, 11:42:18 AMNew 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.

Quote from: doofy103 on October 07, 2011, 08:52:37 AMI 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
Quote from: doofy103 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! 

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
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: 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.


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
Quote from: doofy103 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.


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
Quote from: yakra on January 07, 2012, 10:38:05 AM
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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6oUYKtFH6o&list=FLxqRs_5SiHClOhFWAbR_mMQ&index=1&feature=plpp_video
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
Quote from: yakra on January 26, 2012, 12:19:28 AM
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
Quote from: Duke87 on January 26, 2012, 06:37:25 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
Quote from: 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?



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?

QuoteIn 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
Quote from: 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?

QuoteIn 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
Quote from: doofy103 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. 

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
Quote from: 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.)

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
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: shadyjay on March 28, 2012, 04:18:03 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
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 28, 2012, 04:20:15 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on March 28, 2012, 04:18:03 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
Quote from: shadyjay on March 28, 2012, 04:32:11 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 28, 2012, 04:20:15 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on March 28, 2012, 04:18:03 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:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.staticflickr.com%2F5311%2F6945604550_44fd1027f5_b.jpg&hash=c1a7c738672234c6efdea9750fa97e2708a20b8e) (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

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.staticflickr.com%2F5334%2F7091673217_0759fb8782_b.jpg&hash=0fb48f3d6cdc6b816dc1954b4abcd32ab70408b0) (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

QuoteUnder 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
Quote from: Duke87 on April 29, 2012, 04:29:21 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
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: 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?

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
Quote from: doofy103 on May 25, 2012, 08:36:16 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
Quote from: doofy103 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. 

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
Quote from: 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



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
Quote from: connroadgeek on June 14, 2012, 09:25:18 PM
Quote from: 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



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
Quote from: connroadgeek on June 14, 2012, 09:25:18 PM
Quote from: 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



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
Quote from: 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

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.

Quote from: deanej 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.

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
Quote from: 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?

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
Quote from: 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). 

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
Quote from: southshore720 on July 31, 2012, 04:28:41 PM
Quote from: 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). 

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
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: 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.
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
Quote from: shadyjay on August 01, 2012, 03:06:41 PM
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: doofy103 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!

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
Quote from: shadyjay on July 31, 2012, 09:30:11 PM
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
Quote from: Duke87 on August 02, 2012, 06:38:56 PM
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
Quote from: southshore720 on August 03, 2012, 12:15:19 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
Quote from: doofy103 on August 03, 2012, 12:50:16 AM
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
Quote from: southshore720 on August 03, 2012, 12:15:19 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.

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
Quote from: southshore720 on August 05, 2012, 03:53:52 AM
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
Quote from: deanej on August 06, 2012, 10:25:00 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
Quote from: kurumi on August 06, 2012, 11:30:35 AM
Quote from: deanej on August 06, 2012, 10:25:00 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.

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
Quote from: Duke87 on August 06, 2012, 06:25:43 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
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 06, 2012, 06:31:32 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
Quote from: shadyjay on August 06, 2012, 05:36:54 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!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on August 07, 2012, 07:15:18 PM
Quote from: southshore720 on August 07, 2012, 09:11:27 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on August 06, 2012, 05:36:54 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.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7323.0
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: NE2 on August 08, 2012, 07:05:58 AM
Quote from: doofy103 on August 07, 2012, 09:27:55 PM
See my rant on this project on this thread.

https://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
Quote from: NE2 on August 08, 2012, 07:05:58 AM
Quote from: doofy103 on August 07, 2012, 09:27:55 PM
See my rant on this project on this thread.

https://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
Quote from: Steve on July 31, 2012, 08:26:17 PM
Quote from: southshore720 on July 31, 2012, 04:28:41 PM
Quote from: 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). 

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
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: 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?

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
Quote from: Duke87 on August 18, 2012, 01:36:52 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
Quote from: Duke87 on August 18, 2012, 01:36:52 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
Quote from: 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?

Fixed
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: ctsignguy on August 20, 2012, 08:06:08 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on August 18, 2012, 03:42:48 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on August 18, 2012, 01:36:52 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.




Wilbur Cross.....
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi166.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu102%2Fctsignguy%2Fwilburcrosspkway.jpg&hash=26bdf811da115d63b6f12580e7383e4696932d79)

Old Merrittt....
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi166.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu102%2Fctsignguy%2Fmerritpkwy.jpg&hash=9dbf820113c9023e21fbe570f4c9b9a347765887)

Current Merritt
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi166.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu102%2Fctsignguy%2Fstcpkwy-merritt3.jpg&hash=7038d4aa114c66a93f4a0560e800fda995c1fa78)

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.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FyJzAj.jpg&hash=98f26c8d20ec31efabc884d49f61cb69e48bbd50)

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
Quote from: 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.)

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
Quote from: 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:
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
Quote from: southshore720 on August 27, 2012, 10:53:32 PM
Quote from: 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:
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
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on August 28, 2012, 10:10:00 AM
Quote from: southshore720 on August 27, 2012, 10:53:32 PM
Quote from: 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:
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!
Quote from: southshore720 on August 27, 2012, 10:53:32 PM
Quote from: 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:


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
Quote from: doofy103 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.

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
Quote from: shadyjay on January 05, 2013, 09:01:21 AM
Quote from: doofy103 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.

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
Quote from: doofy103 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.

- 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
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: doofy103 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.

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
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 24, 2013, 07:37:07 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
Quote from: doofy103 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
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
Quote from: deanej on January 25, 2013, 11:43:42 AM
Quote from: doofy103 on January 24, 2013, 06:50:06 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
Quote from: NE2 on January 25, 2013, 05:10:46 PM
Quote from: deanej on January 25, 2013, 11:43:42 AM
Quote from: doofy103 on January 24, 2013, 06:50:06 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
Quote from: Duke87 on January 24, 2013, 09:06:18 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 24, 2013, 07:37:07 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)

QuoteA 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."

QuoteIts 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
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on January 29, 2013, 02:36:48 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
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 29, 2013, 04:23:02 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on January 29, 2013, 02:36:48 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!

Quote from: PHLBOS on January 29, 2013, 04:23:02 PM
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.

Quote from: PHLBOS on January 29, 2013, 04:23:02 PM
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
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 29, 2013, 08:07:59 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
Quote from: Duke87 on January 29, 2013, 09:13:32 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 29, 2013, 08:07:59 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
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 29, 2013, 08:07:59 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
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 30, 2013, 01:06:35 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
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 30, 2013, 01:06:35 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 29, 2013, 08:07:59 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.

Quote from: PHLBOS on January 30, 2013, 01:06:35 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?

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).

Quote from: PHLBOS on January 30, 2013, 01:06:35 PM
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
Quote from: Mr_Northside on January 30, 2013, 01:21:07 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 30, 2013, 01:06:35 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?" 

Quote from: Mr_Northside on January 30, 2013, 01:21:07 PM
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!

Quote from: Mr_Northside on January 30, 2013, 01:21:07 PM
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
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 30, 2013, 03:27:14 PMThe "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. 

Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 30, 2013, 03:27:14 PM
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
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 31, 2013, 04:05:09 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 30, 2013, 03:27:14 PMThe "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. 

Quote from: PHLBOS on January 31, 2013, 04:05:09 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 30, 2013, 03:27:14 PM
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
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 31, 2013, 04:32:06 PMSince 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
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 31, 2013, 04:57:09 PM
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
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 01, 2013, 10:16:02 AMIf 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.

Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 01, 2013, 10:16:02 AMDoes 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
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 01, 2013, 10:35:28 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 01, 2013, 10:16:02 AMIf 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?

Quote from: PHLBOS on February 01, 2013, 10:35:28 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 01, 2013, 10:16:02 AMDoes 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
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 01, 2013, 12:41:43 PMAnd 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
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 01, 2013, 04:31:53 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 01, 2013, 12:41:43 PMAnd 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
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 01, 2013, 04:31:53 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
Quote from: shadyjay on February 03, 2013, 09:12:43 AMAnd 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
Quote from: 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)

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
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 03, 2013, 04:28:55 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on February 03, 2013, 09:12:43 AMAnd 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
Quote from: doofy103 on February 06, 2013, 05:45:16 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
Quote from: 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?

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
Quote from: 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?

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
Quote from: 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.
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
Quote from: Steve on February 22, 2013, 05:09:55 PM
Quote from: 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.
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
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 22, 2013, 05:19:33 PM
Quote from: Steve on February 22, 2013, 05:09:55 PM
Quote from: 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.
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
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: 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! :(

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
Quote from: doofy103 on February 25, 2013, 06:46:10 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
Quote from: doofy103 on February 25, 2013, 06:46:10 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
Quote from: southshore720 on February 26, 2013, 03:23:12 PM
Quote from: doofy103 on February 25, 2013, 06:46:10 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
Quote from: olemissfan on March 03, 2013, 12:17:06 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
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 03, 2013, 08:06:04 PMJust 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.

Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 03, 2013, 08:06:04 PMthe 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
Quote from: 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.
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
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: 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).

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
Quote from: doofy103 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?

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
Quote from: Pete from Boston on May 08, 2013, 10:43:08 PM
Quote from: doofy103 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?

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
Quote from: 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?

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
Quote from: 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. :)
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
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: shadyjay on May 30, 2013, 05:20:17 AM
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
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 29, 2013, 08:06:50 AM
Quote from: 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. :)
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
Quote from: 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.
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
Quote from: 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".

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.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.staticflickr.com%2F2841%2F9559405040_40341c40b5_z.jpg&hash=ec425d3492c70f0c8711863388e3bc5a31914ea3) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/76971031@N02/9559405040/)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.staticflickr.com%2F3744%2F9559404838_d193fda3ed_z.jpg&hash=7db1a9dd1d065cee1d341fc9dcadc9a7a27c2d35) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/76971031@N02/9559404838/)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.staticflickr.com%2F5348%2F9556617065_e76f23fa6e_z.jpg&hash=89f2153ab35bfa3dac4b785a17656faffffe3f0e) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/76971031@N02/9556617065/)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.staticflickr.com%2F5504%2F9556616039_2db20f9e70_z.jpg&hash=ad383fbbca4b4b3d6354a110386b062f581301e8) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/76971031@N02/9556616039/)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.staticflickr.com%2F5345%2F9559404302_3a06e0576e_z.jpg&hash=c9e15a8a154a9c081d8fbf06ce57b6689b354c74) (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
Quote from: 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.

I caught one...it was so new, it still had the plastic wrap on it. CT-34 in Derby EB

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.staticflickr.com%2F5342%2F9432544786_7c1e972521.jpg&hash=988668068883538a1ea182111a9a010744434509)

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
Quote from: 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.



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
Quote from: shadyjay on December 23, 2013, 03:48:18 PM
*  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
Quote from: 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
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
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: NE2 on January 10, 2014, 07:18:52 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
Quote from: iwishiwascanadian on January 10, 2014, 07:26:33 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:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Foi43.tinypic.com%2F11sj911.jpg&hash=99b6b86aaf39a9d96778e47e21c07bf84155823b)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on January 10, 2014, 08:37:31 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 10, 2014, 05:03:00 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
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on January 10, 2014, 08:37:31 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 10, 2014, 05:03:00 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
Quote from: southshore720 on January 11, 2014, 03:26:08 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
Quote from: NE2 on January 11, 2014, 03:29:49 PM
Quote from: southshore720 on January 11, 2014, 03:26:08 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
Quote from: doofy103 on January 11, 2014, 03:51:55 PM
Quote from: NE2 on January 11, 2014, 03:29:49 PM
Quote from: southshore720 on January 11, 2014, 03:26:08 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
Quote from: southshore720 on January 12, 2014, 02:35:20 PM
Quote from: doofy103 on January 11, 2014, 03:51:55 PM
Quote from: NE2 on January 11, 2014, 03:29:49 PM
Quote from: southshore720 on January 11, 2014, 03:26:08 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
Quote from: NE2 on January 10, 2014, 07:18:52 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
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 13, 2014, 03:24:52 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
Quote from: NE2 on January 13, 2014, 03:29:21 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 13, 2014, 03:24:52 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
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
Quote from: 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).

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
Quote from: 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!
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
Quote from: southshore720 on January 21, 2014, 12:41:31 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
Quote from: 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?

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
Quote from: 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)
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
Quote from: 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.
Bravo, sir. Bravo.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on January 24, 2014, 10:49:00 PM
Quote from: Steve on January 24, 2014, 08:48:54 PM
Quote from: 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)
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
Quote from: 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



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
Quote from: shadyjay on January 24, 2014, 03:52:33 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
Quote from: connroadgeek on February 01, 2014, 07:36:23 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on January 24, 2014, 03:52:33 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
Quote from: Alps on January 24, 2014, 08:48:54 PM
Quote from: 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)
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
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: 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.
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
Quote from: 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.



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
Quote from: doofy103 on April 14, 2014, 09:20:05 PM
Quote from: 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.



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
Quote from: Alps on April 14, 2014, 10:31:50 PMb) 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
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on April 15, 2014, 12:07:51 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
Quote from: doofy103 on April 14, 2014, 09:20:05 PM
Quote from: 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.



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
Quote from: yakra on April 15, 2014, 10:57:35 AM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on April 15, 2014, 12:07:51 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.
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
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on April 15, 2014, 08:07:09 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
Quote from: Duke87 on April 15, 2014, 10:31:05 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on April 15, 2014, 08:07:09 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
Quote from: Alps on April 15, 2014, 11:49:24 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
Quote from: Alps on April 15, 2014, 06:21:28 PM
Quote from: yakra on April 15, 2014, 10:57:35 AM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on April 15, 2014, 12:07:51 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
Quote from: Duke87 on April 16, 2014, 10:55:14 PM
Quote from: Alps on April 15, 2014, 11:49:24 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
Quote from: Alps on April 15, 2014, 06:21:28 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
Quote from: Alps on April 15, 2014, 06:21:28 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
Quote from: cpzilliacus on April 20, 2014, 01:19:04 PM
Quote from: Alps on April 15, 2014, 06:21:28 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
Quote from: Alps on April 21, 2014, 08:10:24 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
Quote from: Duke87 on April 21, 2014, 10:21:30 PM
Quote from: Alps on April 21, 2014, 08:10:24 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
Quote from: Alps on April 21, 2014, 11:31:47 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on April 21, 2014, 10:21:30 PM
Quote from: Alps on April 21, 2014, 08:10:24 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
QuoteThe 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
Quote from: 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:

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
Quote from: 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.

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/:

QuoteThe 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
Quote from: 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.
So long exit 44.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on May 05, 2014, 08:31:06 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on May 05, 2014, 04:44:48 PM
From the official project website, http://www.i95westriver.com/:

QuoteThe 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
Quote from: connroadgeek on May 05, 2014, 08:26:58 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
Quote from: shadyjay on May 05, 2014, 04:44:48 PM
From the official project website, http://www.i95westriver.com/:

QuoteThe 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
Quote from: Duke87 on May 05, 2014, 10:18:26 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on May 05, 2014, 08:26:58 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
Quote from: Duke87 on May 05, 2014, 10:18:26 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on May 05, 2014, 08:26:58 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
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: 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.
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
Quote from: connroadgeek on June 07, 2014, 07:32:11 PM
Quote from: 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.
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
Quote from: connroadgeek on June 07, 2014, 07:32:11 PM
Quote from: 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.
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
Quote from: doofy103 on June 07, 2014, 08:27:12 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

Quote from: 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: connroadgeek on June 18, 2014, 08:04:06 PM
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: shadyjay on June 21, 2014, 08:50:10 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
Quote from: 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....

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
Quote from: 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....

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
Quote from: 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.
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
Quote from: connroadgeek on June 24, 2014, 10:04:43 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.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Pete from Boston on June 25, 2014, 05:41:20 PM

Quote from: iwishiwascanadian on June 25, 2014, 01:54:18 AM
Quote from: connroadgeek on June 24, 2014, 10:04:43 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
Quote from: Jake2000 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.

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
Quote from: Marc_in_CT on June 26, 2014, 11:31:56 AM
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
Quote from: 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/
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

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F1e902bJ.jpg&hash=94aa3e43c84979aba3af8d9731e31922bc57e59d)
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
Quote from: 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


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
Quote from: spmkam on July 07, 2014, 05:26:42 PM
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
Quoteto provide environmental studies and design services

Yup, starting the whole process over. So if we're lucky they'll break ground in 2022. Because:

Quote from: 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:

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
Quote from: 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
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 from: Duke87 on July 15, 2014, 09:24:50 PM
Quoteto provide environmental studies and design services

Yup, starting the whole process over. So if we're lucky they'll break ground in 2022. Because:

Quote from: 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:

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
Quote from: doofy103 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



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
Quote from: shadyjay on July 16, 2014, 08:58:32 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

Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on July 18, 2014, 05:18:52 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.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on July 19, 2014, 06:16:10 PM
Quote from: wytout on July 19, 2014, 09:10:47 AM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on July 18, 2014, 05:18:52 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
Quote from: 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.

There's a GSV link courtesy of PHLBOS from the Erroneous Road Signs thread: https://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:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAAMx0W-7S8
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on July 24, 2014, 03:16:57 PM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on July 16, 2014, 10:25:24 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on July 16, 2014, 08:58:32 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
Quote from: Duke87 on July 30, 2014, 10:52:38 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
Quote from: doofy103 on July 30, 2014, 11:06:27 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):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FdDAeunL.png&hash=32a31f5fb2b5aa7889301be32ac517bda0e58728)

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
Quote from: Duke87 on July 31, 2014, 01:32:48 AM
Quote from: doofy103 on July 30, 2014, 11:06:27 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):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FdDAeunL.png&hash=32a31f5fb2b5aa7889301be32ac517bda0e58728)

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
Quote from: doofy103 on July 31, 2014, 01:58:42 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.

Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: Duke87 on August 27, 2014, 01:41:54 AM
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:

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/CT/CT19610861i1.jpg)
1972

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/CT/CT19790861i1.jpg)
1985
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 27, 2014, 09:46:56 PM
Quote from: doofy103 on August 26, 2014, 11:54:13 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
Quote from: shadyjay on August 27, 2014, 09:46:56 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
Quote from: Duke87 on August 27, 2014, 09:54:06 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
Quote from: shadyjay on August 27, 2014, 09:46:56 PM
Quote from: doofy103 on August 26, 2014, 11:54:13 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
Quote from: 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?

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
Quote from: shadyjay on August 28, 2014, 08:27:00 PM
Quote from: 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?

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:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F4mJzbwe.jpg&hash=c93e8c36cfc30e13f9967ceeaf24626ea64ecf54)

:)

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
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: Duke87 on September 03, 2014, 12:58:21 AM
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: 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! :)

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
QuoteEach 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 from: Duke87 on September 15, 2014, 09:59:09 PM
QuoteEach 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
Quote from: shadyjay on September 17, 2014, 03:34:42 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
Quote from: Duke87 on September 17, 2014, 08:32:41 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on September 17, 2014, 03:34:42 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

Quote from: doofy103 on September 18, 2014, 03:04:05 PMIf 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.

QuoteIs 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
Quote from: doofy103 on September 18, 2014, 03:04:05 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on September 17, 2014, 08:32:41 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on September 17, 2014, 03:34:42 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
Quote from: doofy103 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.

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
Quote from: shadyjay on September 26, 2014, 11:04:21 PM
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
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: doofy103 on September 28, 2014, 08:42:14 AM
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
Quote from: kurumi on September 28, 2014, 05:59:36 PM
Quote from: doofy103 on September 28, 2014, 08:42:14 AM
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
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: kurumi on September 28, 2014, 05:59:36 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:
Quote from: Duke87 on September 28, 2014, 10:02:05 PM
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
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FU7udTky.jpg&hash=6727897a33aa86e5a70e268a7348f022a5a2f60f)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FNnH7XNu.jpg&hash=f16678a27a89de0aecd9b1bfd518541677065a4a)

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
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on September 30, 2014, 12:18:11 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
Quote from: 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
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
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on September 30, 2014, 12:18:11 AM
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.

Quote from: bob7374 on September 30, 2014, 10:48:43 AM
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
Quote from: shadyjay on October 02, 2014, 04:59:07 PMIt seems like there's an increased desire to get signs off bridge overpasses.
Quote from: 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.
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
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.
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

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." 
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
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.
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
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.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: 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".
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on October 09, 2014, 12:54:50 PM
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).
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
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.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Pete from Boston on October 09, 2014, 07:07:59 PM

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. 
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
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?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on October 10, 2014, 07:19:14 PM
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.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on October 10, 2014, 07:46:46 PM
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.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on October 10, 2014, 08:14:55 PM
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.
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
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
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on October 13, 2014, 09:07:59 AM
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.
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

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.nationalsafetycommission.com%2Fsigns-small%2Fyellow%2Fspeed_reduction_ahead.gif&hash=454c6f4255ec932f66ca775c8c35d67ef424f340)
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
Quote from: doofy103 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

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
Quote from: JakeFromNewEngland on October 16, 2014, 09:42:34 PM
.....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
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: 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

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
Quote from: doofy103 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.

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
Quote from: shadyjay on September 30, 2014, 06:20:22 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on September 30, 2014, 12:18:11 AM
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.

Quote from: bob7374 on September 30, 2014, 10:48:43 AM
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
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: 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.

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

QuoteTHEY 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 from: kurumi on October 31, 2014, 02:01:06 AM
QuoteTHEY 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 from: Zeffy on October 31, 2014, 03:42:34 PM
Quote from: kurumi on October 31, 2014, 02:01:06 AM
QuoteTHEY 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
Quote from: Pete from Boston on October 31, 2014, 05:02:58 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
Quote from: 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. :(

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
Quote from: 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. :(
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
Quote from: 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.

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

Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 21, 2014, 06:07:15 PM

Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: doofy103 on November 21, 2014, 08:56:03 PM
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
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 21, 2014, 06:07:15 PM

Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: 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.
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
Quote from: 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.
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

Quote from: Alps on November 22, 2014, 01:13:38 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 21, 2014, 06:07:15 PM

Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: Alps on November 21, 2014, 12:26:39 AMI 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
Quote from: Alps on November 22, 2014, 01:42:59 AM
Quote from: 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.
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
Quote from: 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.
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
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on November 21, 2014, 07:16:07 AM
Quote from: 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.

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
Quote from: bob7374 on November 25, 2014, 10:38:45 AMIt 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
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 25, 2014, 10:56:44 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on November 25, 2014, 10:38:45 AMIt 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
Quote from: roadman on November 25, 2014, 11:12:22 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
Quote from: roadman on November 25, 2014, 11:12:22 AMIf 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. 

Quote from: roadman on November 25, 2014, 11:12:22 AMAbsolute 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

Quote from: 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:

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
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 25, 2014, 12:08:48 PM

Quote from: 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:

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
Quote from: 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?

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
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 25, 2014, 10:56:44 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on November 25, 2014, 10:38:45 AMIt 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
Quote from: 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.


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
Quote from: 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.
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

Quote from: connroadgeek on November 29, 2014, 06:53:32 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 25, 2014, 10:56:44 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on November 25, 2014, 10:38:45 AMIt 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
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 30, 2014, 06:57:26 AM

Quote from: connroadgeek on November 29, 2014, 06:53:32 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 25, 2014, 10:56:44 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on November 25, 2014, 10:38:45 AMIt 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

Quote from: connroadgeek on November 30, 2014, 11:58:32 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 30, 2014, 06:57:26 AM

Quote from: connroadgeek on November 29, 2014, 06:53:32 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 25, 2014, 10:56:44 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on November 25, 2014, 10:38:45 AMIt 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
Quote from: connroadgeek on November 30, 2014, 11:58:32 AM
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
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on November 29, 2014, 10:48:16 PM
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
Quote from: 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?
This is like the story of NY/NJ 17.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on December 01, 2014, 10:14:55 PM
Quote from: 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?

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
Quote from: doofy103 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 (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
Quote from: Alps on December 11, 2014, 06:16:17 PM
Quote from: doofy103 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 (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
Quote from: 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.
Yeah, it must be that SB lane.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on December 16, 2014, 06:18:04 PM
Quote from: 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.
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
Quote from: connroadgeek on December 16, 2014, 06:18:04 PM
Quote from: 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.
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??
Quote from: 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.


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
Quote from: doofy103 on December 17, 2014, 01:24:47 PM
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 congestion, it seeks ways to better contain it. One other case where it has been used before is the aforementioned auxiliary lane in Stamford - exit 8 southbound used to back up onto the mainline quite a lot and cause a lot of mess. To alleviate this, ConnDOT did nothing to try and stop the exit ramp from backing up - they just made the ramp longer and moved the dirvergence point way back so the queue would have to get a lot longer before it actually backs up onto the mainline. And then they added an extra lane that drops there so that if it did back up onto the mainline, it backed up into the auxiliary lane and not into the right hand travel lane.

In a sense it's almost rather clever. If the freeway were 8 (or more) lanes continuously, its capacity would be increased, more people would take it, and there would be no improvement on congestion, just more throughput. But by placing extra lanes surgically here and there, ConnDOT aims to break up trouble spots without actually increasing the capacity of the highway and thereby just causing more people to use it. The working strategy seems to be that large volume entrances should add a lane and large volume exits should drop one.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on December 28, 2014, 09:15:26 PM
So I did a little bit of driving around CT during my Christmas break.  My routes entailed the following:

I-91, entire length
I-95, Exit 46 to 70
I-691, Exit 10 to 6
CT 9, I-95 to Exit 22

So a few things here and there caught my eye:

On I-95:
*  More and more "Attractions" blue signs are popping up.  I noticed one for I-95 Exits 65, 64, and 63, all "temporary" and about two logos high, with a small "ATTRACTIONS/EXIT ##" stacked banner. 

*  The service area in Madison NB is open, but SB remains under construction.  Still some work to be done.    The fuel canopy and the building is up but the parking lot is mostly dirt, and a huge dirt blocks the immediate view of the building while passing its closed entrance.  The "1/2 mile" advance for the service area is a brand new sign, and you can see the Subway, McDonalds, and Dunkin' Donuts logos poking up, with a big orange "CLOSED - NEXT PLAZA 14 MILES" sign plastered on top.  This new sign says the plaza is 1/2 mile away, when it is placed before the Exit 62 - 1/2 mile sign, and the plaza comes some 1/2 mile after Exit 62. 

*  Stopped at the Branford SB plaza.... TWICE.  First time, so my brother could use the ATM.  The second time, to pick up the phone that my brother had dropped while using the ATM.  God bless the iCloud/"Find My Phone" app and to the good samaritain who turned the phone into Subway instead of pocketing it for themselves.  Some 10 hours after the phone was lost, iCloud showed me where it was, and a quick call to "Subway SB" located it, and picked it up the next day.

*  Both times I stopped at Branford SB... the place was PACKED!  Parking was full and had to find a spot in the back of the tractor trailer section.  Maybe its just the fact that its a small lot, or the previous plaza is still under renovation, or the fact that it was a holiday period, but wow.  I don't think I've ever seen that plaza so crowded.

*  The first advance guide sign for Exit 48-47 (not the I-91 2 Miles button copy one) now has a button copy I-95 South/NY City pullthrough, possibly taken from the "exit now" gantry at Exit 47 from the old alignment.  The two exits are separate once again, but you'd never know it until at the actual exit.

*  Stayed on until Exit 46 to take the "easier" route to Union Station. 

*  The first day, I headed north on I-91 to Meriden, after Union Station.  The second day, I got off at Exit 52 after retrieving the phone, and reversed to head back east. 

*  Stopped for a coffee at Branford-NB.  It's been a year since I was last here, and yet, the Statement Shop and the Cinnabon/Auntie Anne's retail spaces are still posted as "COMING SOON".  There is a new Best Buy Express kiosk in the corner. 

*  Didn't stop by the Madison NB plaza, but noticed its signage is unique.  Instead of saying "SERVICE PLAZA/FOOD FUEL ATM/[space where the logos used to be], it says "SERVICE PLAZA/[symbols for food,gas,diesel,EV/ATM].  This occurs on the 1 Mile and "Exit now" signs.  The 1/2 mile sign is 3 logos high and has logos for Subway, DD, Mobil, Alltown, and Citibank. 

*  During the drive to Grandma's on Christmas Eve in the pouring rain, the button copy signs on I-95 between Exits 69 & 70 were unreadable.  They've been in place since '93 and need to be replaced BADLY.  Along with most other button copy signage in the state.  Slowly but surely, it is happening.

On I-91:
*  Some nice new gantries for Exits 3. 
*  Still temporary signage for Exit 10-NB.  It's due to be replaced.  The old "lattice" gantry is still up, devoid of all signage.
*  Still temporary signage for Exit 16-NB, even though the new signs/gantries have been up for a few years now.
*  Noticed the SB signage for the Wallingford rest area has been condensed and only calls it a REST AREA.  Previously, the  signage had said "REST AREA/(blank space where TOURIST INFO used to be displayed)/CANTEEN". 
*  Love the fact that the VMSs in the Hartford area display distances and times to major routes. 
*  Saw a "temporary" attractions sign for Exit 40-NB, with the Air Museum logo.  Interesting, since the Air Museum already is displayed on a large brown sign right before Exit 40, along with the Firefighter's Memorial.  The sign for Old Newgate Prison is still listed on "temporary" posts, and is still "CLOSED".


Luckily, the weather was descent (except for the drive down on Christmas Eve), and got to see my entire family and celebrate the holidays.
And no, I didn't snap any pics.  Was going to through New Haven, but that whole area's already crazy enough, and had to keep both eyes on the road.  People drive crazy down there!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on December 30, 2014, 07:40:11 AM
Not news per sé, but making the rounds this news cycle (http://www.courant.com/politics/hc-malloy-open-to-highway-tolls-1230-20141229-story.html):

Quoteov. Dannel P. Malloy said Monday he might be open to reinstating tolls on Connecticut highways after a discussion he intends to lead next year with the General Assembly and the public about whether "we want to continue talking about transportation ... or whether we actually want to do something about it."

The Democratic governor, who won re-election to a second four-year term Nov. 4, told reporters at the Capitol that his office would have detailed transportation-improvement plans ready for presentation with his budget proposals to the legislature in early February — roughly a month after the legislature convenes Jan. 7, the first day of his new term.

It's not in the linked article, but the associated TV coverage adds that money raised through tolls would be "lockboxed" and used strictly for transportation.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on December 30, 2014, 12:13:33 PM
http://wtnh.com/2014/12/30/malloy-doesnt-rule-out-connecticut-highway-tolls/

WTNH-TV (ABC) channel 8 of New Haven had a short story about the idea. Nothing in the piece that we didn't already know.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on December 30, 2014, 04:26:12 PM
I say go for it. If NY can have crazy tolls to cross every little bridge, then let's do it here. $15 toll to enter the state.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: iwishiwascanadian on December 31, 2014, 06:41:17 PM
The Courant ran an article about it as well, I don't see how CT is gonna pay for major projects (rebuilding I-84 through Hartford, widening I-84 in Waterbury, etc.) if there is no dedicated funding stream available. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on December 31, 2014, 06:48:54 PM
Quote from: iwishiwascanadian on December 31, 2014, 06:41:17 PM
The Courant ran an article about it as well, I don't see how CT is gonna pay for major projects (rebuilding I-84 through Hartford, widening I-84 in Waterbury, etc.) if there is no dedicated funding stream available. 
We'll just wait for another bridge to collapse into a river before we do anything about it. I mean it's been 30+ years since the last one. Makes me wonder where that gas tax goes. I thought that was supposed to be dedicated to fixing roads.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: cl94 on December 31, 2014, 09:51:44 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on December 30, 2014, 04:26:12 PM
I say go for it. If NY can have crazy tolls to cross every little bridge, then let's do it here. $15 toll to enter the state.

No, Connecticut should be like Jersey and make them pay to leave
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on January 04, 2015, 10:42:58 PM
The 4th lane on I-95 NB in Norwalk in open.  I'm not sure how much it'll help, I guess the real test will be rush hour tomorrow (1/5).  According to a press release it opened up before Xmas. 

http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?A=2135&Q=558376
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: iwishiwascanadian on January 05, 2015, 08:28:47 PM
Either way, I feel like it could work if there was a heavily discounted rate for CT EZ-Pass users. Also, it would be interesting to think about converting the HOV lanes on 91 and 84 in Greater Hartford to HOT lanes.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on January 05, 2015, 09:47:45 PM
Quote from: iwishiwascanadian on January 05, 2015, 08:28:47 PM
Also, it would be interesting to think about converting the HOV lanes on 91 and 84 in Greater Hartford to HOT lanes.

That might actually be more palatable than just outright adding tolls to currently free highways.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on January 08, 2015, 12:03:36 AM
Quote from: doofy103 on January 04, 2015, 10:42:58 PM
The 4th lane on I-95 NB in Norwalk in open.  I'm not sure how much it'll help, I guess the real test will be rush hour tomorrow (1/5).  According to a press release it opened up before Xmas. 

http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?A=2135&Q=558376

I checked the traffic cams and Google maps traffic at 4:30 this afternoon and saw no traffic back up prior to Norwalk.  Is this because the new lane or because traffic is lighter?  You'd think normal traffic patterns are back since the holidays are over and most people do not have extra vacation time.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on January 08, 2015, 11:13:18 PM
If nothing else wait until spring. Traffic always moves better in winter since people tend to just stay home more when it's cold out.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Pete from Boston on January 09, 2015, 09:08:20 AM

Quote from: Duke87 on January 08, 2015, 11:13:18 PM
If nothing else wait until spring. Traffic always moves better in winter since people tend to just stay home more when it's cold out.

Little if any road work, too.

Traffic moves best here in summer, when folks leave town.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on January 09, 2015, 04:27:44 PM
Do you believe this?  Politicians usually shy away from widening I-95 especially in Southwestern CT.  At least roads are a big chuck of the state of the state address. It could be politics as usual but usually when they sniff at widening a highway all the critics come out in force.  So he's taking a risk even mentioning it.

http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Malloy-widen-I-95-to-relieve-traffic-spur-6002810.php

http://www.courant.com/politics/capitol-watch/hc-ct-gov-malloy-on-rail-v-highway-expansion-all-of-the-above-20150109-story.html


Also, there's talk about a lock box for transportation funds.  Wasn't that already passed? I remember reading that would start in 2015 or 2016?!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 10, 2015, 01:24:31 AM
Quote from: doofy103 on January 09, 2015, 04:27:44 PM
Do you believe this?  Politicians usually shy away from widening I-95 especially in Southwestern CT.  At least roads are a big chuck of the state of the state address. It could be politics as usual but usually when they sniff at widening a highway all the critics come out in force.  So he's taking a risk even mentioning it.

http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Malloy-widen-I-95-to-relieve-traffic-spur-6002810.php

http://www.courant.com/politics/capitol-watch/hc-ct-gov-malloy-on-rail-v-highway-expansion-all-of-the-above-20150109-story.html

More on the same subject: Malloy seeks massive transportation overhaul, including I-95 (http://wtnh.com/2015/01/08/malloy-seeks-massive-transportation-overhaul-including-i-95/)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: southshore720 on January 10, 2015, 01:54:14 PM
If I-95 becomes the main focus, you can kiss any hopes of finishing CT-11 or I-384 expansion goodbye!  (Not that any of us had all of our chips in the pot on either of those!)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Beeper1 on January 10, 2015, 02:37:31 PM
This is Connecticut.  Even if I-95 becomes the main focus, don't expect any meaningful expansion of I-95 to actually take place.   

CT-11 never made any progress even when it was supposedly "fast-tracked" with federal funding.   
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Pete from Boston on January 10, 2015, 10:19:53 PM
It's nothing new and easy points for politicians to get behind something that everyone wants that isn't possible to deliver on. 
Title: Connecticut News
Post by: Pete from Boston on January 12, 2015, 08:39:03 PM
Noticed on the Turnpike in Fairfield and NH counties:

* Blank full-size "Attractions" signs up northbound in Bridgeport (for Stratford exit) and Milford.  There is apparently nothing attractive about these places.

* Moses Wheeler Bridge has entered a new phase of construction.  New NB and SB spans have rolling gantry cranes set up between, presumably to fill in the middle.

* Time/Distance signs are up and running, but do enough people know the name "Milford Parkway" to make it a useful destination?  It's not on any other sign.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JakeFromNewEngland on January 12, 2015, 08:45:25 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 12, 2015, 08:39:03 PM
Noticed on the Turnpike in Fairfield and NH counties:

* Blank full-size "Attractions" signs up northbound in Bridgeport (for Stratford exit) and Milford.  There is apparently nothing attractive about these places.

* Moses Wheeler Bridge has entered a new phase of construction.  New NB and SB spans have rolling gantry cranes set up between, presumably to fill in the middle.

* Time/Distance signs are up and running, but do enough people know the name "Milford Parkway" to make it a useful destination?  It's not on any other sign.


Makes sense about the attractions signs. I live in Milford, and there really is nothing here besides maybe the mall and downtown.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Pete from Boston on January 12, 2015, 08:48:07 PM
It's probably going to supplant the existing Pez visitor center sign.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Henry on January 13, 2015, 12:57:49 PM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on December 30, 2014, 07:40:11 AM
Not news per sé, but making the rounds this news cycle (http://www.courant.com/politics/hc-malloy-open-to-highway-tolls-1230-20141229-story.html):

Quoteov. Dannel P. Malloy said Monday he might be open to reinstating tolls on Connecticut highways after a discussion he intends to lead next year with the General Assembly and the public about whether "we want to continue talking about transportation … or whether we actually want to do something about it."

The Democratic governor, who won re-election to a second four-year term Nov. 4, told reporters at the Capitol that his office would have detailed transportation-improvement plans ready for presentation with his budget proposals to the legislature in early February – roughly a month after the legislature convenes Jan. 7, the first day of his new term.

It's not in the linked article, but the associated TV coverage adds that money raised through tolls would be "lockboxed" and used strictly for transportation.
Good for them! That state has one of the most incomplete highway systems in America, with missing links abound, none more glaring than the CT 11 to I-95 one. And don't get me started on the I-84 to Providence thing!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 14, 2015, 12:24:52 AM
Quote from: Henry on January 13, 2015, 12:57:49 PM
And don't get me started on the I-84 to Providence thing!

I have long wondered if the anti-I-84 to Providence crowd was able to successfully (and perhaps secretly) lobby relevant federal regulators (especially USEPA Region 1 and the New England District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) into opposing anything and everything associated with the proposed route.

I have absolutely no proof of anything of the sort, but I wonder, given the circumstances associated with the cancellation of the project, as discussed by Kurimi here (http://www.kurumi.com/roads/ct/harttoprov.html).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on January 14, 2015, 08:08:04 PM
Quote from: Henry on January 13, 2015, 12:57:49 PM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on December 30, 2014, 07:40:11 AM
Not news per sé, but making the rounds this news cycle (http://www.courant.com/politics/hc-malloy-open-to-highway-tolls-1230-20141229-story.html):

Quoteov. Dannel P. Malloy said Monday he might be open to reinstating tolls on Connecticut highways after a discussion he intends to lead next year with the General Assembly and the public about whether "we want to continue talking about transportation … or whether we actually want to do something about it."

The Democratic governor, who won re-election to a second four-year term Nov. 4, told reporters at the Capitol that his office would have detailed transportation-improvement plans ready for presentation with his budget proposals to the legislature in early February – roughly a month after the legislature convenes Jan. 7, the first day of his new term.

It's not in the linked article, but the associated TV coverage adds that money raised through tolls would be "lockboxed" and used strictly for transportation.
Good for them! That state has one of the most incomplete highway systems in America, with missing links abound, none more glaring than the CT 11 to I-95 one. And don't get me started on the I-84 to Providence thing!
There will be no new highways, or hell even new exits, in Connecticut. We've been dancing this dance for a long, long time. You couldn't even eminent domain land for expansion because the cost is prohibitive. Whatever I-95's right of way is today, is what it will be 50 years from now. If they want to expand capacity, they should give serious consideration to using the shoulders during peak usage at bottleneck spots. This isn't the south or west where expanding a highway means taking a few extra acres of some farmer's land that won't be missed.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on January 14, 2015, 10:58:35 PM
Realistically speaking I don't think most of "I-84 to providence" is really necessary. East of Willimantic there is nothing wrong with US 6 as is.

The problem is that damned section of US 6 between Willimantic and Bolton. It's a mess and completing the freeway there would be totally justified. But because bureaucracy it will never happen and ConnDOT has outright given up on it ever happening (as indicated by their plans to downgrade the eastern end of I-384).

I imagine we may eventually simply see the existing surface alignment of US 6 widened to four lanes. This would be a workable solution that would have a much lower environmental impact due to not requiring a new ROW.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on January 15, 2015, 12:37:13 AM
Not really "news", but y'all remember the roundabout they recently installed at CT 82 and CT 85 in Salem? It turns out there was a rotary there many years ago.
* 1931: traffic study calls for traffic circle; the 4-way intersection there is one of state's most dangerous
* 1934: a rotary is constructed
* 1952: the rotary is removed -- replaced by 4-way intersection
* 2012: roundabout is installed
* 2112: guitars are outlawed

1952 article in the Day of New London: http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1915&dat=19521018&id=UaE0AAAAIBAJ&sjid=9XEFAAAAIBAJ&pg=2346,3167623
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on January 15, 2015, 08:41:59 AM
Wow... only 3 years back in the 30s separated the study and completion of construction.
Today it seems like things are studied for 10-20 years.  And in the end, nothing still gets done.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on January 15, 2015, 12:47:33 PM
When I first got into roads in 2002, they were discussing tolls, in 2005 there was a study done on tolls and now in 2015 there are STILL studies being done on tolls.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on January 15, 2015, 06:03:14 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on January 14, 2015, 10:58:35 PM
Realistically speaking I don't think most of "I-84 to providence" is really necessary. East of Willimantic there is nothing wrong with US 6 as is.
If you built it, it would be full of traffic. They're all spread out on US 44, US 6, CT 2, CT/RI 14, CT/RI 101, etc. Some are on I-95, which then gets clogged on weekends, and some may even be on I-84 and MA/RI 146. US 6 itself isn't too bad, and in fact none of these roads is "too bad," but if you take a few hundred off of each of them, you get a busy highway and back roads that are truly back roads, lightly traveled and appropriate for the scale of the area.

In my view, the best solution now is to connect the CT 695 spur to the US 6 freeway outside Providence. Providence would then be signed via CT 2, I-395, and the completed freeway. Though more direct and potentially faster routes may still exist, providing one reasonably direct all-freeway route from Hartford to Providence will reroute a majority of traffic to it. Best of all, there's almost no work to be done in CT.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on January 15, 2015, 06:55:34 PM
Completing the highway from Hartford to Providence would certainly open a nice more direct route to the Cape.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on January 16, 2015, 12:20:41 AM
There's really no development east of Willimantic, so I'm not sure why there's so much opposition to a direct highway from Hartford to Providence other than Scituate Reservoir in RI.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: southshore720 on January 16, 2015, 10:20:11 AM
The tree-hugging NIMBYs of Northwest RI + environmental studies that will not go in favor of a highway project =  X-(.

There should have been a bigger fight in the early 1980s when environmental standards were not as strict.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Zeffy on January 16, 2015, 11:06:01 AM
Much more suited for fictional highways, but maybe this (https://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=Unknown+road&daddr=I-384+E+to:I-384+E+to:US-44+E%2FUS-6+E+to:US-6+E+to:US-6+E+to:US-6+E+to:US-6+E+to:US-6+E+to:US-6+E+to:US-6+E+to:US-6+E+to:US-6+E+to:Unknown+road&hl=en&ll=41.761069,-71.886292&spn=0.78672,1.820984&sll=41.825946,-71.421567&sspn=0.004342,0.007113&geocode=FRZQfQIdDpSs-w%3BFUJHfQIdE_is-w%3BFXw7fQIdlbut-w%3BFTupfQId3Yuu-w%3BFXh9fQId-fuu-w%3BFX_5fAIdGX2v-w%3BFXuqfAId7pex-w%3BFYkUfQId-Q2z-w%3BFSayfQIdVzC2-w%3BFci8fQIdZIe4-w%3BFX5hfgIdQb27-w%3BFYIgfgIdy9O8-w%3BFT4qfgIdHpe9-w%3BFR42fgIdQi---w&t=h&mra=dme&mrsp=13&sz=18&z=10) could work as a proposed alignment for an I-92 - I think the number may even fit the grid too!

Quote from: southshore720 on January 16, 2015, 10:20:11 AM
The tree-hugging NIMBYs of Northwest RI + environmental studies that will not go in favor of a highway project =  X-(.

Don't worry - we're in the same boat. Now we are dependent on Pennsylvania building an interchange because of our NIMBYs getting the one freeway that might've made traffic so much better canned.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: spooky on January 16, 2015, 11:49:16 AM
Quote from: southshore720 on January 16, 2015, 10:20:11 AM
The tree-hugging NIMBYs of Northwest RI + environmental studies that will not go in favor of a highway project =  X-(.

There should have been a bigger fight in the early 1980s when environmental standards were not as strict.

RI also has far bigger fish to fry today when it comes to infrastructure spending.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on January 16, 2015, 12:04:24 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on January 16, 2015, 12:20:41 AMThere's really no development east of Willimantic, so I'm not sure why there's so much opposition to a direct highway from Hartford to Providence other than Scituate Reservoir in RI.
Bingo!  The Reservoir in RI was exactly one primary reason why I-84 (at least in RI) killed off during the early 80s. Source (http://www.kurumi.com/roads/ct/harttoprov.html)
QuoteHowever, concerns over environmental impacts to a reservoir supplying much of Rhode Island's water helped kill the project.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on January 16, 2015, 05:18:21 PM
Quote from: spooky on January 16, 2015, 11:49:16 AM
Quote from: southshore720 on January 16, 2015, 10:20:11 AM
The tree-hugging NIMBYs of Northwest RI + environmental studies that will not go in favor of a highway project =  X-( .

There should have been a bigger fight in the early 1980s when environmental standards were not as strict.

RI also has far bigger fish to fry today when it comes to infrastructure spending.
RI has no money. They've redone RI 10, I-195, and the Seekonk River bridge on I-95, and I think they're done. I've heard rumblings about replacing or twinning the RI 114 (I-895) bridge that seems to have gotten nowhere.


(EDIT to fix. Also, Sakonnet was supposed to be toll-supported, but now that just eats up all the more money.)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on January 16, 2015, 05:46:43 PM
Quote from: Alps on January 16, 2015, 05:18:21 PMthe Sakonnet River bridge on I-95
The Sakonnet River Bridge is RI 24/138 linking Portsmouth & Tiverton.

Quote from: Alps on January 16, 2015, 05:18:21 PMI've heard rumblings about replacing or twinning the RI 138 (I-895) bridge that seems to have gotten nowhere
Which bridge are we talking about here?  Both the Newport and Jamestown Bridges (both are part of RI 138) are already 4-laners; and the latter was built during the 1990s that replaced an old, narrow, rickety 2-lane truss bridge that had a steel grate for most of its roadbed.  While cool to look at, riding on it was a death-trap (personal experience) during the old bridge's final two decades.

The only bridge twinning proposal I'm aware of for Aquidneck Island (Portsmouth/Middletown/Newport) is a parallel span of the 2-lane Mount Hope Bridge (RI 114) linking Portsmouth & Bristol.  Such was part of the doomed I-895 project.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on January 16, 2015, 10:26:59 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 16, 2015, 05:46:43 PM
a bunch of corrections
i am lame
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: yakra on January 17, 2015, 01:19:04 AM
Quote from: Alps on January 16, 2015, 10:26:59 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 16, 2015, 05:46:43 PM
a bunch of corrections
i am lame
YE KEEPER OF TYPEWRITERS!!@#
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on January 22, 2015, 06:06:36 PM
http://blog.ctnews.com/newsbeat/2015/01/22/malloy-calls-for-widening-entire-i-84/

Malloy wants to widen I-84 especially through Danbury Exits 3-8.  While I'm always in favor or road widening...an extra lane won't fix it here.  Unless the remove the left exit EB at Exit 7, get rid of the lane drops at Exits 3 and 7 both directions, the traffic problems will continue.

WB, the US-7 on-ramp should be two-lanes.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Pete from Boston on January 22, 2015, 08:51:55 PM
Widening 84 is kind of the back-door way to widen 95 west of New Haven: it will make 84 an attractive alternative again, relieving 95, but as such it will draw more traffic from the start.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on January 23, 2015, 05:07:42 PM
Perusing around the ConnDOT traffic cams, I have seen some additional progress in the sign replacement on I-95 between Exits 25 and 44.  In addition to ground-mounted signs such as ATTRACTIONS and other exit supplementary signage, I have observed some new BGSs NB for Exit 27 and SB in the Exit 31-32 area.  Though it's tough to tell from a traffic cam image, the signs are clearly new as they have the aligned exit tab and the Exit 27 sign (a rear view) is much brighter than the others on the gantry.  For those that didn't see the plans for the project, not all signage that was installed when the Bridgeport Corridor was upgraded is getting replaced... only those for Exit 27 (Lafayette Blvd), and some spot replacements elsewhere.  When this project is complete, I-95 will have aligned exit tabs up to New Haven, except Exits 26-30 in Bridgeport.

Also, noticed a press release announcing the closure of the I-84 EB/WB rest areas in Willington.  The closures begin in March and will continue until the end of October.  Looks like mostly restroom work, but other interior work as well.  See:  http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?A=2135&Q=559806.  Nice to see ConnDOT putting some $$$ into its non-commercial rest areas... a LONG time coming!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JimmyI395 on January 28, 2015, 03:30:30 PM
Update on I-395 signage. They are starting to put up the supports from exit 86 to 80. Could have been more going south but I didn't get that far.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on January 31, 2015, 04:21:18 PM
Quite a few new signs going up between Exit 26 and 43 on I-95.  I with they would replace the ones that were put up in 2002 with the Bridgeport widening project and the ones that were put up in 2008 with the Exit 42 widening as well.  Those signs are losing their reflectivity already.  I don't think they lasted well at all.

Signs include new advance signage for x26 and X28 1 Mile  NB.  X27 B & C SB.  Exit 30 has new ones.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JakeFromNewEngland on February 12, 2015, 03:23:06 PM
http://wtnh.com/2015/02/12/malloy-pledges-quick-replacement-of-waterburys-mixmaster/

Saw this article today. It looks like the state is trying again to widen I-84 to 3 lanes from Waterbury to NY.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on February 12, 2015, 03:34:16 PM
Quote from: JakeFromNewEngland on February 12, 2015, 03:23:06 PM
http://wtnh.com/2015/02/12/malloy-pledges-quick-replacement-of-waterburys-mixmaster/

Saw this article today. It looks like the state is trying again to widen I-84 to 3 lanes from Waterbury to NY.

There was a series of meetings on this back in 2007-2008, I went to a couple but then fizzled b/c of funding.  It seems like stuff ramps up and then fizzles b/c of funding.  I think the 2007-2008 meetings were to screen alternatives.  Good news though.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on February 18, 2015, 06:19:04 PM
Gov. Malloy's transportation plan. Some good stuff but how much you wanna bet somebody won't like it and it stalls....as usual.

5 year plan:
http://www.governor.ct.gov/malloy/lib/malloy/2015.02.18_CTDOT_5_YR_Plan.pdf

30 year plan:
http://www.governor.ct.gov/malloy/lib/malloy/2015.02.18_CTDOT_30_YR_Vision.pdf

At the end of the 30 year plan is a list of projects including extending US-7 Expressway up to Route 33.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Pete from Boston on February 18, 2015, 07:33:51 PM
Interesting–first I've heard of second crossing in Middletown.   

Replacing the 84/8 structures is going to be a nightmare.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on February 18, 2015, 07:46:25 PM
Under the rail section:
QuoteWaterbury Branch Signal System
Yeeeesss!


More in general I love the ambition but of course I don't think everything will come to fruition. In particular, extending the US 7 freeway in Norwalk by so much as an inch will be a non-starter. Wilton wants nothing to do with that.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on February 18, 2015, 10:34:43 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 18, 2015, 07:33:51 PM
Interesting—first I've heard of second crossing in Middletown.   

Replacing the 84/8 structures is going to be a nightmare.

Alt 8, which is the one they want to build I think, is actually large scale...so I hope they go through with it.

http://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/documents/dpolicy/WINS/WINScoverpage_nov2010.pdf

**
The 30 year plan actually has every major project on it, so hopefully the outcome wil be different, the political talk is different so far.  I've never seen a politician discuss major projects like this before.  Of course, I'm cautiously optimistic.

Also this was on the DOT's homepage.
http://transformct.info/

I plan on going to a town meeting on it.  Although it seems like there have been meetings forever tho....but I'm in!

So what happens now? Malloy outlined the budget does that mean it's a go or do other politicians vote on it?  I ask b/c there are some stingy "old habits die hard" politicians out there that will stop it in it's tracks.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JakeFromNewEngland on February 18, 2015, 10:38:15 PM
I'm glad to see Connecticut is starting to see how bad the system is here. I-95 needed that widening a long time ago. Hopefully during my lifetime these projects will be done.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on February 19, 2015, 12:03:22 AM
Quote from: doofy103 on February 18, 2015, 06:19:04 PM
Gov. Malloy's transportation plan. Some good stuff but how much you wanna bet somebody won't like it and it stalls....as usual.

5 year plan:
http://www.governor.ct.gov/malloy/lib/malloy/2015.02.18_CTDOT_5_YR_Plan.pdf

30 year plan:
http://www.governor.ct.gov/malloy/lib/malloy/2015.02.18_CTDOT_30_YR_Vision.pdf

At the end of the 30 year plan is a list of projects including extending US-7 Expressway up to Route 33.

Could I ask you to please post some highlights?  I am having a bunch of difficulty with PDF files as of late.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Pete from Boston on February 19, 2015, 09:00:21 AM

Quote from: JakeFromNewEngland on February 18, 2015, 10:38:15 PM
I'm glad to see Connecticut is starting to see how bad the system is here. I-95 needed that widening a long time ago. Hopefully during my lifetime these projects will be done.

It's been years since I actively sought and read these things, but our local MPO used to put out documents like this, outlining some XX-years ideal vision.  I believe they were required to do so every so often.  This documents reads a lot like those, which were more or less impossible to ever realize in their entirety because they'd probably require a 50¢ hike in the gas tax. 

I really don't think we're going to see any new lane from Greenwich to New Haven.  First, it would not be enough, and second, the real estate is too expensive. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Pete from Boston on February 19, 2015, 09:11:37 AM

Quote from: doofy103 on February 18, 2015, 10:34:43 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 18, 2015, 07:33:51 PM
Interesting–first I've heard of second crossing in Middletown.   

Replacing the 84/8 structures is going to be a nightmare.

Alt 8, which is the one they want to build I think, is actually large scale...so I hope they go through with it.

http://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/documents/dpolicy/WINS/WINScoverpage_nov2010.pdf

So I-84 and N.J. Route 8 north of it will be built on totally new alignments (no longer double-decked), obviating a lot of problems with working around existing traffic.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on February 19, 2015, 09:32:02 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 19, 2015, 09:11:37 AM
Quote from: doofy103 on February 18, 2015, 10:34:43 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 18, 2015, 07:33:51 PM
Interesting–first I've heard of second crossing in Middletown.   

Replacing the 84/8 structures is going to be a nightmare.

Alt 8, which is the one they want to build I think, is actually large scale...so I hope they go through with it.

http://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/documents/dpolicy/WINS/WINScoverpage_nov2010.pdf

So I-84 and N.J. CT Route 8 north of it will be built on totally new alignments (no longer double-decked), obviating a lot of problems with working around existing traffic.
FTFY.  :)

I agree, Alt. 8 should get the nod IMHO.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Pete from Boston on February 19, 2015, 10:16:12 AM

Quote from: PHLBOS on February 19, 2015, 09:32:02 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 19, 2015, 09:11:37 AM
Quote from: doofy103 on February 18, 2015, 10:34:43 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 18, 2015, 07:33:51 PM
Interesting–first I've heard of second crossing in Middletown.   

Replacing the 84/8 structures is going to be a nightmare.

Alt 8, which is the one they want to build I think, is actually large scale...so I hope they go through with it.

http://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/documents/dpolicy/WINS/WINScoverpage_nov2010.pdf

So I-84 and N.J. CT Route 8 north of it will be built on totally new alignments (no longer double-decked), obviating a lot of problems with working around existing traffic.
FTFY.  :)

I agree, Alt. 8 should get the nod IMHO.

Ain't no circle shields in Connecticut.  They're clearly planning on having New Jersey build that road (or Vermont, Delaware, etc.).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on February 19, 2015, 10:30:51 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 19, 2015, 10:16:12 AMAin't no circle shields in Connecticut.  They're clearly planning on having New Jersey build that road (or Vermont, Delaware, etc.).
I'm assuming that you're being facetious regarding the above (at least I hope you are - I've never met you personally).

Those shields were clearly copied from the newer USGS graphics; which, like the older USGS graphics before it as well as most roadmaps (Rand McNally, AAA, etc.), uses a circled shields for state highway designations regardless of which state its showing.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JakeFromNewEngland on February 19, 2015, 10:58:08 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 19, 2015, 09:00:21 AM

Quote from: JakeFromNewEngland on February 18, 2015, 10:38:15 PM
I'm glad to see Connecticut is starting to see how bad the system is here. I-95 needed that widening a long time ago. Hopefully during my lifetime these projects will be done.

It's been years since I actively sought and read these things, but our local MPO used to put out documents like this, outlining some XX-years ideal vision.  I believe they were required to do so every so often.  This documents reads a lot like those, which were more or less impossible to ever realize in their entirety because they'd probably require a 50¢ hike in the gas tax. 

I really don't think we're going to see any new lane from Greenwich to New Haven.  First, it would not be enough, and second, the real estate is too expensive.

I agree. Although I would love for it to happen, there is really no land to build on. I think we'll be lucky to at least see some sort of widening project on the whole I-95 corridor in CT.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Zeffy on February 19, 2015, 11:00:42 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 19, 2015, 10:16:12 AM
Ain't no circle shields in Connecticut.  They're clearly planning on having New Jersey build that road (or Vermont, Delaware, etc.).

Only roads New Jersey wants to build are their own, and even then New Jersey needs money, and pronto.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Pete from Boston on February 19, 2015, 11:32:22 AM

Quote from: JakeFromNewEngland on February 19, 2015, 10:58:08 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 19, 2015, 09:00:21 AM

Quote from: JakeFromNewEngland on February 18, 2015, 10:38:15 PM
I'm glad to see Connecticut is starting to see how bad the system is here. I-95 needed that widening a long time ago. Hopefully during my lifetime these projects will be done.

It's been years since I actively sought and read these things, but our local MPO used to put out documents like this, outlining some XX-years ideal vision.  I believe they were required to do so every so often.  This documents reads a lot like those, which were more or less impossible to ever realize in their entirety because they'd probably require a 50¢ hike in the gas tax. 

I really don't think we're going to see any new lane from Greenwich to New Haven.  First, it would not be enough, and second, the real estate is too expensive.

I agree. Although I would love for it to happen, there is really no land to build on. I think we'll be lucky to at least see some sort of widening project on the whole I-95 corridor in CT.

What I suspect will happen is isolated projects like the recent one in Norwalk where capacity is improved through bottlenecks or simply the few areas where land acquisition is practical.

The total cost in the report is something like $7.5 billion to add a lane in each direction between New York State and New Haven. I think this number is wishful thinking. It would take 20 years to do, costs and the land values will go up in that time, and those are only the known unknowns.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on February 20, 2015, 12:48:55 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 19, 2015, 10:16:12 AM

Quote from: PHLBOS on February 19, 2015, 09:32:02 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 19, 2015, 09:11:37 AM
Quote from: doofy103 on February 18, 2015, 10:34:43 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 18, 2015, 07:33:51 PM
Interesting–first I've heard of second crossing in Middletown.   

Replacing the 84/8 structures is going to be a nightmare.

Alt 8, which is the one they want to build I think, is actually large scale...so I hope they go through with it.

http://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/documents/dpolicy/WINS/WINScoverpage_nov2010.pdf

So I-84 and N.J. CT Route 8 north of it will be built on totally new alignments (no longer double-decked), obviating a lot of problems with working around existing traffic.
FTFY.  :)

I agree, Alt. 8 should get the nod IMHO.

Ain't no circle shields in Connecticut.  They're clearly planning on having New Jersey build that road (or Vermont, Delaware, etc.).
NJ doesn't have an 8, so why not? But in that case I want to be able to get there without a toll.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Pete from Boston on February 20, 2015, 01:20:28 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 19, 2015, 10:30:51 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 19, 2015, 10:16:12 AMAin't no circle shields in Connecticut.  They're clearly planning on having New Jersey build that road (or Vermont, Delaware, etc.).
I'm assuming that you're being facetious regarding the above (at least I hope you are - I've never met you personally).

Those shields were clearly copied from the newer USGS graphics; which, like the older USGS graphics before it as well as most roadmaps (Rand McNally, AAA, etc.), uses a circled shields for state highway designations regardless of which state its showing.

Yes, the comment about "N.J. 8" was a poke at the circle shield in the .pdf.

I've found the circle shield default in ArcGIS to be similarly frustrating to the USGS scenario you describe.  I use their square county route marker for state routes in Mass., but it's a pain because you have to dig a bit for a rectangle for 3-digit markers.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on February 20, 2015, 11:55:35 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 20, 2015, 01:20:28 AM
It's worth noting that many state DOT roadmaps don't show the correct/actual shields for state routes.

The recent (approx. 3 years) Connecticut roadmap from ConnDOT that I have shows round and/or oval markers for its state routes.

IIRC, the Massachusetts roadmap from MassDOT does similar.

PennDOT's PA roadmap shows squares & rectangles for its state routes but circles for state routes in neighboring states.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on February 20, 2015, 10:13:32 PM
Here are my thoughts on some highway components of the 30-year plan. I skip the ones where I'd otherwise say "that would be cool to see" and so would the rest of us. Here goes.

Operationally improve CT 8 in Naugatuck Valley ($500M) - no mention of desire (in some agencies) to push for Interstate designation. But the fixups here would get it closer to standards

Super 7 extension to 7/33 in Wilton ($300M) - I'm assuming this is the southern 7/33 junction. Interchange at Grist Mill or anywhere in between? Probably not (or cost would be higher than $300M)

Operational lanes on I-95, NYSL to New Haven ($9 billion) - the doc mentions operational lanes, which I take to mean auxiliary lanes between interchanges. However, the state uses the term "speed change lane" later in the doc for the exit 8..10 project. So are we getting 8 lanes on 95 or auxiliary lanes only?

Speed change lane, I-95 northbound, exit 8 to exit 10 ($490M) - the southbound lane already exists; I-95 is 4 lanes SB here. So nearly half a billion dollars for a single lane. Damn.  :-o

Reconstruct I-84 / US 6 / CT 4 (SR 508) interchange ($130M) - it sounds like they're going to dismantle the 3-way directional interchange and replace with: semidirectional T with C/D lanes? Or a spread diamond for both 508 and 6?

Improvements at I-91 / I-691 / CT 15 ($88M) - the doc says between exits 15 and 20, which is CT 68 to Country Club Road, with an additional operational lane in each direction. That's a lot cheaper compared to I-95. I'm guessing they would mainly widen the "squeeze" 4-lane portion of I-91 to 6 lanes, by taking from the median. (Widening outward would mean relocating CT 15, if only by 12 feet)

Replace Putnam Bridge ($295M) - Wow. New span. New alignment? Add shoulders, yes. Add another lane each direction, probably not.

New Bridge at Middletown ($2 billion) - I'm breaking my rule and including this one because it would be cool to see. I'd have a roadway coming south from the 17/66 split in Portland, across the bridge and a freeway to CT 9. Both 66 and 17 would use the new bridge. Old 66 could be 66A. 17A is extended across the Arrigoni. (The location matches an old plan from the 1960s)

Improvements to CT 2 / CT 17 interchange ($100M) - they could have done the right thing in 1964, when CT 2 was extended eastward. Now we're stuck with the left exit. $100M is probably not enough to make CT 17 exit and enter from the right. It sounds like they'll add short lanes north of the junction on CT 2 and restripe so there's no lane drop or add on the CT 2 mainline. Would they extend the operational lanes from CT 3 to CT 94?

Widen I-95 from Branford to Baldwin Bridge ($720M) - here, they mention widening from 2 to 3 operational lanes. I think they're getting sloppy with that term and they probably mean adding two thru lanes, giving a 6-lane profile (not including any auxiliary lanes)

Widen CT 2A ($100M) - this includes another 2-lane span of the M-P bridge.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on February 20, 2015, 11:38:49 PM
Quote from: kurumi on February 20, 2015, 10:13:32 PM

Super 7 extension to 7/33 in Wilton ($300M) - I'm assuming this is the southern 7/33 junction. Interchange at Grist Mill or anywhere in between? Probably not (or cost would be higher than $300M)
If it's following anything like the original route, it would hit CT 33 west of US 7.



Quote from: kurumi on February 20, 2015, 10:13:32 PM


Operational lanes on I-95, NYSL to New Haven ($9 billion) - the doc mentions operational lanes, which I take to mean auxiliary lanes between interchanges. However, the state uses the term "speed change lane" later in the doc for the exit 8..10 project. So are we getting 8 lanes on 95 or auxiliary lanes only?
To me, that means "we add lanes and then toll them". HOT lanes are operational in nature. That would justify the price tag as well.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on February 21, 2015, 12:52:14 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 20, 2015, 11:55:35 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 20, 2015, 01:20:28 AM
It's worth noting that many state DOT roadmaps don't show the correct/actual shields for state routes.

The recent (approx. 3 years) Connecticut roadmap from ConnDOT that I have shows round and/or oval markers for its state routes.

IIRC, the Massachusetts roadmap from MassDOT does similar.

PennDOT's PA roadmap shows squares & rectangles for its state routes but circles for state routes in neighboring states.

JIMAPCO makes road maps with authentic state shields, as does the maps app in the iPhone.  Has the Keystone for PA, Old Man in the Mountains forNH, etc.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: ElPanaChevere on February 21, 2015, 09:41:52 PM
THANK YOU! I've always wondered why the northeastern states (sans Maine) couldn't simply just switch over to mileage based. I mean, I understand New York is a rather large state in comparison to the ones on its eastern border, so it would take some time to switch over.

I've always hated how the first exit on I-95 north in Connecticut is exit 2. There is no 1. I doubt that this would take 20-30 years to do, let alone 5-6. Like someone mentioned, just putting up a new exit number over the old one a la Pennsylvania would do the trick just nicely.

They're able to reconstruct the whole I-95/I-91/CT 34 interchange in a matter of a few years, along with the I-95 Pequonnock River Bridge, yet this would take that long to do? Something doesn't seem right. Yes, Connecticut is a rather small state...so what's the excuse?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on February 21, 2015, 09:51:55 PM
Quote from: ElPanaChevere on February 21, 2015, 09:41:52 PM
THANK YOU! I've always wondered why the northeastern states (sans Maine) couldn't simply just switch over to mileage based. I mean, I understand New York is a rather large state in comparison to the ones on its eastern border, so it would take some time to switch over.

I've always hated how the first exit on I-95 north in Connecticut is exit 2. There is no 1. I doubt that this would take 20-30 years to do, let alone 5-6. Like someone mentioned, just putting up a new exit number over the old one a la Pennsylvania would do the trick just nicely.

They're able to reconstruct the whole I-95/I-91/CT 34 interchange in a matter of a few years, along with the I-95 Pequonnock River Bridge, yet this would take that long to do? Something doesn't seem right. Yes, Connecticut is a rather small state...so what's the excuse?
Because exit numbering by mileage would be confusing as f*ck. When PA did it old exit 53 became new exit 310. In CT old exit 54 becomes new exit 53 or something like that. So... get off at exit 54, take a left, wait, is that old exit 53 or new exit 54? In a small state where exits are a mile or less apart across the entire state it is useless and a waste of money. What's the largest distance between exits? Maybe 4-5 miles and that's a rarity. I do think I-395 could use a renumbering and it won't add confusion because the new vs. old numbers would be quite different. When the new vs. old numbers are very similar I think changing the numbering system is not worth the time.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Beeper1 on February 21, 2015, 10:28:15 PM
Let's all read these plans with a grain of salt.  This is CT we are talking about.  Of the major projects in these plans only a couple of them have a snowball's chance in hell of ever happening.  The ones that seem actually plausible are: Widening I-95 from Branford to New London, replacing the Putnam Bridge, replacing the 84/8 interchange. All of the rest have as much chance happening as Route 11 being finished: zero.   
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on February 21, 2015, 10:47:56 PM
"Only" $900M for a Goldstar Bridge Replacement? Ha! Any sane person knows that will cost $1.5B minimum.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: ctsignguy on February 22, 2015, 12:02:26 PM
Quote from: ElPanaChevere on February 21, 2015, 09:41:52 PM
THANK YOU! I've always wondered why the northeastern states (sans Maine) couldn't simply just switch over to mileage based. I mean, I understand New York is a rather large state in comparison to the ones on its eastern border, so it would take some time to switch over.

I've always hated how the first exit on I-95 north in Connecticut is exit 2. There is no 1. I doubt that this would take 20-30 years to do, let alone 5-6. Like someone mentioned, just putting up a new exit number over the old one a la Pennsylvania would do the trick just nicely.


When the Turnpike was first constructed, the unsigned Exit 1 was I-95 south to New York City...therefore Exit 2 was logical for the eastbound traffic at that time.....

and Connroadgeek is quite correct.  Many of the Turnpike exits would be renumbered BACKWARD because I-95 has 70 exits in the first 79 miles...and if i recall, something like 50 exits in the first 55 miles.  and as the exits are around a mile apart in that stretch, the benefit vs cost/confusion simply isnt worth it to Conn DOT's thinking ....395 would make more sense as it has longer distances between exits (and would be the only stretch of Interstate left in the State with room to add exits of any kind), but the other Connecticut Interstates should be pretty much left alone

The problem with the whole forcing the mileage-based exit issue is this....in typical government fashion, "We dont care about the actual bottom line and how it affects others (in this case, the locals).....all we care about is the process and the rules that must be obeyed!"
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on February 22, 2015, 04:29:32 PM
IIRC, the article about CT changing to mile-based exits stated the reason for why it would take so long to convert over to mile-based exits was since it was being done as signs are replaced.  Since I-395's signs are being replaced right now, it made sense to convert it to mile-based at the same time. 

Also, since I-95's signs have been replaced in the past 5 years or so from the NY line up to New Haven, it makes me wonder if the numbers will even change when I-95 gets converted on the section west of New Haven.  Really no reason for them to.  Sign projects in the next few years will tackle I-95 east of Branford, so I would imagine mile-based exits would come to that route next.  No mention of any I-91 signing projects in the next few years, outside of the occasional "spot" replacements here n' there.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Pete from Boston on February 22, 2015, 05:53:32 PM
Really, mileage-based numbering is a really tiny concern in the grand scheme of things.  Once you get off these boards, it becomes a head-scratcher why money would be spent on this "to conform" at any time the signs weren't otherwise going to be replaced.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on February 22, 2015, 07:08:06 PM
Agree, but that's what ConnDOT is going to do (I think).... convert when the signs are up for replacement.  In I-395's case, its signs were installed c 1985-86, so they're ready to be replaced.  Some of them are so old, the LEFT EXIT yellow panel on Exit 97 is more white than yellow. 

I-84's signs in the East Hartford/Manchester area date back to the construction of the I-84/I-384 interchange in the early 80s, hence the large oversized route markers. 

What I've seen for upcoming sign replacement projects mentioned on ConnDOT's site are I-95 east of Branford, I-84 from Southington to Hartford, and CT 8 north of Thomaston and down in the lower 'Naugy valley.  No mention of CT 2, CT 9, I-91, or any of I-84 east of Hartford.  Curious to see if when I-95 signs get replaced east of New Haven, will the 2000-vintage signs from Exits 60-67/70-82A get replaced completely?  Or will they do what they're doing for the current Fairfield-West Haven signage contract, just replacing the button copy and keeping most of the "Bridgeport Corridor" signage, also replaced around the late 1990s-2000 era.

CT 15 signage has been replaced in the past 15 years or so (wow - has it already been that long), and unless the feds force the Merritt to go MUTCD, I can't see it getting replaced anytime soon.  The signs that were there dated to the 1970s at least, if not earlier.  Sure, Exit 39-40 is still button copy 1990-vintage but they're still debating what to do with completing the US 7/CT 15 interchange there.  Still, it wouldn't take much to convert the parkways over to mile-based.  It's mostly all ground-signage anyway. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: J Route Z on February 22, 2015, 08:42:26 PM
I like the fact that CT uses the green backdrop for their route shields on large guide signs, as opposed to having a white square which is found on ground mounted route markers.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Zeffy on February 22, 2015, 09:20:11 PM
Quote from: J Route Z on February 22, 2015, 08:42:26 PM
I like the fact that CT uses the green backdrop for their route shields on large guide signs, as opposed to having a white square which is found on ground mounted route markers.

Used to, AFAIK. They now look more akin to how Massachusetts does it albeit missing the black border.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on February 23, 2015, 06:25:27 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 22, 2015, 05:53:32 PM
Really, mileage-based numbering is a really tiny concern in the grand scheme of things.  Once you get off these boards, it becomes a head-scratcher why money would be spent on this "to conform" at any time the signs weren't otherwise going to be replaced.
I tell you, it's damn useful in a place like Vermont or New York State where exits are routinely 10-15 miles apart, then clustered around cities. Less so on I-95 west of New Haven, but certainly the more exurban areas of Connecticut would be nice to do properly.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: NE2 on February 23, 2015, 08:00:17 AM
I-95 exits 2-56 are mostly within a mile of their corresponding milepost, and should be kept as-is with minor changes (e.g. 2 becomes 1, 27-27A becomes 27A-B). There's no benefit to changing these and much potential confusion. Beyond Branford is where renumbering might be useful.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on February 23, 2015, 11:53:23 AM
Almost all political cartoons are inane, including this one, but it is road-related:

http://www.courant.com/opinion/cartoons/hc-malloy-budget-20150219-story.html

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.trbimg.com%2Fimg-54e64dec%2Fturbine%2Fhc-malloy-budget-20150219-001%2F750%2F750x422&hash=4fcb427bd7a4ddd680217d3f06cb646148ab8c2c)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on February 23, 2015, 07:49:59 PM
so if CT is going to stop making state route signs with the thick border b/c of the feds doesn't that mean West Virginia is too?  They also had thick black borders.

PS, an old 3-digit route gem.

(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8589/16627158295_880b64540c_c.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: J Route Z on February 23, 2015, 08:03:17 PM
Quote from: doofy103 on February 23, 2015, 07:49:59 PM
so if CT is going to stop making state route signs with the thick border b/c of the feds doesn't that mean West Virginia is too?  They also had thick black borders.

PS, an old 3-digit route gem.

(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8589/16627158295_880b64540c_c.jpg)

Geez that "west" sign plate is much newer compared to the "east" one!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on February 23, 2015, 08:07:13 PM
Plus the sign for "Marion" (a section of Southington) is even screwed onto the pole wrong!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Pete from Boston on February 23, 2015, 09:18:39 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on February 23, 2015, 08:07:13 PM
Plus the sign for "Marion" (a section of Southington) is even screwed onto the pole wrong!

It's an afterthought installation (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.562933,-72.91678,3a,23.5y,144.77h,84.23t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sB9M9YazOLrXbH6vcMJz_qQ!2e0).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on February 23, 2015, 09:56:30 PM
Quote from: NE2 on February 23, 2015, 08:00:17 AM
I-95 exits 2-56 are mostly within a mile of their corresponding milepost, and should be kept as-is with minor changes (e.g. 2 becomes 1, 27-27A becomes 27A-B). There's no benefit to changing these and much potential confusion. Beyond Branford is where renumbering might be useful.

2-56 would look like this if changed:

2 -> 1
3-16 as is
17 -> 18
18-> 20
19 ->23
20 (SB) & 21-> 24 (A&B SB)
22-24: +3 to all
25-26 -> 28 A&B
27A/ 27/28  -> 29 A&B&C
29-36: +1 (36-37 NB become 37 A&B)
38-40: as is
41->42
42->44
43->45
44 & 45->46 (A&B SB)
46 & 47->47 A&B
48: as is
50-54: -1
55-56: as is

Most of the heavy hitters (Stamford exits, US 7, Milford Parkway, US 1 by CT Post Mall, CT 34, I-91) stay the same number.  CT 8/25 is the only major change.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: ctsignguy on February 23, 2015, 10:26:51 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on February 23, 2015, 09:56:30 PM
Quote from: NE2 on February 23, 2015, 08:00:17 AM
I-95 exits 2-56 are mostly within a mile of their corresponding milepost, and should be kept as-is with minor changes (e.g. 2 becomes 1, 27-27A becomes 27A-B). There's no benefit to changing these and much potential confusion. Beyond Branford is where renumbering might be useful.

2-56 would look like this if changed:

2 -> 1
3-16 as is
17 -> 18
18-> 20
19 ->23
20 (SB) & 21-> 24 (A&B SB)
22-24: +3 to all
25-26 -> 28 A&B
27A/ 27/28  -> 29 A&B&C
29-36: +1 (36-37 NB become 37 A&B)
38-40: as is
41->42
42->44
43->45
44 & 45->46 (A&B SB)
46 & 47->47 A&B
48: as is
50-54: -1
55-56: as is

Most of the heavy hitters (Stamford exits, US 7, Milford Parkway, US 1 by CT Post Mall, CT 34, I-91) stay the same number.  CT 8/25 is the only major change.



All the more reason to leave them alone...FHWA be damned, what is the possible benefit of messing around with all this? 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: 02 Park Ave on February 23, 2015, 10:44:01 PM
Mileage-based exit numbering is the norm in every state south and west of New York.  It has proven to be beneficial motorists.  What makes Connecticut so unique that it has to be exempted from using this system? 🎆
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: cl94 on February 23, 2015, 10:54:21 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on February 23, 2015, 10:44:01 PM
Mileage-based exit numbering is the norm in every state south and west of New York.  It has proven to be beneficial motorists.  What makes Connecticut so unique that it has to be exempted from using this system? 🎆

The point was that all but 6 exits in the first 56 miles of the Connecticut Turnpike are within 2 miles of the respective mile marker, so renumbering these exits produce little benefit with a high cost, in addition to creating confusion during the changeover period.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on February 24, 2015, 08:57:29 AM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on February 23, 2015, 10:44:01 PM
Mileage-based exit numbering is the norm in every state south and west of New York.  It has proven to be beneficial motorists.  What makes Connecticut so unique that it has to be exempted from using this system? 🎆

While I am glad that Connecticut is getting with the mileage-based program, I do have to say that for that section of I-95, if the feds force renumbering, I'll be writing my congresscritters to have them push to make Tennessee redo I-40's exit numbers.

Actually, if the feds say that exit numbers and mileposts must be in sync, I wonder if it would be less disruptive on that section of 95 to simply tweak the mileposts. Skip a mile here or there; maybe have a suffixed mile, etc.   It would drive folks like us crazy, but average 4-wheel drivers in that section of the state only pay attention to the mile markers for things like requesting assistance in the event of accident or breakdown.

Edit:  Example of a suffixed mile marker (http://goo.gl/maps/rgFMu)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: AMLNet49 on February 24, 2015, 11:17:50 AM
The numbers from NY to Exit 56 are so close they need to stay the same. Maybe what you could do is rework the end of the milepost system to represent Exit 56 as Mile 56, and then start the renumbering from where 56 leaves off. And then 395/695 would get their own mileage based numbers separate from the Turnpike numbers.

Edit: it actually already is matched up, so basically don't change anything below 56 and then just start the renumbering from there.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: ctsignguy on February 24, 2015, 07:19:00 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on February 23, 2015, 10:44:01 PM
Mileage-based exit numbering is the norm in every state south and west of New York.  It has proven to be beneficial motorists.  What makes Connecticut so unique that it has to be exempted from using this system? 🎆

I am not saying that Connecticut needs to necessarily be exempt, but when the Turnpike was constructed in the mid-50s, the major users then as now, are the locals...and i would say that the majority of users are still teh lcoals who hop[ on 95 at say Exit 23 and get off at Exit 26, and that is how they know the exits.

While i understand the need for some kind of uniformity (although i think for a place like Connecticut, with its closely jammed exits, it is a waste of time and scarce money/resources that need to be put to better use, like basic road and bridge maintenance), some concession by the Feds needs to be made for the locals who really constitute the largest number of users of the roads there....

and i still hold that mileage based exits make sense in states like PA and Ohio where there are many miles between exits, but not Connecticut where other than I-395, there seldom is more than 2 miles between interchanges...such a system is seen by the  ConnDot folks i have spoken to as silly and somewhat idiotic...
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on February 24, 2015, 07:52:49 PM
Quote from: cl94 on February 23, 2015, 10:54:21 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on February 23, 2015, 10:44:01 PM
Mileage-based exit numbering is the norm in every state south and west of New York.  It has proven to be beneficial motorists.  What makes Connecticut so unique that it has to be exempted from using this system? 🎆

The point was that all but 6 exits in the first 56 miles of the Connecticut Turnpike are within 2 miles of the respective mile marker, so renumbering these exits produce little benefit with a high cost, in addition to creating confusion during the changeover period.

In this case it's not that CT is too good or that CT just doesn't want to change....I believe in this case, it's more trouble than what it's worth.  If you want to know mileage look at the mileage marker signs.

What is point of changing Exit 2 to Exit 1 because of a mileage?!  It's one number.  Big deal.

On a side note: CT-2A is mileage based too.  Exit 5A or Exit 6?!  It really isn't useful since CT-2A overlaps with I-395 but the average driver doesn't know it.  In this case I'd make CT-2A's exits unumbered.

I'd say that for any state that has exits almost every mile or so.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on February 24, 2015, 09:21:21 PM
Quote from: doofy103 on February 24, 2015, 07:52:49 PM
What is point of changing Exit 2 to Exit 1 because of a mileage?!  It's one number.  Big deal.
Because anything worth doing is worth doing right?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: OracleUsr on February 24, 2015, 10:34:29 PM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on February 24, 2015, 08:57:29 AM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on February 23, 2015, 10:44:01 PM
Mileage-based exit numbering is the norm in every state south and west of New York.  It has proven to be beneficial motorists.  What makes Connecticut so unique that it has to be exempted from using this system? 🎆

While I am glad that Connecticut is getting with the mileage-based program, I do have to say that for that section of I-95, if the feds force renumbering, I'll be writing my congresscritters to have them push to make Tennessee redo I-40's exit numbers.

Actually, if the feds say that exit numbers and mileposts must be in sync, I wonder if it would be less disruptive on that section of 95 to simply tweak the mileposts. Skip a mile here or there; maybe have a suffixed mile, etc.   It would drive folks like us crazy, but average 4-wheel drivers in that section of the state only pay attention to the mile markers for things like requesting assistance in the event of accident or breakdown.

Edit:  Example of a suffixed mile marker (http://goo.gl/maps/rgFMu)

How would they redo I-40's exit #'s in TN?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on February 25, 2015, 04:11:46 PM
The only highway which should get renumbered in this state is Route 15, especially from the NY border to Meriden.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: cl94 on February 25, 2015, 07:02:26 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on February 25, 2015, 04:11:46 PM
The only highway which should get renumbered in this state is Route 15, especially from the NY border to Meriden.

Eh, I'd personally do everything except I-95 south of Exit 56 and all 3DIs (I-395 should get renumbered). While I-84 has a bunch of exits, it's 15-20 miles off by the time you get to Hartford and if anything should be an Exit 0, it's the interchange practically at the state line.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Pete from Boston on February 25, 2015, 07:25:45 PM
Quote from: vdeane on February 24, 2015, 09:21:21 PM
Quote from: doofy103 on February 24, 2015, 07:52:49 PM
What is point of changing Exit 2 to Exit 1 because of a mileage?!  It's one number.  Big deal.
Because anything worth doing is worth doing right?

"Right" is also spending tax dollars the most wisely.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 25, 2015, 08:04:42 PM
[WSJ.com is a paywalled site.  If you cannot read this in full, leave me a PM with a real e-mail address and I will send you a link.]

Wall Street Journal: Drive to Reinstate Connecticut Tolls Would Start at Border - Legislative hearing set on bill that would reinstate some tolls to raise money for highway projects (http://www.wsj.com/articles/drive-to-reinstate-connecticut-tolls-would-start-at-border-1424829592)

QuoteConnecticut abolished road tolls more than 30 years ago, and proposals to revive them have emerged repeatedly ever since. They go nowhere.

QuoteThis year, however, the reinstatement of tolls may be gathering momentum because they are seen as an important source of funding for Gov. Dannel Malloy 's $100 billion proposal to upgrade roads, bridges and rail system.

QuoteThe state phased out tolls in the 1980s after a tractor trailer collided with cars lined up at a Stratford, Conn., toll booth. Seven people died in the fiery crash.

QuoteThe Legislature's transportation committee is scheduled to hold a hearing Wednesday in Hartford on a bill that proposes to reinstate tolls on major highways that cross the state's borders to raise money for highway projects.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: DrSmith on February 25, 2015, 08:27:27 PM
I-91 would also not have big changes in the exits... 49 exits in 58 miles. So we switch from Bloomfield Ave Exit 37 to Bloomfield Ave Exit 45?  Up through about Meriden, everything is fairly close.  The little bit of spacing that occurs is really from Meriden up towards Hartford.

I believe the largest stretch between exits is the No Exit Zone on the Merritt Parkway  - 5.5 miles. The largest stretch without an exit is the result of not being able to decide on an exit.... Says something there.

Does it matter as much anymore anyway really?  Everybody plugs in the GPS and blindly follows what it says to do.  That thing is telling them how many more miles. 

Now time for a little more gasoline on the fire..... What are we going to do when everything eventually goes metric? (Or the flip side, should roads like DE 1 be made to switch from km-based to mile-based......we use miles here in the colonies)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Pete from Boston on February 25, 2015, 08:36:54 PM
Quote from: DrSmith on February 25, 2015, 08:27:27 PMI believe the largest stretch between exits is the No Exit Zone on the Merritt Parkway  - 5.5 miles. The largest stretch without an exit is the result of not being able to decide on an exit.... Says something there.

It was my understanding this was due to local opposition to exits there.  Could be wrong.

QuoteWhat are we going to do when everything eventually goes metric?

Who writes your jokes?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on February 26, 2015, 02:10:49 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 25, 2015, 08:36:54 PM
Quote from: DrSmith on February 25, 2015, 08:27:27 PMI believe the largest stretch between exits is the No Exit Zone on the Merritt Parkway  - 5.5 miles. The largest stretch without an exit is the result of not being able to decide on an exit.... Says something there.

It was my understanding this was due to local opposition to exits there.  Could be wrong.

That would explain the lack of exits, but not why the number 43 was skipped when the exits were numbered.

I know that exit 30 was an at grade intersection with Butternut Hollow Road (long since removed) and exit 32 was planned to be built at Stanwich Road, but I can't account for exit 43 being missing. Bear in mind, the road originally had no exit numbers, they were added about a decade after it opened.

I seem to recall reading something somewhere about exit 43 being for an unbuilt extension of the Sherwood Island Connector (SR 476), but this seems extremely speculative and not quite sensical since an extension of said connector would logically aim it right at the south end of Weston Rd and thus exit 42, not a point to the east.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on February 26, 2015, 08:04:46 AM
Quote from: ctsignguy on February 24, 2015, 07:19:00 PMand i still hold that mileage based exits make sense in states like PA and Ohio where there are many miles between exits, but not Connecticut where other than I-395, there seldom is more than 2 miles between interchanges...such a system is seen by the  ConnDot folks i have spoken to as silly and somewhat idiotic...

And I suspect the nonsense / perceived idiocy is not in the use of mileage-based exit numbering versus sequential; it's in changing from sequential to mileage in a geographically small state with closely-spaced exits.

They're going to spend a ton of money, generate quite a bit of confusion and public complaints...and the numbers won't change very much.

Quote from: OracleUsr on February 24, 2015, 10:34:29 PM
How would they redo I-40's exit #'s in TN?

The exit numbering on I-40 in Tennessee reflects the mileage of the highway as if I-40 had been built through Overton Park in Memphis.  Instead, it was realigned onto the north side of I-240 without adjusting exit numbers beyond the shift.   So, between the two I-240 interchanges, the exit numbers are 2 off from the actual mileage of I-240.  I think east of there it's either a 3 or 4 mile difference (?  -- it's been a while...)

The exit numbers and mile markers aren't that far off from the actual mileage...but in CT, the exit numbers mostly aren't that far off from the actual mileage either.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on February 26, 2015, 11:00:47 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on February 26, 2015, 02:10:49 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 25, 2015, 08:36:54 PM
Quote from: DrSmith on February 25, 2015, 08:27:27 PMI believe the largest stretch between exits is the No Exit Zone on the Merritt Parkway  - 5.5 miles. The largest stretch without an exit is the result of not being able to decide on an exit.... Says something there.

It was my understanding this was due to local opposition to exits there.  Could be wrong.

That would explain the lack of exits, but not why the number 43 was skipped when the exits were numbered.

I know that exit 30 was an at grade intersection with Butternut Hollow Road (long since removed) and exit 32 was planned to be built at Stanwich Road, but I can't account for exit 43 being missing. Bear in mind, the road originally had no exit numbers, they were added about a decade after it opened.

I seem to recall reading something somewhere about exit 43 being for an unbuilt extension of the Sherwood Island Connector (SR 476), but this seems extremely speculative and not quite sensical since an extension of said connector would logically aim it right at the south end of Weston Rd and thus exit 42, not a point to the east.


Long ago, the SSR 476 extension idea was true (see SSR 476 (http://www.kurumi.com/roads/ct/ctx400.html#d_476_route)). Into the 1980s, there were still plans to add an interchange for local use. Here are my raw notes (not yet up on the site; there's a backlog) for exit 43:

Quote
Exit 43:
"Officials oppose exit 43."  Norwalk Hour, June 6, 1984. Westport officials asked for a new exit. Bridgeport, Fairfield and Greater Bridgeport RPA cited several reasons against building one. Westport had asked for it to solve traffic problems at exit 42 and solve the 5-mile "no man's land"  between 42 and 44. GRBPA spokesman executive director says finishing 7 and 25 would solve the problem for good.

"DOT promises to keep land for Exit 43."  Hour, Dec. 11, 1984. SWRPA and MPO also oppose the sale. Exit 43 was planned but never constructed when MP was built. No details, though.

"DOT tells Fairfield officials Exit 43 land is not for sale."  Hour, Dec. 17, 1984. Fairfield opposes the exit because the access road would go thru its residential neighborhoods. DOT still owns the land (not specified where). DOT does not want to sell and then have to buy back later. Fairfield pushed for sale.

Looks like exit 43 would have been near the Greenfield Hill section of Fairfield, say between Sturges Hwy and Redding Rd. A compromise in 1938 scuttled the exit. "Greenfield Hill Residents Oppose New Highway Entrance," Fairfield News. 9 September 1938. I don't have this article.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: NE2 on February 26, 2015, 11:49:36 AM
According to http://lcweb2.loc.gov/master/pnp/habshaer/ct/ct0500/ct0526/data/ct0526data.pdf there were plans for an interchange at Cross Highway (town line) or Redding Road. The Fairfield zoning map (http://www.fairfieldct.org/filestorage/10726/11028/12429/17562/ZoningMap.pdf) shows a suspiciously shaped parcel at Cross Highway (that now has a house).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on March 02, 2015, 07:45:51 PM
http://wtnh.com/2015/03/02/connecticut-approved-for-federal-highway-toll-pilot-project/

Saw this little nugget via wtnh.com (ABC channel 8 of New Haven). This project would be allowed to bypass federal highways rules of some sort. I just hope they do this wisely.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on March 02, 2015, 08:51:46 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on March 02, 2015, 07:45:51 PM
http://wtnh.com/2015/03/02/connecticut-approved-for-federal-highway-toll-pilot-project/

Saw this little nugget via wtnh.com (ABC channel 8 of New Haven). This project would be allowed to bypass federal highways rules of some sort. I just hope they do this wisely.

Here's another article:
http://www.newstimes.com/local/article/State-qualifies-for-electronic-toll-6109193.php

Thoughts:

1) this is one "tax" I support if it goes into transportation ONLY.

2) the article states people are writing the state b/c they're opposed to tolls.  Gee, I wish there was this much outrage and action when CL&P doubled their rates and your local town increases their mill rate. 

3) I read other articles on this as well and I'm amazed that even after officials say there wouldn't be any booths or toll plazas how many people still think it's the 1960s style of toll booths. 

4) Other states can have tolls and it isn't an issue, life goes on.... but here in CT people revert back to the infamous toll plaza accident of 1983.  While that was a tragedy, let's not forget MA and NH had similar accidents, they didn't remove their toll plazas.  There could be another accident just like it at a stop light.  So do we remove all stop lights?!

5) I hope the state doesn't walk away from it.  This may be the only way to get extra lanes on I-95 or I-84 or get some money for badly needed improvements.
See this site: http://www.ct-congestion-relief.com/i-95-scope.html

6) This Boucher woman has done more to worsen transportation than anyone I know.  She is against Super 7 and now is lobbying people to go against tolls.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: D-Dey65 on March 02, 2015, 10:55:16 PM
I can't find a more appropriate Connecticut-related thread to put this in, so I'll leave this here for a while.

Tonight I was looking up real events that took place on December 14, 1961 (don't ask me why), and I stumbled upon an article about a railroad accident in Colorado. Then I looked up Wikipedia's list of railroad accidents between 1960 and 1969, and discovered one on the New Canaan Branch which I later found was at "the Hoyt Street Crossing in Darien." So naturally, I scanned for that on Google Street View.

The Hoyt Street crossing they were talking about was Connecticut State Route 106, and it looks way too dangerous!

And I know this crossing had nothing to do with the accident in '69, but it still looks like something that CDOT really should do something about, but probably never will.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on March 02, 2015, 11:38:06 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on March 02, 2015, 10:55:16 PM
And I know this crossing had nothing to do with the accident in '69, but it still looks like something that CDOT really should do something about, but probably never will.

Definitely never will because it's in a well-to do residential area with houses and driveways immediately adjacent. Can't be grade separated without significantly disturbing the properties of some people with money. Locals will insist there is nothing wrong with it unless/until there is a high profile accident there.

For what it's worth, speaking as someone who grew up in the area, that grade crossing may look dangerous but I don't think it is exceptionally accident prone compared to any other grade crossing. The angle is harsh but there is a significant lagtime between when the lights start to flash and when the train comes through.
The notorious crossing on the New Canaan Branch is actually this one (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.082801,-73.519638,3a,75y,110.61h,69.17t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1slkL2MyVyeWexHo-PfS4qOQ!2e0!5m1!1e4). There are lights and bells there but no gates, so it's a lot easier to try and beat the train. Every few years, someone fails to beat it and gets their car wrecked. Unfortunately both accidents I recall at this location did not kill or maim the driver, so natural selection was not successful.

Also worth noting: the speed limit on most of the New Canaan Branch is 40 mph. The speed limit on the track where the deadly accident occurred in New York a few weeks ago is 65 mph.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: D-Dey65 on March 03, 2015, 12:00:31 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on March 02, 2015, 11:38:06 PM
Definitely never will because it's in a well-to do residential area with houses and driveways immediately adjacent. Can't be grade separated without significantly disturbing the properties of some people with money. Locals will insist there is nothing wrong with it unless/until there is a high profile accident there.
Yes, I can see that. On the off chance that CDOT were to add a grade separation, the only way it would be possible would be to elevate the tracks, but those locals with money wouldn't let that happen either.

Something else I noticed though; the next crossing seems to be a private one across from the intersection with Greenwood Avenue, and has a staircase that seems to lead to a platform. Is there any chance that was the old Woodway New Haven RR station?

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on March 03, 2015, 09:55:31 AM
Quote from: doofy103 on March 02, 2015, 08:51:46 PM1) this is one "tax" I support if it goes into transportation ONLY.
Good luck with that; CT history has shown otherwise.  Let me remind you that the Mianus River Bridge collapse predated the elimination of toll collections along the CT Turnpike (I-95).  If memory serves, not all of CT's state gas taxes goes towards transportation (at least such didn't through the 1980s/90s); fix that issue first if such hasn't already been done so.

Quote from: doofy103 on March 02, 2015, 08:51:46 PM3) I read other articles on this as well and I'm amazed that even after officials say there wouldn't be any booths or toll plazas how many people still think it's the 1960s style of toll booths.
While there are are still many that equate toll facilities = stopping to pay a toll; there have been more an more reports of AET-related issues as it towards users that either rent cars, don't nor want to sign up for EZ-Pass or equivalent and/or being needlessly gouged at a significantly higher toll rate.  IMHO, those issues haven't yet reached the boiling point but could down the road. 

Quote from: doofy103 on March 02, 2015, 08:51:46 PM
4) Other states can have tolls and it isn't an issue, life goes on.... but here in CT people revert back to the infamous toll plaza accident of 1983.
IMHO, the bridge collapse tragedy that occurred that same year is a much bigger issue. 

Quote from: doofy103 on March 02, 2015, 08:51:46 PM
While that was a tragedy, let's not forget MA and NH had similar accidents, they didn't remove their toll plazas.
While not necessarily for the same reason, there have been several attempts to get tolls eliminated along the original stretch of the Mass Pike (NY State Line to Weston) for decades.  Until recently, there was no toll charged for the stretch west of Springfield since 1996(?).   

Quote from: doofy103 on March 02, 2015, 08:51:46 PM
5) I hope the state doesn't walk away from it.  This may be the only way to get extra lanes on I-95 or I-84 or get some money for badly needed improvements.
See this site: http://www.ct-congestion-relief.com/i-95-scope.html
Personally, since the Interstates are part of a Federal network; if such tolling measures are indeed necessary/implemented, there needs to be a strict set of guidelines towards such (i.e tolling only for additional Express Lanes a la MD, plus toll revenue only going towards that road and that road only) to avoid a CT version of Act 44 from happening.  Otherwise, the CT taxpayers and all users of the highways will not be getting their best bang for the buck.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Pete from Boston on March 03, 2015, 04:06:25 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 03, 2015, 09:55:31 AM
Quote from: doofy103 on March 02, 2015, 08:51:46 PM
While that was a tragedy, let's not forget MA and NH had similar accidents, they didn't remove their toll plazas.
While not necessarily for the same reason, there have been several attempts to get tolls eliminated along the original stretch of the Mass Pike (NY State Line to Weston) for decades.  Until recently, there was no toll charged for the stretch west of Springfield since 1996(?).

The plan is in motion to eliminate toll booths entirely in Massachusetts.  They've already been removed from the Tobin Bridge, which is sort of the pilot, work-out-the-kinks project.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on March 03, 2015, 04:36:40 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 03, 2015, 04:06:25 PMThe plan is in motion to eliminate toll booths entirely in Massachusetts.  They've already been removed from the Tobin Bridge, which is sort of the pilot, work-out-the-kinks project.
The key word in your post is booths not the tolls themselves.  I was strictly referring to removals of tolls period; not the method of collection.

The MA examples you listed refer to the conversion of existing toll facilities to AETs. 

Since CT hasn't had any toll facilities for over 2 decades; even the installation of AETs means that a highway currently not tolled will be tolled once again.

Again, let me remind everyone here that prior to the I-35W bridge collapse in MN; most if not all the major highway bridge/tunnel deck collapses not induced by hurricanes or earthquakes occurred on tolled facilities... including the 1983 I-95/CT Turnpike/Mianus River Bridge collapse.  Such disproves the notions that tolled highways always = better maintained highways; more often than not, the opposite's been proven true.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 03, 2015, 06:50:34 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 03, 2015, 04:36:40 PM
Again, let me remind everyone here that prior to the I-35W bridge collapse in MN; most if not all the major highway bridge/tunnel deck collapses not induced by hurricanes or earthquakes occurred on tolled facilities... including the 1983 I-95/CT Turnpike/Mianus River Bridge collapse.  Such disproves the notions that tolled highways always = better maintained highways; more often than not, the opposite's been proven true.

Roads can be poorly-maintained even if they are toll roads, and the Mianus River failure was pretty clearly poor maintenance.  Though I drove much of the Connecticut Turnpike when it was still a toll road, I do not know if the toll revenues collected on it were subject to diversion away from maintenance to other uses (such as transit subsidies).   The Schoharie Creek bridge failure in 1987 on the New York State Thruway was also due to improper maintenance (though on a road that is generally considered to be pretty well-maintained, then and now), combined with a 50 year flood.  Then there's the Sunshine Skyway (I-275), which was not designed to withstand a strike from a ship, and which was (apparently) a challenge for pilots even with the weather was good.

But both of us also know of cases where toll-maintained roads are kept in great condition, and if they are not up to snuff, there are efforts made to fix the problems, without having to wait for an increase in motor fuel taxes.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on March 03, 2015, 09:03:34 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on March 03, 2015, 12:00:31 AM
Something else I noticed though; the next crossing seems to be a private one across from the intersection with Greenwood Avenue, and has a staircase that seems to lead to a platform. Is there any chance that was the old Woodway New Haven RR station?

No, that driveway is for a cemetery on the other side of the tracks and the staircase is for pedestrian access to the same. Woodway station was further to the north, near Woodway road. No trace of it remains today as far as I can tell.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: cl94 on March 03, 2015, 09:34:19 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 03, 2015, 06:50:34 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 03, 2015, 04:36:40 PM
Again, let me remind everyone here that prior to the I-35W bridge collapse in MN; most if not all the major highway bridge/tunnel deck collapses not induced by hurricanes or earthquakes occurred on tolled facilities... including the 1983 I-95/CT Turnpike/Mianus River Bridge collapse.  Such disproves the notions that tolled highways always = better maintained highways; more often than not, the opposite's been proven true.

Roads can be poorly-maintained even if they are toll roads, and the Mianus River failure was pretty clearly poor maintenance.  Though I drove much of the Connecticut Turnpike when it was still a toll road, I do not know if the toll revenues collected on it were subject to diversion away from maintenance to other uses (such as transit subsidies).   The Schoharie Creek bridge failure in 1987 on the New York State Thruway was also due to improper maintenance (though on a road that is generally considered to be pretty well-maintained, then and now), combined with a 50 year flood.  Then there's the Sunshine Skyway (I-275), which was not designed to withstand a strike from a ship, and which was (apparently) a challenge for pilots even with the weather was good.

But both of us also know of cases where toll-maintained roads are kept in great condition, and if they are not up to snuff, there are efforts made to fix the problems, without having to wait for an increase in motor fuel taxes.

Diversion of toll revenues to non-toll facilities certainly isn't a rare phenomenon. Pennsylvania's toll revenue goes into the general transportation coffer and some of the New York revenue goes towards transit (TBTA and PA crossings) or the Cross Westchester. Used to be worse when stuff went to I-84 as well. Bad things happen to transportation infrastructure.

Back to the toll bridge failures, do note that toll bridges tend to be larger, highly-trafficked crossings that are more likely to make the news. In many cases, tolls are independent of the maintenance quality. In New York, for example, NYSDOT limited-access highways of similar importance to NYSTA-maintained roads are in very similar condition. Can't say the same about Pennsylvania, where the Turnpike infrastructure is in better shape than PennDOT infrastructure.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on March 04, 2015, 09:02:24 AM
Quote from: cl94 on March 03, 2015, 09:34:19 PMBack to the toll bridge failures, do note that toll bridges tend to be larger, highly-trafficked crossings that are more likely to make the news.
To clarify, the Mianus River Bridge along the CT Turnpike (1983 collapse) and the Schoharie Creek Bridge (1987 structure failure) along the NY Thruway were not separate tolled facilities in and of themselves.  Both of those bridges were basically viaducts/glorified overpasses within their respective tollway systems.

Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 03, 2015, 06:50:34 PMBut both of us also know of cases where toll-maintained roads are kept in great condition, and if they are not up to snuff, there are efforts made to fix the problems, without having to wait for an increase in motor fuel taxes.
Yes & no.  The toll agencies that keep their roads in good condition are not usually the ones that keep begging for toll increases every few years and/or don't divert their revenues outside the system and/or to general funds or into some hack employees' pockets.  Which brings up the next point.

Another issue with (mostly older) toll road agencies, though debatable with the increased proliferations of AETs, is the perception of such becoming political hack havens (i.e. tolls takers being close relatives to some politicians)... exhorbitant salaries included.  Be it perception or reality, that issue alone (in previous years) has left a bad taste in taxpayers' mouths whenever someone mentions the prospect of adding more tolls.  They, the taxpayers, view tolls = money in some hack/politician's pocket.

While AETs reduces the prospect of some politician's relative becoming a (potentially overpaid) toll collector; a state that has a long history of past abuses and/or misuses of toll revenue is (IMHO) going to have a tough sell convincing taxpayers that tolls be reinstated/re-established.

As I mentioned earlier, unlike NH (which was probably one state you (CP) were referring to), CT does not have a positive history in this regard. 

If revenue collected from CT's state gas tax is still going into a general fund (as opposed to a strictly-transportation-only fund/account) where transporation projects have to fight with non-transportation project for those dollars; there's one problem right there.  CT needs to fix that first before it implements any new tolls.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on March 19, 2015, 12:48:33 PM
Update:  The General Transportation committee approved the bill on tolls.  It completed it's first hurdle.  However, they are insisting funds raised by tolls go towards transportation only and tolls will only be at the borders. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on March 19, 2015, 01:26:44 PM
Quote from: doofy103 on March 19, 2015, 12:48:33 PM
Update:  The General Transportation committee approved the bill on tolls.  It completed it's first hurdle.  However, they are insisting funds raised by tolls go towards transportation only and tolls will only be at the borders. 
I don't believe the Feds allow such along existing free Interstates. 

The likely reason being that there would be a lot of shunpiking taking place at the borders (been along I-95/Delaware Turnpike at the DE/MD border lately?).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 19, 2015, 02:41:07 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 19, 2015, 01:26:44 PM
Quote from: doofy103 on March 19, 2015, 12:48:33 PM
Update:  The General Transportation committee approved the bill on tolls.  It completed it's first hurdle.  However, they are insisting funds raised by tolls go towards transportation only and tolls will only be at the borders. 
I don't believe the Feds allow such along existing free Interstates. 

The likely reason being that there would be a lot of shunpiking taking place at the borders (been along I-95/Delaware Turnpike at the DE/MD border lately?).

The Connecticut legislature can pass it (just like Pennsylvania's passed Act 44), but that does not mean that USDOT/FHWA will approve it, and if the only tolls are at the borders, I am confident that they will reject it.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on March 19, 2015, 02:58:33 PM
What has been the history of federal funding for what is the former Conneticut Turnpike?  Do they even need fed permission to place a border toll on the Merritt?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on March 19, 2015, 03:46:29 PM
I think CT was approved for a pilot program.

http://www.norwichbulletin.com/article/20150302/News/150309947

and this
http://www.ct-congestion-relief.com/index.html
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on March 19, 2015, 05:37:01 PM
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on March 19, 2015, 02:58:33 PM
What has been the history of federal funding for what is the former Conneticut Turnpike?
This might have been mentioned at least a page or two back, but in case it wasn't: once the tolls were eliminated from the Connecticut Turnpike (Dec. 31, 1985), it became a free Interstate that was subject to the then-90/10 federal/state funding requirements (that included tolling restrictions & prohibitions).   
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on March 19, 2015, 02:58:33 PM
Do they even need fed permission to place a border toll on the Merritt?
In theory, no; but CT knows darn well that if only the Merritt becomes a tolled highway again, traffic would shunpike to Interstates & other roads just to avoid the tolls.

Again, I point to the Newark, DE plaza along I-95 near the DE/MD line as a poster child for shunpiking border tolls ($4 each way with NO EZ-Pass discounts whatsoever).  The only reason why that plaza's there was due to the fact that the highway itself was originally built as a toll facility (Delaware Turnpike).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Zeffy on March 19, 2015, 06:23:29 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 19, 2015, 05:37:01 PM
In theory, no; but CT knows darn well that if only the Merritt becomes a tolled highway again, traffic would shunpike to Interstates & other roads just to avoid the tolls.

Which makes me think Connecticut's only option is to do either HO/T lanes or just tolled lanes in general. Of course, how you are going to widen I-95 in some ritzy parts of Fairfield County is behind me.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: cl94 on March 19, 2015, 06:46:01 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 19, 2015, 05:37:01 PM
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on March 19, 2015, 02:58:33 PM
What has been the history of federal funding for what is the former Conneticut Turnpike?
This might have been mentioned at least a page or two back, but in case it wasn't: once the tolls were eliminated from the Connecticut Turnpike (Dec. 31, 1985), it became a free Interstate that was subject to the then-90/10 federal/state funding requirements (that included tolling restrictions & prohibitions).   
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on March 19, 2015, 02:58:33 PM
Do they even need fed permission to place a border toll on the Merritt?
In theory, no; but CT knows darn well that if only the Merritt becomes a tolled highway again, traffic would shunpike to Interstates & other roads just to avoid the tolls.

Again, I point to the Newark, DE plaza along I-95 near the DE/MD line as a poster child for shunpiking border tolls ($4 each way with NO EZ-Pass discounts whatsoever).  The only reason why that plaza's there was due to the fact that the highway itself was originally built as a toll facility (Delaware Turnpike).

Yep. There are also a couple of good shunpike examples in New Hampshire illustrating a similar thing. Place a border toll and the Turnpike will only get worse.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on March 19, 2015, 10:52:41 PM
Border tolls should be illegal.  If CT wants tolls, then they should revive the Turnpike and make it impossible to make a free trip on an interstate or CT 15 anywhere in the state.  Border tolls are nothing more than a way to extort money from out of state motorists.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: cl94 on March 19, 2015, 10:55:12 PM
Quote from: vdeane on March 19, 2015, 10:52:41 PM
Border tolls should be illegal.  If CT wants tolls, then they should revive the Turnpike and make it impossible to make a free trip on an interstate or CT 15 anywhere in the state.  Border tolls are nothing more than a way to extort money from out of state motorists.

Tell that to New Jersey and their "exit tax"
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Zeffy on March 19, 2015, 11:02:03 PM
Quote from: cl94 on March 19, 2015, 10:55:12 PM
Tell that to New Jersey and their "exit tax"

Just wait - we're gonna start charging you soon to use the Scudder Falls Bridge to leave our state.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: NE2 on March 19, 2015, 11:05:59 PM
If the border is a river that requires expensive bridges, quit bitching.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Pete from Boston on March 19, 2015, 11:06:24 PM

Quote from: vdeane on March 19, 2015, 10:52:41 PM
Border tolls should be illegal.  If CT wants tolls, then they should revive the Turnpike and make it impossible to make a free trip on an interstate or CT 15 anywhere in the state.  Border tolls are nothing more than a way to extort money from out of state motorists.

Would the Hillsdale Pascack Valley Toll Plaza 6-7 miles into New Jersey count as a "border toll"?  You can exit the road prior if you know how to do it.  What about the Port Authority bridges?  Bridge aside, they're still sticking it to folks driving into New York.  It's not some schlub from Rahway's fault there's a river (and a couple of tidal straits) there at the border.  He's just trying to get to Maine. 

My point is, on what grounds can you claim a border toll is different from one a little ways in?  This feels like a very superficial distinction.  Is there a point far enough into a state that you have exempted enough out-of-staters that it's "fair"?  How far?

Don't border tolls equally extort money from in-staters using the road to leave or return to the state anyway?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: lowerdeck on March 20, 2015, 11:13:37 AM
I've seen big metal sign poles getting installed along the northbound side of 395.  Looks like the mileage based exit signs are coming in the near future.

And speaking of 395, border tolls on that would be pretty dreadful as the only alternates are narrow two lane roads.  But I could see the state slapping the tolls down in Plainfield, to catch those coming from RI off 695 heading to the casinos.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on March 20, 2015, 01:16:01 PM
Quote from: lowerdeck on March 20, 2015, 11:13:37 AMAnd speaking of 395, border tolls on that would be pretty dreadful as the only alternates are narrow two lane roads.  But I could see the state slapping the tolls down in Plainfield, to catch those coming from RI off 695 heading to the casinos.
If by 695, you're referring to the stretch between I-395 (Exit 90) and US 6 at the RI State line; then, no.  Most of the The entire Gov. John Lodge (aka CT) Tunrpike is part of the Interstate system (95, 395, 695 (silent)) and the Interstate system is a federal system (i.e. their rules/their way).  Any previous grandfathering (aside from service plazas) that existed when the CT Turnpike was still a toll facility ended decades ago.  Since 695 is a silent state route; CT could conceivably get around any Federal requirements/restrictions for at least that stretch of road.  However, someone who's road-savvy along I-395 North could still easily shunpike by using Exit 91 (and making a u-turn someplace and follow US 6 East) or Exit 92 and manuver back onto I-395 South to US 6 East.

As stated earlier:

1.  Tolling of existing free Interstates are subject to federal approval & guidelines for such.

2.  One of the federal Interstate tolling prohibitions is the placement of new tolls at border crossings; water crossings & existing, grandfathered (turnpike) tolls being two known exceptions.

3.  Just because CT approves a particular tolling plan doesn't mean that will receive federal approval for such along its Interstates.

In short, CT's current border tolling plan is not a done deal.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on March 20, 2015, 02:31:08 PM
By "border tolls" I meant a barrier that was there to capture traffic crossing the state line.  My definition does not include bridge/tunnel tolls or roads that are otherwise a toll road (such as the Garden State Parkway).

Also, note that CT has ALREADY been recieved FHWA approval for border tolls: http://www.courant.com/politics/capitol-watch/hc-connecticut-approved-for-federal-highway-toll-pilot-project-funds-20150302-story.html
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on March 20, 2015, 03:38:42 PM
A corrected version of an article previously posted. (http://www.norwichbulletin.com/article/20150302/News/150309947#)
(Bold emphasis added):

Quote from: articleIn a story March 2 about highway tolls, The Associated Press erroneously reported that Connecticut was approved for a pilot program installing an electronic toll system. The Federal Highway Administration has funded a study, not installation of electronic tolls.

A corrected version of the story is below:

HARTFORD - The Federal Highway Administration has approved a study of an electronic toll system in Connecticut.

The pilot program for so-called value-pricing bypasses a federal ban on federal highway tolls by offering an exemption that allows certain types of electronic tolls.

Value-pricing, or congestion pricing as it's sometimes called, assigns values for trips at different times and places for different motorists to encourage driving at different times and places to reduce congestion.

The tolls can be placed on designated express lanes, along borders and sections of highway if the revenue generated finances public works improvements.

Hearst Connecticut Media reports that hundreds of opponents have taken to the website of the legislature's Transportation Committee.

The study began in 2013 and is focused on the New York corridor of Interstate 95 to New Haven and Interstate 84 around Hartford.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: NE2 on March 20, 2015, 08:58:53 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 20, 2015, 01:16:01 PM
If by 695, you're referring to the stretch between I-395 (Exit 90) and US 6 at the RI State line; then, no.  The entire Gov. John Lodge (aka CT) Tunrpike is part of the Interstate system (95, 395, 695 (silent)) and the Interstate system is a federal system (i.e. their rules/their way).
Uh no. 695 is a coincidental state road number.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/nhs_maps/connecticut/ct_connecticut.pdf
http://www.kurumi.com/roads/ct/ctx600.html#d_695_route
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on March 23, 2015, 10:31:17 AM
Quote from: NE2 on March 20, 2015, 08:58:53 PMUh no. 695 is a coincidental state road number.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/nhs_maps/connecticut/ct_connecticut.pdf
http://www.kurumi.com/roads/ct/ctx600.html#d_695_route
Thanks for the correction; my previous post has since been corrected to reflect such.

Nonetheless and as previously mentioned; the Feds have only approved the study of tolling CT Interstates not the actual implementation of such-tolls.  Until the latter actually happens; the discussion/debate of such (at least for CT) is moot at this point.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: AMLNet49 on March 23, 2015, 02:04:28 PM
Quote from: NE2 on March 20, 2015, 08:58:53 PM
Uh no. 695 is a coincidental state road number.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/nhs_maps/connecticut/ct_connecticut.pdf
http://www.kurumi.com/roads/ct/ctx600.html#d_695_route

While it is a state route number, I highly doubt it is coincidental, it basically acts as another X95 just unsigned.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: cl94 on March 23, 2015, 03:32:46 PM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on March 23, 2015, 02:04:28 PM
Quote from: NE2 on March 20, 2015, 08:58:53 PM
Uh no. 695 is a coincidental state road number.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/nhs_maps/connecticut/ct_connecticut.pdf
http://www.kurumi.com/roads/ct/ctx600.html#d_695_route

While it is a state route number, I highly doubt it is coincidental, it basically acts as another X95 just unsigned.

It was assigned well before I-95 or I-395 was designated
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: yakra on March 24, 2015, 01:05:40 AM
695 was assigned in 1964, before 395 in 1983.
I-95 does predate that; it's shown on 1959 Topos.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: NE2 on March 24, 2015, 01:20:38 AM
Quote from: yakra on March 24, 2015, 01:05:40 AM
695 was assigned in 1964, before 395 in 1983.
I-95 does predate that; it's shown on 1959 Topos.
Looking at http://www.kurumi.com/roads/ct/secretlist.html it's possible that the number 995 was deliberately chosen for the entire turnpike north of I-95. Several shorter turnpike connectors were also assigned 99x numbers, with a weak pattern: 999-997 were already assigned to the Merritt/Wilbur Cross, 996 was a new number for the Milford Parkway, 995 was the longest turnpike spur, and 994-991 were the other turnpike spurs from south to north.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on March 26, 2015, 10:58:48 AM
http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/I-84-Widening-Set-to-Begin-297609571.html

It sounds like they're gearing up to start a widening project for I-84 in parts of Waterbury and Cheshire. I just hope they don't f--- up the sewer placements like they did east of here with the Southington/Cheshire project a few years ago!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on March 26, 2015, 11:59:58 AM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on March 26, 2015, 10:58:48 AM
http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/I-84-Widening-Set-to-Begin-297609571.html

It sounds like they're gearing up to start a widening project for I-84 in parts of Waterbury and Cheshire. I just hope they don't f--- up the sewer placements like they did east of here with the Southington/Cheshire project a few years ago!

Looks like I'll be doing a lot of CT 68 to CT 63 to get around it.  This is when you wish they had extended the CT 72 Expressway to CT 8
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Zeffy on March 26, 2015, 12:35:59 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on March 26, 2015, 10:58:48 AM
http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/I-84-Widening-Set-to-Begin-297609571.html

It sounds like they're gearing up to start a widening project for I-84 in parts of Waterbury and Cheshire. I just hope they don't f--- up the sewer placements like they did east of here with the Southington/Cheshire project a few years ago!

Good for them, it's about time they started improving the mess in that area. Another project (Which will take 5 YEARS after this is done...) mentions improvements to the I-84 and CT 8 interchange ("the mix master", although if you ask me it's just a slightly more complex Y) after all of the work widening I-84 is done.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Pete from Boston on March 26, 2015, 01:07:58 PM

Quote from: Zeffy on March 26, 2015, 12:35:59 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on March 26, 2015, 10:58:48 AM
http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/I-84-Widening-Set-to-Begin-297609571.html

It sounds like they're gearing up to start a widening project for I-84 in parts of Waterbury and Cheshire. I just hope they don't f--- up the sewer placements like they did east of here with the Southington/Cheshire project a few years ago!

Good for them, it's about time they started improving the mess in that area. Another project (Which will take 5 YEARS after this is done...) mentions improvements to the I-84 and CT 8 interchange ("the mix master", although if you ask me it's just a slightly more complex Y) after all of the work widening I-84 is done.

My understanding is that 8/84 project is a full rebuild.  Five years is about right. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: yakra on March 26, 2015, 04:06:44 PM
Am I right in thinking the 8/84 interchange is already in its second configuration?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Pete from Boston on March 26, 2015, 04:43:56 PM

Quote from: yakra on March 26, 2015, 04:06:44 PM
Am I right in thinking the 8/84 interchange is already in its second configuration?

It's as it was at least as far back as the 1970s.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: yakra on March 26, 2015, 05:38:33 PM
Hm. Guess not.
http://www.kurumi.com/roads/ct/8-84.html
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on March 26, 2015, 05:43:18 PM
The sign replacement project on I-84 west of Hartford has begun.  New ground mounted aligned tab BGS's were put up for Exit 37 (Fienemann Rd) westbound.  The 1/2 mi. overhead gantry is now empty.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on March 26, 2015, 06:00:07 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on March 26, 2015, 05:43:18 PM
The sign replacement project on I-84 west of Hartford has begun.  New ground mounted aligned tab BGS's were put up for Exit 37 (Fienemann Rd) westbound.  The 1/2 mi. overhead gantry is now empty.

That's just the latest round of "spot replacements".  A full contract for Exits 30-39A (was to be to Exit 52) is set for sometime later this year. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JakeFromNewEngland on March 26, 2015, 06:48:10 PM
Does anyone know if the Wilbur Cross is going to get it's signs replaced anytime soon?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on March 27, 2015, 06:12:32 PM
Doubtful.  They were replaced c 2000 and replaced ones that were a hodgepodge mix of Phase I/III/III (non-reflective button copy, direct-applied, reflective button copy).  Only signs that weren't replaced were Exits 54-55.  Many of us thought the Sikorsky Bridge project would take care of 54-55 but to this date, they remain the only button copy on the (non-commercial vehicle-portion) parkway system.  Well, there's one for Exit 67-1 Mile NB and one mileage sign SB across from the Exit 67 sign.

WAY more signs deserving of replacement than those on the WCP.  Take I-84 from East Hartford to Vernon, for instance.  Or CT 25 (coming soon).  Plus there's plenty of reflective button copy still kicking around that needs to go... I-91 north of Hartford, I-95 east of New London, not to mention most of CT 2 and 9 and CT 8 (south of W'by).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on March 27, 2015, 10:47:39 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on March 27, 2015, 06:12:32 PM
Doubtful.  They were replaced c 2000 and replaced ones that were a hodgepodge mix of Phase I/III/III (non-reflective button copy, direct-applied, reflective button copy).  Only signs that weren't replaced were Exits 54-55.  Many of us thought the Sikorsky Bridge project would take care of 54-55 but to this date, they remain the only button copy on the (non-commercial vehicle-portion) parkway system.  Well, there's one for Exit 67-1 Mile NB and one mileage sign SB across from the Exit 67 sign.

WAY more signs deserving of replacement than those on the WCP.  Take I-84 from East Hartford to Vernon, for instance.  Or CT 25 (coming soon).  Plus there's plenty of reflective button copy still kicking around that needs to go... I-91 north of Hartford, I-95 east of New London, not to mention most of CT 2 and 9 and CT 8 (south of W'by).

Funny, I noticed on in Derby on CT-8 SB the Exit 17 exit now sign and the Exit 15 CT-34 1/2 mile signs have been replaced and are now side mounted rather than on the overpass.  Those literally went up overnight.  They were not there Thursday. and I never saw any foundation work.

I was surprised b/c I have been following recent signing projects and didn't see those signs anywhere in them.  Even the "sign replacements at 20 locations" projects too.  Somehow I missed it.

But these non-reflective beauties and others are still there:

(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8732/16744733960_818b00ace0_c.jpg)

(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7282/16658749927_b3937dbe67_c.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JakeFromNewEngland on March 28, 2015, 01:15:14 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on March 27, 2015, 06:12:32 PM
Doubtful.  They were replaced c 2000 and replaced ones that were a hodgepodge mix of Phase I/III/III (non-reflective button copy, direct-applied, reflective button copy).  Only signs that weren't replaced were Exits 54-55.  Many of us thought the Sikorsky Bridge project would take care of 54-55 but to this date, they remain the only button copy on the (non-commercial vehicle-portion) parkway system.  Well, there's one for Exit 67-1 Mile NB and one mileage sign SB across from the Exit 67 sign.

WAY more signs deserving of replacement than those on the WCP.  Take I-84 from East Hartford to Vernon, for instance.  Or CT 25 (coming soon).  Plus there's plenty of reflective button copy still kicking around that needs to go... I-91 north of Hartford, I-95 east of New London, not to mention most of CT 2 and 9 and CT 8 (south of W'by).


I definitely agree. The Hartford area has some of the oldest signs in the state.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on March 28, 2015, 05:39:52 PM
Quote from: JakeFromNewEngland on March 28, 2015, 01:15:14 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on March 27, 2015, 06:12:32 PM
Doubtful.  They were replaced c 2000 and replaced ones that were a hodgepodge mix of Phase I/III/III (non-reflective button copy, direct-applied, reflective button copy).  Only signs that weren't replaced were Exits 54-55.  Many of us thought the Sikorsky Bridge project would take care of 54-55 but to this date, they remain the only button copy on the (non-commercial vehicle-portion) parkway system.  Well, there's one for Exit 67-1 Mile NB and one mileage sign SB across from the Exit 67 sign.

WAY more signs deserving of replacement than those on the WCP.  Take I-84 from East Hartford to Vernon, for instance.  Or CT 25 (coming soon).  Plus there's plenty of reflective button copy still kicking around that needs to go... I-91 north of Hartford, I-95 east of New London, not to mention most of CT 2 and 9 and CT 8 (south of W'by).


I definitely agree. The Hartford area has some of the oldest signs in the state.

I think the Hartford signs are from 1982 or so, when CT first did demountable copy.  The CT-25 signage is from the same era. 

The SB CT-8 sign below is from 1980 or so but the signage on CT-8 NB is from 1989.  So it seems the NB signage was only up for 10 years before it was replaced!?! CT-8 in this area opened up around 1980 SB and NB a couple of years later.

(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7282/16658749927_b3937dbe67_c.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on March 29, 2015, 08:12:47 PM
Quote from: doofy103 on March 27, 2015, 10:47:39 PM
Funny, I noticed on in Derby on CT-8 SB the Exit 17 exit now sign and the Exit 15 CT-34 1/2 mile signs have been replaced and are now side mounted rather than on the overpass.  Those literally went up overnight.  They were not there Thursday. and I never saw any foundation work.

I was surprised b/c I have been following recent signing projects and didn't see those signs anywhere in them.  Even the "sign replacements at 20 locations" projects too.  Somehow I missed it.

Site 2 for Project # 170-3066

Same project will finally add a proper assembly to I-91 NB Exit 10, move a couple overheads to the ground on CT 9 SB near Exits 29 & 30, add an assembly to I-91 SB Exit 40, replace I-91 NB Exit 42/I-91 SB Exit 41(& 39) into a single assembly), amongst other "sites".
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on March 30, 2015, 05:41:51 PM
Brief summary of what to look forward to with the latest round of "spot sign replacements", #170-3066:

site1:  I-95SB Exit 23, tubular gantry being relocated from site3.
site2:  CT 8 SB Exit 17, bridge-mounted signs going to the ground.  (discussed above as being replaced already)
site3:  I-84EB/WB:  new gantry will span both directions at WB Exit 21.
site4:  I-91NB at Exit 10... new gantry to replace existing truss.  Signs removed a few years ago. 
site5/6:  I-84WB at Exit 38.  Truss being removed.  Exit 38 going side cantilever, Exit 37 ground-mounted.
site7:  CT9SB at Exit 30... going from overhead to ground-mounted.
site8:  CT9SB at Exit 29... going from overhead to ground-mounted.
site9:  I-91SB at Exit 40... to replace gantry removed.  Signs will include I-91SB pullthrough/Lane Ends/Exit 40.
site10: I-91NB/SB at Exit 41(S)/42(N)... will replace two existing gantries.
site11:   I-84EB at Exit 58, going from truss-mounted to side cantilever.  No I-84/I-384 EB pullthrough.
site12:  I-84WB 3/4 mile advance for Exit 66 going from bridge-mounted to ground.
site13:   I-95 SB 1 mile advance for Exit 65.  Signs going from bridge-mounted to ground for State Police and Exit 65-1 Mile
site14:  I-95NB after Exit 88.  Bridge-mounted "Lane Ends" sign going from bridge-mounted to ground.

As we see above, overheads are being "phased out" in favor of more ground-based signs, except in heavily-trafficked areas.  I doubt you'll see any signs on I-95 between NY and New Haven go to the ground, but elsewhere it seems like its fair game. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on April 01, 2015, 11:13:15 AM
I-84 widening is supposed to start today. 4/1/15..no foolin'  Ground breaking is today.

http://www.i-84waterbury.com/

These signs are nearing the end.

(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8660/16865029641_cb3ab2eedf_z.jpg)

(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8597/16532389180_141704b9aa_z.jpg)

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on April 01, 2015, 11:28:19 PM
Connecticut has really caught the bug for cutting costs by downsizing signs, haven't they?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on April 02, 2015, 09:51:33 PM
Not just CT.... years ago, I-91 and I-89 in VT used to have large signs (similar to CT) at the entrance to the onramps of limited-access highways.  As signs have been replaced over the years, these were reduced to simple shields and arrows, with small green signs denoting the major destination.  I imagine a similar practice is being done to the "I-84 East/Hartford/Left Lane" sign mentioned above.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on April 06, 2015, 06:40:32 PM
http://wtnh.com/2015/04/06/replacing-the-states-busiest-stretch-of-highway/

More talk today about the Aetna Viaduct, which is I-84 from Exit 46 (Sisson Avenue) to about Exit 49 (Ann Uccello Street). Connecticut governor Dannell P. Malloy toured some of the area underneath the road today and talked about the alternatives for replacing that roadway, with any project expected to cost anywhere from $5 to $10 billion (a tunnel would be the most expensive option).

Two things are wrong with the WTNH article: 1- The screen shot is from about Exit 50 (US Route 44 West/Morgan Street) looking west. The viaduct is actually the elevated highway immediately west of the Hartford Tunnel. 2- They say the viaduct is 3 miles long. Try about 1.5 miles! Exit 45 westbound for Flatbush Avenue is very near mile marker 60. Mile marker 63 would be in East Hartford, where one would've already gone over the Bulkeley Bridge and the Connecticut River.

P.S. Not mentioned in this article is the new CT Fastrak (busway). The Sigourney Street station lies under this very viaduct. No mention was made as to how any project would impact the new roadway.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: relaxok on April 10, 2015, 11:46:16 PM
Random question.. I was in CT in October 2013 and I am 90% certain that I saw a sign meant to denote US 6 but was a 6 on a normal state (black rectangular) shield. I even mentioned it to my driving companion who agreed it was weird.

Does anybody know what I'm talking about?  I think it was on 84 somewhere.  I thought about taking a pic but forgot before I came back to CA.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on April 11, 2015, 01:42:46 AM
Quote from: relaxok on April 10, 2015, 11:46:16 PM
Random question.. I was in CT in October 2013 and I am 90% certain that I saw a sign meant to denote US 6 but was a 6 on a normal state (black rectangular) shield. I even mentioned it to my driving companion who agreed it was weird.

Does anybody know what I'm talking about?  I think it was on 84 somewhere.  I thought about taking a pic but forgot before I came back to CA.

Neil Kelly got a photo a while ago: http://www.shields.aaroads.com/show.php?image=CT19630062

I think CT has state sign goofs for all the US Routes except 7 and 1A; and I've seen "extra" US markers for 15, 66, and 160.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on April 11, 2015, 01:51:34 AM
Quote from: kurumi on April 11, 2015, 01:42:46 AM
Quote from: relaxok on April 10, 2015, 11:46:16 PM
Random question.. I was in CT in October 2013 and I am 90% certain that I saw a sign meant to denote US 6 but was a 6 on a normal state (black rectangular) shield. I even mentioned it to my driving companion who agreed it was weird.

Does anybody know what I'm talking about?  I think it was on 84 somewhere.  I thought about taking a pic but forgot before I came back to CA.

Neil Kelly got a photo a while ago: http://www.shields.aaroads.com/show.php?image=CT19630062

I think CT has state sign goofs for all the US Routes except 7 and 1A; and I've seen "extra" US markers for 15, 66, and 160.
I think I saw a 7 at one point. 1A will probably never have one.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on April 11, 2015, 02:05:29 AM
You might be referring to I-84 in West Hartford. There are several error "6" shields in place of US Route 6. Obviously, they're leftover shields for nearby CT Route 9 which starts at Exit 39A in Farmington. BTW, Connecticut doesn't have a state route 6.  :-P
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on April 11, 2015, 02:10:04 AM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on April 11, 2015, 02:05:29 AM
Obviously, they're leftover shields for nearby CT Route 9 which starts at Exit 39A in Farmington.
So the CT 44 error is what, exactly? Or are you just wrong.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on April 11, 2015, 10:56:48 AM
I'm not aware of any "CT Route 44" errors. Just the "6" signs in West Hartford, such as this one, after one gets on eastbound from Exit 40:

http://goo.gl/maps/wY15m
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on April 11, 2015, 12:03:15 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on April 11, 2015, 10:56:48 AM
I'm not aware of any "CT Route 44" errors. Just the "6" signs in West Hartford, such as this one, after one gets on eastbound from Exit 40:

http://goo.gl/maps/wY15m

There was one in Putnam: http://kurumi.com/roads/ct/ct12.html

GSV shows it was fixed by 2008.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Beeper1 on April 12, 2015, 01:35:36 AM
There are still a few in Putnam at the junction with CT-171.  Only the ones downtown were fixed, and even there I think there is still one on Kennedy Dr westbound.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on April 12, 2015, 11:38:34 AM
Exit 44-45 on I-95 article:

http://www.nhregister.com/general-news/20150411/dot-to-close-and-demolish-exit-44-in-new-haven

A quote from the article:
When an exit ramp merges with the roadway in a travel lane, in which vehicles come off the highway without having to stop, it's called a free-flow exit, and "one of the issues we had with maintaining a free-flow was pedestrian movements,"  Pelletier said. Having a stop light at the foot of the ramp is much safer for walkers, he said.

SO it seems to be that a free-flow movement is being shelved b/c of crosswalks, and I never see peds around there anyway at the interchange.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Pete from Boston on April 12, 2015, 12:06:46 PM
I feel like that exit's closure has been "imminent" for years.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on April 12, 2015, 01:05:39 PM
Quote from: doofy103 on April 12, 2015, 11:38:34 AM
Exit 44-45 on I-95 article:

http://www.nhregister.com/general-news/20150411/dot-to-close-and-demolish-exit-44-in-new-haven

A quote from the article:
When an exit ramp merges with the roadway in a travel lane, in which vehicles come off the highway without having to stop, it's called a free-flow exit, and "one of the issues we had with maintaining a free-flow was pedestrian movements,"  Pelletier said. Having a stop light at the foot of the ramp is much safer for walkers, he said.

SO it seems to be that a free-flow movement is being shelved b/c of crosswalks, and I never see peds around there anyway at the interchange.

One annoying thing that newspapers have done for a long time is not include a diagram of the proposed changes. Imagine if that were your only source of information; you'd have to pull up Google Maps to put the article in context, and still not have the complete picture.

However, there's always room for some B-roll type photo of a car exiting the freeway, or construction barriers, or two guys in hardhats.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on April 12, 2015, 10:45:51 PM
Quote from: doofy103 on April 12, 2015, 11:38:34 AM
SO it seems to be that a free-flow movement is being shelved b/c of crosswalks, and I never see peds around there anyway at the interchange.

Yeah, because it's not exactly inviting to walk across. But it is in an urban area, so there is certainly potential for pedestrian traffic through there.

At any rate, the southbound loop ramp is at the end of a nasty weave and therefore has plenty of justification for elimination purely on account of vehicular safety. The northbound one... well, the same movement will be accomplished by two right turns, both of which I assume will be permitted on red. It won't mentally seem as effortless but in terms of actual delay I wonder how much difference it really will make. Eliminating a free flow movement comes with the perception of making the process so much slower, but unless longer queues develop without the free flow, that perception is not in line with reality.

That said I would also concede that the concern about pedestrian safety is likely overstated, especially since pedestrians will be able to walk along the opposite sidewalk without crossing any entering or exiting traffic at all.

But it is probably more administratively efficient for ConnDOT to simply have a blanket policy of eliminating free flow turns in urban areas than it is for them to try and argue with everyone over the merits of them in each individual case... since it is unlikely to do any significant harm.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on April 15, 2015, 09:09:12 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on April 12, 2015, 10:45:51 PM
Quote from: doofy103 on April 12, 2015, 11:38:34 AM
SO it seems to be that a free-flow movement is being shelved b/c of crosswalks, and I never see peds around there anyway at the interchange.

Yeah, because it's not exactly inviting to walk across. But it is in an urban area, so there is certainly potential for pedestrian traffic through there.

At any rate, the southbound loop ramp is at the end of a nasty weave and therefore has plenty of justification for elimination purely on account of vehicular safety. The northbound one... well, the same movement will be accomplished by two right turns, both of which I assume will be permitted on red. It won't mentally seem as effortless but in terms of actual delay I wonder how much difference it really will make. Eliminating a free flow movement comes with the perception of making the process so much slower, but unless longer queues develop without the free flow, that perception is not in line with reality.

That said I would also concede that the concern about pedestrian safety is likely overstated, especially since pedestrians will be able to walk along the opposite sidewalk without crossing any entering or exiting traffic at all.

But it is probably more administratively efficient for ConnDOT to simply have a blanket policy of eliminating free flow turns in urban areas than it is for them to try and argue with everyone over the merits of them in each individual case... since it is unlikely to do any significant harm.

I have noticed RI & MA have more freeflowing movements at a log of intersections, even just regular 4-way intersections, a lot of channelized right turns.  More than CT by far.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on April 15, 2015, 11:11:22 PM
One of the VMS signs at the I-91/I-95 junction in New Haven was advising that I-95 Exit 44 by the West Haven town line was closing on Friday. I'm assuming that's a permanent closure?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on April 16, 2015, 01:25:16 AM
Quote from: doofy103 on April 15, 2015, 09:09:12 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on April 12, 2015, 10:45:51 PM
Quote from: doofy103 on April 12, 2015, 11:38:34 AM
SO it seems to be that a free-flow movement is being shelved b/c of crosswalks, and I never see peds around there anyway at the interchange.

Yeah, because it's not exactly inviting to walk across. But it is in an urban area, so there is certainly potential for pedestrian traffic through there.

At any rate, the southbound loop ramp is at the end of a nasty weave and therefore has plenty of justification for elimination purely on account of vehicular safety. The northbound one... well, the same movement will be accomplished by two right turns, both of which I assume will be permitted on red. It won't mentally seem as effortless but in terms of actual delay I wonder how much difference it really will make. Eliminating a free flow movement comes with the perception of making the process so much slower, but unless longer queues develop without the free flow, that perception is not in line with reality.

That said I would also concede that the concern about pedestrian safety is likely overstated, especially since pedestrians will be able to walk along the opposite sidewalk without crossing any entering or exiting traffic at all.

But it is probably more administratively efficient for ConnDOT to simply have a blanket policy of eliminating free flow turns in urban areas than it is for them to try and argue with everyone over the merits of them in each individual case... since it is unlikely to do any significant harm.

I have noticed RI & MA have more freeflowing movements at a log of intersections, even just regular 4-way intersections, a lot of channelized right turns.  More than CT by far.

CT despises channelized right turns.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JakeFromNewEngland on April 16, 2015, 11:07:50 AM
Today I noticed what looked to be construction of a new gantry for Exit 38 Southbound on I-95. Does anyone know if ConnDOT has plans for a new assembly here?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on April 16, 2015, 04:05:13 PM
It's part of the Fairfield to New Haven sign replacement project.  While signs were replaced in Milford a couple years back, some spot changes are part of the project.  Among them is the replacement of the damaged Exit 38 1/2 mile SB sign.  Project plans show a new overhead support 200' east of the overpass where the damaged sign sits. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on April 17, 2015, 07:30:07 PM
It should be noted that not just one, but two exits in the state of Connecticut will close PERMANENTLY next week:

I-95SB Exit 44 to "Downtown West Haven".  Existing Exit 45 will be resigned as Exit 44.  Part of the West River Bridge project.

I-84WB Exit 24 to "Harpers Ferry Road".  Part of the I-84 Waterbury reconstruction/widening.  Detour via Exit 25. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on April 17, 2015, 09:36:27 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on April 16, 2015, 01:25:16 AM
Quote from: doofy103 on April 15, 2015, 09:09:12 PM
I have noticed RI & MA have more freeflowing movements at a log of intersections, even just regular 4-way intersections, a lot of channelized right turns.  More than CT by far.
CT despises channelized right turns.

A greater percentage of Connectuct's land area is urban/suburban than Rhode Island or Massachusetts. So there's that.

But yeah, Connecticut has been actively removing channelized right turns in many circumstances - the general reason being pedestrian safety.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on April 24, 2015, 05:55:33 PM

Apparently, there's a new idea to commemorate the former I-84/ I-86 junction:

http://cour.at/1QqPgFb (http://cour.at/1QqPgFb)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JakeFromNewEngland on April 27, 2015, 05:04:37 PM
I saw a sign replacement for the Exit 43 BGS on I-95 northbound today. Instead of saying "Downtown West Haven" it's listed as "Campbell Avenue" with a white "No Trucks" panel beneath it.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Pete from Boston on April 29, 2015, 07:00:22 PM
What's this on the door frame of Milford South rest area?  Inventory tag?

(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8738/17066721549_08f5d6a995.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/s18pHP)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on May 03, 2015, 06:18:11 PM
http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Stevenson-Dam-repairs-require-road-closure-6225478.php

CT-34 Stevenson Dam closure. The article points out a 1979 widening.  What widening? It seems narrow today. How was it before?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Pete from Boston on May 03, 2015, 08:59:13 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on May 03, 2015, 06:18:11 PM
http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Stevenson-Dam-repairs-require-road-closure-6225478.php

CT-34 Stevenson Dam closure. The article points out a 1979 widening.  What widening? It seems narrow today. How was it before?

The imagery isn't really good enough on Historicaerials.com to tell.

This article from 2010:

http://www.ctpost.com/news/article/Stevenson-A-bridge-too-far-815223.php

doesn't shed much light on the answer to that question but does go into more detail on the trouble with building a bridge there. 

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JakeFromNewEngland on May 17, 2015, 11:01:15 AM
More sign replacement news:

I noticed there are all new signs for Exit 43 on I-95 now. It's now listed as "Campbell Avenue". They also added a new "No Trucks" sign on the bridge before the exit ramp.

Also, there are some businesses being put up on the new attraction signs on I-95 in between Milford and West Haven.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on May 22, 2015, 06:38:13 PM
Some news articles on Malloy's transportation initiative and the lock-box saga for the transportation fund.

1) Article on the Republican's version of Malloy's (D) plan for transportation.  Malloy's plan was supposed to be a way to change CT's historically small thinking of roads etc.  Republican's funding is smaller than Malloy's and talks about "living within our means and prioritizing projects" which means the SAME OLD THINKING and HABITS.

http://www.newstimes.com/local/article/GOP-proposal-halves-money-for-Malloy-s-6271769.php

Malloy wants to pass a lock-box bill that will prevent lawmakers from raiding the transportation fund like they currently do for other non-transportation uses.   Malloy's bill would be no exceptions but the Senate wants an "escape clause" with means they can use the money in the transportation clause for other uses in an emergency if a certain number of lawmakers vote for it....which means MORE OF THE SAME OLD THINKING and HABITS.

http://www.heraldonline.com/news/business/article20529348.html

Just annoying.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on May 22, 2015, 08:18:18 PM
Connecticut road building is dead. Not sure what people are expecting, especially in such a small and over-developed state. The way it is today, is the way it will be in 10, 20, and 50 years from now. Well maybe traffic will be a bit worse, but in terms of lane-miles, it will be virtually unchanged. If anything, the most exciting thing we will see happen is ramp closures since that seems to be the DOT's lean to "solving problems." I was thinking about the state caving and allowing emergency lane use during at least rush hour, but then I remembered that in Connecticut emergency lanes aren't consistent - one minute they are there, and the next the lanes are penned in pretty tightly by jersey barriers.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on May 26, 2015, 11:33:09 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on May 22, 2015, 06:38:13 PMMalloy wants to pass a lock-box bill that will prevent lawmakers from raiding the transportation fund like they currently do for other non-transportation uses.   Malloy's bill would be no exceptions but the Senate wants an "escape clause" with means they can use the money in the transportation clause for other uses in an emergency if a certain number of lawmakers vote for it....which means MORE OF THE SAME OLD THINKING and HABITS.

http://www.heraldonline.com/news/business/article20529348.html
I'm not able to open the above-link.  Nonetheless, the idea of putting a lock-box to prevent raiding the transportation fund for non-transporation uses should've been done a long time ago.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Zeffy on May 26, 2015, 11:47:31 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 26, 2015, 11:33:09 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on May 22, 2015, 06:38:13 PMMalloy wants to pass a lock-box bill that will prevent lawmakers from raiding the transportation fund like they currently do for other non-transportation uses.   Malloy's bill would be no exceptions but the Senate wants an "escape clause" with means they can use the money in the transportation clause for other uses in an emergency if a certain number of lawmakers vote for it....which means MORE OF THE SAME OLD THINKING and HABITS.

http://www.heraldonline.com/news/business/article20529348.html
I'm not able to open the above-link.  Nonetheless, the idea of putting a lock-box to prevent raiding the transportation fund for non-transporation uses should've been done a long time ago.

IMO, transportation money should NEVER be used for any other purposes, mainly because transportation is a critical part of our infrastructure. Better yet, what constitutes as an "emergency" here? Are we talking about a major terrorist attack or invasion by another country, or are we talking about damages from natural disasters?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on May 26, 2015, 08:16:24 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if "emergency" meant "whenever we want to use the money for something else".
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on May 27, 2015, 12:54:40 AM
The problem with a lot of the so-called sin taxes, and many other taxes for that matter, are funneled into the state's general fund, which can be used for anything, including lavish dinners for politicians.  The lottery was started to fund education, but mostly funds the general fund.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on May 29, 2015, 12:50:06 AM
ConnDOT is planning a slight traffic shift on the I-95 NB to I-91 NB ramp in New Haven. It's a fairly trivial change (still a left exit), preparing for a future move to right-hand exit.

Still, the project guys have uploaded a video simulation of a drive along the new ramp, and it looks gorgeous. I hope to see more of these in the future.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_cOVmaYI2g
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: yakra on May 30, 2015, 02:24:33 AM
I like the under-construction overpass visible at 1:08. Nice touch.

Although, Wouldn't more traffic be bound for Hartford/Springfield/Boston than Providence and the rest of I-95 proper? Making a Left Exit still somewhat appropriate? Or is that just my Portland<->NYC bias speaking here?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on May 30, 2015, 01:41:42 PM
How did they make that video so realistic? They even got the signs and the little quirks that exist on them right (such as the skinny exit tabs, yellow exit only on one sign but not there on the next). I assumed for a computer simulation they wouldn't waste time on that kind of detail.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Roadsguy on May 30, 2015, 07:24:37 PM
There's a random floating merge sign off to the right at 2:08. :-D
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on May 30, 2015, 11:23:51 PM
Look at this old I-84 on GSV.  2011 tho. 

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.763401,-72.692708,3a,75y,238.46h,72.09t/data=!3m5!1e1!3m3!1soUFgkEJfwchHKFHpH7rJlA!2e0!5s20110601T000000
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: ctsignguy on May 30, 2015, 11:30:00 PM
Love that 'cute shield'.....doubt it is still there now, however.....
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on June 09, 2015, 11:56:19 PM
The I-91 Exit to the Charter Oak Bridge and I-84 will be widened from 1 lane to 2.  BUT.....the right exit will now be a left exit. 

http://wtnh.com/2015/06/09/traffic-relief-coming-to-notorious-interchange/

http://www.ctnow.com/news/hc-charter-oak-bridge-0610-20150609,0,199854.story

CT just can't let go of left exits. Again, people will be paying for this in time b/c it won't be done right.  TX , TN or any other state would've done what they could to make it a right hand exit.

Also CT DOT says in other articles they are committed to speeding up projects...but 3 years to design and then start to build.  Yikes.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: southshore720 on June 10, 2015, 02:14:10 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on June 09, 2015, 11:56:19 PM
Also CT DOT says in other articles they are committed to speeding up projects...but 3 years to design and then start to build.  Yikes.

This is great news...but a 2018 start date?  This is a project definitely worthy of a fast track, considering the acknowledged traffic snarls and substandard ramp design.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on June 10, 2015, 06:18:48 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on June 09, 2015, 11:56:19 PM
The I-91 Exit to the Charter Oak Bridge and I-84 will be widened from 1 lane to 2.  BUT.....the right exit will now be a left exit. 

http://wtnh.com/2015/06/09/traffic-relief-coming-to-notorious-interchange/

http://www.ctnow.com/news/hc-charter-oak-bridge-0610-20150609,0,199854.story

CT just can't let go of left exits. Again, people will be paying for this in time b/c it won't be done right.  TX , TN or any other state would've done what they could to make it a right hand exit.

Also CT DOT says in other articles they are committed to speeding up projects...but 3 years to design and then start to build.  Yikes.
Can they widen the 15S-91S ramp to two lanes while they're at it?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on June 10, 2015, 06:28:35 PM
Quote from: Alps on June 10, 2015, 06:18:48 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on June 09, 2015, 11:56:19 PM
The I-91 Exit to the Charter Oak Bridge and I-84 will be widened from 1 lane to 2.  BUT.....the right exit will now be a left exit. 

http://wtnh.com/2015/06/09/traffic-relief-coming-to-notorious-interchange/

http://www.ctnow.com/news/hc-charter-oak-bridge-0610-20150609,0,199854.story

CT just can't let go of left exits. Again, people will be paying for this in time b/c it won't be done right.  TX , TN or any other state would've done what they could to make it a right hand exit.

Also CT DOT says in other articles they are committed to speeding up projects...but 3 years to design and then start to build.  Yikes.
Can they widen the 15S-91S ramp to two lanes while they're at it?

you would think? But not CT DOT.  They think small inside the box up here. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on June 11, 2015, 12:44:27 AM
I can totally see how making 91N-15N a left exit would potentially improve flow since it allows the ramp to be near level rather than uphill. But, the 15N-91N ramp currently occupies that space. What does ConnDOT intend to do with that? Build a new flyover somewhere to the south?

At the very least, 91 will gain a left exit but lose a left entrance.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on June 11, 2015, 09:28:16 AM
Here's a synopsis of the interchange reconfiguraiton from an older version of the project: http://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/63-703_Project_Description.pdf

Assuming the concept hasn't been changed, they're planning on adding a through-lane on the 91 mainline. The extra width presumably complicates the geometry for a right-hand exit.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Pete from Boston on June 11, 2015, 12:00:26 PM

Quote from: Alps on June 10, 2015, 06:18:48 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on June 09, 2015, 11:56:19 PM
The I-91 Exit to the Charter Oak Bridge and I-84 will be widened from 1 lane to 2.  BUT.....the right exit will now be a left exit. 

http://wtnh.com/2015/06/09/traffic-relief-coming-to-notorious-interchange/

http://www.ctnow.com/news/hc-charter-oak-bridge-0610-20150609,0,199854.story

CT just can't let go of left exits. Again, people will be paying for this in time b/c it won't be done right.  TX , TN or any other state would've done what they could to make it a right hand exit.

Also CT DOT says in other articles they are committed to speeding up projects...but 3 years to design and then start to build.  Yikes.
Can they widen the 15S-91S ramp to two lanes while they're at it?

From this same thread nearly a year ago, this particular design seems to have multiple lanes from 15 SB to 91 SB, but it's hard to tease out too many specifics given the complexity of the diagram and the size of my phone:

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
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on June 11, 2015, 12:09:05 PM
But wouldn't the new left exit make traffic worse on I-91NB? 

If I understand the proposals correctly, the new setup will be just like I-84 EB at Exit 7 for US-7NB in Danbury.  The left lane transitions into a split and exits to the left and becomes two left lanes exiting.  Drivers in the left lane slow to merge into the right lanes for I-84 and drivers in the center lanes slow to let them in or to merge into the left lane for Exit 7.  This creates congestion for all lanes.

This is also the setup that they are eliminating at I-95NB at I-91NB in New Haven as well. 

I just don't see how it's going to solve things.  I'm still in favor of the project though....but it seems like once again, we will still have problems down the line b/c the project won't be done right in the first place due to small scale thinking or money issues.

PS, whenever I take that ramp it seems once you pass the gore you're ok, it's the queue of the drivers in the right lane leading up to the gore.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on June 16, 2015, 08:29:09 PM
New signage contract for CT-25 in Trumbull. The original 1982 or so signage is coming down.

http://www.biznet.ct.gov/SCP_Documents/Bids/36395/144-193_Final_Specifications.pdf

http://www.biznet.ct.gov/SCP_Documents/Bids/36395/144-193_Portfolio_Plans.pdf

A couple notes:
a) Shouldn't the "NO COMMERICAL VEHICLES" be on the bottom of the BGS rather than the top?  In other areas in the state it's on the bottom. 
b)  The "EXPRESSWAY ENDS" sign is not etruded aluminum like the "1 Mile" and "1/2 Mile" signs?
c) I also notice on the BGS sign on CT-25 NB pertaining to CT-111 that "MONROE" is all caps. 
d) on the plans, not the signage, it says "future exit xx" so looks like they plan to convert exit numbers to mileage based.
e) Left exit tabs and letter suffix exits pertaining to the CT-15 ramp splits.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: OracleUsr on June 16, 2015, 10:32:35 PM
Second PDF requires a commercial viewer.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: OracleUsr on June 16, 2015, 10:35:40 PM
And on page 198...um, no...a right aligned LEFT EXIT tab?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on June 18, 2015, 12:35:54 PM
https://ctdot-geopub.projectwiseonline.com/public/Default.htm

A new map on the CT DOT website, click on the color and you have updated project statuses. Everything from signing projects to Q-Bridge to paving.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: J N Winkler on June 18, 2015, 03:12:55 PM
Quote from: OracleUsr on June 16, 2015, 10:32:35 PMSecond PDF requires a commercial viewer.

It is a PDF portfolio, but pdftk will detach the individual PDF files.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on June 18, 2015, 11:35:36 PM
Quote from: OracleUsr on June 16, 2015, 10:35:40 PM
And on page 198...um, no...a right aligned LEFT EXIT tab?

What's even more hilarious is that it's not a left exit. Both White Plains Road and the Merritt are accessed from the same ramp which splits after a bit, the Merritt is the left fork of that split. But the ramp is totally a right exit off of route 25.

ConnDOT's trend of silly overinterpretation of MUTCD standards continues!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on June 19, 2015, 01:17:54 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on June 18, 2015, 12:35:54 PM
https://ctdot-geopub.projectwiseonline.com/public/Default.htm

A new map on the CT DOT website, click on the color and you have updated project statuses. Everything from signing projects to Q-Bridge to paving.

On Mac, Firefox won't show details, but Chrome pops up a little window on click. The project links appear to be some sort of Windowsy pw:// URL (with backslashes) that might link to something on the web developer's Pentium III back at the office. Anyone get those to work?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: J N Winkler on June 19, 2015, 01:50:29 PM
Quote from: kurumi on June 19, 2015, 01:17:54 AMOn Mac, Firefox won't show details, but Chrome pops up a little window on click. The project links appear to be some sort of Windowsy pw:// URL (with backslashes) that might link to something on the web developer's Pentium III back at the office. Anyone get those to work?

ProjectWise URLs (pw:// etc.) won't work except on machines that have access to the underlying ProjectWise database, which in practice means a computer that is part of the state DOT's LAN.  I am seeing a growing trend toward state DOTs using publicly accessible GIS systems that link to resources that are site-locked to DOT offices, using either proprietary URLs like ProjectWise with network drive references, or standard HTTP URLs where Web service is restricted to sites owned by the DOT.  KDOT, for example, has an open GIS that links to photologging (standard Mandli setup, HTTP URLs, access to imagery restricted to KDOT offices) and paving plans (ProjectWise database, requires login).

ProjectWise is a Bentley product and is pushed out to state DOTs through essentially the same sales channel as MicroStation.  ProjectWise Web front ends are becoming more common (for example, Mississippi DOT now uses it for distributing online plans) but I have yet to see a DOT set one up for general public access.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on June 20, 2015, 10:18:12 PM
Driving around today, noticed new large signs at the base of an onramp... DO NOT ENTER (one angled to face each direction on the cross street, complete with red reflectors on the posts), and NO RIGHT/LEFT TURN signs.  Guessing these are being put up in response to that wrong-way driver on the WCP a few weeks back?

(observed in Essex and Old Saybrook on Route 9, Exits 2 & 3)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JakeFromNewEngland on June 22, 2015, 10:31:00 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on June 20, 2015, 10:18:12 PM
Driving around today, noticed new large signs at the base of an onramp... DO NOT ENTER (one angled to face each direction on the cross street, complete with red reflectors on the posts), and NO RIGHT/LEFT TURN signs.  Guessing these are being put up in response to that wrong-way driver on the WCP a few weeks back?

(observed in Essex and Old Saybrook on Route 9, Exits 2 & 3)

I noticed this as well. ConnDOT put up those types of signs at Exit 39A/B in Milford as well as Exit 37.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MVHighways on June 22, 2015, 03:09:04 PM
Quote from: JakeFromNewEngland on June 22, 2015, 10:31:00 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on June 20, 2015, 10:18:12 PM
Driving around today, noticed new large signs at the base of an onramp... DO NOT ENTER (one angled to face each direction on the cross street, complete with red reflectors on the posts), and NO RIGHT/LEFT TURN signs.  Guessing these are being put up in response to that wrong-way driver on the WCP a few weeks back?

(observed in Essex and Old Saybrook on Route 9, Exits 2 & 3)

I noticed this as well. ConnDOT put up those types of signs at Exit 39A/B in Milford as well as Exit 37.
That sounds like a good idea that MassDOT (and all other DOTs) should adopt - as it as there are normal "DO NOT ENTER" signs at the onramp base, but no red reflectors I have seen unlike what you have in CT.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: AMLNet49 on June 22, 2015, 11:29:15 PM
Quote from: MVHighways on June 22, 2015, 03:09:04 PM
Quote from: JakeFromNewEngland on June 22, 2015, 10:31:00 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on June 20, 2015, 10:18:12 PM
Driving around today, noticed new large signs at the base of an onramp... DO NOT ENTER (one angled to face each direction on the cross street, complete with red reflectors on the posts), and NO RIGHT/LEFT TURN signs.  Guessing these are being put up in response to that wrong-way driver on the WCP a few weeks back?

(observed in Essex and Old Saybrook on Route 9, Exits 2 & 3)

I noticed this as well. ConnDOT put up those types of signs at Exit 39A/B in Milford as well as Exit 37.
That sounds like a good idea that MassDOT (and all other DOTs) should adopt - as it as there are normal "DO NOT ENTER" signs at the onramp base, but no red reflectors I have seen unlike what you have in CT.

They are just being put up as we speak along freeway entrances from US-44 in Raynham, Mass
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on June 22, 2015, 11:37:32 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on June 18, 2015, 11:35:36 PM
Quote from: OracleUsr on June 16, 2015, 10:35:40 PM
And on page 198...um, no...a right aligned LEFT EXIT tab?

What's even more hilarious is that it's not a left exit. Both White Plains Road and the Merritt are accessed from the same ramp which splits after a bit, the Merritt is the left fork of that split. But the ramp is totally a right exit off of route 25.

ConnDOT's trend of silly overinterpretation of MUTCD standards continues!

I saw both the sign detail (linked above that actually opens) and the map pdf of where the signs go on the road.....and the sign detail has the LEFT exit tab on the right but on the map pdf they show the sign having the LEFT exit tab on the left...so it'll be interesting to see which plan sheet they follow. 

The sign on the CT-25 mainline has a right exit tab as it's a right exit but once you're on the ramp, the CT-15 ramp is then technically a left exit. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on June 22, 2015, 11:54:47 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on June 22, 2015, 11:37:32 PM
I saw both the sign detail (linked above that actually opens) and the map pdf of where the signs go on the road.....and the sign detail has the LEFT exit tab on the right but on the map pdf they show the sign having the LEFT exit tab on the left...so it'll be interesting to see which plan sheet they follow.   

Interesting to see? We already know how this is going to go. The contractor is going to put the tab on the right based on the plans, and then try to say they need extra money for a changeorder if ConnDOT wants it on the left.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on June 24, 2015, 10:01:55 PM
While on I-395 from Norwich to the terminus at I-95 in Waterford (Wednesday), I noticed many of the bigger and taller sign posts were in the ground, but without the new signs installed onto them yet. Also, I noticed CT Route 2A is now signed on I-395 heading from Exit 79A northward.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: bob7374 on June 24, 2015, 11:28:58 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on June 24, 2015, 10:01:55 PM
While on I-395 from Norwich to the terminus at I-95 in Waterford (Wednesday), I noticed many of the bigger and taller sign posts were in the ground, but without the new signs installed onto them yet. Also, I noticed CT Route 2A is now signed on I-395 heading from Exit 79A northward.
Thanks for the update. Was planning a road trip this weekend or next to check out progress. Saves me some time and gas since it sounds like there hasn't been much change since I traveled through in March. There were many sign posts in the ground at that point and I was hoping at least some new signs had gone up by now.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on June 26, 2015, 07:56:33 PM
Mileage based exit signs have started going up on I-395.  Went to Crystal Mall, and out of curiosity, went up CT 85 to 395 S to get back to 95 S.  A look in the rear view mirror northbound saw those ground mounted posts filled with signs that read Exit 2.  A couple of signs had the Old Exit 77 tab on top.  The route numbers on the signs looked like emblazoned state route signs with the black border.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JakeFromNewEngland on June 27, 2015, 02:13:56 PM
I noticed yesterday that ConnDOT put up new signs and gantries on I-95 southbound for Exit 38/Milford Parkway interchange. They replaced the exit sign and gantry as well as the 1/2 mile advance sign and gantry.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on June 27, 2015, 08:32:15 PM
2 new signs S/B I-95 X46-45 saying "EXIT 45 IS NOW EXIT 44" with new overhead signs for X43 and the new 44. The new 44 ramp also has a signal at the end and there's a sign along the ramp saying that there's a new traffic light ahead. The signal also has the new style backing plate with the yellow border which seems to be going up in many places.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: bob7374 on June 28, 2015, 05:21:01 PM
A poster on the Northeast Roads Facebook group says he traveled the northern section of I-395 this past week and that many of the exit numbers had been changed. He said the new numbers on the signs were in button copy. No photos though to confirm this.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JimmyI395 on July 01, 2015, 09:06:57 AM
Some pics of the I 395 Signing project. I was unable to get the half mile because it was behind some trees. I will post more pics soon.



https://www.flickr.com/photos/129630456@N08/19327601701/in/dateposted-public/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/129630456@N08/19317622622/in/dateposted-public/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/129630456@N08/19297591686/in/dateposted-public/
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on July 01, 2015, 09:51:47 AM
Quote from: JimmyI395 on July 01, 2015, 09:06:57 AM
Some pics of the I 395 Signing project.
So ConnDOT is now using bordered-state-route shields on its BGS'?  That's a change from previous signage recently erected along other highways (example: along I-84 west of Waterbury). 

I also would've used Series D for 2-digit route shields as opposed to the shown-Series C.  The fore-mentioned newer BGS' along I-84 feature Series D numerals for all route shields.  I agree for using Series D for all single and 2-digit routes; but I would only use Series D for 3-digit routes if the route number contained at least one 1 in it, otherwise use Series C for other 3-digit routes.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Zeffy on July 01, 2015, 10:01:29 AM
Nice pics! Glad to see Connecticut is finally moving away from sequential based exit numbering.

Quote from: PHLBOS on July 01, 2015, 09:51:47 AM
I also would've used Series D for 2-digit route shields as opposed to the shown-Series C.  The fore-mentioned newer BGS' along I-84 feature Series D numerals for all route shields.  I agree for using Series D for all single and 2-digit routes; but I would only use Series D for 3-digit routes if the route number contained at least one 1 in it, otherwise use Series C for other 3-digit routes.

For some reason, Connecticut likes to use Series C for a lot of it's route shields on freeway guide signs. Whereas the stand-alone trailblazers may use D, on a freeway sign it almost always uses C - which is different from how Massachusetts or Rhode Island does it.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on July 01, 2015, 10:31:32 AM
Quote from: Zeffy on July 01, 2015, 10:01:29 AMFor some reason, Connecticut likes to use Series C for a lot of it's route shields on freeway guide signs.
That's actually the opposite of what I've seen; especially along the fore-mentioned I-84.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Beeper1 on July 01, 2015, 11:39:43 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on June 28, 2015, 05:21:01 PM
A poster on the Northeast Roads Facebook group says he traveled the northern section of I-395 this past week and that many of the exit numbers had been changed. He said the new numbers on the signs were in button copy. No photos though to confirm this.

Nope. No new BGS have gone up on the northern stretch (north of CT-138 at least).  Some of the new posts are still being installed, but no new actual signs yet.  The button copy is the existing signage which dates back to the early 1980s.     
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: swbrotha100 on July 02, 2015, 03:58:44 AM
Are these I-395 shields still up? Abbreviated state name shields:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/129630456@N08/19137023460/in/dateposted-public/
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JimmyI395 on July 02, 2015, 11:07:41 AM
NBC Connecticut did a story on the I-395 signing project.



http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/State-to-Renumber-I-395-Exits-311308481.html
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JimmyI395 on July 02, 2015, 11:11:01 AM


Yes they are still there. Walmart just relocated the entrance/exit and I think the contractor order the wrong signs.

Quote from: swbrotha100 on July 02, 2015, 03:58:44 AM
Are these I-395 shields still up? Abbreviated state name shields:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/129630456@N08/19137023460/in/dateposted-public/
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Pete from Boston on July 02, 2015, 12:18:15 PM
I posted this many years ago on M.T.R and never got much in the way of a good explanation.

The HOV lanes on I-84 East were opened in the mid-1980s with advance signs stating "2 PERSON MINIMUM."  Then, about 10-15 years ago, the "-son" was removed from each or covered over (the ghost of the letters is still clearly there either way) so it says "2 PER MINIMUM."

Why?

When I emailed them, a lazy ConnDoT employee told me those three letters (and only those three) happened to fall off each sign.

Right.

Anyone understand the logic in the change?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on July 02, 2015, 06:49:10 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on July 02, 2015, 12:18:15 PM
I posted this many years ago on M.T.R and never got much in the way of a good explanation.

The HOV lanes on I-84 East were opened in the mid-1980s with advance signs stating "2 PERSON MINIMUM."  Then, about 10-15 years ago, the "-son" was removed from each or covered over (the ghost of the letters is still clearly there either way) so it says "2 PER MINIMUM."

Why?

When I emailed them, a lazy ConnDoT employee told me those three letters (and only those three) happened to fall off each sign.

Right.

Anyone understand the logic in the change?

The HOV lanes used to be 3+ people but then changed to 2+ because nobody ever used them.
Title: Connecticut News
Post by: Pete from Boston on July 02, 2015, 07:12:56 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on July 02, 2015, 06:49:10 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on July 02, 2015, 12:18:15 PM
I posted this many years ago on M.T.R and never got much in the way of a good explanation.

The HOV lanes on I-84 East were opened in the mid-1980s with advance signs stating "2 PERSON MINIMUM."  Then, about 10-15 years ago, the "-son" was removed from each or covered over (the ghost of the letters is still clearly there either way) so it says "2 PER MINIMUM."

Why?

When I emailed them, a lazy ConnDoT employee told me those three letters (and only those three) happened to fall off each sign.

Right.

Anyone understand the logic in the change?

The HOV lanes used to be 3+ people but then changed to 2+ because nobody ever used them.

You're right, and I stand corrected, but I believe that happened years before the "SON" was removed, possibly as far back as the 1980s.  The odd sign edit was since 1999 or so.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on July 02, 2015, 07:13:20 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on June 27, 2015, 08:32:15 PM
2 new signs S/B I-95 X46-45 saying "EXIT 45 IS NOW EXIT 44" with new overhead signs for X43 and the new 44. The new 44 ramp also has a signal at the end and there's a sign along the ramp saying that there's a new traffic light ahead. The signal also has the new style backing plate with the yellow border which seems to be going up in many places.

I thought I remembered seeing in the plans an BOS (Big Orange Sign) during a stage of construction SB, when traffic will split while construction of the new bridge/exit. I think it was also extruded aluminum.  If so, I'd want to get a pic of it.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on July 03, 2015, 04:03:40 PM
Is Connecticut installing automated license plate readers on the highways? I was stuck in traffic on, where else, I-95 this afternoon going northbound, and in my rear view mirror I noticed what appeared to be cameras over each lane mounted on the northern side of the Indian Field Rd (exit 4) overpass such that they would take pictures of the rear license plates as vehicles traveled north. I was a few hundred feet away when I noticed, so it could be radars or traffic counters, but it was definitely a permanent installation and new. I say they are cameras of some sort because it appeared there was an opening on the front of each unit that looked like a lens. I wish on my way back south I remembered to get a better look at them as I would be traveling towards them as opposed to looking backwards at them.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on July 04, 2015, 08:57:18 PM
Was it something similar to this? 
(I-84 WB in Union CT)
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.995087,-72.168906,3a,66.8y,209.86h,76.48t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sLpeYAd7YAX1pI4yIybjr2w!2e0

This I believe was installed as part of a "weigh in motion" for the nearby weigh station.  I believe I read about a contract to do a similar system for the I-95 NB weigh station in Greenwich, which is down by Exit 4 (between Exits 2 & 3).  If so, that could be it.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on July 05, 2015, 11:13:28 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on July 04, 2015, 08:57:18 PM
Was it something similar to this? 
(I-84 WB in Union CT)
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.995087,-72.168906,3a,66.8y,209.86h,76.48t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sLpeYAd7YAX1pI4yIybjr2w!2e0

This I believe was installed as part of a "weigh in motion" for the nearby weigh station.  I believe I read about a contract to do a similar system for the I-95 NB weigh station in Greenwich, which is down by Exit 4 (between Exits 2 & 3).  If so, that could be it.

No it wasn't that. What I saw almost looked like radar units as they were square and mounted directly to the bridge, but there was one over each lane and like I said appeared to have a lens.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: machias on July 06, 2015, 02:21:18 AM
Quote from: connroadgeek on July 05, 2015, 11:13:28 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on July 04, 2015, 08:57:18 PM
Was it something similar to this? 
(I-84 WB in Union CT)
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.995087,-72.168906,3a,66.8y,209.86h,76.48t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sLpeYAd7YAX1pI4yIybjr2w!2e0

This I believe was installed as part of a "weigh in motion" for the nearby weigh station.  I believe I read about a contract to do a similar system for the I-95 NB weigh station in Greenwich, which is down by Exit 4 (between Exits 2 & 3).  If so, that could be it.

No it wasn't that. What I saw almost looked like radar units as they were square and mounted directly to the bridge, but there was one over each lane and like I said appeared to have a lens.

E-ZPass tag readers to time travel distance by motorists with E-ZPass? No tolls or anything, just a data metric to post on VMSes, etc. "Exit XX -- XX miles in XX min".

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on July 07, 2015, 02:08:17 PM
I noticed in Naugatuck, CTDOT added yield triangle pavement markings to the crosswalks on CT-63 near downtown.  There are the usual school crossing MUTCD compliant signage but no yield signs at all.

Will drivers know what the yield triangles mean or should they just have painted "YIELD" on the pavement?

I can see the DOT putting in the word "YIELD" or the triangles on some of the on-ramps on CT-8 in Derby or Waterbury that have no merge room.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: roadman on July 07, 2015, 03:26:55 PM
Quote from: JimmyI395 on July 02, 2015, 11:07:41 AM
NBC Connecticut did a story on the I-395 signing project.



http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/State-to-Renumber-I-395-Exits-311308481.html

Nice to see a positive news item regarding a transportation project for a change.  However, IMO they could have made it even more positive by noting that the signs were due for replacement anyway.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: bob7374 on July 07, 2015, 05:45:52 PM
Quote from: roadman on July 07, 2015, 03:26:55 PM
Quote from: JimmyI395 on July 02, 2015, 11:07:41 AM
NBC Connecticut did a story on the I-395 signing project.



http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/State-to-Renumber-I-395-Exits-311308481.html

Nice to see a positive news item regarding a transportation project for a change.  However, IMO they could have made it even more positive by noting that the signs were due for replacement anyway.
Wonder what we can expect from the media when exit number changes are announced in Mass.?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: spooky on July 08, 2015, 07:15:27 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on July 07, 2015, 05:45:52 PM
Quote from: roadman on July 07, 2015, 03:26:55 PM
Quote from: JimmyI395 on July 02, 2015, 11:07:41 AM
NBC Connecticut did a story on the I-395 signing project.



http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/State-to-Renumber-I-395-Exits-311308481.html

Nice to see a positive news item regarding a transportation project for a change.  However, IMO they could have made it even more positive by noting that the signs were due for replacement anyway.
Wonder what we can expect from the media when exit number changes are announced in Mass.?

Remember the stories about wasteful spending when the mile markers were updated? More of that.

The good thing is that based on the plan loosely outlined by roadman and others, it will be a gradual upgrade from smaller routes to larger routes and from west to east. The Boston media isn't going to care that mileage-based exit numbering is being introduced on I-291, I-395, I-84 or even I-91...and by the time they get to I-95, the rest of the state will already be done.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on July 17, 2015, 08:12:10 PM
How about a BBQ on the Q Bridge?
http://photos.newhavenregister.com/2015/07/17/photos-of-party-for-construction-workers-on-pearl-harbor-memorial-bridge/#1
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on July 21, 2015, 12:37:02 AM
A couple of things I noticed while on the road to/from midtown Manhattan on Monday, July 20th:

Paving is done on I-91 north in Wallingford. The side line striping was not, as those trucks were setting up on the roadside by 8 PM.

There are brand new mile marker signs, mostly on I-91 north from MM 1 in New Haven to about MM 19 in Meriden. That's north of the CT Route 15 drive-by (where 15 surrounds I-91 for about a mile), but before I-691/CT Route 66 crosses over. They have the I-91 shield on them. Like with Massachusetts, there are those weird little 2/10 MM signs. The lettering seems to resemble the little ramp signs you see on the highways in Manchester.

Lastly, maybe it's part of a construction project, but there are a bunch of these little bridge marker signs, mostly along I-95 south in Norwalk and Darien. One of them read "Br. 44", as in bridge #44.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on July 28, 2015, 11:19:50 PM
http://www.courant.com/politics/capitol-watch/hc-bond-commission-approves-initial-funding-for-malloys-transportation-project-20150728-story.html

Say what you want about Gov Malloy but he does seem to be all about transportation, more so than others in the past.

He said today design will start on the new 4-level stack of I-84/CT-8 in Waterbury.  Also design on a new I-691, I-91, CT-15 interchange.  THAT I'd like to see as I didn't know it was even on the table.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: noelbotevera on July 28, 2015, 11:26:19 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on July 28, 2015, 11:19:50 PM
http://www.courant.com/politics/capitol-watch/hc-bond-commission-approves-initial-funding-for-malloys-transportation-project-20150728-story.html

Say what you want about Gov Malloy but he does seem to be all about transportation, more so than others in the past.

He said today design will start on the new 4-level stack of I-84/CT-8 in Waterbury. 
no no no No NO! That Mixmaster is true history! A service to us would at least to simply remove the left exits, and do some fancy stuff. Because the Mixmaster...I just love that interchange like a son.
Although I've never seen the big thing before...
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Pete from Boston on July 28, 2015, 11:26:55 PM
I don't know any statistics, but I'd have a new 15/91 interchange have 15N to 91N as the primary movement for 15N, and try to find room for a third lane each way there on 91 in order to keep the speed at 65.  I don't take 691 much so I have no strong opinions on it.

The rest of my thoughts there relate to comfort and convenience (e.g. straighter shot from 91S to 15S) and don't feel as critical.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on July 28, 2015, 11:28:48 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on July 28, 2015, 11:19:50 PM
Also design on a new I-691, I-91, CT-15 interchange.  THAT I'd like to see as I didn't know it was even on the table.

Yeah, I'd like to see that as well.  I don't see not much wrong with that "complex" that would require a new design.  Maybe I'd widen the SB ramp from 91SB to 691WB and the 15NB to 91NB ramp.  Outside of that, I think it works fine.  Drove through it for over 10 years.  A lot worse problems in the state than that area....COUGH... CT 9 in Middletown.... COUGH.....
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Zeffy on July 28, 2015, 11:30:34 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on July 28, 2015, 11:19:50 PM
http://www.courant.com/politics/capitol-watch/hc-bond-commission-approves-initial-funding-for-malloys-transportation-project-20150728-story.html

Say what you want about Gov Malloy but he does seem to be all about transportation, more so than others in the past.

I think Connecticut may even be ahead of New Jersey in the roads regard, because it seems like all our governor wants to do is visit New Hampshire, Iowa, and South Carolina to get more support for his presidential campaign. And as usual, we suffer, and so do our roads, which are already in horrible shape.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JakeFromNewEngland on July 29, 2015, 12:27:51 AM
Quote from: noelbotevera on July 28, 2015, 11:26:19 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on July 28, 2015, 11:19:50 PM
http://www.courant.com/politics/capitol-watch/hc-bond-commission-approves-initial-funding-for-malloys-transportation-project-20150728-story.html

Say what you want about Gov Malloy but he does seem to be all about transportation, more so than others in the past.

He said today design will start on the new 4-level stack of I-84/CT-8 in Waterbury. 
no no no No NO! That Mixmaster is true history! A service to us would at least to simply remove the left exits, and do some fancy stuff. Because the Mixmaster...I just love that interchange like a son.
Although I've never seen the big thing before...

That interchange badly needs to be redone. Yes, it's a part of the road history of the state, but it'd be better to see a new version. The current one is so classic 1960s engineering as well as the rest of the freeways in the Waterbury area.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JakeFromNewEngland on July 29, 2015, 12:33:06 AM
As for Malloy, I agree that his plan is really great. He actually wants to see most of these projects happen and it'd be nice to finally drive through New Haven and Hartford on new, modern freeways. It's a step in the right direction.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: The Ghostbuster on July 29, 2015, 12:34:16 PM
Will any of these projects be implemented? That is the question.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on July 30, 2015, 10:27:43 PM
http://www.courant.com/community/hartford/hc-hartford-i-84-viaduct-0730-20150729-story.html

An article from The Hartford Courant about the mess that is The I-84 Viaduct project in Hartford. Yippee! :(
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Rothman on July 30, 2015, 11:31:25 PM
Pfft.  I remember the I-84/I-91 interchange replacement the last big time around (i.e., the one that finally got rid of you having to get onto surface streets between the two...probably between I-84E and I-91N...IIRC...which is questionable).  That was also around the time the separated HOV lane was added to a widened I-91 north of Hartford.

Hartford finally got sick of not being a constant construction site, I suppose.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Pete from Boston on July 31, 2015, 12:08:45 AM

Quote from: Rothman on July 30, 2015, 11:31:25 PM
Pfft.  I remember the I-84/I-91 interchange replacement the last big time around (i.e., the one that finally got rid of you having to get onto surface streets between the two...probably between I-84E and I-91N...IIRC...which is questionable).  That was also around the time the separated HOV lane was added to a widened I-91 north of Hartford.

Hartford finally got sick of not being a constant construction site, I suppose.


Early 90s, I estimate.  All of this was just after the 84/86 upgrade from East Hartford to Vernon, a long and massive project.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Rothman on July 31, 2015, 12:46:32 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on July 31, 2015, 12:08:45 AM

Quote from: Rothman on July 30, 2015, 11:31:25 PM
Pfft.  I remember the I-84/I-91 interchange replacement the last big time around (i.e., the one that finally got rid of you having to get onto surface streets between the two...probably between I-84E and I-91N...IIRC...which is questionable).  That was also around the time the separated HOV lane was added to a widened I-91 north of Hartford.

Hartford finally got sick of not being a constant construction site, I suppose.


Early 90s, I estimate.  All of this was just after the 84/86 upgrade from East Hartford to Vernon, a long and massive project.



Yep, must have been very early '90s.  By the time I graduated from high school, I believe it was done.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on July 31, 2015, 12:55:36 AM
The flyover from I-84/US 6 East (Exit 51) to I-91 North opened in October of 1990. To this day, there's no direct exit from I-91 North to I-84/US 6 East or I-84/US 6 West to I-91 South. The state wants you to use the Charter Oak Bridge/CT Route 15 to make the connection.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on July 31, 2015, 01:09:16 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on July 31, 2015, 12:08:45 AM

Quote from: Rothman on July 30, 2015, 11:31:25 PM
Pfft.  I remember the I-84/I-91 interchange replacement the last big time around (i.e., the one that finally got rid of you having to get onto surface streets between the two...probably between I-84E and I-91N...IIRC...which is questionable).  That was also around the time the separated HOV lane was added to a widened I-91 north of Hartford.

Hartford finally got sick of not being a constant construction site, I suppose.


Early 90s, I estimate.  All of this was just after the 84/86 upgrade from East Hartford to Vernon, a long and massive project.



The 4th-level flyover ramp from I-84 EB to I-91 NB opened on Oct. 11, 1990.

1986 to 1994 was sort of a second golden age of highway construction in CT (the first was the 1960s). In those 8 or 9 years, Connecticut built:
* CT 3 freeway and interchange with CT 2
* CT 3/I-91 interchange
* new Charter Oak Bridge and interchange fixups, both sides
* upgraded I-81/I-91 interchange to free-flowing
* I-84/I-384 interchange
* I-84 widening from Vernon to East Hartford with HOV lanes
* I-91 widening from Mass SL to Hartford
* HOV lanes on I-91 from vic. CT 20 to Hartford
* I-291
* I-691
* CT 9 extension from I-91 to I-84
* US 7 extension
* I-84 widening, Danbury
* New Baldwin Bridge, I-95

For comparison, let's look at freeway work from 1996 through 2004:
* CT 2A widening and new casino interchange
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on July 31, 2015, 01:18:24 AM
Yes indeed on that flyover ramp date! I was first on it back on Saturday, October 13, 1990. That was with an escourted day trip up to Bennington and then over to Brattleboro, VT.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: noelbotevera on July 31, 2015, 01:54:35 AM
It's because Connecticut is broke. CT 11 would be CT's savior, but there's just no money left.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Rothman on July 31, 2015, 08:56:20 AM
Quote from: noelbotevera on July 31, 2015, 01:54:35 AM
It's because Connecticut is broke. CT 11 would be CT's savior, but there's just no money left.

Heh.  I don't think me, my kids, their kids, their kids' kids or their kids' kids' kids will ever see CT 11 completed to I-95.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JakeFromNewEngland on July 31, 2015, 12:39:15 PM
The state right now is focusing more on highway reconstruction projects than building new freeways. It's a shame because there are a lot of uncompleted freeways that could use an extension such as CT 11 or maybe even I-291 but we will probably never see them completed.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: TravelingBethelite on July 31, 2015, 01:55:45 PM
While we're on the topic of highway reconstruction projects in CT, does I-84 in Danbury (exits 3-8) really need FOUR lanes in each direction? :angry: The state is mulling it over now, and I hope I doesn't go any farther. It just doesn't need it. inb4 I-84 is major truck route to New England
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on July 31, 2015, 03:36:09 PM
Quote from: TravelingBethelite on July 31, 2015, 01:55:45 PMWhile we're on the topic of highway reconstruction projects in CT, does I-84 in Danbury (exits 3-8) really need FOUR lanes in each direction? :angry: The state is mulling it over now, and I hope I doesn't go any farther. It just doesn't need it. inb4 I-84 is major truck route to New England
:confused: 
I'm not sure what you're trying to convey here or if you're quoting from an article/web-site; but this stretch of I-84 also carries US 7 on it (which exits south at Exit 3 and north at Exit 7) and is only 6 lanes (3 in both directions) wide throughout except at the interchange ramps (where it does increase to 8 (4 per direction) for a short distance at both ends).

If one travels that stretch at the wrong time of day; it does indeed become a congested bottleneck.  I have personal experience with that one.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JakeFromNewEngland on July 31, 2015, 03:42:23 PM
I definitely agree that I-84 badly needs that widening. Danbury is always a choke point in the summer for people heading west into NY or north to Candlewood Lake. Not to mention, Danbury is essentially one the regional hubs of SW CT. While we're talking about Danbury, the last time I went through there it looked like they were revamping the flyovers at the US 7/US 202 interchange. Does anyone know the progress on this?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: TravelingBethelite on July 31, 2015, 03:46:59 PM
 :banghead: Oops, I didn't consider the traffic, or the fact that it carries 6, 7, AND 202 as well as the 84 designation in that section. Once, heading west, it took us 45 minutes to get from Exit 8 (our entrance point) to the NYS border. In that case, I wholehearedly agree. Kurumi mentioned it on his website.

P.S. Danbury is in SW CT. Torrington's the one for NW CT.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JakeFromNewEngland on July 31, 2015, 03:58:26 PM
Quote from: TravelingBethelite on July 31, 2015, 03:46:59 PM
:banghead: Oops, I didn't consider the traffic, or the fact that it carries 6, 7, AND 202 as well as the 84 designation in that section. Once, heading west, it took us 45 minutes to get from Exit 8 (our entrance point) to the NYS border. In that case, I wholehearedly agree. Kurumi mentioned it on his website.

P.S. Danbury is in SW CT. Torrington's the one for NW CT.

Yes I know that. I was trying to make a point on how it's kind of the "last resort" before heading north into the mountains.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: TravelingBethelite on July 31, 2015, 04:43:52 PM
Ah right, as once you go north beyond NM, there's no major (or even, no) cities along 7. Next comes Kent, and then nothing really until the Mass Pike. :-/
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: iBallasticwolf2 on July 31, 2015, 07:50:39 PM
Quote from: TravelingBethelite on July 31, 2015, 04:43:52 PM
Ah right, as once you go north beyond NM, there's no major (or even, no) cities along 7. Next comes Kent, and then nothing really until the Mass Pike. :-/

I'd say that New Milford, North Canaan and Great Barrington are cities along US 7 with a good amount of services.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Rothman on July 31, 2015, 11:30:11 PM
Calling Great Barrington a city makes me think of:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.quickmeme.com%2Fimg%2F78%2F782a39098bc6501556a37be9ca9684fc7df9b26f68b8af799adf2141145e333a.jpg&hash=aacf990017b81bdf992f53c5f85bb262bbb1c246)
Title: Connecticut News
Post by: Pete from Boston on August 01, 2015, 07:24:46 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 31, 2015, 03:36:09 PM
Quote from: TravelingBethelite on July 31, 2015, 01:55:45 PMWhile we're on the topic of highway reconstruction projects in CT, does I-84 in Danbury (exits 3-8) really need FOUR lanes in each direction? :angry: The state is mulling it over now, and I hope I doesn't go any farther. It just doesn't need it. inb4 I-84 is major truck route to New England
:confused: 
I'm not sure what you're trying to convey here or if you're quoting from an article/web-site; but this stretch of I-84 also carries US 7 on it (which exits south at Exit 3 and north at Exit 7) and is only 6 lanes (3 in both directions) wide throughout except at the interchange ramps (where it does increase to 8 (4 per direction) for a short distance at both ends).

If one travels that stretch at the wrong time of day; it does indeed become a congested bottleneck.  I have personal experience with that one.

84 is also a major "relief route" for traffic between New York and Boston.  Quotation marks because it's a primary route for a lot of folks.  Any major travel weekend (summer, holidays, college in/out) 84 is too close for comfort at best.

The specific issue in Danbury, as noted above, is the cross-traffic from many overlapping travel corridors.  But in the context of 84 west-of-Hartford as a whole, even minor disruptions can choke the current setup.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on August 01, 2015, 12:36:58 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 31, 2015, 03:36:09 PM
Quote from: TravelingBethelite on July 31, 2015, 01:55:45 PMWhile we're on the topic of highway reconstruction projects in CT, does I-84 in Danbury (exits 3-8) really need FOUR lanes in each direction? :angry: The state is mulling it over now, and I hope I doesn't go any farther. It just doesn't need it. inb4 I-84 is major truck route to New England
:confused: 
I'm not sure what you're trying to convey here or if you're quoting from an article/web-site; but this stretch of I-84 also carries US 7 on it (which exits south at Exit 3 and north at Exit 7) and is only 6 lanes (3 in both directions) wide throughout except at the interchange ramps (where it does increase to 8 (4 per direction) for a short distance at both ends).

If one travels that stretch at the wrong time of day; it does indeed become a congested bottleneck.  I have personal experience with that one.

What causes the backups EB anyway are the lane drops at Exit 3 and 7.  If the add in a 4th lane and it still drops to 3 at those locations traffic will still back up.  If they keep the same amount of lanes between the interchanges and move Exit 7 to a right hand exit it will be fine.  That's what I see just by driving through weekly. (although Exit 7 now has an option lane)

But does the DOT have the brains to do it?  And if they do will they actually do it or will they shrink the project down because of costs and land and then we will be paying for the bad decisions for years to come.

WB in theory the backups shouldn't happen at US-7 merges onto I-84 at Exit 7 from the right with their own lane and never have to merge.  However, it's the lane changers that cause the backups and slow things down.

Quote from: kurumi on July 31, 2015, 01:09:16 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on July 31, 2015, 12:08:45 AM

Quote from: Rothman on July 30, 2015, 11:31:25 PM
Pfft.  I remember the I-84/I-91 interchange replacement the last big time around (i.e., the one that finally got rid of you having to get onto surface streets between the two...probably between I-84E and I-91N...IIRC...which is questionable).  That was also around the time the separated HOV lane was added to a widened I-91 north of Hartford.

Hartford finally got sick of not being a constant construction site, I suppose.


Early 90s, I estimate.  All of this was just after the 84/86 upgrade from East Hartford to Vernon, a long and massive project.



The 4th-level flyover ramp from I-84 EB to I-91 NB opened on Oct. 11, 1990.

1986 to 1994 was sort of a second golden age of highway construction in CT (the first was the 1960s). In those 8 or 9 years, Connecticut built:
* CT 3 freeway and interchange with CT 2
* CT 3/I-91 interchange
* new Charter Oak Bridge and interchange fixups, both sides
* upgraded I-81/I-91 interchange to free-flowing
* I-84/I-384 interchange
* I-84 widening from Vernon to East Hartford with HOV lanes
* I-91 widening from Mass SL to Hartford
* HOV lanes on I-91 from vic. CT 20 to Hartford
* I-291
* I-691
* CT 9 extension from I-91 to I-84
* US 7 extension
* I-84 widening, Danbury
* New Baldwin Bridge, I-95

For comparison, let's look at freeway work from 1996 through 2004:
* CT 2A widening and new casino interchange


And yes I-291 was replaced as a SINGLE lane ramp between two interstates.  It couldn't even be 2 lanes.  Typical small scale thinking.



Quote from: kurumi on July 31, 2015, 01:09:16 AM

For comparison, let's look at freeway work from 1996 through 2004:
* CT 2A widening and new casino interchange


If you want to extend that to 2009, you can add in the Brookfield US-7 Extension and CT-72, US-7 Boulevard upgrade. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Pete from Boston on August 01, 2015, 02:52:46 PM
Or to now, the Q and Wheeler Bridges, along with the overall 91/95/34 rebuilding around New Haven.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: TravelingBethelite on August 02, 2015, 03:12:08 AM
And the work on US 6 around Willimantic.....? On that topic has there been any more work on US 6 in that area?   :sombrero:
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JakeFromNewEngland on August 02, 2015, 11:59:52 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on August 01, 2015, 02:52:46 PM
Or to now, the Q and Wheeler Bridges, along with the overall 91/95/34 rebuilding around New Haven.

You can also add in the I-95 Norwalk reconstruction project which should be completed this fall.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on August 02, 2015, 05:45:04 PM
For that matter, wasn't the widening of I-95 in Bridgeport completed prior to 2004?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 02, 2015, 08:53:56 PM
Drove I-395 up to Norwich today, got some shots of the new signs/exit numbers:

https://picasaweb.google.com/108118189767835080687/I395SignReplacementInCT02

A few:

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-TPwlIEBzqrM/Vb6vm8Y8NNI/AAAAAAAAVBE/WjgfimOa7Lo/s720-Ic42/IMG_3233.JPG)

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-LRP0fqq0m-0/Vb6wTHyxKbI/AAAAAAAAVB8/6uLyu-tfk68/s720-Ic42/IMG_3244.JPG)

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-aHnQz4aVT0w/Vb6w8xh7ZOI/AAAAAAAAVDA/qjMmAW_BjBs/s720-Ic42/IMG_3251.JPG)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: TravelingBethelite on August 02, 2015, 09:14:51 PM
They did a pretty good job; they just won't make [any less] sense until I-95 has been fully sequentially renumbered. Did you see any redone gantries?  And do those reassurance markers have no state name?  :-(
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 02, 2015, 10:08:32 PM
No state names on those reassurance shields. 

Didn't notice any changes to gantries... except the ghost supports on bridges, and the one empty/to be removed gantry 1/2 mile before Exit 80.. err.. Exit 11.  I got off at CT 2 so I didn't get a chance to venture beyond there. 

Also didn't notice any mile markers.  I did notice the new mile markers are installed NB on I-91 right up to the state line, but no new markers SB, at least from the state line down to Exit 22S.



Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Pete from Boston on August 02, 2015, 10:08:43 PM
Another bit of the identity of the Connecticut Turnpike disappears...
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on August 02, 2015, 10:20:53 PM
There are other new mile markers heading towards Massachusetts? I saw all new ones northbound from the I-95 junction in New Haven to roughly MM 20, near the I-691/CT 66 Exits in Meriden. That was 2 weeks ago.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 03, 2015, 07:51:15 AM
New mile markers observed NB all the way up to Enfield.   Old faded ones are still in the median.    No new markers seen SB yet, at least from the state line down to Exit 22. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: TravelingBethelite on August 03, 2015, 08:03:29 AM
Are they updating/renumbering the signs on I-91 (north of Hartford) as well?  The updates, they roll on... :spin:
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on August 03, 2015, 08:48:26 AM
It's interestesting that those new BGS' use Series D for single-digit and 3-digit routes containing a 1 but use Series C for 2-digit routes.  IMHO, Series D numerals can be (and have been used) for 2-digit routes without requiring the wider 3-digit shield.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 03, 2015, 09:47:16 AM
Quote from: TravelingBethelite on August 03, 2015, 08:03:29 AM
Are they updating/renumbering the signs on I-91 (north of Hartford) as well?  The updates, they roll on... :spin:

Nope... Just the mile markers and spot replacements around Exits 40-42.   The signs from Exit 44, on up to the state line date back to the late 1980s.  Don't see any future contracts within the next year to start replacing them, or any other section of I-91.  Outside of spot replacements here n' there. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: AMLNet49 on August 03, 2015, 01:50:02 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 03, 2015, 08:48:26 AM
It's interestesting that those new BGS' use Series D for single-digit and 3-digit routes containing a 1 but use Series C for 2-digit routes.  IMHO, Series D numerals can be (and have been used) for 2-digit routes without requiring the wider 3-digit shield.

I believe the wider shield is now the standard for Connecticut for 3 digit routes, not only on BGS's but also for standalone shields.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: DrSmith on August 03, 2015, 10:59:12 PM
There are new mile markers going up on the southbound side.  It's been a process over days of going up the northbound side all the way to the Mass border now moving south from the Mass border. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: TravelingBethelite on August 04, 2015, 07:06:13 AM
Quote from: DrSmith on August 03, 2015, 10:59:12 PM
There are new mile markers going up on the southbound side.  It's been a process over days of going up the northbound side all the way to the Mass border now moving south from the Mass border.

Didn't Massachusetts just finish doing something like this from the CT border to the Mass Pike?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: wytout on August 04, 2015, 07:07:24 AM
I-91 reference markers

NB complete
http://1drv.ms/1OMUf05
SB started... MA mm 0/ CT mm 58
http://1drv.ms/1OMU2Ks

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JimmyI395 on August 04, 2015, 08:40:33 AM
Some more pics of the new signs on I-395. It's interesting how some signs are incomplete. The Montville 1/2 mile sign has just a new exit tab at the moment.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/129630456@N08/20276735272/in/dateposted-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/129630456@N08/20285080965/in/dateposted-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/129630456@N08/20097067760/in/dateposted-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/129630456@N08/20291001981/in/dateposted-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/129630456@N08/19662422504/in/dateposted-public
https://www.flickr.com/photos/129630456@N08/20097068338/in/dateposted-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/129630456@N08/20290995311/in/dateposted-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/129630456@N08/20097062118/in/dateposted-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/129630456@N08/19662412324/in/dateposted-public/
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: amroad17 on August 04, 2015, 09:23:55 PM
Are the I-395 exit numbers milepost-based?  It looks that way to me.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JakeFromNewEngland on August 04, 2015, 09:27:41 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on August 04, 2015, 09:23:55 PM
Are the I-395 exit numbers milepost-based?  It looks that way to me.

Yes they recently converted them to mileage based signs.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: The Ghostbuster on August 05, 2015, 04:52:35 PM
Will Interstate 395 and State Highway 2A be the only Connecticut Highways that will ever have their exits changed to milage based? Would anyone hazard a guess?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JakeFromNewEngland on August 05, 2015, 05:27:33 PM
I'm pretty sure the state is proposing to change I-95 to mileage based but I'm not exactly sure.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 05, 2015, 06:24:03 PM
The whole state is going to mile-based exits.  The only problem is it's going to take some ridiculous amount of time to complete... one article said 10-15+ years.  Now how a small state like CT would take that long to convert is beyond me, when FL, CA, and other states only took a couple years.  Unless they're waiting for sign replacement projects to be complete.  If that's the case, then yes, I can see it taking that long.

Since there are projects being put out to bid within the next year to replace CT 8 signage, I'd guess that would be next to going mile-based.  As far as I-95, future projects will replace signs from Branford, east.  I would think that exits west of New Haven wouldn't be renumbered, since they're pretty close to the existing mileage as is. 

No projects in sight to replace signs on CT 2, CT 9, or I-91 (the 3 main routes with the largest concentration of old signage).  These 3 routes may be the last to see mile-based exits.  Some signage on these 3 dates back to the late 1980s.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on August 05, 2015, 06:42:01 PM
Why go through all of the trouble putting up the new mile marker signs if they're just going to replace them in a few years? By the way, it looked like all the mile markers from the state line south to about the Hartford/Windsor city line have been replaced, with the new 1/5 mile markers added in between. I'm fairly certain that the older center median mile markers for MM 40 in Hartford and MM 58 in Enfield at the state line were still in place. It also looked like they've done some paving along I-91 south.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 05, 2015, 08:27:43 PM
My guess is that I-91 will be one of the last roads in the state to get new signage, so that's why there's a separate contract to replace the mile markers now... or reference markers as IIRC they're technically known as.  It very well may be a requirement now to have visible readable mile markers and perhaps there's a deadline, so maybe that's why this is happening now.  It is quite possible these markers now being installed will remain up through a future sign replacement project. 

Recent sign replacement projects on I-84 in the Danbury area and I-95 in SW New Haven County have the new mile markers, and I'm assuming I-395 will as well.  I-95 in Fairfield County did receive new markers when signs were replaced though they are more of the older variety - "MILE 31" vs "NORTH [95 shield] MILE 31". 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Pete from Boston on August 05, 2015, 08:27:52 PM

Quote from: KEVIN_224 on August 05, 2015, 06:42:01 PM
Why go through all of the trouble putting up the new mile marker signs if they're just going to replace them in a few years? By the way, it looked like all the mile markers from the state line south to about the Hartford/Windsor city line have been replaced, with the new 1/5 mile markers added in between. I'm fairly certain that the older center median mile markers for MM 40 in Hartford and MM 58 in Enfield at the state line were still in place. It also looked like they've done some paving along I-91 south.

My guess is that a contract that has been written and let over a lengthy process is "impossible" to just stop and change out for something else, because government.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on August 05, 2015, 09:40:41 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on August 05, 2015, 06:24:03 PM
I would think that exits west of New Haven wouldn't be renumbered, since they're pretty close to the existing mileage as is. 
Some of those exits are as much as four miles off.  Should the people there have to put up with having no way to predict how far they are from their exit just because the numbers "catch up" later?  I don't get why some people are so intimidated by letters.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 05, 2015, 09:54:55 PM
Its not the letters that's intimidating I think.... it's a subtle change of an exit number by 1 or 2 which could lead to confusion.  I can see the signs now.... "EXIT 1... FORMER EXIT 2".... "EXIT 2... FORMER EXIT 3".... and so on.  Since the signs were just replaced within the past few years, it doesn't make sense to change them. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: cl94 on August 05, 2015, 09:58:18 PM
Quote from: vdeane on August 05, 2015, 09:40:41 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on August 05, 2015, 06:24:03 PM
I would think that exits west of New Haven wouldn't be renumbered, since they're pretty close to the existing mileage as is. 
Some of those exits are as much as four miles off.  Should the people there have to put up with having no way to predict how far they are from their exit just because the numbers "catch up" later?  I don't get why some people are so intimidated by letters.

Most places get along just fine with letters. Ever live somewhere with mileage-based exits? Once you use them, it's hard to go back to sequential.

Quote from: shadyjay on August 05, 2015, 09:54:55 PM
Its not the letters that's intimidating I think.... it's a subtle change of an exit number by 1 or 2 which could lead to confusion.  I can see the signs now.... "EXIT 1... FORMER EXIT 2".... "EXIT 2... FORMER EXIT 3".... and so on.  Since the signs were just replaced within the past few years, it doesn't make sense to change them. 

PA has signs like that on some of its 3DIs. Not much confusion. And in most places, just the exit tabs were replaced (or patched, in many cases). There are still quite a few signs out there with the "new" exit number patched on and the transition was 15 years ago.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: TravelingBethelite on August 05, 2015, 10:23:22 PM
Quote from: cl94 on August 05, 2015, 09:58:18 PM
Quote from: vdeane on August 05, 2015, 09:40:41 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on August 05, 2015, 06:24:03 PM
I would think that exits west of New Haven wouldn't be renumbered, since they're pretty close to the existing mileage as is. 
Some of those exits are as much as four miles off.  Should the people there have to put up with having no way to predict how far they are from their exit just because the numbers "catch up" later?  I don't get why some people are so intimidated by letters.

Most places get along just fine with letters. Ever live somewhere with mileage-based exits? Once you use them, it's hard to go back to sequential.

Quote from: shadyjay on August 05, 2015, 09:54:55 PM
Its not the letters that's intimidating I think.... it's a subtle change of an exit number by 1 or 2 which could lead to confusion.  I can see the signs now.... "EXIT 1... FORMER EXIT 2".... "EXIT 2... FORMER EXIT 3".... and so on.  Since the signs were just replaced within the past few years, it doesn't make sense to change them. 

PA has signs like that on some of its 3DIs. Not much confusion. And in most places, just the exit tabs were replaced (or patched, in many cases). There are still quite a few signs out there with the "new" exit number patched on and the transition was 15 years ago.

Has any state/highway gone from sequential--->mileage-based--->sequential exits before? The Mid-South/Midwest seem to come to mind...
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: mariethefoxy on August 06, 2015, 02:19:05 AM
its wierd seeing those new signs in CT with the exit tabs that have the white border. Im used to that unique Connecticut quirk where the exit tabs didnt have a white border.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on August 06, 2015, 12:57:20 PM
Quote from: mariethefoxy on August 06, 2015, 02:19:05 AM
its wierd seeing those new signs in CT with the exit tabs that have the white border. Im used to that unique Connecticut quirk where the exit tabs didnt have a white border.
Such has existed in CT for a few years now.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: TravelingBethelite on August 06, 2015, 02:13:36 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 06, 2015, 12:57:20 PM
Quote from: mariethefoxy on August 06, 2015, 02:19:05 AM
its wierd seeing those new signs in CT with the exit tabs that have the white border. Im used to that unique Connecticut quirk where the exit tabs didnt have a white border.
Such has existed in CT for a few years now.

Man, I feel so stupid ( :banghead: ) not knowing what you're talking about while living in CT. At least, I don't quite recall white-exit-tabs in the Danbury area recently. What areas have the kind of tabs you're talking about?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: machias on August 06, 2015, 02:29:18 PM
Quote from: TravelingBethelite on August 05, 2015, 10:23:22 PM
Quote from: cl94 on August 05, 2015, 09:58:18 PM
Quote from: vdeane on August 05, 2015, 09:40:41 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on August 05, 2015, 06:24:03 PM
I would think that exits west of New Haven wouldn't be renumbered, since they're pretty close to the existing mileage as is. 
Some of those exits are as much as four miles off.  Should the people there have to put up with having no way to predict how far they are from their exit just because the numbers "catch up" later?  I don't get why some people are so intimidated by letters.

Most places get along just fine with letters. Ever live somewhere with mileage-based exits? Once you use them, it's hard to go back to sequential.

Quote from: shadyjay on August 05, 2015, 09:54:55 PM
Its not the letters that's intimidating I think.... it's a subtle change of an exit number by 1 or 2 which could lead to confusion.  I can see the signs now.... "EXIT 1... FORMER EXIT 2".... "EXIT 2... FORMER EXIT 3".... and so on.  Since the signs were just replaced within the past few years, it doesn't make sense to change them. 

PA has signs like that on some of its 3DIs. Not much confusion. And in most places, just the exit tabs were replaced (or patched, in many cases). There are still quite a few signs out there with the "new" exit number patched on and the transition was 15 years ago.

Has any state/highway gone from sequential--->mileage-based--->sequential exits before? The Mid-South/Midwest seem to come to mind...

I think I-79 in PA did that, nope it did the reverse - mileage, sequential, mileage. I remember the original button copy signs around Erie having the shadow of "EXIT 180" with a "41" slapped over it. This was in the mid to late 1980s. When PA switched to distance based numbers, it went to Exit 180 again.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JakeFromNewEngland on August 06, 2015, 02:44:24 PM
Quote from: TravelingBethelite on August 06, 2015, 02:13:36 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 06, 2015, 12:57:20 PM
Quote from: mariethefoxy on August 06, 2015, 02:19:05 AM
its wierd seeing those new signs in CT with the exit tabs that have the white border. Im used to that unique Connecticut quirk where the exit tabs didnt have a white border.
Such has existed in CT for a few years now.

Man, I feel so stupid ( :banghead: ) not knowing what you're talking about while living in CT. At least, I don't quite recall white-exit-tabs in the Danbury area recently. What areas have the kind of tabs you're talking about?

I think he's referring to the exit tabs that didn't have borders like this one:

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.120913,-73.32702,3a,15y,302.03h,93.93t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sa-QC0atTafYtAyFZD7hzjQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on August 06, 2015, 04:59:28 PM
Quote from: TravelingBethelite on August 06, 2015, 02:13:36 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 06, 2015, 12:57:20 PM
Quote from: mariethefoxy on August 06, 2015, 02:19:05 AM
its wierd seeing those new signs in CT with the exit tabs that have the white border. Im used to that unique Connecticut quirk where the exit tabs didnt have a white border.
Such has existed in CT for a few years now.

Man, I feel so stupid ( :banghead: ) not knowing what you're talking about while living in CT. At least, I don't quite recall white-exit-tabs in the Danbury area recently. What areas have the kind of tabs you're talking about?
This one (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.416967,-73.428699,3a,75y,80.61h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swqqFfBqSYnPP_1MvjL2djg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1) in Danbury along I-84 has existed for a few years; note the new MUTCD standard for signing Left Lane exits.

A recent example of a more conventional right exit (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.414794,-73.415294,3a,75y,301.82h,81.41t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shBHXGPupYekrH3bEUh3w9A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1) along I-84 in Danbury.

Quote from: JakeFromNewEngland on August 06, 2015, 02:44:24 PMI think he's referring to the exit tabs that didn't have borders like this one:

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.120913,-73.32702,3a,15y,302.03h,93.93t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sa-QC0atTafYtAyFZD7hzjQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
That's an example of what ConnDOT used to do.  My earlier post (reposted above in this reply) was in reference to ConnDOT has already adopted using exit tabs with white borders years before the new BGS' now being erected along I-395.

In short, the new I-395 BGS' aren't the only signs in CT sporting white-bordered exit tabs.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 06, 2015, 05:16:30 PM
Quote from: TravelingBethelite on August 05, 2015, 10:23:22 PM
Has any state/highway gone from sequential--->mileage-based--->sequential exits before? The Mid-South/Midwest seem to come to mind...

Yes, but they went mile-based -> sequential -> mile based.  In NYC, I-95 exits on the Cross Bronx Expy were roughly mile-based, then some signs at either end were replaced and sequential exit numbers were used.  Then the signs at the east end had their exit numbers changed back to the original mile-based numbers, while those on the west end (the section in Manhattan) were not changed.  So to this day, NB (EB) exits go 1-2-3-2A-etc.  Heading SB (WB), the signs were more recently replaced and there's fewer Manhattan exits, so there are no dual numbers in that direction.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on August 06, 2015, 06:17:23 PM
The AUX LANES on I-95 by US-7 are now open.  But the new BGS signs still aren't.  I'm still not convinced this will solve the problem, maybe take the edge off congestion at times.  The problem is people still try to weave when the lane first starts causing the slow down.

Where I-95 really opens up (although briefly...very briefly) between exits 10-8 and the 4th lane SB I see a difference but once that lane ends at exit 8 it backs up again.  A 4th lane throughout lower Fairfield County would be the only solution.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: noelbotevera on August 06, 2015, 08:07:29 PM
I've been on all of I-95 in CT back in 2009, and saw the TERRIBLE traffic. Jeez. I-95's lane set up could be this:

10-12 lanes between NY State Line and Housatonic River
12 lanes between Housatonic River and I-91
10 lanes between I-91 and CT 77
8 lanes between CT 77 and CT 9
6 lanes between CT 9 and CT 85
10 lanes between CT 85 and Clarence B Sharp Highway (CT 349)
4 lanes between CT 349 and RI State Line


Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: TravelingBethelite on August 06, 2015, 08:37:13 PM
It's gotten worse. We have relatives in Milford and our route is US 7 > I-95 North. It was Wednesday at about 10 AM and and it was backed up the entire way. We left at about 9:30 AM and still didn't get there until 2 PM.   :ded:
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JakeFromNewEngland on August 06, 2015, 08:48:01 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 06, 2015, 04:59:28 PM
Quote from: TravelingBethelite on August 06, 2015, 02:13:36 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 06, 2015, 12:57:20 PM
Quote from: mariethefoxy on August 06, 2015, 02:19:05 AM
its wierd seeing those new signs in CT with the exit tabs that have the white border. Im used to that unique Connecticut quirk where the exit tabs didnt have a white border.
Such has existed in CT for a few years now.

Man, I feel so stupid ( :banghead: ) not knowing what you're talking about while living in CT. At least, I don't quite recall white-exit-tabs in the Danbury area recently. What areas have the kind of tabs you're talking about?
This one (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.416967,-73.428699,3a,75y,80.61h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swqqFfBqSYnPP_1MvjL2djg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1) in Danbury along I-84 has existed for a few years; note the new MUTCD standard for signing Left Lane exits.

A recent example of a more conventional right exit (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.414794,-73.415294,3a,75y,301.82h,81.41t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shBHXGPupYekrH3bEUh3w9A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1) along I-84 in Danbury.

Quote from: JakeFromNewEngland on August 06, 2015, 02:44:24 PMI think he's referring to the exit tabs that didn't have borders like this one:

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.120913,-73.32702,3a,15y,302.03h,93.93t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sa-QC0atTafYtAyFZD7hzjQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
That's an example of what ConnDOT used to do.  My earlier post (reposted above in this reply) was in reference to ConnDOT has already adopted using exit tabs with white borders years before the new BGS' now being erected along I-395.

In short, the new I-395 BGS' aren't the only signs in CT sporting white-bordered exit tabs.

Oops, I misunderstood that.   :pan:
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JakeFromNewEngland on August 06, 2015, 08:49:44 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on August 06, 2015, 08:07:29 PM
I've been on all of I-95 in CT back in 2009, and saw the TERRIBLE traffic. Jeez. I-95's lane set up could be this:

10-12 lanes between NY State Line and Housatonic River
12 lanes between Housatonic River and I-91
10 lanes between I-91 and CT 77
8 lanes between CT 77 and CT 9
6 lanes between CT 9 and CT 85
10 lanes between CT 85 and Clarence B Sharp Highway (CT 349)
4 lanes between CT 349 and RI State Line

The problem with that is that SW CT is too densely populated/filled with NIMBYs. They could POSSIBLY widen I-95 to 8 lanes, but 10 or 12? Never. Plus, it's really only SW CT that has all the bad traffic. East of New Haven would probably be fine at 6 lanes with auxiliary lanes in between.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 06, 2015, 09:34:45 PM
There's really no easy solution with I-95 in Fairfield County.  Sure, another lane could (in theory) be added, but after the millions of $$$$ spent (at a minimum) and a decade of construction, that 4th lane would be full and we'd be right back to square one.  The operational lanes I think are helping a bit, but the problem at rush hour is too much traffic entering the roadway.  Could closing some off ramps be a solution?  I like to think it would. 

East of New Haven definitely needs an upgrade.  Among the worst "east of New Haven" sections is from the Baldwin Bridge out to I-395.  Add another lane and that would help tremendously.

Speaking of the east end, last weekend I drove through the latest "safety improvement project" taking place between Exits 70 and 72 in Old Lyme.  Looks like this project is being constructed with similar results as the project a couple years ago from Exits 72 to 82A.  Sure, the median barrier is being replaced with a standard jersey barrier, but they're still not doing it the right way... the new barrier is not centered and the median area isn't being paved.  I don't understand why the new barrier isn't centered and the entire median area paved, like how it was done west of Old Saybrook, all the way to the NY line (except in east Norwalk).   
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: TravelingBethelite on August 06, 2015, 09:49:33 PM
Quote from: JakeFromNewEngland on August 06, 2015, 08:49:44 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on August 06, 2015, 08:07:29 PM
I've been on all of I-95 in CT back in 2009, and saw the TERRIBLE traffic. Jeez. I-95's lane set up could be this:

10-12 lanes between NY State Line and Housatonic River
12 lanes between Housatonic River and I-91
10 lanes between I-91 and CT 77
8 lanes between CT 77 and CT 9
6 lanes between CT 9 and CT 85
10 lanes between CT 85 and Clarence B Sharp Highway (CT 349)
4 lanes between CT 349 and RI State Line

The problem with that is that SW CT is too densely populated/filled with NIMBYs. They could POSSIBLY widen I-95 to 8 lanes, but 10 or 12? Never. Plus, it's really only SW CT that has all the bad traffic. East of New Haven would probably be fine at 6 lanes with auxiliary lanes in between.

Between Guilford and the RI state border, I-95 and the Boston Post Road (aka US 1) have got it handled. Anyway, the state just finished a huge project on the bridge that carries 95 and the Northeast Corridor and wouldn't want to rip up what they just finished. Yes, I-95 needs more lanes in Fairfield County, but it's not happening. NIMBYism is worse on the Fairfield County shoreline than Trenton/Princeton pre-95/doomed Somerset Freeway.  It'll just end like  :fight:
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on August 07, 2015, 12:10:03 AM
Quote from: TravelingBethelite on August 06, 2015, 08:37:13 PM
We have relatives in Milford and our route is US 7 > I-95 North.

Out of curiosity, why? If you need to get from Danbury to Milford it is faster to take I-84 to CT 25.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: ctsignguy on August 08, 2015, 06:14:46 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on August 06, 2015, 09:34:45 PM
There's really no easy solution with I-95 in Fairfield County.  Sure, another lane could (in theory) be added, but after the millions of $$$$ spent (at a minimum) and a decade of construction, that 4th lane would be full and we'd be right back to square one.  The operational lanes I think are helping a bit, but the problem at rush hour is too much traffic entering the roadway.  Could closing some off ramps be a solution?  I like to think it would. 

That idea is probably a non-starter...you have local politicians who would fight to the death to preserve their town/district's 'Exits on the Turnpike...."
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Pete from Boston on August 09, 2015, 11:58:57 AM

Quote from: ctsignguy on August 08, 2015, 06:14:46 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on August 06, 2015, 09:34:45 PM
There's really no easy solution with I-95 in Fairfield County.  Sure, another lane could (in theory) be added, but after the millions of $$$$ spent (at a minimum) and a decade of construction, that 4th lane would be full and we'd be right back to square one.  The operational lanes I think are helping a bit, but the problem at rush hour is too much traffic entering the roadway.  Could closing some off ramps be a solution?  I like to think it would. 

That idea is probably a non-starter...you have local politicians who would fight to the death to preserve their town/district's 'Exits on the Turnpike...."

As long as those same politicians don't simultaneously rail on that no one's fixing the congestion on the Turnpike...
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on August 09, 2015, 08:21:15 PM
Quote from: JakeFromNewEngland on August 06, 2015, 08:49:44 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on August 06, 2015, 08:07:29 PM
I've been on all of I-95 in CT back in 2009, and saw the TERRIBLE traffic. Jeez. I-95's lane set up could be this:

10-12 lanes between NY State Line and Housatonic River
12 lanes between Housatonic River and I-91
10 lanes between I-91 and CT 77
8 lanes between CT 77 and CT 9
6 lanes between CT 9 and CT 85
10 lanes between CT 85 and Clarence B Sharp Highway (CT 349)
4 lanes between CT 349 and RI State Line

The problem with that is that SW CT is too densely populated/filled with NIMBYs. They could POSSIBLY widen I-95 to 8 lanes, but 10 or 12? Never. Plus, it's really only SW CT that has all the bad traffic. East of New Haven would probably be fine at 6 lanes with auxiliary lanes in between.
Forget the NIMBY aspect - the right of way acquisition is cost prohibitive. Never mind all the bridges that would have to be replaced. The state has already done the estimate for widening I-95 and it was in the billions and that doesn't even count the legal battles that would be waged by the NIMBYs. Also closing exits as someone else suggested isn't going to work. The state proposed that about a decade ago (exit 4 in Greenwich was one of the exits that would close from 4-7 PM) and everyone complained, so that idea was DOA. Even if you could close exits, where does one propose all that traffic go? The last thing the Post Rd needs is more cars or traffic lights. If people don't like sitting in traffic, they are just going to have to learn to like the train because the state will never be able to afford fixing I-95 the way it needs to be fixed.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Pete from Boston on August 09, 2015, 08:39:34 PM
If people don't like sitting in traffic they need to leave Metro NY.  This is the reality of a 20-million-plus mass of population.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Zeffy on August 10, 2015, 06:12:32 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on August 09, 2015, 08:39:34 PM
If people don't like sitting in traffic they need to leave Metro NY.  This is the reality of a 20-million-plus mass of population.

It's just New York either - Los Angeles and Chicago (among others) have bad traffic problems as well. New York has viable mass transit options, but for some places you have to be willing to sit in traffic if you want to live in a major metro area.

Quote from: ctsignguy on August 08, 2015, 06:14:46 PM
That idea is probably a non-starter...you have local politicians who would fight to the death to preserve their town/district's 'Exits on the Turnpike...."

I thought New Jersey was the only state where people cared enough what exit their town was off the Turnpike.  :sombrero:
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 12, 2015, 08:45:47 PM
Well now we know a little about what ConnDOT is thinking about doing to the I-91/I-691/CT 15 interchange in Meriden:

http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?A=1373&Q=569386


QuoteReconfiguring the travel lanes and ramps between I-91 and Route 15 northbound
Guess this would mean something to eliminate the lane drop at the Rt 15 NB onramp. 

QuoteAdding a new lane to I-91 and a second southbound off-ramp lane from I-91 to Route 15 southbound
Yup, I think this would solve a lot of the problem right there.

QuoteEliminating the southbound I-91 "weave"  of vehicle lane changes to Route 15 southbound
QuoteCombining the entrances to I-91 southbound from I-691 and Route 15
I think these two are directly connected.  If the I-691 WB exit to I-91 SB is eliminated, it would eliminate the "weave" required on I-91 to get to Rt 15 SB while traffic from I-691 WB is trying to continue on I-91 SB.

QuoteAdding a new lane to I-91 northbound between Exits 15 and 20
IMHO, widening I-91 for a stretch like this isn't necessary.  Perhaps maybe something simplier like operational lanes between Exits 15 & 16, or just extending the onramp from I-691/CT 66 further (so it crosses over Baldwin Ave at the Exit 19 merge), or something like that.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on August 14, 2015, 07:04:43 PM
Quote from: TravelingBethelite on August 06, 2015, 09:49:33 PM
Quote from: JakeFromNewEngland on August 06, 2015, 08:49:44 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on August 06, 2015, 08:07:29 PM
I've been on all of I-95 in CT back in 2009, and saw the TERRIBLE traffic. Jeez. I-95's lane set up could be this:

10-12 lanes between NY State Line and Housatonic River
12 lanes between Housatonic River and I-91
10 lanes between I-91 and CT 77
8 lanes between CT 77 and CT 9
6 lanes between CT 9 and CT 85
10 lanes between CT 85 and Clarence B Sharp Highway (CT 349)
4 lanes between CT 349 and RI State Line

The problem with that is that SW CT is too densely populated/filled with NIMBYs. They could POSSIBLY widen I-95 to 8 lanes, but 10 or 12? Never. Plus, it's really only SW CT that has all the bad traffic. East of New Haven would probably be fine at 6 lanes with auxiliary lanes in between.

Between Guilford and the RI state border, I-95 and the Boston Post Road (aka US 1) have got it handled. Anyway, the state just finished a huge project on the bridge that carries 95 and the Northeast Corridor and wouldn't want to rip up what they just finished. Yes, I-95 needs more lanes in Fairfield County, but it's not happening. NIMBYism is worse on the Fairfield County shoreline than Trenton/Princeton pre-95/doomed Somerset Freeway.  It'll just end like  :fight:
I-95 needs to be a minimum of 3 lanes from Branford to the RI line which is the state plan that was supposed to be complete by 2025 but I'm guessing that has slipped big time. 2 lanes isn't cutting it, and no one is hopping onto the two lane Post Rd as an alternative, not if they're sane anyway. In the summer traffic is terrible through those little beach towns and having a lot of traffic destined for the casinos, RI beaches, and the Cape exacerbates things. It's not uncommon to have traffic suck as it usually does from exit 4 through 48, then have it stop and go after that until about the exit 62 area only to come to a dead stop again at exit 70 as Route 9 traffic merges on and tries to get out of the exit only lane over the Baldwin Bridge while 95 itself is narrowing from 4 to 2 lanes. They should do something with the 9 SB to 95 NB ramp since traffic for that ramp is always backed up several miles in the summer, but options there are really limited and presents another reason why Route 11 should be completed to 95 so there's some other direct way to 95 from the Hartford area besides 9.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on August 14, 2015, 07:09:16 PM
Quote from: mariethefoxy on August 06, 2015, 02:19:05 AM
its wierd seeing those new signs in CT with the exit tabs that have the white border. Im used to that unique Connecticut quirk where the exit tabs didnt have a white border.
Connecticut sign crowns went from centered no border to right aligned no border to right aligned with border all in the course of a few years. I think it had to do with the requirement of borders on the exit tabs beginning in 2012 or thereabout. The right alignment was a requirement from earlier, so in the late 2000s you had some sign replacement projects replacing signs and right aligning the exit tabs with no border (these are all over SW CT on I-95), and then new signs put up a year or two later had the border and right alignment. We have a mix of both on I-95 now as various sign replacement projects overlapped.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on August 15, 2015, 12:42:05 PM
Now that the aux lane from US-7 to Exit 14 on I-95 SB is open, the backup is mostly gone but not it backs up at the Exit 13 on-ramp which never really backed up unless there was major major traffic.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: doogie1303 on August 15, 2015, 02:20:48 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on August 14, 2015, 07:04:43 PM
Quote from: TravelingBethelite on August 06, 2015, 09:49:33 PM
Quote from: JakeFromNewEngland on August 06, 2015, 08:49:44 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on August 06, 2015, 08:07:29 PM
I've been on all of I-95 in CT back in 2009, and saw the TERRIBLE traffic. Jeez. I-95's lane set up could be this:

10-12 lanes between NY State Line and Housatonic River
12 lanes between Housatonic River and I-91
10 lanes between I-91 and CT 77
8 lanes between CT 77 and CT 9
6 lanes between CT 9 and CT 85
10 lanes between CT 85 and Clarence B Sharp Highway (CT 349)
4 lanes between CT 349 and RI State Line

The problem with that is that SW CT is too densely populated/filled with NIMBYs. They could POSSIBLY widen I-95 to 8 lanes, but 10 or 12? Never. Plus, it's really only SW CT that has all the bad traffic. East of New Haven would probably be fine at 6 lanes with auxiliary lanes in between.

Between Guilford and the RI state border, I-95 and the Boston Post Road (aka US 1) have got it handled. Anyway, the state just finished a huge project on the bridge that carries 95 and the Northeast Corridor and wouldn't want to rip up what they just finished. Yes, I-95 needs more lanes in Fairfield County, but it's not happening. NIMBYism is worse on the Fairfield County shoreline than Trenton/Princeton pre-95/doomed Somerset Freeway.  It'll just end like  :fight:
I-95 needs to be a minimum of 3 lanes from Branford to the RI line which is the state plan that was supposed to be complete by 2025 but I'm guessing that has slipped big time. 2 lanes isn't cutting it, and no one is hopping onto the two lane Post Rd as an alternative, not if they're sane anyway. In the summer traffic is terrible through those little beach towns and having a lot of traffic destined for the casinos, RI beaches, and the Cape exacerbates things. It's not uncommon to have traffic suck as it usually does from exit 4 through 48, then have it stop and go after that until about the exit 62 area only to come to a dead stop again at exit 70 as Route 9 traffic merges on and tries to get out of the exit only lane over the Baldwin Bridge while 95 itself is narrowing from 4 to 2 lanes. They should do something with the 9 SB to 95 NB ramp since traffic for that ramp is always backed up several miles in the summer, but options there are really limited and presents another reason why Route 11 should be completed to 95 so there's some other direct way to 95 from the Hartford area besides 9.

East of New Haven to the I-395 split, I-95 is still the original "Connecticut Turnpike", except for the Baldwin Bridge which was replaced in 1994. The only work that has been done on the road has been merely cosmetic, no major improvements to lane layout. Its a narrow 4-lane highway with on-off ramps not built for today's highways speeds.

They should have widened the road when they replaced the median with a Jersey Barrier back in the late 1990s, but you can thank Gov. Rowland for that, he was opposed to widening the highway.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on August 16, 2015, 11:56:58 PM
Quote from: doogie1303 on August 15, 2015, 02:20:48 PM
East of New Haven to the I-395 split, I-95 is still the original "Connecticut Turnpike", except for the Baldwin Bridge which was replaced in 1994. The only work that has been done on the road has been merely cosmetic, no major improvements to lane layout. Its a narrow 4-lane highway with on-off ramps not built for today's highways speeds.

They should have widened the road when they replaced the median with a Jersey Barrier back in the late 1990s, but you can thank Gov. Rowland for that, he was opposed to widening the highway.

Eh, the politicians are a product of their environment. Rowland was opposed to widening it as were all the NIMBYs, which Connecticut has lots and lots of.

Connecticut's problem is a major lack of perspective combined with aversion to change and general complacency. Your average Connecticutter does not drive often if ever in parts of the country where the roads don't suck, so in a Stockholm syndrome sort of way they don't realize how bad things really are. They just accept it as normal. And widening roads, rather than being welcomed as a way of improving travel, is instead seen as an invitation for people's lifestyles to be ruined by increasing density. There seems to be a mindset of "if you don't build it, they won't come".

Connecticut also in the past 25 years or so has gone from being a state that was generally well rounded and had its shit together to a state that despite ever increasing taxes finds its budget increasingly unstable and can't find money to pay for anything, which of course also has very significant implications for the state's ability to improve infrastructure. Especially when gas tax revenues keep getting raided to plug holes in the general budget.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: lowerdeck on August 17, 2015, 02:03:44 PM
I often go from Plainfield northward on I-395, and only within the last week have the new exit numbers started being installed.  So far I seen signs (at the exit itself) for 28/87, 32/89, 35/90, 37/91, and 38/92 (NB only) - hidden behind the existing signage.  No BGS have been installed north of the Plainfield/Griswold line, and some of the metal posts still have not been put in yet. 

Nearly all of them are ground posted, even ones that were above the roadway before.  The one exception is SB in Putnam, where they installed a new overhead - presumably for an Exit Only lane for 45/95 (Kennedy Drive).

I rarely venture south of Plainfield (on 395), so I hadn't realized the new signs were already up Norwich and southward.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 17, 2015, 02:37:40 PM
According to the contract plans, some overheads are staying but the majority are being moved to the ground.  Former Exits 84-85 and 91 will retain overhead signage on existing supports.  Exits 90 and 98 (that left exit to Rt 12) are going ground.  Not to mention the majority of bridge-mounted signs are going to the ground. 

Also there are two contracts at work here.... one from East Lyme to Plainfield (including 2A and Mohegan Connector), while the other from Plainfield to Thompson (including 695). 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JimmyI395 on August 17, 2015, 08:58:46 PM
Quote from: lowerdeck on August 17, 2015, 02:03:44 PM
I often go from Plainfield northward on I-395, and only within the last week have the new exit numbers started being installed.  So far I seen signs (at the exit itself) for 28/87, 32/89, 35/90, 37/91, and 38/92 (NB only) - hidden behind the existing signage.  No BGS have been installed north of the Plainfield/Griswold line, and some of the metal posts still have not been put in yet. 

Nearly all of them are ground posted, even ones that were above the roadway before.  The one exception is SB in Putnam, where they installed a new overhead - presumably for an Exit Only lane for 45/95 (Kennedy Drive).

I rarely venture south of Plainfield (on 395), so I hadn't realized the new signs were already up Norwich and southward.



One thing I notice on this project was that they are reusing some of the old supports. I figure they were going to put all new. Right now they are up to RT12 in Lisbon for the new signs. I need to get some more pictures for you guys. :D
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on August 17, 2015, 09:00:06 PM
Get rid of the tacky mid 1980s gantries.  I-95 between Bridgeport and New Haven have a ton
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: doogie1303 on August 18, 2015, 05:05:03 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on August 17, 2015, 09:00:06 PM
Get rid of the tacky mid 1980s gantries.  I-95 between Bridgeport and New Haven have a ton

What ... you don't like the box girder yellow (or light green) elbow gantries?  :)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: TravelingBethelite on August 18, 2015, 06:50:34 PM
Quote from: doogie1303 on August 18, 2015, 05:05:03 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on August 17, 2015, 09:00:06 PM
Get rid of the tacky mid 1980s gantries.  I-95 between Bridgeport and New Haven have a ton

What ... you don't like the box girder yellow (or light green) elbow gantries?  :)

Are you kidding? They kick ass.  And they're button copy, to boot!  :)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 18, 2015, 10:57:30 PM
You want those gantries en'masse?  Head to I-91 from Hartford, north.  The yellow ones live there, installed in the late 1980s/early 1990s and most still hold their original button copy signage.  Those between Bridgeport and New Haven are a mix of gantries... no yellow ones, maybe some older green ones.  And 98% of those west of New Haven aren't button copy anymore.

Mass. sign projects as of recent years are replacing ALL gantries and moving all primary signs to overhead.  CT sign projects are going the other way.. moving more and more signs to the ground and only replacing spot gantries here n' there. 

BTW, a contract for this year's random sign replacement project gets released tomorrow.  Wonder what we'll see.  Still waiting to see last year's contract be fulfilled, at least as far as the I-91 Windsor Locks signs go. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on August 20, 2015, 04:53:48 PM
New signing contract out today.  Good signs

However I'm not a fan of turning the right most lane on I-84 EB in Newtown between Exits 10-11 into a long AUX lane, where the 3rd lane exits at Exit 11 gore rather than going a few 1000 feet past it like it currently does.

http://www.biznet.ct.gov/scp_search/BidDetail.aspx?CID=36938
Here's a map of the lane ending:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Wasserman+Way,+Newtown,+CT+06470/@41.4136372,-73.2718655,401m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x89e7fb52c6ee5bd1:0x509b57596441a11c
:confused:
As a cash strapped DOT, they just put up new signs for Exit 11 EB in the beginning of 2014 in this area when the last signing contract came through and even painted new "lane ending" arrows, which probably cost a lot, now they're spending money to redo the signs. Money could've been spent elsewhere to add a turning lane or another sign that badly needs. it.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on August 21, 2015, 11:49:39 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on August 20, 2015, 04:53:48 PM
New signing contract out today.  Good signs
...
http://www.biznet.ct.gov/scp_search/BidDetail.aspx?CID=36938

Skip to page 222 of the Project Specifications link for the sign images.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on August 21, 2015, 12:00:41 PM
Quote from: kurumi on August 21, 2015, 11:49:39 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on August 20, 2015, 04:53:48 PM
New signing contract out today.  Good signs
...
http://www.biznet.ct.gov/scp_search/BidDetail.aspx?CID=36938

Skip to page 222 of the Project Specifications link for the sign images.
So ConnDOT's pretty much going Series C for all its non-Interstate route shields on BGS'.  Previous BGS', including recent installations, have all been Series D for CT route shields (including 3-digit routes).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: noelbotevera on August 21, 2015, 03:55:39 PM
Quote from: doogie1303 on August 15, 2015, 02:20:48 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on August 14, 2015, 07:04:43 PM
Quote from: TravelingBethelite on August 06, 2015, 09:49:33 PM
Quote from: JakeFromNewEngland on August 06, 2015, 08:49:44 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on August 06, 2015, 08:07:29 PM
I've been on all of I-95 in CT back in 2009, and saw the TERRIBLE traffic. Jeez. I-95's lane set up could be this:

10-12 lanes between NY State Line and Housatonic River
12 lanes between Housatonic River and I-91
10 lanes between I-91 and CT 77
8 lanes between CT 77 and CT 9
6 lanes between CT 9 and CT 85
10 lanes between CT 85 and Clarence B Sharp Highway (CT 349)
4 lanes between CT 349 and RI State Line

The problem with that is that SW CT is too densely populated/filled with NIMBYs. They could POSSIBLY widen I-95 to 8 lanes, but 10 or 12? Never. Plus, it's really only SW CT that has all the bad traffic. East of New Haven would probably be fine at 6 lanes with auxiliary lanes in between.

Between Guilford and the RI state border, I-95 and the Boston Post Road (aka US 1) have got it handled. Anyway, the state just finished a huge project on the bridge that carries 95 and the Northeast Corridor and wouldn't want to rip up what they just finished. Yes, I-95 needs more lanes in Fairfield County, but it's not happening. NIMBYism is worse on the Fairfield County shoreline than Trenton/Princeton pre-95/doomed Somerset Freeway.  It'll just end like  :fight:
I-95 needs to be a minimum of 3 lanes from Branford to the RI line which is the state plan that was supposed to be complete by 2025 but I'm guessing that has slipped big time. 2 lanes isn't cutting it, and no one is hopping onto the two lane Post Rd as an alternative, not if they're sane anyway. In the summer traffic is terrible through those little beach towns and having a lot of traffic destined for the casinos, RI beaches, and the Cape exacerbates things. It's not uncommon to have traffic suck as it usually does from exit 4 through 48, then have it stop and go after that until about the exit 62 area only to come to a dead stop again at exit 70 as Route 9 traffic merges on and tries to get out of the exit only lane over the Baldwin Bridge while 95 itself is narrowing from 4 to 2 lanes. They should do something with the 9 SB to 95 NB ramp since traffic for that ramp is always backed up several miles in the summer, but options there are really limited and presents another reason why Route 11 should be completed to 95 so there's some other direct way to 95 from the Hartford area besides 9.

East of New Haven to the I-395 split, I-95 is still the original "Connecticut Turnpike", except for the Baldwin Bridge which was replaced in 1994. The only work that has been done on the road has been merely cosmetic, no major improvements to lane layout. Its a narrow 4-lane highway with on-off ramps not built for today's highways speeds.

They should have widened the road when they replaced the median with a Jersey Barrier back in the late 1990s, but you can thank Gov. Rowland for that, he was opposed to widening the highway.
It's almost been a week since I touched on this, but I have a solution to I-95 in Fairfield County. Demolish I-95 south of I-91, and US 1 too. they destroy US 7 to make FF County beg and cough up the money. It's the only way to make it work.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on August 21, 2015, 09:41:14 PM
I found it odd that ConnDOT is starting to install those 1/5 mile markers along the CT Fastrak route. So far they're mostly between the Kane Street and Newington Junction stations. Mile 0 will be the New Britain end.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JakeFromNewEngland on August 24, 2015, 02:51:29 PM
http://www.milfordmirror.com/48585/2-groups-meet-tuesday-to-protest-i-95-exit-33-changes/

This whole project seems to be going a lot slower than anticipated. The bridge I think was supposed to be open by this year, but now they're saying next summer. Now people are complaining about the new exit reconstruction..
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on August 24, 2015, 03:09:48 PM
Quote from: JakeFromNewEngland on August 24, 2015, 02:51:29 PM
http://www.milfordmirror.com/48585/2-groups-meet-tuesday-to-protest-i-95-exit-33-changes/

This whole project seems to be going a lot slower than anticipated. The bridge I think was supposed to be open by this year, but now they're saying next summer. Now people are complaining about the new exit reconstruction..

Here's a more detailed article about people's different views:
http://www.milfordmirror.com/24974/group-says-i-95-exit-33-changes-would-hurt-milford-businesses/

Basically, everyone wants what's best for them and not the region as a whole.

Speaking of special interests:
I saw this piece about the Merritt Parkway
http://www.theday.com/article/20150820/NWS05/150829934
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on August 25, 2015, 12:33:01 AM
It is interesting how the Merritt Parkway was built, 80 years ago, with provision for it eventually to be doubled in width. A provision which to this day remains unused because everyone is so attached to the road in its current state. But the argument that it can't be touched due to its historical significance falls flat on account of the existence of this provision.

Note that the Hearst Tower in Manhattan was allowed to be built within the façade of an existing historic structure in large part because said structure was originally designed with the idea in mind that it might someday be expanded into a taller tower. It therefore was determined that doing so was in line with the building's history rather than in violation of it. By the same logic, expanding the Merritt Parkway would not constitute violation of its historic nature since it was from the beginning meant to be expanded. Alas, the desires of a real estate firm to expand a building most people had never heard of are weighted differently than the desires of a state DOT to expand a beloved road.

Practically speaking, if aesthetics were not a particular concern, widening the Merritt would be a great idea... at least north of exit 34. South of exit 34 traffic counts are low enough that the road generally operates just fine as four lanes, even during rush hour. Greenwich isn't too densely populated and people who commute to the city usually take Metro-North. The rush hour congestion in Fairfield County is largely from intra-Connecticut commuting.


Title: Connecticut News
Post by: Pete from Boston on August 25, 2015, 01:11:11 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on August 25, 2015, 12:33:01 AM
It is interesting how the Merritt Parkway was built, 80 years ago, with provision for it eventually to be doubled in width. A provision which to this day remains unused because everyone is so attached to the road in its current state. But the argument that it can't be touched due to its historical significance falls flat on account of the existence of this provision.

Note that the Hearst Tower in Manhattan was allowed to be built within the façade of an existing historic structure in large part because said structure was originally designed with the idea in mind that it might someday be expanded into a taller tower. It therefore was determined that doing so was in line with the building's history rather than in violation of it. By the same logic, expanding the Merritt Parkway would not constitute violation of its historic nature since it was from the beginning meant to be expanded. Alas, the desires of a real estate firm to expand a building most people had never heard of are weighted differently than the desires of a state DOT to expand a beloved road.

Carrying out a possibility left open is not preserving the what's there now, though.  Ideas don't get landmark status the way an actual physical item does.

There's of course a lot of precedent for salvaging a building by converting it into something greatly different from what it was; whether or not this is indeed historic "preservation" is fodder for some debate.  We have a beloved diner here that's now a gutted shell mounted to the front of a plain old restaurant.  I don't consider the diner preserved, more "remembered."

This isn't to say that preservation is what matters, just that it's what's been decided, and that diverting to an ancient plan doesn't equal honoring history.  I'm not even a purist when it comes to these things–may I burn in hell for saying anything good about the Red Sox, but they have done a tremendous job in extensively modifying Fenway Park to keep a historic commercial venue viable, while my beloved New York Yankees made a terrible blunder not doing so with their historic home.  I'm not sure if or how Fenway's recent landmark status affects further efforts in this regard, but they don't seem to have slowed.

However, doubling the size of Fenway however creatively would not be preservation at all, in my opinion.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: southshore720 on August 27, 2015, 12:14:03 AM
As a former Milford resident, I always found it annoying to have to drive on US 1 in Devon to get to Stratford.  I would've appreciated the convenience of a SB Exit 33.  And the "businesses" there aren't anything to write home about...especially the Kmart.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: TravelingBethelite on August 27, 2015, 11:01:14 AM
Hi all. Reporting in from the free wi-fi @ Bradley International. A couple things to report: New sinage on I-91 looks nice. Gonna miss the button copy though.  :-( Pavement from Exit 17 to the mixmaster on I-84 is getting regrooved. There's major construction, appearing to be highway-related, around Exits 25-25A also on I-84. That's all for now.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on August 27, 2015, 11:23:17 AM
(Not Connecticut "News", but I can't locate the existing "old photos" thread to reanimate)

I took another look at the Brookfield photo here: http://florencegriswoldmuseum.org/exhibitions/online/the-exacting-eye-of-walker-evans/

Check out the partially erased "182" on the Danbury sign:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FeWx5cp0.png&hash=1fd17a2cefbaf09282add152ff912f7dd91bc520)

State Highway 182 was the old (pre-1932) name for CT 133. This may have been a signing convention statewide at the time. I'd like to find more examples.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: noelbotevera on August 27, 2015, 05:01:47 PM
Quote from: kurumi on August 27, 2015, 11:23:17 AM
(Not Connecticut "News", but I can't locate the existing "old photos" thread to reanimate)

I took another look at the Brookfield photo here: http://florencegriswoldmuseum.org/exhibitions/online/the-exacting-eye-of-walker-evans/

Check out the partially erased "182" on the Danbury sign:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FeWx5cp0.png&hash=1fd17a2cefbaf09282add152ff912f7dd91bc520)

State Highway 182 was the old (pre-1932) name for CT 133. This may have been a signing convention statewide at the time. I'd like to find more examples.
What route went right towards Kent?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on August 27, 2015, 11:15:21 PM
The highway to Kent (via New Milford) would have been SH 156: today's CT 25, between US 6 in Newtown and US 7 in Brookfield. I can't see any traces on the sign, though.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: mariethefoxy on August 28, 2015, 03:34:46 AM
Quote from: TravelingBethelite on August 27, 2015, 11:01:14 AM
Hi all. Reporting in from the free wi-fi @ Bradley International. A couple things to report: New sinage on I-91 looks nice. Gonna miss the button copy though.  :-( Pavement from Exit 17 to the mixmaster on I-84 is getting regrooved. There's major construction, appearing to be highway-related, around Exits 25-25A also on I-84. That's all for now.

when did they replace the signs? When I was up that way in March it was one of the few places in CT still left with a decent run of the old signs. Do they still have the white, fading HOV Lane signs?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: TravelingBethelite on August 28, 2015, 06:38:44 AM
Quote from: mariethefoxy on August 28, 2015, 03:34:46 AM
Quote from: TravelingBethelite on August 27, 2015, 11:01:14 AM
Hi all. Reporting in from the free wi-fi @ Bradley International. A couple things to report: New signage on I-91 looks nice. Gonna miss the button copy though.  :-( Pavement from Exit 17 to the mixmaster on I-84 is getting regrooved. There's major construction, appearing to be highway-related, around Exits 25-25A also on I-84. That's all for now.

when did they replace the signs? When I was up that way in March it was one of the few places in CT still left with a decent run of the old signs. Do they still have the white, fading HOV Lane signs?
I'm fairly sure they do, but there were two things affeccting my judgement on that: (1) It was day, so no reflection, and (2), they signs are white, which are more difficult to see a reflection on period, let alone the day.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: wytout on August 28, 2015, 03:50:07 PM
Quote from: TravelingBethelite on August 27, 2015, 11:01:14 AM
Hi all. Reporting in from the free wi-fi @ Bradley International. A couple things to report: New sinage on I-91 looks nice. Gonna miss the button copy though.  :-( Pavement from Exit 17 to the mixmaster on I-84 is getting regrooved. There's major construction, appearing to be highway-related, around Exits 25-25A also on I-84. That's all for now.

The only new signage I've seen on i91 besides spot replacement is the reference markers. There has been no large scale sign replacement in I 91 in  CT. Hartford, north is still exclusively button copy.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on August 28, 2015, 09:20:26 PM
It all still looked like button copy on I-91 south today from the Massachusetts state line to Exit 32A for I-84/US 6 West in Hartford. A couple of the light pole-mounted mile markers are still present.

A couple more of the 2/10 mile markers were up on the CT Fastrak route today towards downtown New Britain. It said "MILE 9" almost immediately after getting on the road from the beginning at Asylum Street. I saw couple passing through the cemetery between the Cedar Street (Newington) and East Main Street (New Britain) stations. The font on the "MILE 0.2" marker under the Harry Truman Overpass in New Britain looked odd.

EDIT: Here is the "MILE 0.2" sign in question...weird font and all!  :spin:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fsr9LvIp.jpg&hash=1980c507e3d8d6162aa5198f710d4abdd9d62a81)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on September 02, 2015, 04:57:47 PM
Contract plans to replace signage on CT 8 from Thomaston to the end of the expressway in Winsted are now online.  I thought the project was originally listed to start in Waterbury, but apparently it will start just south of Exit 38 in Thomaston.  Some items of note:

*  NB signs that were replaced at Exit 38 back in the 2000s will be modified slightly:  exit crowns will be moved to the right. 
*  Most overhead assemblies will be replaced.  This does not include the "spot" replacements done in the past couple years.
*  The northern terminus gets its own exit signs, along with a blank exit tab
*  Yellow diamond signs denoting "speed limit ahead" will be placed near the northern terminus.  About time, CT!!!!!
*  First case of the "service bar" on an overhead assembly I've seen... often the service symbols are ground-mounted.
*  Square "state route" shield shown for US 202 in the plans.  I'm guessing that'll be modified to the proper US shield.
*  New mile markers are part of the project.

I'm not sure why service bars are now a green background, like the rest of the signs.  Seems to make more sense for them to be on a blue background (like I-95 from Exits 60-81).  I-395's signs have the green extending through the service bar, though the symbols are shown in blue.

Present signage in this area is (mostly) button copy, installed at some point in the late 1980s I believe.  The signs NB for Exit 38 were most likely original to CT 8's construction until they were replaced in the 2000s.  They used to have oversized route markers and button copy.  When they were replaced (as part of a project that began at I-84 and ended at Exit 38), all exit tabs were still centered.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on September 02, 2015, 05:20:11 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on September 02, 2015, 04:57:47 PM
Contract plans to replace signage on CT 8 from Thomaston to the end of the expressway in Winsted are now online.  I thought the project was originally listed to start in Waterbury, but apparently it will start just south of Exit 38 in Thomaston.  Some items of note:

*  NB signs that were replaced at Exit 38 back in the 2000s will be modified slightly:  exit crowns will be moved to the right. 
*  Most overhead assemblies will be replaced.  This does not include the "spot" replacements done in the past couple years.
*  The northern terminus gets its own exit signs, along with a blank exit tab
*  Yellow diamond signs denoting "speed limit ahead" will be placed near the northern terminus.  About time, CT!!!!!
*  First case of the "service bar" on an overhead assembly I've seen... often the service symbols are ground-mounted.
*  Square "state route" shield shown for US 202 in the plans.  I'm guessing that'll be modified to the proper US shield.
*  New mile markers are part of the project.

I'm not sure why service bars are now a green background, like the rest of the signs.  Seems to make more sense for them to be on a blue background (like I-95 from Exits 60-81).  I-395's signs have the green extending through the service bar, though the symbols are shown in blue.

Present signage in this area is (mostly) button copy, installed at some point in the late 1980s I believe.  The signs NB for Exit 38 were most likely original to CT 8's construction until they were replaced in the 2000s.  They used to have oversized route markers and button copy.  When they were replaced (as part of a project that began at I-84 and ended at Exit 38), all exit tabs were still centered.

I just wonder why they decided to do this part before the more heavily traveled sections south of Waterbury?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on September 02, 2015, 08:00:48 PM
Its funny, there's been so many spot improvement sign replacement projects on the section south of Waterbury, by the time they get around to doing the Shelton-Waterbury stretch, only half the signs will need to be replaced! 

Originally, there were three CT 8 sign contracts for the next year:  September 2015 would cover Waterbury-Winsted, and two in 2016 would cover Shelton-Waterbury and I-95 to Shelton.  Now I'm seeing just this contract (shortened to start at Thomaston).  But what's back on the table for 2016 (bid opening) is I-84 from Southington to Hartford and I-95 from Groton to RI.  We'll see what gets added as time goes on.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on September 03, 2015, 12:36:22 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on September 02, 2015, 04:57:47 PM
Contract plans to replace signage on CT 8 from Thomaston to the end of the expressway in Winsted are now online.  I thought the project was originally listed to start in Waterbury, but apparently it will start just south of Exit 38 in Thomaston.  Some items of note:

*  NB signs that were replaced at Exit 38 back in the 2000s will be modified slightly:  exit crowns will be moved to the right. 
*  Most overhead assemblies will be replaced.  This does not include the "spot" replacements done in the past couple years.
*  The northern terminus gets its own exit signs, along with a blank exit tab
*  Yellow diamond signs denoting "speed limit ahead" will be placed near the northern terminus.  About time, CT!!!!!
*  First case of the "service bar" on an overhead assembly I've seen... often the service symbols are ground-mounted.
*  Square "state route" shield shown for US 202 in the plans.  I'm guessing that'll be modified to the proper US shield.
*  New mile markers are part of the project.

I'm not sure why service bars are now a green background, like the rest of the signs.  Seems to make more sense for them to be on a blue background (like I-95 from Exits 60-81).  I-395's signs have the green extending through the service bar, though the symbols are shown in blue.

Present signage in this area is (mostly) button copy, installed at some point in the late 1980s I believe.  The signs NB for Exit 38 were most likely original to CT 8's construction until they were replaced in the 2000s.  They used to have oversized route markers and button copy.  When they were replaced (as part of a project that began at I-84 and ended at Exit 38), all exit tabs were still centered.
Are they not using this opportunity to put in mile-based exits? They're going to the top of the route so it's a very easy place to start.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on September 04, 2015, 12:56:52 AM
According to the plans (http://www.biznet.ct.gov/SCP_Documents/Bids/37173/174-381_Portfolio_Plans.pdf) (see 8th document in portfolio), no, they are not. The new signs are all keeping the existing exit numbers.

Looks like this part of route 8 will be getting mile markers, though. So that's an improvement.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on September 04, 2015, 07:56:40 AM
Probably will wait until the rest of CT 8 gets its signs replaced before switching to mile-based exits.  I-395 had the benefit of the entire route in the state getting new signs at once.  This contract only covers the rural northern third.  Contracts to replace signs to the south haven't even been shown in the "upcoming contracts" page, and that goes out a year.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: mariethefoxy on September 04, 2015, 12:31:53 PM
all they'd have to do at that point is just manufacture a little patch to patch over the exit tab thats there onto the new signs.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Rothman on September 04, 2015, 12:44:55 PM
Quote from: mariethefoxy on September 04, 2015, 12:31:53 PM
all they'd have to do at that point is just manufacture a little patch to patch over the exit tab thats there onto the new signs.

And yet, it's even this small cost that gets brought up by officials in NY time and time again when mileage-based exit numbers are proposed.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: mariethefoxy on September 04, 2015, 01:17:09 PM
Quote from: Rothman on September 04, 2015, 12:44:55 PM
Quote from: mariethefoxy on September 04, 2015, 12:31:53 PM
all they'd have to do at that point is just manufacture a little patch to patch over the exit tab thats there onto the new signs.

And yet, it's even this small cost that gets brought up by officials in NY time and time again when mileage-based exit numbers are proposed.

New York is probably going to be one of the last states to switch over.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Rothman on September 04, 2015, 01:29:50 PM
Quote from: mariethefoxy on September 04, 2015, 01:17:09 PM
Quote from: Rothman on September 04, 2015, 12:44:55 PM
Quote from: mariethefoxy on September 04, 2015, 12:31:53 PM
all they'd have to do at that point is just manufacture a little patch to patch over the exit tab thats there onto the new signs.

And yet, it's even this small cost that gets brought up by officials in NY time and time again when mileage-based exit numbers are proposed.

New York is probably going to be one of the last states to switch over.

No ****.   :banghead:
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: cl94 on September 04, 2015, 02:31:46 PM
Quote from: Rothman on September 04, 2015, 01:29:50 PM
Quote from: mariethefoxy on September 04, 2015, 01:17:09 PM
Quote from: Rothman on September 04, 2015, 12:44:55 PM
Quote from: mariethefoxy on September 04, 2015, 12:31:53 PM
all they'd have to do at that point is just manufacture a little patch to patch over the exit tab thats there onto the new signs.

And yet, it's even this small cost that gets brought up by officials in NY time and time again when mileage-based exit numbers are proposed.

New York is probably going to be one of the last states to switch over.

No ****.   :banghead:

X-( :banghead: :ded:
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on September 04, 2015, 03:06:53 PM
Quote from: cl94 on September 04, 2015, 02:31:46 PM
Quote from: Rothman on September 04, 2015, 01:29:50 PM
Quote from: mariethefoxy on September 04, 2015, 01:17:09 PM
Quote from: Rothman on September 04, 2015, 12:44:55 PM
Quote from: mariethefoxy on September 04, 2015, 12:31:53 PM
all they'd have to do at that point is just manufacture a little patch to patch over the exit tab thats there onto the new signs.

And yet, it's even this small cost that gets brought up by officials in NY time and time again when mileage-based exit numbers are proposed.

New York is probably going to be one of the last states to switch over.

No ****.   :banghead:

X-( :banghead: :ded:

They did that stretch of US 15 that became a piece of I-99
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on September 04, 2015, 07:34:21 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on September 04, 2015, 03:06:53 PM
They did that stretch of US 15 that became a piece of I-99
I believe that was because it was being upgraded.  I-781 has mileage-based numbers as well.  Basically, new routes get mileage-based numbers, but there's no current plans to convert existing numbers as far as I know.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on September 04, 2015, 09:27:19 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on September 04, 2015, 07:56:40 AM
Probably will wait until the rest of CT 8 gets its signs replaced before switching to mile-based exits.  I-395 had the benefit of the entire route in the state getting new signs at once.  This contract only covers the rural northern third.  Contracts to replace signs to the south haven't even been shown in the "upcoming contracts" page, and that goes out a year.

Also bear in mind it's a different ConnDOT office. Maybe district 4 is just less enthusiastic about changing exit numbers than district 2.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Rothman on September 04, 2015, 10:44:28 PM
Quote from: vdeane on September 04, 2015, 07:34:21 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on September 04, 2015, 03:06:53 PM
They did that stretch of US 15 that became a piece of I-99
I believe that was because it was being upgraded.  I-781 has mileage-based numbers as well.  Basically, new routes get mileage-based numbers, but there's no current plans to convert existing numbers as far as I know.

There is not.  I believe some announcement was made that we were going to make the switch, but nothing has happened to actually implement it...

...and I doubt I'll see a switch-over in my lifetime...

...unless I become Commish. :D
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: cl94 on September 05, 2015, 01:15:37 PM
Quote from: Rothman on September 04, 2015, 10:44:28 PM
Quote from: vdeane on September 04, 2015, 07:34:21 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on September 04, 2015, 03:06:53 PM
They did that stretch of US 15 that became a piece of I-99
I believe that was because it was being upgraded.  I-781 has mileage-based numbers as well.  Basically, new routes get mileage-based numbers, but there's no current plans to convert existing numbers as far as I know.

There is not.  I believe some announcement was made that we were going to make the switch, but nothing has happened to actually implement it...

...and I doubt I'll see a switch-over in my lifetime...

...unless I become Commish. :D

There's a bill that passed the state senate earlier this year to change New York over, but I don't know what happened to it.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: noelbotevera on September 05, 2015, 01:25:52 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on September 02, 2015, 04:57:47 PM
Contract plans to replace signage on CT 8 from Thomaston to the end of the expressway in Winsted are now online.  I thought the project was originally listed to start in Waterbury, but apparently it will start just south of Exit 38 in Thomaston.  Some items of note:

*  NB signs that were replaced at Exit 38 back in the 2000s will be modified slightly:  exit crowns will be moved to the right. 
*  Most overhead assemblies will be replaced.  This does not include the "spot" replacements done in the past couple years.
*  The northern terminus gets its own exit signs, along with a blank exit tab
*  Yellow diamond signs denoting "speed limit ahead" will be placed near the northern terminus.  About time, CT!!!!!
*  First case of the "service bar" on an overhead assembly I've seen... often the service symbols are ground-mounted.
*  Square "state route" shield shown for US 202 in the plans.  I'm guessing that'll be modified to the proper US shield.
*  New mile markers are part of the project.

I'm not sure why service bars are now a green background, like the rest of the signs.  Seems to make more sense for them to be on a blue background (like I-95 from Exits 60-81).  I-395's signs have the green extending through the service bar, though the symbols are shown in blue.

Present signage in this area is (mostly) button copy, installed at some point in the late 1980s I believe.  The signs NB for Exit 38 were most likely original to CT 8's construction until they were replaced in the 2000s.  They used to have oversized route markers and button copy.  When they were replaced (as part of a project that began at I-84 and ended at Exit 38), all exit tabs were still centered.
You know what, just redo all of CT 8 altogether. If any opposition hits the plan, ignore it, then bulldoze all of the opposition's town. Put whatever you want on  CT 8, we don't care. We just want it redone. Now we apply this to I-95 in all of CT.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: TravelingBethelite on September 05, 2015, 01:40:01 PM
The thing is, the state is getting a significant proportion of their tax dollars from the area closest to I-95. Evicting them would likely make them move outside of Connecticut. Less taxpayers = less money = less road construction and maintenence. Us denizens of Connecticut are appreciative that they're resigning CT 8. Although it'd be nice to redo I-95, we can't have everything. Towns = people live there, anyway. I'm sure there's national laws here in the U.S. about bulldozing citizens' homes unless it has eminent domain, and there's a limit to that. You can't do that to entire towns. And don't forget the enviromental impacts and what the enviromentalists will have to say about that.   :ded:

Quote from: yanksfan6129 on September 04, 2015, 10:49:01 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on September 03, 2015, 05:45:01 PM
Do it like the Cypress Viaduct in Oakland. When it collapses, put it on a new alignment, a new structure, and a new government. Just not give a crap and give any citizens or building a second thought. Just rebuild it all.

Yeah fuck democracy!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on September 05, 2015, 01:56:51 PM
Quote from: cl94 on September 05, 2015, 01:15:37 PM
Quote from: Rothman on September 04, 2015, 10:44:28 PM
Quote from: vdeane on September 04, 2015, 07:34:21 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on September 04, 2015, 03:06:53 PM
They did that stretch of US 15 that became a piece of I-99
I believe that was because it was being upgraded.  I-781 has mileage-based numbers as well.  Basically, new routes get mileage-based numbers, but there's no current plans to convert existing numbers as far as I know.

There is not.  I believe some announcement was made that we were going to make the switch, but nothing has happened to actually implement it...

...and I doubt I'll see a switch-over in my lifetime...

...unless I become Commish. :D

There's a bill that passed the state senate earlier this year to change New York over, but I don't know what happened to it.
It probably died in assembly like it does every year.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: noelbotevera on September 05, 2015, 01:57:35 PM
Quote from: TravelingBethelite on September 05, 2015, 01:40:01 PM
The thing is, the state is getting a significant proportion of their tax dollars from the area closest to I-95. Evicting them would likely make them move outside of Connecticut. Less taxpayers = less money = less road construction and maintenence. Us denizens of Connecticut are appreciative that they're resigning CT 8. Although it'd be nice to redo I-95, we can't have everything. Towns = people live there, anyway. I'm sure there's national laws here in the U.S. about bulldozing citizens' homes unless it has eminent domain, and there's a limit to that. You can't do that to entire towns. And don't forget the enviromental impacts and what the enviromentalists will have to say about that.   :ded:

Quote from: yanksfan6129 on September 04, 2015, 10:49:01 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on September 03, 2015, 05:45:01 PM
Do it like the Cypress Viaduct in Oakland. When it collapses, put it on a new alignment, a new structure, and a new government. Just not give a crap and give any citizens or building a second thought. Just rebuild it all.

Yeah fuck democracy!
Screw the environmentalists too. Tell everyone who complains to shut up or be arrested and serve life in prison.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: TravelingBethelite on September 05, 2015, 02:04:45 PM
Arrested for what? Obstructing the construction of a highway is not a capital offense. It's simple democracy. If the overwhelming opinion is that a highway should not be built, then it's not gonna happen. See I-695 Massachusetts, I-70 and 83 to I-95 in Baltimore, and the Embarcadero Freeway plan in San Fransisco.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JakeFromNewEngland on September 05, 2015, 02:40:40 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on September 05, 2015, 01:57:35 PM
Quote from: TravelingBethelite on September 05, 2015, 01:40:01 PM
The thing is, the state is getting a significant proportion of their tax dollars from the area closest to I-95. Evicting them would likely make them move outside of Connecticut. Less taxpayers = less money = less road construction and maintenence. Us denizens of Connecticut are appreciative that they're resigning CT 8. Although it'd be nice to redo I-95, we can't have everything. Towns = people live there, anyway. I'm sure there's national laws here in the U.S. about bulldozing citizens' homes unless it has eminent domain, and there's a limit to that. You can't do that to entire towns. And don't forget the enviromental impacts and what the enviromentalists will have to say about that.   :ded:

Quote from: yanksfan6129 on September 04, 2015, 10:49:01 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on September 03, 2015, 05:45:01 PM
Do it like the Cypress Viaduct in Oakland. When it collapses, put it on a new alignment, a new structure, and a new government. Just not give a crap and give any citizens or building a second thought. Just rebuild it all.

Yeah fuck democracy!
Screw the environmentalists too. Tell everyone who complains to shut up or be arrested and serve life in prison.


I hope you do realize how stupid you sound. Bulldozing entire towns isn't gonna solve any problems at all. That's how it is in Connecticut, it's a densely populated state.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Pete from Boston on September 05, 2015, 03:09:51 PM
Back to meaningful discussion, one cost factor that rarely gets mentioned in the beaten-to-death "Why the Connecticut Turnpike will never be widened southeast of New Haven" topic is that as a coastal route, it's littered with bridges over wide estuaries.  As we've seen recently over the Quinnipiac and Housatonic, replacing these bridges is an enormous, slow undertaking. The same would end up being repeated in Bridgeport, Greenwich, Norwalk, and elsewhere.  An easier nut to crack for sure than popular opposition, but a serious issue just the same.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on September 05, 2015, 03:40:02 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 05, 2015, 03:09:51 PM
Back to meaningful discussion, one cost factor that rarely gets mentioned in the beaten-to-death "Why the Connecticut Turnpike will never be widened southeast of New Haven" topic is that as a coastal route, it's littered with bridges over wide estuaries.

And as a highway through a densely populated area which was well developed before its construction, it's littered with a lot of overpasses and underpasses in general. Which don't have the same environmental impact problems as bridges over estuaries but do drive the cost of widening the road up all the same.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: TravelingBethelite on September 05, 2015, 03:52:09 PM
I agree. If it were 5-10 more miles inland, it might be a whole different story. You'd have to bridge more rivers but few or no estuaries.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JakeFromNewEngland on September 05, 2015, 04:05:13 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 05, 2015, 03:09:51 PM
Back to meaningful discussion, one cost factor that rarely gets mentioned in the beaten-to-death "Why the Connecticut Turnpike will never be widened southeast of New Haven" topic is that as a coastal route, it's littered with bridges over wide estuaries.  As we've seen recently over the Quinnipiac and Housatonic, replacing these bridges is an enormous, slow undertaking. The same would end up being repeated in Bridgeport, Greenwich, Norwalk, and elsewhere.  An easier nut to crack for sure than popular opposition, but a serious issue just the same.

As much as I'd love to see a better I-95 in SW CT, it won't happen and for those issues. The original CT Turnpike was built with probably 1960s-1970s estimated traffic counts and back then they just built the routes where they were easiest to build. ConnDOT recently has been doing spot improvements (Bridgeport widening and reconstruction, mega New Haven project, Norwalk and Stamford widenings), if they keep up with doing small things like these it'll probably help for now.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Pete from Boston on September 05, 2015, 11:35:47 PM

Quote from: Duke87 on September 05, 2015, 03:40:02 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 05, 2015, 03:09:51 PM
Back to meaningful discussion, one cost factor that rarely gets mentioned in the beaten-to-death "Why the Connecticut Turnpike will never be widened southeast of New Haven" topic is that as a coastal route, it's littered with bridges over wide estuaries.

And as a highway through a densely populated area which was well developed before its construction, it's littered with a lot of overpasses and underpasses in general. Which don't have the same environmental impact problems as bridges over estuaries but do drive the cost of widening the road up all the same.

Right.  It was my intent to say that my point was in addition to the density/disapproval issues that are the usual constant reasons cited for the project's unfeasibility.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on September 07, 2015, 08:06:25 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 05, 2015, 11:35:47 PM

Quote from: Duke87 on September 05, 2015, 03:40:02 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 05, 2015, 03:09:51 PM
Back to meaningful discussion, one cost factor that rarely gets mentioned in the beaten-to-death "Why the Connecticut Turnpike will never be widened southeast of New Haven" topic is that as a coastal route, it's littered with bridges over wide estuaries.

And as a highway through a densely populated area which was well developed before its construction, it's littered with a lot of overpasses and underpasses in general. Which don't have the same environmental impact problems as bridges over estuaries but do drive the cost of widening the road up all the same.

Right.  It was my intent to say that my point was in addition to the density/disapproval issues that are the usual constant reasons cited for the project's unfeasibility.
You would have to widen each one as you replace it over many years.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: doogie1303 on September 07, 2015, 05:40:37 PM
Quote from: Alps on September 07, 2015, 08:06:25 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 05, 2015, 11:35:47 PM

Quote from: Duke87 on September 05, 2015, 03:40:02 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 05, 2015, 03:09:51 PM
Back to meaningful discussion, one cost factor that rarely gets mentioned in the beaten-to-death "Why the Connecticut Turnpike will never be widened southeast of New Haven" topic is that as a coastal route, it's littered with bridges over wide estuaries.

And as a highway through a densely populated area which was well developed before its construction, it's littered with a lot of overpasses and underpasses in general. Which don't have the same environmental impact problems as bridges over estuaries but do drive the cost of widening the road up all the same.

Right.  It was my intent to say that my point was in addition to the density/disapproval issues that are the usual constant reasons cited for the project's unfeasibility.
You would have to widen each one as you replace it over many years.

I'll agree that the costs to widen large bridges is one factor that makes a highway cost prohibitive from being upgraded, but I'll ask this, how many "major" bodies of water (like sizable rivers) does I-95 cross between New Haven and New London? The only large bridge I can think of is the Baldwin Bridge over the Connecticut River, but that was already upgraded in 1994. The Q in New Haven has been done, so whats the other large crossings? The smaller bridges and overpasses (which are numerous) between New Haven and New London will need addressing, but should not be as costly as the Q or the Baldwin and can be upgraded or replaced over a number of years. I've already seen several crossings that have already been widened (mainly between exit 76 and 82) when the bridges were replaced, so someone's thinking ahead.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on September 07, 2015, 10:28:20 PM
ConnDOT thinking ahead?  I don't think so!  Several bridges are being replaced in Old Lyme/East Lyme area (Society Rd at Exit 73 and Flat Rock Road 1 mile west of Exit 71 come to mind).  Abutments for the bridges are pretty much being placed in the same location as the existing spans.  Maybe farther back a little but not nearly enough for another lane in each direction.  So when the time comes to widen this stretch, they will all need to be modified again.  Not too bright.  The Maine Turnpike, on the other hand, has been replacing bridges north of the 3-lane section and are setting piers/abutments back far enough to accommodate another lane in each direction for a project that is still years off.  That's thinking ahead. 

The main problem you have east of New Haven to I-395 is the numerous tidal estuaries that I-95 passes through.  The East River at the Madison/Guilford line and the Leuitenant River in Old Lyme between the Exit 70s come to mind.  That's gonna be more environmentally challenging than replacing overpasses.  No way I-95 would have been able to be built today along its present alignment.   
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on September 08, 2015, 07:41:34 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on September 07, 2015, 10:28:20 PM
ConnDOT thinking ahead?  I don't think so!  Several bridges are being replaced in Old Lyme/East Lyme area (Society Rd at Exit 73 and Flat Rock Road 1 mile west of Exit 71 come to mind).  Abutments for the bridges are pretty much being placed in the same location as the existing spans.  Maybe farther back a little but not nearly enough for another lane in each direction.  So when the time comes to widen this stretch, they will all need to be modified again.  Not too bright.

While I don't know that it's the case with I-95, there have been projects in the past where public comment forced/"forced" ConnDOT to not take such forward-thinking measures specifically because NIMBYs didn't want it to be any easier to add lanes.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on September 08, 2015, 07:43:36 AM
Courant article yesterday on I-84 plans: http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-hartford-i-84-viaduct-0908-20150908-story.html

No firm news; just a public floating of the idea of closing down I-84 in Hartford to expedite replacing the Aetna Viaduct with a surface-level freeway.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: TravelingBethelite on September 08, 2015, 08:30:32 AM
The article is behind a paywall. On asides, though, I like the idea of a slightly-raised surface freeway in Hartford. The Aetna Viaduct has never been visually appealing.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Rothman on September 08, 2015, 08:55:00 AM
So, close down one of the most heavily traveled sections of interstate in the state?  In other states with viaduct replacement issues (e.g., I-81 Syracuse viaduct), it seems there's an obvious detour (in Syracuse: I-481) or they came up with incredibly expensive means of keeping traffic "going" (e.g., Big Dig).  Where does Connecticut expect all that traffic to go?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on September 08, 2015, 09:57:46 AM
I doubt travelers on I-84 East would take I-691 East at the Cheshire/Southington town line to I-91 North. Westbound, CT 15 South to to Charter Oak Bridge doesn't work well. Are trucks really going to go that far to CT 9 North in Cromwell and then over to CT 72 West in New Britain? I think not.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on September 08, 2015, 11:19:50 AM
I know! They could use US 6 as an alternate... oh wait
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on September 08, 2015, 03:26:38 PM
If they had built I-291 around the city like they were supposed to, that would be the perfect alternate route.  But, alas...
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: noelbotevera on September 08, 2015, 03:38:27 PM
Here's my detour suggestion (I screwed up a line for EB)

Eastbound:
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/41.5517523,-73.0487216/41.7696139,-72.6712846/@41.7842075,-72.6845389,13.7z/data=!4m29!4m28!1m25!3m4!1m2!1d-73.0483731!2d41.8256955!3s0x89e7a2293af8ad2b:0x92a29f459b7150e3!3m4!1m2!1d-72.7238315!2d41.7859782!3s0x89e7ab5a40b96f9d:0x130c3be05c48ece8!3m4!1m2!1d-72.6849269!2d41.7776913!3s0x89e6549f426e1345:0x5fb094d40f4e6edd!3m4!1m2!1d-72.6781253!2d41.7742125!3s0x89e6549dbebfdb21:0xc5b6f266a222fada!3m4!1m2!1d-72.673911!2d41.7722217!3s0x89e6537d580d2189:0x9a6b45dbce0593ae!1m0!3e0?hl=en

Westbound:
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/41.7640288,-72.6448923/41.6687709,-72.829887/@41.6701729,-72.8305855,16.82z?hl=en
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JakeFromNewEngland on September 08, 2015, 04:39:22 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on September 08, 2015, 03:38:27 PM
Here's my detour suggestion (I screwed up a line for EB)

Eastbound:
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/41.5517523,-73.0487216/41.7696139,-72.6712846/@41.7842075,-72.6845389,13.7z/data=!4m29!4m28!1m25!3m4!1m2!1d-73.0483731!2d41.8256955!3s0x89e7a2293af8ad2b:0x92a29f459b7150e3!3m4!1m2!1d-72.7238315!2d41.7859782!3s0x89e7ab5a40b96f9d:0x130c3be05c48ece8!3m4!1m2!1d-72.6849269!2d41.7776913!3s0x89e6549f426e1345:0x5fb094d40f4e6edd!3m4!1m2!1d-72.6781253!2d41.7742125!3s0x89e6549dbebfdb21:0xc5b6f266a222fada!3m4!1m2!1d-72.673911!2d41.7722217!3s0x89e6537d580d2189:0x9a6b45dbce0593ae!1m0!3e0?hl=en

Westbound:
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/41.7640288,-72.6448923/41.6687709,-72.829887/@41.6701729,-72.8305855,16.82z?hl=en

I really doubt anyone is gonna travel all the way to Torrington just to bypass Hartford if I'm seeing that correctly. If you're trying to travel eastbound, a much more easier route would be I-691 to I-91 to CT 15 to I-84.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on September 08, 2015, 06:37:16 PM
Quote from: JakeFromNewEngland on September 08, 2015, 04:39:22 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on September 08, 2015, 03:38:27 PM
Here's my detour suggestion (I screwed up a line for EB)

Eastbound:
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/41.5517523,-73.0487216/41.7696139,-72.6712846/@41.7842075,-72.6845389,13.7z/data=!4m29!4m28!1m25!3m4!1m2!1d-73.0483731!2d41.8256955!3s0x89e7a2293af8ad2b:0x92a29f459b7150e3!3m4!1m2!1d-72.7238315!2d41.7859782!3s0x89e7ab5a40b96f9d:0x130c3be05c48ece8!3m4!1m2!1d-72.6849269!2d41.7776913!3s0x89e6549f426e1345:0x5fb094d40f4e6edd!3m4!1m2!1d-72.6781253!2d41.7742125!3s0x89e6549dbebfdb21:0xc5b6f266a222fada!3m4!1m2!1d-72.673911!2d41.7722217!3s0x89e6537d580d2189:0x9a6b45dbce0593ae!1m0!3e0?hl=en

Westbound:
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/41.7640288,-72.6448923/41.6687709,-72.829887/@41.6701729,-72.8305855,16.82z?hl=en

I really doubt anyone is gonna travel all the way to Torrington just to bypass Hartford if I'm seeing that correctly. If you're trying to travel eastbound, a much more easier route would be I-691 to I-91 to CT 15 to I-84.

Which means the right lane for I-91 for Exit 29 should be backed up to Cromwell.  Of course, there's always CT 3 E to CT 2W to I-84 to avoid that.  As for me, I'll go 84-72-9-175-5/15 to hit 84 east of Hartford 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on September 08, 2015, 06:53:39 PM
My apologies for the paywall link.  I got to it through a Bing news aggregation, and got the article.  Other than the expected community opinions the gist is that ConnDOT is apparently considering a Hyperfix-style option.

Quote from: KEVIN_224 on September 08, 2015, 09:57:46 AM
I doubt travelers on I-84 East would take I-691 East at the Cheshire/Southington town line to I-91 North. Westbound, CT 15 South to to Charter Oak Bridge doesn't work well. Are trucks really going to go that far to CT 9 North in Cromwell and then over to CT 72 West in New Britain? I think not.

Actually, I use the 84»691»91 routing fairly frequently when I'm heading to points in western CT.

Don't forget that the 91-5/15/Charter Oak interchange is up for reconstruction/realignment....and I'm not sure that the viaduct replacement is really scheduled beyond "we have to do it before the viaduct collapses".

Replacing the viaduct is going to suck because of the limited alternatives.  I'm not sure whether the suckage would be worse with a relatively short period in the deep depths of hell rather than years spent in a higher layer of the underworld.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on September 08, 2015, 06:55:08 PM
It's one thing if they need a series of weekend closures to move things around on the Aetna Viaduct. You can announce it in advance, prepare your alternate routes - maybe wait for the 91@15 project to add a lane - and hope people don't show up, but there will be some pain if they do. But this doesn't work long-term because you're banking on a significant traffic volume drop from deferred trips (if the road's closed this weekend, I'll go next weekend). I can't see a closure happening for months.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JakeFromNewEngland on September 08, 2015, 06:55:30 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on September 08, 2015, 06:37:16 PM
Quote from: JakeFromNewEngland on September 08, 2015, 04:39:22 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on September 08, 2015, 03:38:27 PM
Here's my detour suggestion (I screwed up a line for EB)

Eastbound:
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/41.5517523,-73.0487216/41.7696139,-72.6712846/@41.7842075,-72.6845389,13.7z/data=!4m29!4m28!1m25!3m4!1m2!1d-73.0483731!2d41.8256955!3s0x89e7a2293af8ad2b:0x92a29f459b7150e3!3m4!1m2!1d-72.7238315!2d41.7859782!3s0x89e7ab5a40b96f9d:0x130c3be05c48ece8!3m4!1m2!1d-72.6849269!2d41.7776913!3s0x89e6549f426e1345:0x5fb094d40f4e6edd!3m4!1m2!1d-72.6781253!2d41.7742125!3s0x89e6549dbebfdb21:0xc5b6f266a222fada!3m4!1m2!1d-72.673911!2d41.7722217!3s0x89e6537d580d2189:0x9a6b45dbce0593ae!1m0!3e0?hl=en

Westbound:
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/41.7640288,-72.6448923/41.6687709,-72.829887/@41.6701729,-72.8305855,16.82z?hl=en

I really doubt anyone is gonna travel all the way to Torrington just to bypass Hartford if I'm seeing that correctly. If you're trying to travel eastbound, a much more easier route would be I-691 to I-91 to CT 15 to I-84.

Which means the right lane for I-91 for Exit 29 should be backed up to Cromwell.  Of course, there's always CT 3 E to CT 2W to I-84 to avoid that.  As for me, I'll go 84-72-9-175-5/15 to hit 84 east of Hartford

I was gonna say another alternate route would be to take CT 3 to CT 2 to I-84, but the CT 15 route is more direct IMO.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: noelbotevera on September 08, 2015, 06:55:50 PM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on September 08, 2015, 06:53:39 PM
My apologies for the paywall link.  I got to it through a Bing news aggregation, and got the article.  Other than the expected community opinions the gist is that ConnDOT is apparently considering a Hyperfix-style option.

Quote from: KEVIN_224 on September 08, 2015, 09:57:46 AM
I doubt travelers on I-84 East would take I-691 East at the Cheshire/Southington town line to I-91 North. Westbound, CT 15 South to to Charter Oak Bridge doesn't work well. Are trucks really going to go that far to CT 9 North in Cromwell and then over to CT 72 West in New Britain? I think not.

Actually, I use the 84»691»91 routing fairly frequently when I'm heading to points in western CT.

Don't forget that the 91-5/15/Charter Oak interchange is up for reconstruction/realignment....and I'm not sure that the viaduct replacement is really scheduled beyond "we have to do it before the viaduct collapses".

Replacing the viaduct is going to suck because of the limited alternatives.  I'm not sure whether the suckage would be worse with a relatively short period in the deep depths of hell rather than years spent in a higher layer of the underworld.
A smaller detour is to zigzag your way around Hartford just to get back on I-84. Either have that absurd EB detour or zigzagging Hartford's streets...which one is worse?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Zeffy on September 08, 2015, 07:03:06 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on September 08, 2015, 06:55:50 PM
A smaller detour is to zigzag your way around Hartford just to get back on I-84. Either have that absurd EB detour or zigzagging Hartford's streets...which one is worse?

I'll take my chances with Hartford's streets rather than going literally like 30 minutes out of my way to Torrington and back again.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Pete from Boston on September 08, 2015, 07:24:09 PM

Quote from: Zeffy on September 08, 2015, 07:03:06 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on September 08, 2015, 06:55:50 PM
A smaller detour is to zigzag your way around Hartford just to get back on I-84. Either have that absurd EB detour or zigzagging Hartford's streets...which one is worse?

I'll take my chances with Hartford's streets rather than going literally like 30 minutes out of my way to Torrington and back again.

US 44 is in fact "Hartford's streets," any of which will add more than 30 minutes if all of 84 is doing it with you.

Moreover, a parade of trucks up the steep incline of Talcott Mountain would be, well, very slow.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JakeFromNewEngland on September 08, 2015, 07:42:53 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 08, 2015, 07:24:09 PM

Quote from: Zeffy on September 08, 2015, 07:03:06 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on September 08, 2015, 06:55:50 PM
A smaller detour is to zigzag your way around Hartford just to get back on I-84. Either have that absurd EB detour or zigzagging Hartford's streets...which one is worse?

I'll take my chances with Hartford's streets rather than going literally like 30 minutes out of my way to Torrington and back again.

US 44 is in fact "Hartford's streets," any of which will add more than 30 minutes if all of 84 is doing it with you.

Moreover, a parade of trucks up the steep incline of Talcott Mountain would be, well, very slow.

Not to mention, that area was the site of a nasty tractor trailer accident where a truck lost control going down the mountain and slammed into cars at the bottom of the intersection. I doubt the state would route MORE trucks onto that route due to that accident.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: noelbotevera on September 08, 2015, 08:37:01 PM
Quote from: JakeFromNewEngland on September 08, 2015, 07:42:53 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 08, 2015, 07:24:09 PM

Quote from: Zeffy on September 08, 2015, 07:03:06 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on September 08, 2015, 06:55:50 PM
A smaller detour is to zigzag your way around Hartford just to get back on I-84. Either have that absurd EB detour or zigzagging Hartford's streets...which one is worse?

I'll take my chances with Hartford's streets rather than going literally like 30 minutes out of my way to Torrington and back again.

US 44 is in fact "Hartford's streets," any of which will add more than 30 minutes if all of 84 is doing it with you.

Moreover, a parade of trucks up the steep incline of Talcott Mountain would be, well, very slow.

Not to mention, that area was the site of a nasty tractor trailer accident where a truck lost control going down the mountain and slammed into cars at the bottom of the intersection. I doubt the state would route MORE trucks onto that route due to that accident.
It's on CT 8, isn't it. Hmm, I should probably reconsider my choices of being a roadgeek.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on September 08, 2015, 09:28:35 PM
The hill in question is on US 44, actually. (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.80396,-72.804933,3a,75y,127.45h,62.58t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suX0eztIVnSQEJo6J4YLNdw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

The fact remains, though, if you need to close I-84 through Hartford for a long period of time... there isn't really a good way to detour all the traffic. Any trips originating west of Cheshire can take 691-91-15, but this doesn't help anyone starting from between there and Hartford, and it also has the significant problem of the ramp from 91 to 15 being a common bottleneck even without a bunch of extra traffic being dumped on it.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on September 08, 2015, 09:32:04 PM
I wonder how this would impact CT Fastrak? It passes under the viaduct in the vicinity of the Sigourney Street station. I've taken that road to/from downtown New Britain several times now.  :hmmm:
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JakeFromNewEngland on September 08, 2015, 09:33:48 PM
I just realized the Hartford Line should be completed by next year. I'm sure that might encourage people in the suburbs of Hartford to use that as a method to commute into the city if I-84 was closed, but that still leaves the long distance travelers in question..
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JimmyI395 on September 09, 2015, 12:58:04 PM
The public will be able to walk the southbound side of the Q Bridge on Saturday September 19 10AM to 3PM.
Who's going??

http://i95newhaven.com/pdfs/contracts/announcement%201.pdf

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on September 13, 2015, 09:06:11 AM
The Republican-American has an article with no surprises:

http://www.rep-am.com/articles/2015/09/13/news/connecticut/907360.txt

Summary: Governor wants to spend lots of money on 84 and 91, including replacing the Mixmaster in Waterbury.  Unsurprisingly no re-do of the Merritt, but the plan includes a recreational trail along the parkway, which the Nimbys oppose due to trees being untouchable (except when Mother Nature brings them down on their power lines).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on September 19, 2015, 09:31:35 PM
I walked teh I-95 SB lanes of the Q-Bridge today as the DOT has a public walk through.  I must say the DOT went above and beyond with this.  Politicians were there of course but the DOT has brochures about the project, a history display, DOT swag such as keychains, magnets and stuff, and they had a couple trucks and snow plows on display for the kids.  It was really well done. Also, some WWII veterans on hand as well and best of all it was packed.  Like the ribbon cuttings of the 1950s.

Here's some pics.
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5670/21365689798_e379ddfa1d.jpg)

(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/567/21367853938_a28f2d6042.jpg)

(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5777/21366266028_7ded80dc3c.jpg)

(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/714/21527320486_cd74e93204.jpg)

(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5835/21365681678_624ce6fd29.jpg)

(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5680/20932407393_cc8ec9cb09.jpg)

(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5668/20932410563_99677e689c.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on September 20, 2015, 12:49:14 AM
Did you get us enough ConnDOT swag for the next meet?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 20, 2015, 10:06:04 AM
N.Y. Times: Building a Covered Bridge in Connecticut and a Link to the Past (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/14/nyregion/building-a-covered-bridge-in-connecticut-and-a-link-to-the-past.html)

QuoteNORWICH, Conn. – The oxen were yoked and Arnold M. Graton stood on the bank of the pond, awaiting their first steps.

QuoteAs they wound around the winch, the bridge began to move atop its wooden rollers – slowly, with creaks and lurches, it started to inch forward.

QuoteThe Gold Mine Bridge, named for a nearby mine, was being pulled into place on Sunday by the oxen – Mike and Brock – as well as Mr. Graton and his team of builders, at Greenbriar Farm, the home of Richard Perry, a public defender for the State of Connecticut.

QuoteThe bridge, built by hand, stands 60 feet across and 18 feet wide and weighs close to 50 tons. Made from hemlock, pine and oak with close to 600 wooden pegs, it is the first traditionally built covered bridge created in Connecticut since the 1870s.

QuoteMr. Graton, 78, is one of very few covered bridge builders in the country. Mr. Graton, whose fingernails were black from bruising, was reserved in the stereotypical manner of a New Englander – wasting little, including words – but after a brief pause in the action his blue eyes twinkled as he called out, "I guess we better stir up those oxen again."
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: dgolub on September 20, 2015, 10:14:46 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on September 19, 2015, 09:31:35 PM
I walked teh I-95 SB lanes of the Q-Bridge today as the DOT has a public walk through.  I must say the DOT went above and beyond with this.  Politicians were there of course but the DOT has brochures about the project, a history display, DOT swag such as keychains, magnets and stuff, and they had a couple trucks and snow plows on display for the kids.  It was really well done. Also, some WWII veterans on hand as well and best of all it was packed.  Like the ribbon cuttings of the 1950s.

Here's some pics.
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5670/21365689798_e379ddfa1d.jpg)

(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/567/21367853938_a28f2d6042.jpg)

(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5777/21366266028_7ded80dc3c.jpg)

(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/714/21527320486_cd74e93204.jpg)

(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5835/21365681678_624ce6fd29.jpg)

(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5680/20932407393_cc8ec9cb09.jpg)

(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5668/20932410563_99677e689c.jpg)

I'm feeling like we need a New Haven area meet, between this, the demolition of the Oak Street Connector (CT 34), and the changes that they were making to the exits for CT 10.  Maybe I'll host one next year.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: TravelingBethelite on September 20, 2015, 01:33:55 PM
Heading to Waterford from East Haddam, I noticed that CT 85 has been repaved from CT 82 to the Waterford Commons, and possibly beyond. I am unsure if they were restriped. The on/off ramp BGS's of I-395 at CT 85 have been replaced in the exit-renumbering project except this one: https://goo.gl/l3rqNI (https://goo.gl/l3rqNI). Also some Massachusetts-style signs where CT 11 dumps its traffic onto CT 82: https://goo.gl/3xEtqG (https://goo.gl/3xEtqG)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on September 20, 2015, 01:37:40 PM
My New Haven meet in 2011 focused in part on the construction in this area and we drove on now-removed CT 34. Could be interesting for some to return and see what has changed.

It would break the pattern of a Connecticut meet every three years, though. After Hartford 2008, New Haven 2011, and Merritt Parkway 2014, the next CT meet is due in 2017. :P
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on September 21, 2015, 05:58:39 PM
So I saw this morning a post on FB that mentions the northbound lanes of the Gold Star Bridge will close in their entirety in 2017 for a 4-year reconstruction of the span.  I'm not seeing mention of this anywhere else.  For those that don't know, the bridge is the longest in CT, over a mile, and is actually two separate bridges, each one about 5 lanes wide with full width shoulders.  I know they've been doing some work on it for the past year or so.  But a complete shutdown for a full reconstruction?  I guess it's the only bridge in CT that has the ability to be closed in its entirety.  The SB span could be converted to 3 lanes of traffic in each direction. 

It will be interesting to see the scope of work and the traffic modifications and mitigation that would come with such a project.

UPDATE:  I found an article from The Day (the New London-area newspaper) that states the rating of the bridge is "poor" and that work is planned (article from this past February)...
http://www.theday.com/article/20150222/NWS01/302229965
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on September 21, 2015, 06:58:23 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on September 21, 2015, 05:58:39 PM
So I saw this morning a post on FB that mentions the northbound lanes of the Gold Star Bridge will close in their entirety in 2017 for a 4-year reconstruction of the span.  I'm not seeing mention of this anywhere else.  For those that don't know, the bridge is the longest in CT, over a mile, and is actually two separate bridges, each one about 5 lanes wide with full width shoulders.  I know they've been doing some work on it for the past year or so.  But a complete shutdown for a full reconstruction?  I guess it's the only bridge in CT that has the ability to be closed in its entirety.  The SB span could be converted to 3 lanes of traffic in each direction. 

It will be interesting to see the scope of work and the traffic modifications and mitigation that would come with such a project.

UPDATE:  I found an article from The Day (the New London-area newspaper) that states the rating of the bridge is "poor" and that work is planned (article from this past February)...
http://www.theday.com/article/20150222/NWS01/302229965
I'm surprised they're saying 4 years. The Pulaski Skyway closure isn't supposed to even take that long, and while it's a lot narrower, they're also keeping half open at a time, and it's in much worse shape and much older.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on September 21, 2015, 08:37:29 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on September 20, 2015, 01:37:40 PM
My New Haven meet in 2011 focused in part on the construction in this area and we drove on now-removed CT 34. Could be interesting for some to return and see what has changed.

It would break the pattern of a Connecticut meet every three years, though. After Hartford 2008, New Haven 2011, and Merritt Parkway 2014, the next CT meet is due in 2017. :P

I'll go...it'll be my first ever meet.  hopefully the I-91 interchange will be almost complete. Side attractions: I-84 Waterbury widening about 30 minutes away.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: southshore720 on September 22, 2015, 03:46:10 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on September 21, 2015, 05:58:39 PM
So I saw this morning a post on FB that mentions the northbound lanes of the Gold Star Bridge will close in their entirety in 2017 for a 4-year reconstruction of the span.

CT State Police have a nice speed trap perch in the emergency crossover on the Groton side of the bridge.  They better get their tickets in now, because that perch is going to be history once they have to shift the traffic over.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on September 22, 2015, 06:29:40 PM
ConnDOT is letting folks play mix-and-match with an interactive Aetna Viaduct replacement alternatives tool: http://www.i84hartford.com/i84alternatives/index.html
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on September 26, 2015, 12:25:22 PM
Saw a new yellow diamond "speed limit ahead" sign on I-91 SB at Exit 33, coming into Hartford.  Still the old fashioned yellow rectangle "SPEED LIMIT AHEAD / 55 MPH" up at the end of the 65mph zone at Exit 35. 

Observed some new ramp speed signs on I-91 SB for Exit 30 and CT 9 SB for Exit 7.  Arrow now shown for hairpin/sharp curves.  Here's a sort-of representation of the new signs:

Old style:

RAMP
-----
30
MPH

New Style:

RAMP
<---
    -
30
MPH

No evidence of work started for the spot replacement of overhead assemblies at I-91 SB Exit 41 (to be combined with NB Exit 42) and I-91 SB Exit 40 (removed several years ago). 

May return to VT on Sunday via I-395's entire length so hope to get some new sign pics up that way past Norwich.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JimmyI395 on September 27, 2015, 06:17:29 PM
Update of the I-395 Signing project. There are up to "old exit 88" northbound. Southbound Exit 87.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/129630456@N08/21741288576/in/dateposted-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/129630456@N08/21146366653/in/dateposted-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/129630456@N08/21755717852/in/dateposted-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/129630456@N08/21144689594/in/dateposted-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/129630456@N08/21776822971/in/dateposted-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/129630456@N08/21580507249/in/dateposted-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/129630456@N08/21767374255/in/dateposted-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/129630456@N08/21741253346/in/dateposted-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/129630456@N08/21776793741/in/dateposted-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/129630456@N08/21767360205/in/dateposted-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/129630456@N08/21776788591/in/dateposted-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/129630456@N08/21741260796/in/dateposted-public/
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on September 27, 2015, 07:19:17 PM
I drove the entire length of I-395 today and got pics of all the new signage up to Exit 29/former Exit 88.  North of there, which is the start of the second contract, only some supports for new signs are up... some, not all, and one new cantilever support SB for Kennedy Drive in Putnam.  Only new signage north of Exit 29/88 are speed limits, reassurance shields, and ramp signage.  New gore exit signs are up as well but are hidden behind the old ones.  Exit numbers have not been altered on any signs north of Exit 29/88.  Also, no new mile markers are up along the entire length of both projects.  The NB empty gantry for Route 82 in Norwich has been removed, as have all sign brackets which were on overhead bridges.  Only sign that remains on a bridge on the southern half of the project is the "HARTFORD/COLCHESTER/NEXT RIGHT" for Exit 2/77.  Not sure why that was retained on a bridge. 

Link to all I-395 pics... if you have this link previous, some new signs are mixed in with the old...
https://picasaweb.google.com/108118189767835080687/I395SignReplacementInCT02


Also, the 2014 random spot sign replacement has replaced the signs on I-95 SB for Exit 65/1 mile and the State Police 1/2 Mile sign that were formerly mounted on the Spencer Plain Road overpass at Exit 66.  Didn't get a shot of the new signs as I was heading NB (well, EB). 

Progress is being made on the median replacement project on I-95 in Old Lyme between Exits 70 & 71, though unfortunately they're doing it the same way as when they did Exits 72-76, retaining the grass median and with the new jersey barrier not centered.  Seems like they should've done it the right way... pave the whole median and run the barrier down the middle, providing full width inside shoulders.  But no.. the grass median remains (visible in the distance):
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-NhXt2cAXlaI/VgiTzjp5-gI/AAAAAAAAVqM/SYnCJbS-h0Q/s720-Ic42/IMG_3768.JPG)

The Society Road bridge over I-95 at Exit 73 is being replaced.  Looks like rather than replace the bridge in its existing location, a new span is being built immediately adjacent, on the west side.  Abutments don't look like they're far back enough to support a 3rd lane in each direction in the future.  Again... way to plan ahead with that one, ConnDOT!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JakeFromNewEngland on September 28, 2015, 06:45:40 PM
Does anyone know any news about when the Q Bridge is going to be open fully with 10 lanes? From a traffic cam it looks like NB I-95 is still in it's 3 lane configuration and I-95 SB has 4 lanes open.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on September 29, 2015, 09:42:29 AM
Is it me or are those new I-395 exit tabs unnecessarily wide... even for MUTCD standards?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: roadman on September 29, 2015, 10:01:28 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 29, 2015, 09:42:29 AM
Is it me or are those new I-395 exit tabs unnecessarily wide... even for MUTCD standards?
It's not just you - I was noticing the same thing - very wide tabs for the numbers.  By comparison, MassDOT standard exit tabs for a two-digit number are 8.5 feet wide, and a typical SignCAD two-digit exit tab calculation will be between 7.5 and 8 feet wide depending on the numeral.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on September 29, 2015, 11:09:50 AM
Are the I-395 signs different enough from recent I-95 work to be called "Phase V"?

The route markers have outlines; the exit tabs are wider... it looks different from the 2012 work in lower Fairfield County.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: wytout on September 30, 2015, 06:52:52 AM
Another thing I do not understand on the new BGS's on the 395 project, is going from series D on 1Di shields to series C on on 2Di shields, then reverting back to series D for 3Di shields.  As CT has updated their sign catalog in recent years to provide for wide 3Di shields both on BGS's and trailblazers, I do not believe series C is even specified any longer for 2Di's.  I do not believe any other Green Sign replacement project is utilizing series C outline shields for 2Di routes.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on September 30, 2015, 11:58:12 AM
Quote from: kurumi on September 29, 2015, 11:09:50 AM
Are the I-395 signs different enough from recent I-95 work to be called "Phase V"?

The route markers have outlines; the exit tabs are wider... it looks different from the 2012 work in lower Fairfield County.

Pardon my ignorance.....but are the sign "phases" something that the DOT uses or something we just made up here on AARoads? 
I take it the phases refer to the style of sign made?
Non-reflective button copy to reflective button copy?
I take it, some highways have skipped certain phases as some signs aren't replaced as often?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: odditude on September 30, 2015, 01:05:49 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on September 30, 2015, 11:58:12 AM
Quote from: kurumi on September 29, 2015, 11:09:50 AM
Are the I-395 signs different enough from recent I-95 work to be called "Phase V"?

The route markers have outlines; the exit tabs are wider... it looks different from the 2012 work in lower Fairfield County.

Pardon my ignorance.....but are the sign "phases" something that the DOT uses or something we just made up here on AARoads? 
I take it the phases refer to the style of sign made?
Non-reflective button copy to reflective button copy?
I take it, some highways have skipped certain phases as some signs aren't replaced as often?
phase as in project stage - e.g. they replaced this batch of signs during phase 1, this batch is slated for phase 2, etc.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on September 30, 2015, 01:22:30 PM
Phases was something I came up with, denoting the various types, or phases of BGSs in CT over the years:

Phase (a) would be the pre-interstate signage - original turnpike signage on I-95/I-395, and original parkway signage on CT 15
Phase I would be the non-reflective button copy.  On the Merritt Pkwy, this featured state route markers with the outline of the state of CT.
Phase II would be direct applied non-reflective
Phase III would be the reflective button copy, including button copy route markers.  This is what I-395 had up until 2015.
Phase IV would be direct applied reflective, which has migrated into various sub-phases:
     IVa added the service bars (exit service symbols built into the BGSs, or for overheads, on separate stand-alone).
     IVb added aligned exit tabs, no borders
     IVc added aligned exit tabs, with borders
Now I'll have to check, but I want to say there's reference to a "Phase IV sheeting" in sign plan contract documents.  So that would make my "unofficial" phases semi-legit. 

For the progression of I-395 signage, as a whole, I'd say it goes:  Phase (a), Phase III, Phase IVc, for the section from I-95 to US 6.  The signage now being replaced was installed in the mid 1980s.  Did Phase I ever exist on I-395?  I know a couple oddball signs NB that have recently been replaced were Phase I.  (Exit 83 1 mile for Route 97). 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on September 30, 2015, 02:58:33 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on September 30, 2015, 01:22:30 PM

Phase II would be direct applied non-reflective

Interesting...I didn't know CT used direct applied non-reflective on a regular basis?  I know I-84 has one for EB Exit 25A but I thought it was a contractor error.

CT-25 used direct applied around 1981-1982, but they have reflective backgrounds.
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/743/21655916708_efed9b454e_c.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on September 30, 2015, 03:10:26 PM
Yup.... those signs are what I refer to as "Phase II".  Includes any installations in the early 1980s (maybe late 1970s as well) timeframe, before Phase III started spreading like wildfire.  Sections of I-95 had Phase II, including Exits 60-82A, before those signs were replaced in 2000.  Exits 68-70 went sooner due to the Baldwin Bridge, getting Phase III.  Exits 53-59 held onto the original turnpike signage until 1992, being replaced with Phase III at that time.  So that section is on its "second generation" of signs right now (though 53-54 got replaced with IV as part of the "Q" Bridge project). 

As for what else had "Phase II", parts of I-84 in Danbury and from East Hartford to Manchester, much of the latter is still there, installed when I-384 was extended and the HOV lanes were built in the early/mid 1980s. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: yakra on October 02, 2015, 02:06:20 AM
ME WANT CLIFF NOTES!
For purposes of Clinched Highway / TravelMapping:
How much of I-395 has been changed over to the new exit numbers?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on October 02, 2015, 08:04:49 AM
Up to Plainfield, old Exit 88/new Exit 29. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on October 03, 2015, 09:53:35 PM
Isn't it all going to be complete by the end of the month or so? I thought it was all one project. Unless there is going to be a significant gap I'd just change all the exit numbers once it's done.

Good news is no new numbers will duplicate old numbers so you can keep as many old points as needed to not break list files.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Beeper1 on October 03, 2015, 10:15:08 PM
It won't be done in a month.  North of Plainfield they are nowhere near ready to convert.  Many interchanges don't even have new sign supports installed yet.  Some in the Putnam/Thompson stretch don't even appear to have had the support foundations poured.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on October 03, 2015, 10:43:36 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on October 03, 2015, 09:53:35 PM
Isn't it all going to be complete by the end of the month or so? I thought it was all one project. Unless there is going to be a significant gap I'd just change all the exit numbers once it's done.

Good news is no new numbers will duplicate old numbers so you can keep as many old points as needed to not break list files.


Nope, it's actually two separate projects.  The southern half (from I-95 to old Exit 88) has pretty much all of its ground signage installed.  They still have to do the overheads, though, and put up the new supports for the new overheads.  The southern project also includes replacement of signs along CT 2A.  The northern half (from old Exit 88 up to the Mass state line) had little progress made as of 9/27.  As mentioned above, not even all the new sign supports are in.  There is one new overhead gantry installed SB and most new gore signs are installed.  The northern half also includes replacement of signs on CT 695, the Exit 90/turnpike stub "TO US 6 EAST" out to the RI state line. 

It's possible both halfves of the project were awarded to the same contractor, hence why the southern half is almost done and limited work so far on the northern half. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: noelbotevera on October 04, 2015, 01:09:57 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on October 03, 2015, 10:43:36 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on October 03, 2015, 09:53:35 PM
Isn't it all going to be complete by the end of the month or so? I thought it was all one project. Unless there is going to be a significant gap I'd just change all the exit numbers once it's done.

Good news is no new numbers will duplicate old numbers so you can keep as many old points as needed to not break list files.


Nope, it's actually two separate projects.  The southern half (from I-95 to old Exit 88) has pretty much all of its ground signage installed.  They still have to do the overheads, though, and put up the new supports for the new overheads.  The southern project also includes replacement of signs along CT 2A.  The northern half (from old Exit 88 up to the Mass state line) had little progress made as of 9/27.  As mentioned above, not even all the new sign supports are in.  There is one new overhead gantry installed SB and most new gore signs are installed.  The northern half also includes replacement of signs on CT 695, the Exit 90/turnpike stub "TO US 6 EAST" out to the RI state line. 

It's possible both halfves of the project were awarded to the same contractor, hence why the southern half is almost done and limited work so far on the northern half.
Also, Connecticut is broke. Maybe they don't have enough money to continue from exits 89-100.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: TravelingBethelite on October 04, 2015, 12:25:31 PM
We're not as rich as you think we are, but Connecticut is far from broke. Anyway, contractors would be doing this. Not the state itself. It will be done.  :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Pete from Boston on October 04, 2015, 12:31:06 PM
Moreover, not having money means money has already been allocated to various expenditures, presumably including this one.  It's not like Connecticut or any state is grinding to a halt.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on October 04, 2015, 02:49:39 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on October 04, 2015, 12:31:06 PM
Moreover, not having money means money has already been allocated to various expenditures, presumably including this one.  It's not like Connecticut or any state is grinding to a halt.

Indeed, generally states that suffer the most from lack of funding for transportation suffer not from lack of revenue but from treating it as a low budgetary priority. Connecticut is a perfect example of this, where there is a years-old tradition of raiding gas tax revenue to plug holes elsewhere in the budget, and the total state budget for everything has ballooned substantially in the past 25 years while the population hasn't grown very much.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: yakra on October 04, 2015, 03:17:24 PM
I agree, Duke87. I plan to just relabel it all in one go when the project is complete.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: roadman65 on October 05, 2015, 07:59:40 PM
This may be old news, but after seeing Jay Hogan's photos on his flickr page made me research a local area webpage article on the subject for some who follow the CT roads.
http://wtnh.com/2014/09/03/exit-numbers-to-reflect-the-mile-on-i-395/
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on October 07, 2015, 05:47:34 PM
Noticed spot replacements on I-95 Stratford to West Haven. Looks like the truss mounts are back en vogue with ConnDOT. Also the new style mile markers (including replacement fractional mile markers) are up in this area as well.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JakeFromNewEngland on October 07, 2015, 09:36:17 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on October 07, 2015, 05:47:34 PM
Noticed spot replacements on I-95 Stratford to West Haven. Looks like the truss mounts are back en vogue with ConnDOT. Also the new style mile markers (including replacement fractional mile markers) are up in this area as well.

To add to this, I was in New Haven earlier and there have been new signs erected between Exits 44 and the West River Bridge. There is also a functional VMS on I-95 NB.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Beeper1 on October 11, 2015, 12:09:49 PM
Update as of 10/10.   Old exit 89 has been partially changed over, with NB having new signs with new exit number 32.  SB still has old signs and old exit number.  The signs at old exit 90/new exit 35 (partial interchange with CT 695) has also been changed.

So, NB traffic has new numbers all the way to the 395/695 split.  SB traffic still sees old numbers through exit 89, with new numbers starting at new exit 29. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on October 11, 2015, 08:44:08 PM
Question regarding phase 2: if signs on SR 695 are also getting replaced, do we know what the exit numbers are going to be there?

Currently there is exit 90 westbound and an unnumbered exit eastbound. I'm guessing they will both become exit 1, but I can't seem to find the plans online to check.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Beeper1 on October 11, 2015, 09:15:27 PM
I think the exits on 695 will be Exit 1A for Squaw Rock Rd (WB exit) and Exit 1B for Ross Road (EB exit).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on October 12, 2015, 02:16:47 AM
SR 695 will be the second freeway in CT with exit numbers but no signed route number.

(OK, 3rd, if you count the Merritt Parkway before it was numbered in 1947)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on October 12, 2015, 09:28:13 AM
Quote from: Beeper1 on October 11, 2015, 09:15:27 PM
I think the exits on 695 will be Exit 1A for Squaw Rock Rd (WB exit) and Exit 1B for Ross Road (EB exit).

Since they're in opposite directions, why not just give them both Exit 1 and leave off the letter?)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: yakra on October 12, 2015, 10:32:35 AM
Different roads, different locations, no simple re-entry at the same point.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on October 12, 2015, 03:42:57 PM
Quote from: kurumi on October 12, 2015, 02:16:47 AM
SR 695 will be the second freeway in CT with exit numbers but no signed route number.

(OK, 3rd, if you count the Merritt Parkway before it was numbered in 1947)

Don't forget the Milford Parkway between the Merritt/W Cross and I-95/US 1.  That got exit numbers a few years ago.  It's "Secret State Route 796"!

Will be interesting to see if the Bradley Airport Connector (CT 20) and the Willimantic Bypass (US 6) will get exit numbers.  CT 20's signs were replaced a few years back and still no exit numbers.  I still think it should become a I-X91 and the Willimantic Bypass should become I-384, but we have to get that connected to Bolton's I-384 first.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: cl94 on October 12, 2015, 04:15:57 PM
Quote from: yakra on October 12, 2015, 10:32:35 AM
Different roads, different locations, no simple re-entry at the same point.

That doesn't mean crap. A bunch of mile-based states have two completely unrelated partial interchanges share a number, similar to how two consecutive sequential partial exits serving opposing directions of travel get the same number. Look at New York, for example. The New England Thruway has Exit 18A, with its two halves nearly a mile apart.

Also, it's not like you couldn't re-enter to get off at the "right" Exit 1. With how the interchanges are set up, one could both enter and exit at Exit 1.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on October 12, 2015, 05:53:17 PM
If CT 20 and US 6 stay as is, the exits will be:

CT 20:

31 A-B: I-91 N/S
30: Old County Rd
29: CT 75
28A: Hamilton Rd N
28: Bradley Airport (SSR 401)

And for US 6:

88: CT 66 W (WB ONLY left exit)
90: CT 32
92: CT 195
93: CT 66 W (EB ONLY)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on October 12, 2015, 06:17:31 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on October 12, 2015, 05:53:17 PM
If CT 20 and US 6 stay as is, the exits will be:

CT 20:

31 A-B: I-91 N/S
30: Old County Rd
29: CT 75
28A: Hamilton Rd N
28: Bradley Airport (SSR 401)

And for US 6:

88: CT 66 W (WB ONLY left exit)
90: CT 32
92: CT 195
93: CT 66 W (EB ONLY)


CT-20 NOT getting exit numbers but the Milford Parkway, which is shorter, getting numbers is just the DOT thinking in terms of individual projects, (probably done by different people) rather than thinking as a whole and keeping continuity with similar roads throughout the state.  They aren't consistent either way.

Another example, CT-8 ramps in Derby have NO merge but they have YIELD signs, however, similar ramps on CT-15 in Greenwich (also have no merge) but have STOP signs.  You'd think it'll be all one way or the other.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on October 12, 2015, 06:39:26 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on October 12, 2015, 06:17:31 PM
CT-20 NOT getting exit numbers but the Milford Parkway, which is shorter, getting numbers is just the DOT thinking in terms of individual projects, (probably done by different people) rather than thinking as a whole and keeping continuity with similar roads throughout the state.  They aren't consistent either way.

Definitely done by different people. CT 20 is district 1, Milford Pkwy is district 3.

QuoteAnother example, CT-8 ramps in Derby have NO merge but they have YIELD signs, however, similar ramps on CT-15 in Greenwich (also have no merge) but have STOP signs.  You'd think it'll be all one way or the other.

The geometry on the Merritt Ramps with stop signs is considerably harsher than the geometry of the any of the CT 8 ramps with yield signs (tighter curves leading up to the merge point, inferior sight lines). I would argue that stop is warranted for the former but yield is sufficient for the latter.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on October 12, 2015, 07:22:35 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on October 12, 2015, 05:53:17 PM
If CT 20 and US 6 stay as is, the exits will be:

CT 20:

31 A-B: I-91 N/S
30: Old County Rd
29: CT 75
28A: Hamilton Rd N
28: Bradley Airport (SSR 401)

Nitpick: The exit between route 75 and the CT 20 exit from the connector is Hamilton Road South.

That opens the door to wondering whether Hamilton Road North on CT401 would get its own number.

However, as ConnDOT just finished updating the signs along the connector, I think adding exit numbers would be far down the priority list.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: noelbotevera on October 12, 2015, 08:31:35 PM
Here's my attempt at mile based numbering on freeways in CT.

I-91 - South to North - Both directions

0A-B-C
1A-B-C
2
3
4
6
7
8
11
13
16
19A
20A-B
20C
21
23
26
27 - 28
29
31
33
34
36A
36B
36C
38A
38B
38C
39
40
41
42
44A
44B
46
47
48
49A
49B
50
51
53
55
56
58

I-84 - West to East - Both directions
0
1
4
5
6A
6B
7
8
11
14
15
18
20
21
24
29A
29B
30
31A
31B
31C
31D
31E
34 - 35
36
37
39
41A
41B
43
45
48
50A
50B
51
52
54A
54B
55
56
57
59A
59B
60A
60B
61A
61B
62A
62B
62C
63A
63B
63C
63D
64
65A
65B
66
67
68
69
70
72
73
74
76
79
83
85
87
91
92
96

I-95 "North to South" - both directions (you get the gist, so I won't do this from now on for the rest of the post)
1
2
4
5
6A
6B
7A
7B
8
9
11A
11B
12
13
15A
15B
16
18
20
23A
23B
24A
24B
25A
25B
26
27A
27B
27C
28
29A
29B
29C
30A
30B
31A
31B
32A
32B
33
34
35
36A
36B
37A
37B
39A-B
40
42
44
45A
45B
46
47A
47B
48
49
50A
50B
52
53
56
59
60
61
63
64
66
68
71
73
74
76
78A
78B
79
83
84
86
87
88A
"88B"
88C
89
90
91
92
93A
93B-C-D
94
95
96
97
100
101
102
105
107

CT 8
0A
0B
1
2
3
4A
4B
5A
5B
7
9
11
12
13A
13B
13C
14
16A
16B
17
18
21
22
24
25
26A
26B
27
29
30A
30B
30C
30D
31
32
34
38
40A
40B
44
47
49
50
52
55

CT 15
0
3
5A
5B
9A
9B
10
13
14
16
17A-B
17C-D
20
21
27
28
29
30
32
33A
33B
34A-B
37
38A
38B
38C
41
43A
43B
47
50
51
52A
52B
53
58A
59
61
64A
64B
65A
65B
80A
80B
80C
81
83
84

CT 9
0
1
4
5
7
9
10
14
15
19
21
22
23A
23B
23C
24A
24B
"24C"
25
27
29
31
32A
32B
33
34
35A
35B
35C
36A
36B
38A
38B
39
41

Done.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on October 12, 2015, 09:27:36 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on October 12, 2015, 09:28:13 AM
Quote from: Beeper1 on October 11, 2015, 09:15:27 PM
I think the exits on 695 will be Exit 1A for Squaw Rock Rd (WB exit) and Exit 1B for Ross Road (EB exit).

Since they're in opposite directions, why not just give them both Exit 1 and leave off the letter?)

That's what the contract plans say is going to happen.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on October 12, 2015, 11:03:54 PM
Nitpicking a bit on the I-84 exits between Waterbury and Hartford (Wikipedia is slightly off, and I travel this stretch often):
31A&B: CT 8 N/S
31C: Meadow St
32: Union St
33: CT 69
34: Scott Rd/Reidville Dr (Both directions, since old Harper's Ferry Rd. Exit eliminated)
36: Austin Rd
38: CT 70
40A: I-691 E (40 MM is in between exit and entrance)
40B: CT 322
41: CT 10 (WB Exit/EB Entrance)
42: Marion Ave
44: CT 229
46: CT 10
49A: CT 72 W
49B: Crooked St (EB Exit Only)
50: CT 72 E
51: Slater Rd
53: Fienemann Rd
54A: US 6 W (WB Exit/EB Entrance)
54B: CT 4
55: CT 9 S
56: CT 71
57: S Main St
58A: Trout Brook Dr. (WB Exit/EB Entrance)
58B: Park Rd
59: Prospect Ave
60A: Flatbush Ave (WB Exit/EB Entrance)
60B: Sisson Ave
61A: Sigourney St (WB Exit/EB Entrance)
61B & C (EB), C (WB): Capitol/Asylum (EB) Asylum (WB)
62A: Ann Uccello St. (EB Only)
62B: Main St.
63A/B: I-91 N/S (A only WB)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on October 13, 2015, 08:24:32 AM
Wikipedia's milemarkers for I-95 are also definitely... off. No way exit 93 is 3.8 miles from the RI state line. It would turn to 111, not 107.

Also, if the plans for SR 695 are any indication, ConnDOT (alas) is not going to be posting any exit 0s.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: noelbotevera on October 13, 2015, 03:28:07 PM
My list fudged up some exit numbers because I rounded to the next mile rather than the current mile at where the exit is.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: The Ghostbuster on October 13, 2015, 03:48:15 PM
What is the likelihood of any highways other than I-395 and CT-2A getting milepost based exit numbers anytime soon, if ever?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on October 13, 2015, 04:59:31 PM
Well, going into 2016, I see contracts coming up for I-84 signage from Southington to Hartford and for I-95 signage from Groton to the RI border.  One more contract I could see, Branford to Old Saybrook for I-95 (and some of that would be just spot work), and I-95 could get renumbered exits.  Back to I-84, signage in East Hartford-Manchester-Vernon is pretty old so a contract through there would update I-84 completely, then it could get converted.  Still no contracts on the horizon for I-91, CT 2, and CT 9.  By the time those signs get replaced, they'll be pushing 35. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on October 13, 2015, 05:53:28 PM
The first 8 interchanges along I-84 in the Danbury area are in close enough proximity to their respective mile markers that such doesn't need to be changed IMHO.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: ctsignguy on October 14, 2015, 08:03:14 AM
Quote from: noelbotevera on October 12, 2015, 08:31:35 PM
Here's my attempt at mile based numbering on freeways in CT.

I-91 - South to North - Both directions

0A-B-C
1A-B-C
2
3
4
6
7
8
11
13
16
19A
20A-B
20C
21
23
26
27 - 28
29
31
33
34
36A
36B
36C
38A
38B
38C
39
40
41
42
44A
44B
46
47
48
49A
49B
50
51
53
55
56
58

I-84 - West to East - Both directions
0
1
4
5
6A
6B
7
8
11
14
15
18
20
21
24
29A
29B
30
31A
31B
31C
31D
31E
34 - 35
36
37
39
41A
41B
43
45
48
50A
50B
51
52
54A
54B
55
56
57
59A
59B
60A
60B
61A
61B
62A
62B
62C
63A
63B
63C
63D
64
65A
65B
66
67
68
69
70
72
73
74
76
79
83
85
87
91
92
96

I-95 "North to South" - both directions (you get the gist, so I won't do this from now on for the rest of the post)
1
2
4
5
6A
6B
7A
7B
8
9
11A
11B
12
13
15A
15B
16
18
20
23A
23B
24A
24B
25A
25B
26
27A
27B
27C
28
29A
29B
29C
30A
30B
31A
31B
32A
32B
33
34
35
36A
36B
37A
37B
39A-B
40
42
44
45A
45B
46
47A
47B
48
49
50A
50B
52
53
56
59
60
61
63
64
66
68
71
73
74
76
78A
78B
79
83
84
86
87
88A
"88B"
88C
89
90
91
92
93A
93B-C-D
94
95
96
97
100
101
102
105
107

CT 8
0A
0B
1
2
3
4A
4B
5A
5B
7
9
11
12
13A
13B
13C
14
16A
16B
17
18
21
22
24
25
26A
26B
27
29
30A
30B
30C
30D
31
32
34
38
40A
40B
44
47
49
50
52
55

CT 15
0
3
5A
5B
9A
9B
10
13
14
16
17A-B
17C-D
20
21
27
28
29
30
32
33A
33B
34A-B
37
38A
38B
38C
41
43A
43B
47
50
51
52A
52B
53
58A
59
61
64A
64B
65A
65B
80A
80B
80C
81
83
84

CT 9
0
1
4
5
7
9
10
14
15
19
21
22
23A
23B
23C
24A
24B
"24C"
25
27
29
31
32A
32B
33
34
35A
35B
35C
36A
36B
38A
38B
39
41

Done.

Nahhh....too confusing for those who have used the highway for decades.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on October 14, 2015, 07:13:20 PM
The CT DOT is looking for consultants to design the I-84 widening in Danbury and the I-91 redo with I-691/CT-15.

http://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/Solicitation_Look_ahead.pdf
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on October 15, 2015, 01:10:15 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on October 13, 2015, 04:59:31 PM
Well, going into 2016, I see contracts coming up for I-84 signage from Southington to Hartford and for I-95 signage from Groton to the RI border.  One more contract I could see, Branford to Old Saybrook for I-95 (and some of that would be just spot work), and I-95 could get renumbered exits.  Back to I-84, signage in East Hartford-Manchester-Vernon is pretty old so a contract through there would update I-84 completely, then it could get converted.  Still no contracts on the horizon for I-91, CT 2, and CT 9.  By the time those signs get replaced, they'll be pushing 35. 

I did see a I-84 Cheshire resurfacing.   It's all been repaved twice already.  x25-28 has been done when it was widened and is fine. x28-31 was just redone this past year after it was done the last couple of years.  Meanwhile there are other state maintained roads that never get it and are in bad shape. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on October 15, 2015, 06:41:36 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on October 14, 2015, 07:13:20 PM
The CT DOT is looking for consultants to design the I-84 widening in Danbury and the I-91 redo with I-691/CT-15.

http://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/Solicitation_Look_ahead.pdf
Makes me want to move to CT.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on October 22, 2015, 01:03:20 PM
Hartford Courant op/ed: CT Put Highway Edge Lines On The Map (http://www.courant.com/opinion/op-ed/hc-op-petroski-highway-lines-1022-20151021-story.html)

Quote
As drivers did generally in the early postwar years, when Dorr and his wife used these roads at night, they hugged the centerline for guidance. This minimized the chance of their drifting off the road but maximized the glare from the headlights of oncoming cars using the same strategy. To avert a collision when momentarily blinded by the lights, drivers tended to veer to the right – often ending up in the soft, grassy shoulder of the road, or worse.

Dorr conceived of a continuous line marking the right edge of the pavement as a new visual aid delineating the road's boundary. This gave drivers a reference other than the centerline for staying in their lane. He convinced the Connecticut highway department to paint an experimental right-edge line on a 4-mile stretch of the Merritt Parkway.

After a six-month testing period, the right-edge line – subsequently also sometimes called a "fog line" – proved effective in helping drivers stay on the straight and narrow. By the end of 1954, the line was painted along the entire length of the Merritt, as well as on many of the state's busiest roads.

The writer is a Dukie, but he is writing a new highway book, so good for him:
Quote
Henry Petroski is a professor of civil engineering and of history at Duke. This essay is adapted from his forthcoming book,"The Road Taken: The History and Future of America's Infrastructure," which will be published in February.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on October 22, 2015, 06:43:45 PM
The solid line marking the change from the roadway/travel lanes to the shoulder, I assume? I think nothing of them today!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on October 22, 2015, 06:48:07 PM
Also had a fun thought while riding to/from Westfield Shoppingtown (mall) in Meriden, CT today:

Why not re-route the north end of CT Route 71A? Presently, it has an unsigned end at Buell Street in New Britain's south end. In the past, it used to continue north, took a right and went up the entire length of Arch Street. Why not have it turn right onto the Willow Brook Connector (unsigned CT Route 571) in Berlin? The lone exit on that 1 mile straightaway is for New Britain Road (Berlin)/South Main Street (New Britain). That road happens to be CT Route 71.

Feel free to move this to Fictional Highways if need be! :)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on October 22, 2015, 09:59:08 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on October 22, 2015, 06:48:07 PM
Also had a fun thought while riding to/from Westfield Shoppingtown (mall) in Meriden, CT today

Arghh.... I hate that name (Westfield Shoppingtown)... it'll always be the Meriden Square to me.  Heck, I remember it when it was a simple straight line mall, with JCPenney at one end and G. Fox at the other.  Westfield tried "rebranding" their malls under a common name.  The Connecticut Post Mall in Milford got the same treatment.

One interesting sign I remember from way back in the day in Meriden was a "TO CT 9 NORTH" sign on CT 71 North right near the onramp to 691WB at Exit 5.  What's interesting is that, back then (pre-1989) CT 9 ended at I-91 and this sign was pointing north on CT 71 towards New Britain.  On CT 66 East in Middletown, there were various "To CT 9 NORTH" signs as well, pointing towards then-CT 72 West (Newfield St, which is now CT 3 North).  Why were these signs pointing the way to CT 9 North, when, at the time, CT 9 ended 1 mile north of where (then) CT 72 met CT 9? 

Ironically, all these signs were removed shortly after CT 9 was extended beyond I-91 to the Berlin Tpke, New Britain, and later I-84.


Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on October 23, 2015, 01:28:49 AM
And with that...the old JC Penney space is now occupied by a Boscov's store which opened like two weeks ago.

Anyways, any ideas if CT Route 71A could be changed?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on October 23, 2015, 09:34:04 AM
How about a renumber to Route 371?  Extend it through New Britain on Arch St, Main St, Beaver St, and Farmington Ave/Fieneman Rd. to end at US 6 in Farmington.

And yes, I still call it Meriden Square too, just as I remember I-691 and CT 322 east of I-84 as CT 66 and the highway ending at Exit 4.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on October 23, 2015, 04:34:31 PM
I hate "dangling routes" which end at an arbitruary point when they could connect to something... anything.  CT 4 is another, which ends on Farmington Avenue in West Hartford.  It should continue all the way into downtown Hartford, ending at I-84.  Or, even better, get US 6 off I-84 and route it via this way, and have CT 4 take the I-84 Exit 38 ramps.  But I digress...

As for 71A, at the very least, extend it up Arch St to Chestnut St where it could end at the CT 9 NB onramp/SB offramp. 

I'm kind of surprised 71A hasn't been resigned.  CT doesn't like "A" routes that much.  I grew up with CT 9A, then in the mid 1980s, it became CT 154.  Now all that's left of the "A"s is 2A, 71A, 182A, and US 1A.  (I think that's it).  I'd like to see all "coastal loops" along the LI Sound become US 1A. (CT 136, 130, 162, 337/142/146, 154-loop in Old Saybrook, 213-combined with a US1 reroute onto 156).  They wouldn't all be connected, per se, but would connect to US 1 at either end.  Maybe a cool trailblazer "LI SOUND COASTAL BYWAY" or something. 

Yeah, I'm dreaming.

Back to I-691 for a minute...
I remember a time when I made my parents get off at Exit 4, instead of Exit 6 when we were visiting my grandmother.  They said, look, the road's going to end at Exit 4.  I think they were a bit surprised when the road didn't end, but there was a pullthrough added which said "TO CT 10 SOUTH - Cheshire".  The first extension of CT 66 past Exit 4 was to CT 10/today's Exit 3.  A few years later, it was extended to I-84, and then renumbered I-691.  I'm not sure if the initial extension from Exit 4 to 3 was signed officially as CT 66.  I want to say it wasn't.

Also when the time for I-691 exit numbers to go to a mileage-based system, two things are going to have to happen:
(1)  The state mileage log for the route will have to be altered.  Presently, mileage is in reverse, with mile 0 being in Meriden and the numbers increase as you head west towards I-84.  But it's all internal since...
(2)  Mile markers will have to be added.  I-691 at present has NO mile markers.  Come to think of it, I don't think I-291 or I-384 do either.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Beeper1 on October 23, 2015, 04:50:43 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on October 23, 2015, 04:34:31 PM
I hate "dangling routes" which end at an arbitruary point when they could connect to something... anything.  CT 4 is another, which ends on Farmington Avenue in West Hartford.  It should continue all the way into downtown Hartford, ending at I-84.  Or, even better, get US 6 off I-84 and route it via this way, and have CT 4 take the I-84 Exit 38 ramps.  But I digress...

As for 71A, at the very least, extend it up Arch St to Chestnut St where it could end at the CT 9 NB onramp/SB offramp. 

I'm kind of surprised 71A hasn't been resigned.  CT doesn't like "A" routes that much.  I grew up with CT 9A, then in the mid 1980s, it became CT 154.  Now all that's left of the "A"s is 2A, 71A, 182A, and US 1A.  (I think that's it). 


Almost.  You forgot 14A in Plainfield/Sterling.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: DrSmith on October 23, 2015, 08:08:01 PM
Also 17-A in Portland
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on October 23, 2015, 10:32:19 PM
Quote from: kurumi on October 22, 2015, 01:03:20 PM
Hartford Courant op/ed: CT Put Highway Edge Lines On The Map (http://www.courant.com/opinion/op-ed/hc-op-petroski-highway-lines-1022-20151021-story.html)

Quote
As drivers did generally in the early postwar years, when Dorr and his wife used these roads at night, they hugged the centerline for guidance. This minimized the chance of their drifting off the road but maximized the glare from the headlights of oncoming cars using the same strategy. To avert a collision when momentarily blinded by the lights, drivers tended to veer to the right – often ending up in the soft, grassy shoulder of the road, or worse.

Dorr conceived of a continuous line marking the right edge of the pavement as a new visual aid delineating the road's boundary. This gave drivers a reference other than the centerline for staying in their lane. He convinced the Connecticut highway department to paint an experimental right-edge line on a 4-mile stretch of the Merritt Parkway.

After a six-month testing period, the right-edge line – subsequently also sometimes called a "fog line" – proved effective in helping drivers stay on the straight and narrow. By the end of 1954, the line was painted along the entire length of the Merritt, as well as on many of the state's busiest roads.

The writer is a Dukie, but he is writing a new highway book, so good for him:
Quote
Henry Petroski is a professor of civil engineering and of history at Duke. This essay is adapted from his forthcoming book,"The Road Taken: The History and Future of America's Infrastructure," which will be published in February.
Petroski is full of dookie. I've read his books before and I had to stop within a few paragraphs because of how terrible he is at (describing) engineering.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on October 24, 2015, 04:30:06 PM
So wait...is I-395 in eastern Connecticut the only 3DI which has mile markers? Probably a yes, since it was mostly part of the original Connecticut Turnpike.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: noelbotevera on October 24, 2015, 04:59:11 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on October 24, 2015, 04:30:06 PM
So wait...is I-395 in eastern Connecticut the only 3DI which has mile markers? Probably a yes, since it was mostly part of the original Connecticut Turnpike.
I-95 was too, but it doesn't have mile markers.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on October 24, 2015, 07:10:59 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on October 24, 2015, 04:30:06 PM
So wait...is I-395 in eastern Connecticut the only 3DI which has mile markers? Probably a yes, since it was mostly part of the original Connecticut Turnpike.

Technically, I-684 does in the little piece in CT, but that's maintained by NYSDOT and NY MM
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on October 24, 2015, 11:15:46 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on October 24, 2015, 04:59:11 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on October 24, 2015, 04:30:06 PM
So wait...is I-395 in eastern Connecticut the only 3DI which has mile markers? Probably a yes, since it was mostly part of the original Connecticut Turnpike.
I-95 was too, but it doesn't have mile markers.

Connecticut I-95 does indeed have them. The 2/10 mile variety from the state line until at least New Haven.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Pete from Boston on October 28, 2015, 12:18:17 AM
When was the Mashapaug Rd./Exit 74 eastbound on-ramp onto I-84 closed?  It is on the 1971 photo but not the 1991 photo on Historicaerials.com
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on October 28, 2015, 02:07:18 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on October 28, 2015, 12:18:17 AM
When was the Mashapaug Rd./Exit 74 eastbound on-ramp onto I-84 closed?  It is on the 1971 photo but not the 1991 photo on Historicaerials.com


The ramp was probably relocated when I-86 (now I-84) was reconstructed in the area c. 1976.

The Wilbur Cross Highway (CT 15, I-86) at the time was 6 lanes from East Hartford to US 6/44, and 4 lanes to the east. That highway dated back to 1954 and earlier. Widening and reconstruction started at Union in the mid-1970s and worked its way westward, finishing around 1989 at the 84/15 split. The new profile, disregarding operational and C/D lanes, is 6+2 HOV to Vernon, and 6 lanes to the Mass. state line.

I would call this the most dramatic highway reconstruction project in CT history. I-91 north of Hartford comes close; it also had HOV lanes added, and the CT 20 interchange completely redone. But I-84 saw interchanges removed (Forbes St), moved (Buckland St. used to be at Tolland Tpke.), upgraded (flyover at 30/83); C/D roads (Manchester) and two interstates connected (291 and 384).

I doubt we'll see any project of this scale in CT ever again. There may be more expensive projects (84/8; Aetna Viaduct; 95/34/91 and Q-Bridge; Malloy's I-95 widening proposal), but nothing like a complete modernization (apparent doubling of ROW, etc.) of 30 miles of freeway.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: southshore720 on October 28, 2015, 01:27:34 PM
Quote from: kurumi on October 28, 2015, 02:07:18 AM
I doubt we'll see any project of this scale in CT ever again. There may be more expensive projects (84/8; Aetna Viaduct; 95/34/91 and Q-Bridge; Malloy's I-95 widening proposal), but nothing like a complete modernization (apparent doubling of ROW, etc.) of 30 miles of freeway.

That's a shame...so many great projects await:
Full interchange of US 7 & Merritt Pkwy; US 7 completed from Wilton to Danbury; CT 25 completed from CT 111 to I-84; CT 11 completed to I-95; I-384 completed to AT LEAST I-395  :-D  :-P
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on October 29, 2015, 12:06:35 AM
I'd be happy with I-384 and the US Route 6 expressway near Willimantic get connected directly!

Meanwhile, while on I-91 in Meriden on Tuesday, I couldn't help but notice that mile marker 20 getting shifted nearly 4/10 of a mile to the north. The southbound "MILE 20" sign used to be south of the I-691/CT 66 bridges but before the highway got flanked by either side of CT Route 15.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JakeFromNewEngland on November 08, 2015, 04:33:31 PM
I was traveling through Danbury and noticed they put up a new APL at the I-84/US 7/US 202 split. There was one assembly that was up (shown below) and another was under construction about 1/2 mile before the interchange.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1001.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Faf138%2Fjakez1112%2FFullSizeRender_zpsjnrqgh07.jpg&hash=7c6e03b7bcce6e7cab4632682b5cbda37cbd120c)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: OracleUsr on November 08, 2015, 05:12:17 PM
The CT DOT seems to have adopted a more standard left tab now.  The one in the background looks really odd up close (I think it's because of the spacing between EXIT and 7).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: bob7374 on November 08, 2015, 11:46:25 PM
I got to travel along some of I-395 on Saturday. They have installed new signs (with new numbers) up at least to Exit 90 (new Exit 35). Here's the 1/2 mile advance sign for Exit 35:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-Y4GTxTn-zjQ%2FVkAK0QoVa5I%2FAAAAAAAAB5E%2FddQ8D45A89M%2Fs400%2Fi3951115vv.jpg&hash=b1f28377aae743920ee272a0ad7be2a7ac19fbdb)

They also have placed new signage along SR 695 toward US 6 East (nothing new the other way. Here's the new signage at the off-ramp for now Exit 1:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-DvWY5t52PDc%2FVkATr_p3vAI%2FAAAAAAAAB68%2Fo1FN33_2Jpo%2Fs400%2Fi3951115ab.jpg&hash=81114c5cf9caaa4d21d3d7a97176d3099b819558)

I've created a blog entry with more photos of new I-395 signage:
http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2015/11/a-drive-along-part-of-i-395.html (http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2015/11/a-drive-along-part-of-i-395.html)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: southshore720 on November 09, 2015, 09:16:42 PM
Ross Rd. finally gets its due... :clap:
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on November 10, 2015, 11:32:51 AM
Quote from: southshore720 on November 09, 2015, 09:16:42 PM
Ross Rd. finally gets its due... :clap:

Ross Road Meetup, July 2016

Let's check out the Ross Road interchange on SR 695 with the new signage. If there is time, we will also visit the Squaw Rock Road interchange. If there is still time, we will go to Dunkin Donuts.   :awesomeface:
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on November 10, 2015, 01:06:42 PM
Dunkin Donuts can be the meet restaurant.  We can take the meet photo there in case anyone needs to peel off early in the tour.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on November 10, 2015, 06:29:32 PM
Quote from: vdeane on November 10, 2015, 01:06:42 PM
Dunkin Donuts can be the meet restaurant.  We can take the meet photo there in case anyone needs to peel off early in the tour.
Intermediate bathroom break at the other Dunkin Donuts. Post-meet dinner at the third Dunkin Donuts.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on November 10, 2015, 07:16:00 PM
Quote from: Alps on November 10, 2015, 06:29:32 PM
Quote from: vdeane on November 10, 2015, 01:06:42 PM
Dunkin Donuts can be the meet restaurant.  We can take the meet photo there in case anyone needs to peel off early in the tour.
Intermediate bathroom break at the other Dunkin Donuts. Post-meet dinner at the third Dunkin Donuts.

Has anyone clinched every Dunkin in CT yet?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: cl94 on November 11, 2015, 09:14:16 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on November 10, 2015, 07:16:00 PM
Quote from: Alps on November 10, 2015, 06:29:32 PM
Quote from: vdeane on November 10, 2015, 01:06:42 PM
Dunkin Donuts can be the meet restaurant.  We can take the meet photo there in case anyone needs to peel off early in the tour.
Intermediate bathroom break at the other Dunkin Donuts. Post-meet dinner at the third Dunkin Donuts.

Has anyone clinched every Dunkin in CT yet?

Good luck with that. There are probably hundreds.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on November 11, 2015, 09:49:07 AM
Just like there's seemingly a CVS every 500 feet in sections of Boston. :)

One could also easily head into Rhode Island at the end of SR CT 695. There's really nothing on those first couple miles of US Route 6 though. This is your "view" crossing east into Foster, RI:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FUPA4SBf.jpg&hash=4416070cd7e9d5cf8d0b912df8592e8144ab5a33)

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Beeper1 on November 11, 2015, 06:06:36 PM
Traveled the northern half of 395 today.  The new numbers are in place up to exit 43 (old exit 94) in Attawaugan.   Only exits 95-100 still have the old numbers.

Odd question, but who is going to be changing the number on the SB sign for exit 100 that's in MA?  It was put up by MassDOT, but isn't in their renumber contract. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: TravelingBethelite on November 11, 2015, 06:30:54 PM
Quote from: cl94 on November 11, 2015, 09:14:16 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on November 10, 2015, 07:16:00 PM
Quote from: Alps on November 10, 2015, 06:29:32 PM
Quote from: vdeane on November 10, 2015, 01:06:42 PM
Dunkin Donuts can be the meet restaurant.  We can take the meet photo there in case anyone needs to peel off early in the tour.
Intermediate bathroom break at the other Dunkin Donuts. Post-meet dinner at the third Dunkin Donuts.

Has anyone clinched every Dunkin in CT yet?

Good luck with that. There are probably hundreds.

I'm in Danbury and they're over 50 within 30 miles of me, so that sounds right.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: dgolub on November 11, 2015, 07:08:40 PM
Quote from: kurumi on November 10, 2015, 11:32:51 AM
Quote from: southshore720 on November 09, 2015, 09:16:42 PM
Ross Rd. finally gets its due... :clap:

Ross Road Meetup, July 2016

Let's check out the Ross Road interchange on SR 695 with the new signage. If there is time, we will also visit the Squaw Rock Road interchange. If there is still time, we will go to Dunkin Donuts.   :awesomeface:

Yes, let's do it.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on November 11, 2015, 08:46:11 PM
Quote from: kurumi on November 10, 2015, 11:32:51 AM
Quote from: southshore720 on November 09, 2015, 09:16:42 PM
Ross Rd. finally gets its due... :clap:

Ross Road Meetup, July 2016

Let's check out the Ross Road interchange on SR 695 with the new signage. If there is time, we will also visit the Squaw Rock Road interchange. If there is still time, we will go to Dunkin Donuts.   :awesomeface:

The meet can start at the Plainfield Service Plaza-SB.  Bathroom break at Montville Service Plaza-SB.  Reverse direction at Exit 2/former Exit 77, then another break at Plainfield Service Plaza-NB, then off onto SR 695 to the Ross Road interchange.  All service plazas have Dunkin' Donuts.  Kill two birds with one stone!

Was there ever any elusive old signage at the Ross Road SB onramp or the Squaw Rock Road NB onramp?  Seems like these would've been perfect spots for some classic old signage to hang on, forgotten, for years.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Beeper1 on November 11, 2015, 09:00:30 PM
No, there wasn't ever anything too interesting on either of those roads.

The top of the Squaw Rock onramp has a TO EAST {6} shield assembly, which wasn't too old (and has been replaced with a new identical setup recently).

The top of the Ross Road ramp just has a TO SOUTH {395} shield assembly. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Pete from Boston on November 11, 2015, 09:31:45 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on November 11, 2015, 09:49:07 AM
Just like there's seemingly a CVS every 500 feet in sections of Boston. :)

One could also easily head into Rhode Island at the end of SR CT 695. There's really nothing on those first couple miles of US Route 6 though. This is your "view" crossing east into Foster, RI:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FUPA4SBf.jpg&hash=4416070cd7e9d5cf8d0b912df8592e8144ab5a33)

Whoa, settle down... you don't want to add a second day to this tour.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: TravelingBethelite on November 13, 2015, 07:52:38 PM
I was driving with family through New Haven and saw (but didn't get to snappa picture) of this pretty old sign:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FiwizhQr.jpg&hash=88607aea260e6b28083f3a16133af79df6a2793f)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: TravelingBethelite on November 18, 2015, 03:19:54 PM
On a recent trip through Niantic, I also saw this one, just like a Missouri Secondary marker:

(https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3261126,-72.1718578,3a,37.5y,254.85h,83.5t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shdfcAeWJ4_Drrq8hybmADQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on November 18, 2015, 04:15:12 PM
Quote from: TravelingBethelite on November 18, 2015, 03:19:54 PM
On a recent trip through Niantic, I also saw this one, just like a Missouri Secondary marker:

(https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3261126,-72.1718578,3a,37.5y,254.85h,83.5t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shdfcAeWJ4_Drrq8hybmADQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

Ah yes, the infamous "Route B", though it was a lot more important back before they built the present high-level Niantic River drawbridge.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: relaxok on November 24, 2015, 07:42:53 PM
Does anybody have information on proposed I-84 exit numbering (before and after) from the NY state line to Waterbury?  i'm curious what each of those would become.  I looked at a list a bit up in this thread but the numbers didn't make sense to me.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on November 25, 2015, 11:31:02 AM
http://i-84waterbury.com/pages/43-ct-transportation-fast-facts

This link for information was given at the I-84 Waterbury reconstruction website. :)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on November 25, 2015, 11:11:15 PM
If there's anything about exit numbers on that site, it sure is buried.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on November 30, 2015, 06:33:48 PM
Quote from: relaxok on November 24, 2015, 07:42:53 PM
Does anybody have information on proposed I-84 exit numbering (before and after) from the NY state line to Waterbury?  i'm curious what each of those would become.  I looked at a list a bit up in this thread but the numbers didn't make sense to me.
Having just driven that stretch just last night and assuming that ConnDOT doesn't use Exit 0 for any interchange east of MM 1; I can easily see Exits 1 through 8 not changing at all.

Based on where the mile markers fall (speculation only)...

Exit 9 will likely become Exit 11
Exit 10 will likely become Exit 15
Exit 11 will likely become Exit 16
There is no Exit 12 (anyone know the history behind this?)
Exit 13 will likely become Exit 19
Exit 14 will likely beome Exit 20
Exit 15 will likely become Exit 21
Exit 16 will likely become Exit 25
Exit 17 will likely become Exit 30
Exit 18 will likely become Exit 31
Exit 19 will likely become Exit 32A
Exit 20 will likely become Exit 32B
Exit 21 will likely become Exit 32C
Exit 22 will likely become Exit 33
Exit 23 will likely become Exit 34
Exit 24 will likely become Exit 35A westbound
Exit 25 will likely become Exit 35 eastbound/35B westbound
Exit 25A will likely become Exit 36
Exit 26 will likely become Exit 38
Exit 27 will likely become Exit 40A
Exit 28 will likely become Exit 40B
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: relaxok on November 30, 2015, 06:42:35 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 30, 2015, 06:33:48 PM
There is no Exit 12 (anyone know the history behind this?)

[btw thanks for that list]

Regarding Exit 12, paraphrasing info from kurumi's site:

When the Exit 11 interchange was re-made in 1976, the old 11 and 12 were removed.  12 has never been replaced - the area straddles the housatonic river and does not have much room for building a safe interchange.  I believe 13 West was considered unsafe as well, and only eastbound was improved and kept alive.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on November 30, 2015, 07:42:18 PM
Pretty accurate list.  Lot of people get the MM wrong on Exits 26-28, but you got it right from what I've seen.  Just one item: Exit 24 westbound is being eliminated as part of the Waterbury widening project, so Exit 25 both ways should become just plain Exit 35.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: dgolub on November 30, 2015, 07:50:31 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 30, 2015, 06:33:48 PM
Quote from: relaxok on November 24, 2015, 07:42:53 PM
Does anybody have information on proposed I-84 exit numbering (before and after) from the NY state line to Waterbury?  i'm curious what each of those would become.  I looked at a list a bit up in this thread but the numbers didn't make sense to me.
Having just driven that stretch just last night and assuming that ConnDOT doesn't use Exit 0 for any interchange east of MM 1; I can easily see Exits 1 through 8 not changing at all.

Based on where the mile markers fall (speculation only)...

Exit 9 will likely become Exit 11
Exit 10 will likely become Exit 15
Exit 11 will likely become Exit 16
There is no Exit 12 (anyone know the history behind this?)
Exit 13 will likely become Exit 19
Exit 14 will likely beome Exit 20
Exit 15 will likely become Exit 21
Exit 16 will likely become Exit 25
Exit 17 will likely become Exit 30
Exit 18 will likely become Exit 31
Exit 19 will likely become Exit 32A
Exit 20 will likely become Exit 32B
Exit 21 will likely become Exit 32C
Exit 22 will likely become Exit 33
Exit 23 will likely become Exit 34
Exit 24 will likely become Exit 35A westbound
Exit 25 will likely become Exit 35 eastbound/35B westbound
Exit 25A will likely become Exit 36
Exit 26 will likely become Exit 38
Exit 27 will likely become Exit 40A
Exit 28 will likely become Exit 40B

Wait, is this supposed to mean that I-84 is switching to milepost exit numbers?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on November 30, 2015, 10:15:22 PM
Quote from: dgolub on November 30, 2015, 07:50:31 PM
Wait, is this supposed to mean that I-84 is switching to milepost exit numbers?

ConnDOT has not announced any such plans as far as I'm aware. Chris is just speculating.

As for why there is no exit 12, there used to be. It led to local streets immediately at the west shore of the Housatonic River and was eliminated when that bridge was twinned (some point between 1972 and 1985 per Historic Aerials). This twinning also saw exit 13 converted to a half interchange, it originally was a full interchange.



Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on November 30, 2015, 11:08:23 PM
It would make sense to do it when the planned sign replacement between Southington and Hartford takes place.  As it is, the mile markers themselves need to be replaced east of Waterbury all the way to the MA line, as many are either extremely faded or missing.  Hope to see the 1/5 mi markers with the Shield Mile XX signs.  Danbury area changes would be Exits 3 and 4 becoming 4A and 4B, and Exits 5 and 6 westbound becoming 6A and 6B (unless Exit 1 becomes Exit 0).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on December 01, 2015, 08:42:58 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on November 30, 2015, 10:15:22 PM
Quote from: dgolub on November 30, 2015, 07:50:31 PM
Wait, is this supposed to mean that I-84 is switching to milepost exit numbers?

ConnDOT has not announced any such plans as far as I'm aware. Chris is just speculating.
Given the fact that ConnDOT is presently converting I-395 to mile-marker based exit numbers; conversions along other CT highways could be in the long-range plans.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on December 01, 2015, 01:35:01 PM
I expect that they'll eventually convert everything to mile-based, but I'm not expecting any sort of speed on it.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: The Ghostbuster on December 01, 2015, 04:21:47 PM
I suspect Interstate 84 and the exit sequences on the other roads will remain sequential for a long time to come.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on December 01, 2015, 08:39:27 PM
My thought is that ConnDOT probably felt some FHWA pressure to get this changed. If that's the case, then I would expect more roads to follow.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on December 02, 2015, 08:30:30 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on November 30, 2015, 11:08:23 PMDanbury area changes would be Exits 3 and 4 becoming 4A and 4B, and Exits 5 and 6 westbound becoming 6A and 6B (unless Exit 1 becomes Exit 0).
Personal opinion: Assuming that ConnDOT doesn't follow MassDOT's present lead towards unnecessary (over)suffixing of interchange numbers (i.e. chooses the path of least resistance instead); those interchanges are within reasonable proximity to the corresponding mile markers so that the current exit numbers can remain as is and still meet criteria. 

Look at the I-95 in PA (Exits 1 through 10) near the DE state line as an example for such.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on December 02, 2015, 11:52:06 AM
What bugs me (slightly) is that CT assigns "Exit 1[A,B,C,...]" to all interchanges between milepost 0 and milepost 1.99. On I-91, present-day exits 1 thru 6 (Willow Street; the East Rock Expressway stub at MP 1.6) would become exits 1A - 1F.

Instead, IMHO they should take the largest integer less than the MP value and add 1.

MP 0.99: exit 1
MP 1.00: exit 1
MP 1.01: exit 2
... and add letter suffixes as needed
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on December 02, 2015, 12:36:18 PM
Quote from: kurumi on December 02, 2015, 11:52:06 AM
What bugs me (slightly) is that CT assigns "Exit 1[A,B,C,...]" to all interchanges between milepost 0 and milepost 1.99. On I-91, present-day exits 1 thru 6 (Willow Street; the East Rock Expressway stub at MP 1.6) would become exits 1A - 1F.

Instead, IMHO they should take the largest integer less than the MP value and add 1.

MP 0.99: exit 1
MP 1.00: exit 1
MP 1.01: exit 2
... and add letter suffixes as needed
My personal take on this would be to have any interchange situated* between MM 0 and MM 1.5 be Exit 1 (or 1A, B, etc.) and ones between MM 1.5 and 2.5 be Exit 2 and so forth.

*MM at where the center of the interchange is, not where the ramps begin/end.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on December 02, 2015, 06:37:14 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 02, 2015, 12:36:18 PM
Quote from: kurumi on December 02, 2015, 11:52:06 AM
What bugs me (slightly) is that CT assigns "Exit 1[A,B,C,...]" to all interchanges between milepost 0 and milepost 1.99. On I-91, present-day exits 1 thru 6 (Willow Street; the East Rock Expressway stub at MP 1.6) would become exits 1A - 1F.

Instead, IMHO they should take the largest integer less than the MP value and add 1.

MP 0.99: exit 1
MP 1.00: exit 1
MP 1.01: exit 2
... and add letter suffixes as needed
My personal take on this would be to have any interchange situated* between MM 0 and MM 1.5 be Exit 1 (or 1A, B, etc.) and ones between MM 1.5 and 2.5 be Exit 2 and so forth.

*MM at where the center of the interchange is, not where the ramps begin/end.
My personal take on this would be to be flexible in adopting standards through densely ramped areas, to try to minimize the alphabet soup.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on December 02, 2015, 07:07:46 PM
How about a break from the endless exit numbering debates:

Operational Improvements Under Development for I-91 Northbound at Interchange 29




The Connecticut Department of Transportation's Office of Engineering is developing plans to relocate I-91 northbound Interchange 29, and widen I-91 northbound and Route 15 northbound to I-84 East in Hartford and East Hartford. The purpose of the project is to address safety concerns associated with the capacity and operational deficiencies at the I-91 northbound Interchange 29, which routinely experiences significant traffic delays and above average crash frequency.  Much of this can be attributed to the steep vertical grade and single-lane configuration of the ramp, the heavy traffic weave on the Charter Oak Bridge, and the near capacity volumes on I-91.


The proposed improvements include widening I-91 northbound to extend the four-lane travel section from Interchange 27 to Interchange 29 to relieve congestion, address safety concerns, and provide an efficient I-91 to I-84 connection.  It is also proposed to remove the existing ramp at I-91 northbound Interchange 29 and provide a major diverge south of the I-91 bridge over Route 15 to address the existing adverse vertical grade and limited capacity of the existing ramp.  The new I-91 diverge will consist of three lanes to the right, maintaining I-91 traffic (existing condition), and two lanes to the left, conveying traffic to Route 15 northbound via a new structure over Route 15 southbound.  The existing pavement markings on the Charter Oak Bridge will be modified to accommodate the additional northbound lane from I-91.  Additional improvements include widening of Route 15 northbound to three travel lanes, from the Charter Oak Bridge to the Silver Lane underpass, to address congestion concerns on Route 15 and allow a more desirable distance from Interchange 29 on I-91 to merge from three travel lanes to two prior to its merge with I-84 East.


The present schedule indicates that the design will be completed in November 2017, with construction anticipated to start in the spring of 2018, assuming acceptance of the project, availability of funding and receipt of any required right-of-way and environmental permits.  This project will be undertaken with 80% federal and 20% state funds.


It is the Department's policy to keep the public informed and involved when such projects are undertaken.  It is important that the community share its concerns with us to assist in the project's development.  A public informational meeting will be conducted upon the completion of the preliminary design.  At this time, it is not anticipated that a formal public hearing will be necessary.


Anyone interested in receiving information on this project may do so by contacting Ms. Susan M. Libatique, Principal Engineer, at (860) 594-3179 or by e-mail at Susan.Libatique@ct.gov.  Please make reference to State Project No. 63-703.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: mroad860 on December 02, 2015, 08:21:41 PM
Hello everyone! :D Longtime reader and road geek.. First post..

I've been noticing that CTDOT is painting its new signals yellow with retroreflective back plates.. Like at the intersection of Route 195 and 320 in Mansfield.https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8280874,-72.2672461,3a,75y,333.29h,86.11t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVBfuzXX_7Hwhe2PkUhrDgg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1

I personally was a fan of the dark green painted signals.. I was thinking maybe they switched to yellow since they are more visible during power outages? When I drove around during our October 2011 storm, the older style yellow painted signals were more visible, while the dark green painted signals weren't as visible during a power outage.. They also recently replaced a bunch of road sign flasher lights in CT recently with yellow painted lights.. Is this the new standard for CT signals? What are your thoughts?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on December 06, 2015, 12:46:50 AM
ConnDOT has a proposal to increase safety on CT 82 between I-395 and downtown Norwich (Day [New London, Conn.] article, Sept 16 2015 (http://www.theday.com/article/20150916/NWS01/150919394))

Project document here: http://www.norwichct.org/DocumentCenter/View/2411 (low-quality diagram)

The project would add a median with landscaping from New London Turnpike to Asylum Street. Roundabouts would be constructed at New London Turnpike, Norman Road, Dunham Street, Osgood Street, Mount Pleasant Street and Asylum Street. The roundabouts would slow traffic as well as facilitate U-turns; there would be no other breaks in the median.

From Dunham Street to Ann Street, Route 82 would get a road diet, from 4 lanes to 2, because... (shrug)

Cost: about $42M
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: dgolub on December 06, 2015, 09:34:14 AM
Quote from: mroad860 on December 02, 2015, 08:21:41 PM
Hello everyone! :D Longtime reader and road geek.. First post..

I've been noticing that CTDOT is painting its new signals yellow with retroreflective back plates.. Like at the intersection of Route 195 and 320 in Mansfield.https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8280874,-72.2672461,3a,75y,333.29h,86.11t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVBfuzXX_7Hwhe2PkUhrDgg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1

I personally was a fan of the dark green painted signals.. I was thinking maybe they switched to yellow since they are more visible during power outages? When I drove around during our October 2011 storm, the older style yellow painted signals were more visible, while the dark green painted signals weren't as visible during a power outage.. They also recently replaced a bunch of road sign flasher lights in CT recently with yellow painted lights.. Is this the new standard for CT signals? What are your thoughts?

Interesting.  New York has traditionally used dark green for NYSDOT-owned signals, but the more recent ones have a yellow rectangle around them.  Perhaps for the same reason?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: cl94 on December 06, 2015, 05:54:34 PM
Quote from: dgolub on December 06, 2015, 09:34:14 AM
Quote from: mroad860 on December 02, 2015, 08:21:41 PM
Hello everyone! :D Longtime reader and road geek.. First post..

I've been noticing that CTDOT is painting its new signals yellow with retroreflective back plates.. Like at the intersection of Route 195 and 320 in Mansfield.https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8280874,-72.2672461,3a,75y,333.29h,86.11t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVBfuzXX_7Hwhe2PkUhrDgg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1

I personally was a fan of the dark green painted signals.. I was thinking maybe they switched to yellow since they are more visible during power outages? When I drove around during our October 2011 storm, the older style yellow painted signals were more visible, while the dark green painted signals weren't as visible during a power outage.. They also recently replaced a bunch of road sign flasher lights in CT recently with yellow painted lights.. Is this the new standard for CT signals? What are your thoughts?

Interesting.  New York has traditionally used dark green for NYSDOT-owned signals, but the more recent ones have a yellow rectangle around them.  Perhaps for the same reason?

Everything in New York except NYCDOT, Buffalo, Rochester, Albany, Syracuse and a handful of counties and smaller localities uses green. I've heard that the dark green is used to increase contrast in snow. In most of Upstate, almost everything is green.

Several states have switched to the retroreflective backplates, but many states adopting them use green in such cases. Ohio, for example, changed from yellow to dark green when they started using the backplates to improve contrast. Weird that Connecticut changed the other way.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on December 06, 2015, 06:22:19 PM
Newer signals in Albany use what I assume you're calling dark green (looks like black to me).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: dgolub on December 06, 2015, 07:01:27 PM
Quote from: cl94 on December 06, 2015, 05:54:34 PM
Everything in New York except NYCDOT, Buffalo, Rochester, Albany, Syracuse and a handful of counties and smaller localities uses green. I've heard that the dark green is used to increase contrast in snow. In most of Upstate, almost everything is green.

On Long Island, Nassau and Suffolk counties both use yellow on counties routes, as do most if not all of the towns in Suffolk on town roads.  (In Nassau, almost everything major enough to have traffic lights is maintained by the county, even if it doesn't have a CR number, so traffic lights on town roads are rare.)  The color of the traffic lights is generally a good clue as to whether or not you're on a state route.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on December 06, 2015, 08:55:49 PM
Quote from: kurumi on December 06, 2015, 12:46:50 AM
ConnDOT has a proposal to increase safety on CT 82 between I-395 and downtown Norwich

The project would add a median with landscaping from New London Turnpike to Asylum Street. Roundabouts would be constructed at New London Turnpike, Norman Road, Dunham Street, Osgood Street, Mount Pleasant Street and Asylum Street. The roundabouts would slow traffic as well as facilitate U-turns; there would be no other breaks in the median.

From Dunham Street to Ann Street, Route 82 would get a road diet, from 4 lanes to 2, because... (shrug)

Wow. Watch out Malta, Norwich is coming for ya!

As for the partial road diet, are traffic counts lower east of Dunham Street? If not, maybe it's just a compromise between people who wanted to narrow the whole road and people who wanted to keep it all four lanes. Especially with public involvement in the process these decisions are not necessarily rational.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: cl94 on December 06, 2015, 09:20:58 PM
Quote from: dgolub on December 06, 2015, 07:01:27 PM
Quote from: cl94 on December 06, 2015, 05:54:34 PM
Everything in New York except NYCDOT, Buffalo, Rochester, Albany, Syracuse and a handful of counties and smaller localities uses green. I've heard that the dark green is used to increase contrast in snow. In most of Upstate, almost everything is green.

On Long Island, Nassau and Suffolk counties both use yellow on counties routes, as do most if not all of the towns in Suffolk on town roads.  (In Nassau, almost everything major enough to have traffic lights is maintained by the county, even if it doesn't have a CR number, so traffic lights on town roads are rare.)  The color of the traffic lights is generally a good clue as to whether or not you're on a state route.

Nassau and Suffolk are two of those handful. Also included are Saratoga and Monroe. Elsewhere (and pretty much everywhere upstate), it's typically green.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Beeper1 on December 12, 2015, 07:16:01 PM
I-395 exit renumbering is now complete up to the state line.  The full sign replacement is still ongoing, but all posted signs now have the new numbers.   

Still not sure if Mass will alter their BGS SB for old exit 100.  It is now incorrect with the old #.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on December 12, 2015, 08:11:52 PM
Quote from: Beeper1 on December 12, 2015, 07:16:01 PM
Still not sure if Mass will alter their BGS SB for old exit 100.  It is now incorrect with the old #.

I'm sure they will be changed as part of the project.  The contract plans show overlays for the signs in Mass and to coordinate with MassDOT for the needed modifications, etc.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: bob7374 on December 13, 2015, 05:03:24 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on December 12, 2015, 08:11:52 PM
Quote from: Beeper1 on December 12, 2015, 07:16:01 PM
Still not sure if Mass will alter their BGS SB for old exit 100.  It is now incorrect with the old #.

I'm sure they will be changed as part of the project.  The contract plans show overlays for the signs in Mass and to coordinate with MassDOT for the needed modifications, etc.
Hopefully, the overlays will be used and MassDOT won't be forced to put up the new exit number using a sharpie like was done with MA 128 for the Endicott Street exit. :D
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: yakra on December 16, 2015, 01:55:27 AM
Can anyone confirm that
• Old 91 -> 37
• Old 92 -> 38
as shown in OSM?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on December 16, 2015, 11:29:01 AM
Quote from: yakra on December 16, 2015, 01:55:27 AM
Can anyone confirm that
- Old 91 -> 37
- Old 92 -> 38
as shown in OSM?

A graphic in this Woostah News-Telegram article agrees: http://www.telegram.com/article/20151212/NEWS/151219726
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: bob7374 on December 16, 2015, 02:45:41 PM
Quote from: kurumi on December 16, 2015, 11:29:01 AM
Quote from: yakra on December 16, 2015, 01:55:27 AM
Can anyone confirm that
- Old 91 -> 37
- Old 92 -> 38
as shown in OSM?

A graphic in this Woostah News-Telegram article agrees: http://www.telegram.com/article/20151212/NEWS/151219726
This is the first article I've seen that talks about the upcoming exit number changes in Mass. The writer complains that the PR person at MassDOT hasn't gotten back to her. Guess she doesn't know the right people to talk to.  :-/
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on December 16, 2015, 08:53:08 PM
http://www.hartfordbusiness.com/article/20151215/NEWS01/151219949/1002

Road work to soon commence on I-84/US 6 in West Hartford and a section of CT Route 15 in New Haven.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on December 17, 2015, 12:12:22 AM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on December 16, 2015, 08:53:08 PM
http://www.hartfordbusiness.com/article/20151215/NEWS01/151219949/1002

Road work to soon commence on I-84/US 6 in West Hartford and a section of CT Route 15 in New Haven.

Quote from: HartfordBusiness.com article
A westbound thru lane from Interchange 39A (Route 9) to Interchange 43;

That from/to description is eastbound, which makes that a little confusing.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: dgolub on December 17, 2015, 09:19:43 AM
Quote from: Beeper1 on December 12, 2015, 07:16:01 PM
I-395 exit renumbering is now complete up to the state line.  The full sign replacement is still ongoing, but all posted signs now have the new numbers.   

Still not sure if Mass will alter their BGS SB for old exit 100.  It is now incorrect with the old #.

This must be one of the few places (if not the only one) where switching to a milepost system eliminated three-digit exit numbers rather than adding them.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on December 17, 2015, 01:56:00 PM
Some good news for I-84 drivers in West Hartford....although the added lane should be until I-91.
http://www.hartfordbusiness.com/article/20151215/NEWS01/151219949/1002

and I do have I-91 at Exit 29 plans in my e-mail but haven't figured out how to post here yet.

And I-84 Hartford plans:
http://www.centralctcommunications.com/bristolpress/article_aa736be2-9a2b-11e5-9452-53268c0a8186.html
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on December 17, 2015, 07:06:11 PM
Quote from: dgolub on December 17, 2015, 09:19:43 AM
Quote from: Beeper1 on December 12, 2015, 07:16:01 PM
I-395 exit renumbering is now complete up to the state line.  The full sign replacement is still ongoing, but all posted signs now have the new numbers.   

Still not sure if Mass will alter their BGS SB for old exit 100.  It is now incorrect with the old #.

This must be one of the few places (if not the only one) where switching to a milepost system eliminated three-digit exit numbers rather than adding them.
Arizona I-17 would be another candidate if they began it at 0.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on December 17, 2015, 07:23:40 PM
Quote from: Alps on December 17, 2015, 07:06:11 PM
Quote from: dgolub on December 17, 2015, 09:19:43 AM
This must be one of the few places (if not the only one) where switching to a milepost system eliminated three-digit exit numbers rather than adding them.
Arizona I-17 would be another candidate if they began it at 0.

Eh? I-17 is more than 100 miles long, so no.

The only other three digit sequential numbers in the country are on NY 17, won't happen there.

If I-84 east of Hartford still had its original exit numbers which were sequential for CT 15, it would happen there.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on December 17, 2015, 07:39:56 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on December 17, 2015, 07:23:40 PM
Quote from: Alps on December 17, 2015, 07:06:11 PM
Quote from: dgolub on December 17, 2015, 09:19:43 AM
This must be one of the few places (if not the only one) where switching to a milepost system eliminated three-digit exit numbers rather than adding them.
Arizona I-17 would be another candidate if they began it at 0.

Eh? I-17 is more than 100 miles long, so no.

The only other three digit sequential numbers in the country are on NY 17, won't happen there.

If I-84 east of Hartford still had its original exit numbers which were sequential for CT 15, it would happen there.

DE 1 would come close if it went from its kilometer based system to a mile based system
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on December 18, 2015, 12:56:06 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on December 17, 2015, 07:23:40 PM
Quote from: Alps on December 17, 2015, 07:06:11 PM
Quote from: dgolub on December 17, 2015, 09:19:43 AM
This must be one of the few places (if not the only one) where switching to a milepost system eliminated three-digit exit numbers rather than adding them.
Arizona I-17 would be another candidate if they began it at 0.

Eh? I-17 is more than 100 miles long, so no.
Read the question. Converting it to a zero-based milepost system would "eliminate three-digit exit numbers rather than add them." Converting from 200 to 100 doesn't add a three-digit exit number, but converting from 150 to 50 eliminates one.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: dgolub on December 18, 2015, 08:49:54 AM
Quote from: Alps on December 18, 2015, 12:56:06 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on December 17, 2015, 07:23:40 PM
Quote from: Alps on December 17, 2015, 07:06:11 PM
Quote from: dgolub on December 17, 2015, 09:19:43 AM
This must be one of the few places (if not the only one) where switching to a milepost system eliminated three-digit exit numbers rather than adding them.
Arizona I-17 would be another candidate if they began it at 0.

Eh? I-17 is more than 100 miles long, so no.
Read the question. Converting it to a zero-based milepost system would "eliminate three-digit exit numbers rather than add them." Converting from 200 to 100 doesn't add a three-digit exit number, but converting from 150 to 50 eliminates one.

Actually, what I meant was eliminate them from the road altogether, not eliminate them from a specific exit.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: ctroads87 on December 18, 2015, 04:00:39 PM
Quote from: mroad860 on December 02, 2015, 08:21:41 PM
Hello everyone! :D Longtime reader and road geek.. First post..

I've been noticing that CTDOT is painting its new signals yellow with retroreflective back plates.. Like at the intersection of Route 195 and 320 in Mansfield.https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8280874,-72.2672461,3a,75y,333.29h,86.11t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVBfuzXX_7Hwhe2PkUhrDgg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1

I personally was a fan of the dark green painted signals.. I was thinking maybe they switched to yellow since they are more visible during power outages? When I drove around during our October 2011 storm, the older style yellow painted signals were more visible, while the dark green painted signals weren't as visible during a power outage.. They also recently replaced a bunch of road sign flasher lights in CT recently with yellow painted lights.. Is this the new standard for CT signals? What are your thoughts?

Same, and definitely a traffic light nerd myself.

I've noticed the newest lights being yellow too with chunky backplates. I believe the backplates are a new national standard, but the new assemblies are very bulky and I don't believe the lights can be attached any longer - they are all individually hung (if on a wire).

A very, very old traffic light was recently replaced with the new design at Route 6 and 84 in Farmington (Link shows old light):
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7179821,-72.7976334,3a,90y,198.67h,87.6t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNWiv_CGVi4Rkc9g9r_h0NQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

The same occurred at Exit 44 off 95 in West Haven. However, new traffic lights not put up by the state (local roads in Manchester and Hartford) are black (or the darkest of greens). I'll miss the greens too, but just another evolution in CT traffic lights which seem to change very often and have little consistency compared to other states.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: DrSmith on December 19, 2015, 03:06:42 PM
It's been about a year maybe now, but they built a new Super Walmart in East Windsor on Prospect Hill Road. As a result a new signal was added and a couple more were upgraded. The dark green signals were used, but with black backplates that have the orange tape. (Initially fluorescent green tape had been used on the edges, but that has since been changed). 

Personally I don't always find the outlining with fluorescent orange to make the signal more visible.  Switching towards brighter LED signals compared to previous incandescents are a bigger help to me.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: ctroads87 on December 19, 2015, 07:49:46 PM
Quote from: DrSmith on December 19, 2015, 03:06:42 PM
It's been about a year maybe now, but they built a new Super Walmart in East Windsor on Prospect Hill Road. As a result a new signal was added and a couple more were upgraded. The dark green signals were used, but with black backplates that have the orange tape. (Initially fluorescent green tape had been used on the edges, but that has since been changed). 

Personally I don't always find the outlining with fluorescent orange to make the signal more visible.  Switching towards brighter LED signals compared to previous incandescents are a bigger help to me.

I drove through those lights in East Windsor and I thought they had fluorescent green tape at first - it's now reflective yellow.

New yellow traffic lights with backplates are now also installed at routes 4/69 in Burlington. Looks like yellow is the go forward choice for state roads. The greens had a good run - at least 12 years worth.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on December 20, 2015, 12:07:45 AM
Quote from: dgolub on December 18, 2015, 08:49:54 AM
Quote from: Alps on December 18, 2015, 12:56:06 AM
Read the question. Converting it to a zero-based milepost system would "eliminate three-digit exit numbers rather than add them." Converting from 200 to 100 doesn't add a three-digit exit number, but converting from 150 to 50 eliminates one.

Actually, what I meant was eliminate them from the road altogether, not eliminate them from a specific exit.

And that was how I interpreted it. This means you need a three digit exit number on a road less than 100 miles long.

As for I-17, did it ever have sequential exit numbers? If so, did they not start at 1?

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: mroad860 on December 20, 2015, 06:41:15 PM
Quote from: ctroads87 on December 18, 2015, 04:00:39 PM
Quote from: mroad860 on December 02, 2015, 08:21:41 PM
Hello everyone! :D Longtime reader and road geek.. First post..

I've been noticing that CTDOT is painting its new signals yellow with retroreflective back plates.. Like at the intersection of Route 195 and 320 in Mansfield.https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8280874,-72.2672461,3a,75y,333.29h,86.11t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVBfuzXX_7Hwhe2PkUhrDgg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1

I personally was a fan of the dark green painted signals.. I was thinking maybe they switched to yellow since they are more visible during power outages? When I drove around during our October 2011 storm, the older style yellow painted signals were more visible, while the dark green painted signals weren't as visible during a power outage.. They also recently replaced a bunch of road sign flasher lights in CT recently with yellow painted lights.. Is this the new standard for CT signals? What are your thoughts?

Same, and definitely a traffic light nerd myself.

I've noticed the newest lights being yellow too with chunky backplates. I believe the backplates are a new national standard, but the new assemblies are very bulky and I don't believe the lights can be attached any longer - they are all individually hung (if on a wire).

A very, very old traffic light was recently replaced with the new design at Route 6 and 84 in Farmington (Link shows old light):
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7179821,-72.7976334,3a,90y,198.67h,87.6t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNWiv_CGVi4Rkc9g9r_h0NQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

The same occurred at Exit 44 off 95 in West Haven. However, new traffic lights not put up by the state (local roads in Manchester and Hartford) are black (or the darkest of greens). I'll miss the greens too, but just another evolution in CT traffic lights which seem to change very often and have little consistency compared to other states.

Funny, a week ago I spotted the new yellow signals in Farmington also.. It looks like we're sorta stepping back into the 80s lol..

With the Route 5 East Windsor lights.. I was digging the original florescent green stripe on the backplates with the green mark IV signals.. Then suddenly they changed to yellow stripes.. I wonder why they changed that too! I wish they accepted the flourescent green backplate with dark green signals into the new standard..

And yes, several town owned yellow signals from the early 90's around Buckland Mall in Manchester have been replaced with black signals this year.

But West Hartford seems to be the only consistent one.. They have stuck with yellow on their town signals through the decades..

I have also spotted some unfinished signal projects with only the pedestrian signal pedestals installed this spring in Enfield, Wethersfield, Manchester, Bolton.. I've been waiting to see if they were going yellow.. Seems like that project has been long stalled
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: ctroads87 on December 21, 2015, 09:21:52 AM
Quote from: mroad860 on December 20, 2015, 06:41:15 PM
Funny, a week ago I spotted the new yellow signals in Farmington also.. It looks like we're sorta stepping back into the 80s lol..

With the Route 5 East Windsor lights.. I was digging the original florescent green stripe on the backplates with the green mark IV signals.. Then suddenly they changed to yellow stripes.. I wonder why they changed that too! I wish they accepted the flourescent green backplate with dark green signals into the new standard..

And yes, several town owned yellow signals from the early 90's around Buckland Mall in Manchester have been replaced with black signals this year.

But West Hartford seems to be the only consistent one.. They have stuck with yellow on their town signals through the decades..

I have also spotted some unfinished signal projects with only the pedestrian signal pedestals installed this spring in Enfield, Wethersfield, Manchester, Bolton.. I've been waiting to see if they were going yellow.. Seems like that project has been long stalled

The 4 way intersection of Buckland Rd and Evergreen Walk recently had pedestrian signals installed and added new lights for restricted left turns. The new lights are yellow while the rest of the green lights were left untouched. Looks a little sloppy, but as far as I know that's a town road.

The lights around Buckland in Manchester have slowly been changing. The crazy part is the switch is made entirely within 1 day - new ones up, old ones gone (Most recently at the Pavilions entrance across from Red Robin.) They've pulled the switcharoo on me a few times while I was at work for the day. I like the 90's nature of the remaining lights, especially the route 83/I-84 light (at VIP) where the left arrow displays while the red remains lit. It's the only remaining example I know of that does this in the state.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: DrSmith on December 22, 2015, 09:38:11 PM
Hazard Ave in Enfield had a signal go bad (by the Chick Fil A) and get replaced with a dark green 4-way.  The remainder of the signals are old yellow ones. I think they also did that for the Bloomfield Ave HOV exit off I-91 in Windsor too. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on December 23, 2015, 05:31:54 PM
Quote from: ctroads87 on December 21, 2015, 09:21:52 AM
Quote from: mroad860 on December 20, 2015, 06:41:15 PM
Funny, a week ago I spotted the new yellow signals in Farmington also.. It looks like we're sorta stepping back into the 80s lol..

With the Route 5 East Windsor lights.. I was digging the original florescent green stripe on the backplates with the green mark IV signals.. Then suddenly they changed to yellow stripes.. I wonder why they changed that too! I wish they accepted the flourescent green backplate with dark green signals into the new standard..

And yes, several town owned yellow signals from the early 90's around Buckland Mall in Manchester have been replaced with black signals this year.

But West Hartford seems to be the only consistent one.. They have stuck with yellow on their town signals through the decades..

I have also spotted some unfinished signal projects with only the pedestrian signal pedestals installed this spring in Enfield, Wethersfield, Manchester, Bolton.. I've been waiting to see if they were going yellow.. Seems like that project has been long stalled

The 4 way intersection of Buckland Rd and Evergreen Walk recently had pedestrian signals installed and added new lights for restricted left turns. The new lights are yellow while the rest of the green lights were left untouched. Looks a little sloppy, but as far as I know that's a town road.

The lights around Buckland in Manchester have slowly been changing. The crazy part is the switch is made entirely within 1 day - new ones up, old ones gone (Most recently at the Pavilions entrance across from Red Robin.) They've pulled the switcharoo on me a few times while I was at work for the day. I like the 90's nature of the remaining lights, especially the route 83/I-84 light (at VIP) where the left arrow displays while the red remains lit. It's the only remaining example I know of that does this in the state.
I think there's still one at the I-95 exit 70 S/B on ramp, though I believe that one is a right arrow. That one has the red ball lit w/the green arrow 99% of the time until the signal detects traffic waiting to exit the little commuter lot.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: mroad860 on December 24, 2015, 05:11:21 PM
Quote from: ctroads87 on December 21, 2015, 09:21:52 AM
Quote from: mroad860 on December 20, 2015, 06:41:15 PM
Funny, a week ago I spotted the new yellow signals in Farmington also.. It looks like we're sorta stepping back into the 80s lol..

With the Route 5 East Windsor lights.. I was digging the original florescent green stripe on the backplates with the green mark IV signals.. Then suddenly they changed to yellow stripes.. I wonder why they changed that too! I wish they accepted the flourescent green backplate with dark green signals into the new standard..

And yes, several town owned yellow signals from the early 90's around Buckland Mall in Manchester have been replaced with black signals this year.

But West Hartford seems to be the only consistent one.. They have stuck with yellow on their town signals through the decades..

I have also spotted some unfinished signal projects with only the pedestrian signal pedestals installed this spring in Enfield, Wethersfield, Manchester, Bolton.. I've been waiting to see if they were going yellow.. Seems like that project has been long stalled

The 4 way intersection of Buckland Rd and Evergreen Walk recently had pedestrian signals installed and added new lights for restricted left turns. The new lights are yellow while the rest of the green lights were left untouched. Looks a little sloppy, but as far as I know that's a town road.

The lights around Buckland in Manchester have slowly been changing. The crazy part is the switch is made entirely within 1 day - new ones up, old ones gone (Most recently at the Pavilions entrance across from Red Robin.) They've pulled the switcharoo on me a few times while I was at work for the day. I like the 90's nature of the remaining lights, especially the route 83/I-84 light (at VIP) where the left arrow displays while the red remains lit. It's the only remaining example I know of that does this in the state.

I was out Christmas shopping in Buckland the other day and I noticed the same! And yes it does look sloppy. I wish they would at least match the color.. It does irk me a bit when they do a spot installation that isn't uniform with what is existing.. But.. 95% of the public doesn't notice or really care.. If I point it out to someone, they'd look at me a little strange.. So what can you do..
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on December 24, 2015, 07:01:51 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on December 23, 2015, 05:31:54 PM
I think there's still one at the I-95 exit 70 S/B on ramp, though I believe that one is a right arrow. That one has the red ball lit w/the green arrow 99% of the time until the signal detects traffic waiting to exit the little commuter lot.

Yup... that one's still there.  Drove by it today. 

What I'm truly amazed is two of the most important signals in the state haven't been replaced since the 1980s... the two on Route 9 at Exit 15 and at Exit 16.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: mroad860 on December 25, 2015, 11:23:45 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on December 24, 2015, 07:01:51 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on December 23, 2015, 05:31:54 PM
I think there's still one at the I-95 exit 70 S/B on ramp, though I believe that one is a right arrow. That one has the red ball lit w/the green arrow 99% of the time until the signal detects traffic waiting to exit the little commuter lot.

Yup... that one's still there.  Drove by it today. 

What I'm truly amazed is two of the most important signals in the state haven't been replaced since the 1980s... the two on Route 9 at Exit 15 and at Exit 16.

Yes! Definitely 1980s era signals (LFE signals I think?).. As much as I like traffic signals, I think those signals need to be removed! I've been through numerous backups at the Middletown lights..The lights seem to cause them sometimes..
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on December 27, 2015, 01:15:41 AM
http://www.courant.com/opinion/cartoons/hc-are-you-serious-20150908-story.html

Editorial cartoon and blog post by Hartford Courant cartoonist Bob Englehart on the trial balloon to close I-84 for the (shorter) duration of an Aetna Viaduct replacement. Like most editorial cartoons, it's pretty hamfisted. But there is an I-84 sign.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on December 27, 2015, 11:54:47 AM
One of the reasons that beltway around Hartford should've been finished! I'm looking at you Farmington/West Hartford!

(In this case, extending CT Route 9 north of "The Stack" in Farmington and having the road meet up with I-291 in Windsor.)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: mroad860 on January 07, 2016, 05:29:24 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9514984,-72.312102,3a,75y,283.39h,82.61t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sU043004XllURwy58nAVSRw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1

I'm surprised that it's been years since this has been addressed.. At this Stafford, CT fork intersection, the "140" sign above the right arrow has been missing for years! This is 140 westbound just before Stafford Speedway. I bet many from out of town who visit or race the speedway, have headed straight (due to the missing 140 sign), ending up in Tolland.. Instead of the Speedway..
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: mroad860 on January 07, 2016, 05:46:20 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on December 27, 2015, 11:54:47 AM
One of the reasons that beltway around Hartford should've been finished! I'm looking at you Farmington/West Hartford!

(In this case, extending CT Route 9 north of "The Stack" in Farmington and having the road meet up with I-291 in Windsor.)

That beltway would ease congestion for sure.. Or my "dream" idea would be to move 84 to cross the Charter Oak bridge, then at the end of the Charter Oak, a new 84 expressway could be built from the end of the Charter Oak, going alongside Hartford Hospital, to the Exit 41 vicinity in West Hartford. Though I'm sure it would cause tons of uproar (mostly houses in "the hood"), but maybe a route with the most minimal impact toward property lost.. The existing 84 stretch then could be labeled as "Route 6".. I'm sure that route would also make it much easier for ambulances to access Hartford Hospital too..Because it's like hell for an ambulance to reach Hartford Hospital currently.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on January 07, 2016, 07:59:53 PM
Quote from: mroad860 on January 07, 2016, 05:46:20 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on December 27, 2015, 11:54:47 AM
One of the reasons that beltway around Hartford should've been finished! I'm looking at you Farmington/West Hartford!

(In this case, extending CT Route 9 north of "The Stack" in Farmington and having the road meet up with I-291 in Windsor.)

That beltway would ease congestion for sure.. Or my "dream" idea would be to move 84 to cross the Charter Oak bridge, then at the end of the Charter Oak, a new 84 expressway could be built from the end of the Charter Oak, going alongside Hartford Hospital, to the Exit 41 vicinity in West Hartford. Though I'm sure it would cause tons of uproar (mostly houses in "the hood"), but maybe a route with the most minimal impact toward property lost.. The existing 84 stretch then could be labeled as "Route 6".. I'm sure that route would also make it much easier for ambulances to access Hartford Hospital too..Because it's like hell for an ambulance to reach Hartford Hospital currently.

My idea is a limited access connection through Newington from the area of CCSU on CT 9 to connect to the US 5/CT 15 expressway at the north end of the Berlin Turnpike. You could multiplex CT 72 onto CT 9 north and have it carry that designation to the junction with 5/15.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on January 07, 2016, 08:33:52 PM
Quote from: mroad860 on January 07, 2016, 05:46:20 PM
That beltway would ease congestion for sure.. Or my "dream" idea would be to move 84 to cross the Charter Oak bridge, then at the end of the Charter Oak, a new 84 expressway could be built from the end of the Charter Oak, going alongside Hartford Hospital, to the Exit 41 vicinity in West Hartford. Though I'm sure it would cause tons of uproar (mostly houses in "the hood"), but maybe a route with the most minimal impact toward property lost.. The existing 84 stretch then could be labeled as "Route 6".. I'm sure that route would also make it much easier for ambulances to access Hartford Hospital too..Because it's like hell for an ambulance to reach Hartford Hospital currently.

That would be a good routing, but getting it through Trinity College would be challenging (not to mention Colt Park AND the cemetery just north of Trinity).  Plus, I had a hard time trying to design a new I-91/I-84/CT 15 interchange at the Charter Oak Bridge.  But the benefits would be you could pretty much eliminate the "canyon" through downtown Hartford on existing I-84, significantly reduce the footprint of the I-84/CT2/Governor St interchange, and maybe make the Bulkeley Bridge a landscaped "boulevard" of sorts. 

My option would still be to reroute I-84 between Trout Brook Drive in West Hartford and Sisson Ave via "Boulevard", eliminating all left exits and the curves enroute.  The alignment can then be rebuilt between Sisson and Asylum as well.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on January 07, 2016, 09:07:02 PM
Considering that there are some neighborhood advocates whose solution for replacing the Aetna Viaduct involves decommissioning I-84 (with through traffic magically disappearing)...I think any new alignment for I-84 would be challenging to pull off.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on January 08, 2016, 01:35:51 AM
Within the last few years, a nice APL overhead was erected on West Avenue northbound in Norwalk: (any other APLs in CT?)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FFNt7Wtz.jpg&hash=31384905d916d983f0e1204d0ac893d9166c535c)

Google Maps: https://goo.gl/maps/i6pwbhfxaRG2

To the east is the site of a proposed high-end mall that would build a tunnel over Water Street, and perhaps a grade-separated roadway from West Street into a parking garage.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on January 08, 2016, 01:37:49 AM
Quote from: mroad860 on January 07, 2016, 05:29:24 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9514984,-72.312102,3a,75y,283.39h,82.61t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sU043004XllURwy58nAVSRw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1

I'm surprised that it's been years since this has been addressed.. At this Stafford, CT fork intersection, the "140" sign above the right arrow has been missing for years! This is 140 westbound just before Stafford Speedway. I bet many from out of town who visit or race the speedway, have headed straight (due to the missing 140 sign), ending up in Tolland.. Instead of the Speedway..

<fictional>Tolland Road should be an extension of CT 195!</fictional>
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: TravelingBethelite on January 08, 2016, 08:46:01 AM
Quote from: kurumi on January 08, 2016, 01:35:51 AM
Within the last few years, a nice APL overhead was erected on West Avenue northbound in Norwalk: (any other APLs in CT?)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FFNt7Wtz.jpg&hash=31384905d916d983f0e1204d0ac893d9166c535c)

Google Maps: https://goo.gl/maps/i6pwbhfxaRG2

To the east is the site of a proposed high-end mall that would build a tunnel over Water Street, and perhaps a grade-separated roadway from West Street into a parking garage.

I believe there is a brand-new one on US 7 south approaching I-84. It was installed, AFAIK, in September of 2015.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: mroad860 on January 08, 2016, 09:48:39 AM
Quote from: kurumi on January 08, 2016, 01:37:49 AM
Quote from: mroad860 on January 07, 2016, 05:29:24 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9514984,-72.312102,3a,75y,283.39h,82.61t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sU043004XllURwy58nAVSRw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1

I'm surprised that it's been years since this has been addressed.. At this Stafford, CT fork intersection, the "140" sign above the right arrow has been missing for years! This is 140 westbound just before Stafford Speedway. I bet many from out of town who visit or race the speedway, have headed straight (due to the missing 140 sign), ending up in Tolland.. Instead of the Speedway..

<fictional>Tolland Road should be an extension of CT 195!</fictional>

Great idea! Makes a lot of sense!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on January 08, 2016, 12:56:07 PM
Quote from: TravelingBethelite on January 08, 2016, 08:46:01 AM
Quote from: kurumi on January 08, 2016, 01:35:51 AM
Within the last few years, a nice APL overhead was erected on West Avenue northbound in Norwalk: (any other APLs in CT?)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FFNt7Wtz.jpg&hash=31384905d916d983f0e1204d0ac893d9166c535c)

Google Maps: https://goo.gl/maps/i6pwbhfxaRG2

To the east is the site of a proposed high-end mall that would build a tunnel over Water Street, and perhaps a grade-separated roadway from West Street into a parking garage.

I believe there is a brand-new one on US 7 south approaching I-84. It was installed, AFAIK, in September of 2015.
There's also a couple APLs along I-84 eastbound approaching that same interchange as well.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on January 08, 2016, 01:26:11 PM
This interchange/onramp is in Norwalk, the only APLs in the US 7 corridor that I know of (outside of the ones pictured above) are on I-84 EB at Exit 7, just recently installed.

As for other CT APLs, I can think of one or two going up on CT 72 EB in New Britain approaching CT 9 (part of the state's spot sign replacement).  None I know of on I-91 or I-95, though I can think of a couple places where APLs may be feasible in the future (I-95 SB for Exit 69, I-95 NB for Exit 48-maybe, CT 8/25 split NB in Bridgeport, etc). 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on January 08, 2016, 10:18:30 PM
CT Route 72 eastbound...is it at the split with I-84 on the Plainville/New Britain line or after Exit 8 - Columbus Boulevard? I go to Main Street and the CT Fastrak station often. I have seen no change in the signs at the split with CT Route 9 itself.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on January 09, 2016, 04:49:54 PM
There should be one or two APLs going in for the CT 9 split approaching the east end of CT 72, near Exit 8.  I believe they're part of 2015's spot sign replacement / overhead structure contract.  So if they're not in already, they will be at some point this year most likely.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on January 12, 2016, 11:13:18 PM
CT 2 westbound in East Hartford through the Mixmaster is going to close for about 10 months: http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?A=2135&Q=575602

This ramp is 50 years old, in poor condition, and will be replaced. Probably no changes in overall geometry or capacity; could have wider shoulders, box girder structure, other innovations from post-1965. For detour, use Pitkin Street. It won't be pretty.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: cl94 on January 12, 2016, 11:35:45 PM
Quote from: kurumi on January 12, 2016, 11:13:18 PM
CT 2 westbound in East Hartford through the Mixmaster is going to close for about 10 months: http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?A=2135&Q=575602

This ramp is 50 years old, in poor condition, and will be replaced. Probably no changes in overall geometry or capacity; could have wider shoulders, box girder structure, other innovations from post-1965. For detour, use Pitkin Street. It won't be pretty.

No, it won't. I'm assuming Pitkin St will be restriped to allow 2 WB lanes, else restriping the ramp would only make things worse. Main St exit on I-84 will likely be a mess as well.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on January 13, 2016, 06:51:29 PM
Quote from: cl94 on January 12, 2016, 11:35:45 PM
Quote from: kurumi on January 12, 2016, 11:13:18 PM
CT 2 westbound in East Hartford through the Mixmaster is going to close for about 10 months: http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?A=2135&Q=575602

This ramp is 50 years old, in poor condition, and will be replaced. Probably no changes in overall geometry or capacity; could have wider shoulders, box girder structure, other innovations from post-1965. For detour, use Pitkin Street. It won't be pretty.

No, it won't. I'm assuming Pitkin St will be restriped to allow 2 WB lanes, else restriping the ramp would only make things worse. Main St exit on I-84 will likely be a mess as well.
Good thing the existing ramp is only one lane, so two lanes has a chance of working (along with some traffic detouring onto I-84 WB). Here's what I'd do.
* Restripe offramp to two lanes (LT only, LT/RT)
* Restripe Pitkin to two WB lanes, one EB.
* No left turns from Pitkin WB between CT 2 and Darlin. Use East River Dr. to Hartland St. or down to the 2 EB onramp.
* At Darlin, right lane on Pitkin turns right, free-flow. Left lane is shared thru/left.
* Darlin is not restriped, but it's closed at East River Dr. All NB traffic will turn onto CT 2 WB. This avoids any need to rebuild the ramp for two lanes. (Detour goes around the block.)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: cl94 on January 13, 2016, 09:17:32 PM
Quote from: Alps on January 13, 2016, 06:51:29 PM
Quote from: cl94 on January 12, 2016, 11:35:45 PM
Quote from: kurumi on January 12, 2016, 11:13:18 PM
CT 2 westbound in East Hartford through the Mixmaster is going to close for about 10 months: http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?A=2135&Q=575602

This ramp is 50 years old, in poor condition, and will be replaced. Probably no changes in overall geometry or capacity; could have wider shoulders, box girder structure, other innovations from post-1965. For detour, use Pitkin Street. It won't be pretty.

No, it won't. I'm assuming Pitkin St will be restriped to allow 2 WB lanes, else restriping the ramp would only make things worse. Main St exit on I-84 will likely be a mess as well.
Good thing the existing ramp is only one lane, so two lanes has a chance of working (along with some traffic detouring onto I-84 WB). Here's what I'd do.
* Restripe offramp to two lanes (LT only, LT/RT)
* Restripe Pitkin to two WB lanes, one EB.
* No left turns from Pitkin WB between CT 2 and Darlin. Use East River Dr. to Hartland St. or down to the 2 EB onramp.
* At Darlin, right lane on Pitkin turns right, free-flow. Left lane is shared thru/left.
* Darlin is not restriped, but it's closed at East River Dr. All NB traffic will turn onto CT 2 WB. This avoids any need to rebuild the ramp for two lanes. (Detour goes around the block.)

That's roughly what I would do. Difference is that I would keep Darlin NB open for the one building that has no other access so they have a shot at exiting without crossing the bridge.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Pete from Boston on January 13, 2016, 10:56:31 PM
The Willington Rest Areas have reopened.  The EB attendant told me this happened about a month ago.  Parking lot is repaved and restriped, with shiny new guardrails.  The building interior had all tile and painted surfaces redone except the terrazzo floor, as well as all the interior fixtures.  This was desperately needed for years (cut-off plastic milk jugs had become a permanent attachment under the leaky soap dispensers).  There's clear evidence outside that new septic facilities were installed.   
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on January 14, 2016, 12:33:07 AM
Quote from: cl94 on January 13, 2016, 09:17:32 PM
Quote from: Alps on January 13, 2016, 06:51:29 PM
Quote from: cl94 on January 12, 2016, 11:35:45 PM
Quote from: kurumi on January 12, 2016, 11:13:18 PM
CT 2 westbound in East Hartford through the Mixmaster is going to close for about 10 months: http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?A=2135&Q=575602

This ramp is 50 years old, in poor condition, and will be replaced. Probably no changes in overall geometry or capacity; could have wider shoulders, box girder structure, other innovations from post-1965. For detour, use Pitkin Street. It won't be pretty.

No, it won't. I'm assuming Pitkin St will be restriped to allow 2 WB lanes, else restriping the ramp would only make things worse. Main St exit on I-84 will likely be a mess as well.
Good thing the existing ramp is only one lane, so two lanes has a chance of working (along with some traffic detouring onto I-84 WB). Here's what I'd do.
* Restripe offramp to two lanes (LT only, LT/RT)
* Restripe Pitkin to two WB lanes, one EB.
* No left turns from Pitkin WB between CT 2 and Darlin. Use East River Dr. to Hartland St. or down to the 2 EB onramp.
* At Darlin, right lane on Pitkin turns right, free-flow. Left lane is shared thru/left.
* Darlin is not restriped, but it's closed at East River Dr. All NB traffic will turn onto CT 2 WB. This avoids any need to rebuild the ramp for two lanes. (Detour goes around the block.)

That's roughly what I would do. Difference is that I would keep Darlin NB open for the one building that has no other access so they have a shot at exiting without crossing the bridge.
They could turn left and head south to Pitkin.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: mroad860 on January 19, 2016, 09:11:55 PM
So the other day I was driving along route 44 in Storrs and there's a new signal (black painted with retroreflective backplates) near the Village Spirits package store plaza along with a brand new entrance road for the Uconn campus.. Amazing on how quickly this new entrance road was built.. Me, being the road geek, I had to check it out! Nicely done! I've read recent CTDOT information about new signals, and yellow painted signals is the new general standard. Maybe some certain exemptions have been made for these new black painted signals?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: mroad860 on January 28, 2016, 01:04:49 PM
http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-tbt-connecticut-highways-20160125-photogallery.html

Hartford Courant old highway photo gallery
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Pete from Boston on January 28, 2016, 05:20:50 PM
Quote from: mroad860 on January 28, 2016, 01:04:49 PM
http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-tbt-connecticut-highways-20160125-photogallery.html

Hartford Courant old highway photo gallery

Thank you, there are some really spectacular shots in there.  I particularly love seeing the Merritt toll booths again, and the photo of how much land was cleared for 84 in Hartford is jaw-dropping.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on January 28, 2016, 11:45:46 PM
The pictures which intrigued me the most involved the I-84/I-91 interchange from 1990. If I'm not mistaken, the flyover ramp from I-84 East to I-91 North opened in early October of 1990. I was first on it Saturday, October 13, 1990. (Don't ask me how I remember that!) :)
Title: Connecticut News
Post by: Pete from Boston on January 29, 2016, 12:57:19 AM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on January 28, 2016, 11:45:46 PM
The pictures which intrigued me the most involved the I-84/I-91 interchange from 1990. If I'm not mistaken, the flyover ramp from I-84 East to I-91 North opened in early October of 1990. I was first on it Saturday, October 13, 1990. (Don't ask me how I remember that!) :)

The closest I ever came to drawing a fanciful image of a highway was while staying at the Holiday Inn (now Raddison) overlooking this interchange in 1987 and thinking, "With five minutes and a paper and pencil I could make this work better."  I did not, but someone read my mind and construction started soon thereafter.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on January 29, 2016, 01:19:26 PM
Once upon a time, I had an information packet about the I-84/I-91 interchange, and the new Charter Oak Bridge.  It was a ConnDOT pamflet that was probably handed out at a public information meeting.  Had one on the Commodore Hull Bridge too, and one when they started work on the Baldwin Bridge.  Wished I kept them. 

Interesting group of photos.  The ones that peaked my interest were the Route 9 ones.  And of course the 84/91 interchange, especially the aerial looking on I-91 South, with that interesting left-side mounted BGS before the ramp to I-84 East.  Plus the one on I-84 East with the old signs.  I don't remember the lane markings in the pavement (such as approaching an at grade traffic signal intersection) - must've been paying too much attention to the signs back then.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on January 29, 2016, 03:07:14 PM
Would there be historical aerials of the I-84/I-91 intersection from the 1980s, before anything that's there now got built?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Pete from Boston on January 29, 2016, 06:07:07 PM
I wish there were at least one 86 in there somewhere...
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on February 17, 2016, 08:29:41 PM
New single sign gantry BGS is up on I-84 west at Exit 38 (US 6 West)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on February 18, 2016, 09:23:40 AM
And that in turn moved the Exit 37 1 mile advance to the ground, and eliminated the I-84 WB pullthrough.  All part of a random statewide overhead sign support replacement project. 

Still waiting for the project to get around to I-91 NB at Exit 42 and I-91 SB at Exit 41 (to be a single gantry combined with NB/42) and I-91 SB at Exit 40 (damaged and gone for a couple years now). 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: The Ghostbuster on February 18, 2016, 04:05:52 PM
Have all of Interstate 395's exits been changed to mileage-based yet?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Beeper1 on February 18, 2016, 05:55:11 PM
Yeah.  All the exits have been changed over.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: noelbotevera on February 18, 2016, 06:02:09 PM
Quote from: Beeper1 on February 18, 2016, 05:55:11 PM
Yeah.  All the exits have been changed over.
What about the old exit 100 sign north of the Massachusetts line? Is that still there?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on February 18, 2016, 06:32:23 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on February 18, 2016, 06:02:09 PM
Quote from: Beeper1 on February 18, 2016, 05:55:11 PM
Yeah.  All the exits have been changed over.
What about the old exit 100 sign north of the Massachusetts line? Is that still there?

Not sure if MA changed the Exit 100 sign on 395, but from the sign replacement contracts ConnDOT awarded last fall, it looks like Routes 8 and 25 are next in line for new signage and new exit numbers.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: yakra on February 18, 2016, 09:08:20 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on February 18, 2016, 06:32:23 PM
Not sure if MA changed the Exit 100 sign on 395, but from the sign replacement contracts ConnDOT awarded last fall, it looks like Routes 8 and 25 are next in line for new signage and new exit numbers.
Do you have a link?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: bob7374 on February 18, 2016, 11:56:29 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on February 18, 2016, 06:32:23 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on February 18, 2016, 06:02:09 PM
Quote from: Beeper1 on February 18, 2016, 05:55:11 PM
Yeah.  All the exits have been changed over.
What about the old exit 100 sign north of the Massachusetts line? Is that still there?

Not sure if MA changed the Exit 100 sign on 395, but from the sign replacement contracts ConnDOT awarded last fall, it looks like Routes 8 and 25 are next in line for new signage and new exit numbers.
And according to the ConnDOT 2016 project advertising schedule, contracts to replace the signs on I-84 between Exits 30 and 52 (to be advertised July 13) and on I-95 between Exits 85 to 93 (to be advertised July 27) are upcoming.
http://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/documents/dfiscalprojects/advschedule.pdf (http://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/documents/dfiscalprojects/advschedule.pdf)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: The Ghostbuster on February 19, 2016, 05:08:04 PM
Will these new signs have mileage-based exit numbers? Or will they have the existing sequencial numbers?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on February 19, 2016, 05:39:11 PM
I'd imagine both contracts would retain existing sequential numbers for now.  Given the plan to renumber exits to the mile-based system will be based on when the signs are replaced, I'd guess they'll hold off on renumbering until they replace signs on I-95 from Branford to New London and on I-84 from East Hartford to Manchester, if not all the way to the Mass state line.  Signs on I-95 west of Branford to NY have been replaced in the past 3-5 years or so and I really can't see the numbers on that section changing much, if they even bother.  It's only east of Branford where the exits become more than 1 mile apart. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: dgolub on February 19, 2016, 07:05:48 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on February 19, 2016, 05:39:11 PM
Signs on I-95 west of Branford to NY have been replaced in the past 3-5 years or so and I really can't see the numbers on that section changing much, if they even bother.

It's more than 3-5 years.  They started replacing button-copy signs en masse in late 2007.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on February 19, 2016, 08:54:24 PM
http://connecticuthistory.org/overland-travel-in-connecticut-from-footpaths-to-interstates/

Is the first picture an oldie of CT Route 15?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Pete from Boston on February 19, 2016, 09:16:08 PM

Quote from: KEVIN_224 on February 19, 2016, 08:54:24 PM
http://connecticuthistory.org/overland-travel-in-connecticut-from-footpaths-to-interstates/

Is the first picture an oldie of CT Route 15?

Yes, it's right here:

https://goo.gl/maps/kxdYZrxKU1C2

However, it's in Fairfield, not Greenwich.

The building on the left in the foreground is the Merritt Parkway Hi-Ho Motel, which sadly no longer lights its enormous, iconic neon sign.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on February 19, 2016, 11:03:35 PM
Most, if not all of the signs on I-84 east of Exit 64-65 to the MA line have already been replaced and are Phase IV. So once the Southington-Hartford stretch is done, the only signage replacement on I-84 through CT would be in greater Waterbury (which will be replaced with the widening project), and East Hartford/Manchester.  Best time to go mileage based would be with this project, or when Waterbury is done
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Beeper1 on February 20, 2016, 07:36:56 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on February 18, 2016, 06:02:09 PM
Quote from: Beeper1 on February 18, 2016, 05:55:11 PM
Yeah.  All the exits have been changed over.
What about the old exit 100 sign north of the Massachusetts line? Is that still there?

I was through that way today and yes, the southbound sign in MA has been changed to the new exit number 53.  Looks like it was done with an overlay on the existing exit tab.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: bob7374 on February 22, 2016, 10:49:26 AM
Quote from: Beeper1 on February 20, 2016, 07:36:56 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on February 18, 2016, 06:02:09 PM
Quote from: Beeper1 on February 18, 2016, 05:55:11 PM
Yeah.  All the exits have been changed over.
What about the old exit 100 sign north of the Massachusetts line? Is that still there?

I was through that way today and yes, the southbound sign in MA has been changed to the new exit number 53.  Looks like it was done with an overlay on the existing exit tab.
That's how MassDOT will be revising exit numbers on other signs when their project starts. So, for trivia buffs, the first mile-based exit number to appear in MA is for a CT exit on I-395.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on February 22, 2016, 01:06:10 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on February 19, 2016, 05:39:11 PM
I'd imagine both contracts would retain existing sequential numbers for now.  Given the plan to renumber exits to the mile-based system will be based on when the signs are replaced, I'd guess they'll hold off on renumbering until they replace signs on I-95 from Branford to New London and on I-84 from East Hartford to Manchester, if not all the way to the Mass state line.  Signs on I-95 west of Branford to NY have been replaced in the past 3-5 years or so and I really can't see the numbers on that section changing much, if they even bother.  It's only east of Branford where the exits become more than 1 mile apart.

I could see them installing new signs with sequential numbers posted on a plate that covers the future mile-based exit numbers.  That way all they'd have to do when all of the signs on I-84 and I-95 from border to border are replaced, is remove the old sequential number and uncover the new number.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on February 22, 2016, 05:24:36 PM
Guess we'll find out in a couple of months when the I-84 and I-95 sign contract plans are released. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: southshore720 on February 22, 2016, 06:34:27 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on February 22, 2016, 01:06:10 PM
I could see them installing new signs with sequential numbers posted on a plate that covers the future mile-based exit numbers.  That way all they'd have to do when all of the signs on I-84 and I-95 from border to border are replaced, is remove the old sequential number and uncover the new number.
That's an EXCELLENT idea.  Unfortunately, it makes sense...and as we know with many DOTs, they like to do just the opposite.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on February 22, 2016, 09:58:11 PM
I noticed on I-84 EB in Waterbury as the lanes move over to the right in the construction area in the concrete section.....the DOT painted black lines next to the broken and solid lines. Something CT has never done at anytime anywhere.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on February 25, 2016, 08:37:15 PM
http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-hartford-i-84-plans-0226-20160225-story.html (http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-hartford-i-84-plans-0226-20160225-story.html)Looks like CONNDOT is ruling out a full tunnel replace.  for the Hartford viaduct, but isn't ruling out putting a roof over a below-grade-level alignment.

Also, according to this, they're finally discussing options for replacing the Bulkley Bridge. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on February 25, 2016, 11:48:25 PM
Quote
The DOT expects to choose a construction plan in May, but also is starting a 12- to 18-month study of how to relieve congestion at the I-84 and I-91 interchange just east of the viaduct construction zone. The interchange handles 275,000 vehicle trips a day, and backups are frequent because the stretches of I-84 and I-91 there carry only two lanes in each direction, engineers said.

The DOT emphasized that it's only in the preliminary stages of examining possible solutions, but offered three general concepts: Widening the Bulkeley Bridge and redesigning the interchange ramps; rerouting I-84 from western Hartford south toward the Charter Oak Bridge and reconnecting it in East Hartford; or rerouting it north toward Windsor and building a new bridge across the Connecticut River to link back to I-84 in East Hartford.

Widening the Bulkeley Bridge and redesigning the ramps: that's going to be a Q-Bridge sized project.

Rerouting south and using the COB to cross: looks interesting, but Trinity College and other neighborhoods are in the way. You'd want to add another span to the COB and rework the 91/15 crossovers in the area. Then the Bulkeley becomes a boulevard connecting the 2 cities, and you can build attractive residence/retail/restaurant/entertainment around the river. You can remove most of the 5-way interchange at 84/2/500 and use that space as well.

Rerouting north toward Windsor with a new CT river bridge: sounds a lot like the old I-291 (i.e. DOA). New alignment thru West Hartford, or divert it closer in (around the 503 interchange)? Windsor will flip their [pancakes] over a new freeway coming through, and successful projects in CT sometimes seem to require the unanimous assent of all 169 towns.

How about this option, and do it in this order:
* I-691 to 8 lanes, and redo the 84/691 interchange to change the mainline to E/W
* I-91 to 10 lanes from I-691 to COB approach
* new COB span for 12 total lanes
* new future-proofed 84/91 interchange at 91/COB
* I-84 replaces 691 and overlaps I-91 from 691 to COB
* old I-84 from 691 to SR 501 becomes I-584
* old I-84 from SR 501 to 84/15 is removed, or boulevardized, or narrowed and reserved for busway/train

It would be expensive, but not require a lot of new ROW, and make some people happy.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: bob7374 on February 27, 2016, 10:58:12 PM
Quote from: Beeper1 on February 20, 2016, 07:36:56 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on February 18, 2016, 06:02:09 PM
Quote from: Beeper1 on February 18, 2016, 05:55:11 PM
Yeah.  All the exits have been changed over.
What about the old exit 100 sign north of the Massachusetts line? Is that still there?

I was through that way today and yes, the southbound sign in MA has been changed to the new exit number 53.  Looks like it was done with an overlay on the existing exit tab.
Here's a photo taken earlier today:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi395exit53ma216a.JPG&hash=cb0a35134c27500a59fdd24573c706ead0c3fb68)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on February 27, 2016, 11:32:56 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FCUiesSc.jpg&hash=376675bb6b89490c0464c2d3133228ac944532ba)

I cut a slight bit of glare to see the mile marker says "0.2". Also, Google S.V. had the time slider for roughly the point of your picture. In the 2007 picture, there was no 2/10 mile marker. Also, the Exit sign was still a BGS off to the side, with "CT" mentioned after both points in the current sign.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JakeFromNewEngland on February 28, 2016, 12:00:51 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on February 25, 2016, 08:37:15 PM
http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-hartford-i-84-plans-0226-20160225-story.html (http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-hartford-i-84-plans-0226-20160225-story.html)Looks like CONNDOT is ruling out a full tunnel replace.  for the Hartford viaduct, but isn't ruling out putting a roof over a below-grade-level alignment.

Also, according to this, they're finally discussing options for replacing the Bulkley Bridge.

Very interesting. I had an idea in mind awhile back about routing I-84 over the Charter Oak, but I figured with the college and neighborhoods in the way it wouldn't be very feasible. IMO, routing I-84 out of downtown is probably a better idea because it opens up space downtown for more development. I'm positive if Hartford ever actually had their beltway built, most of these traffic problems wouldn't exist today.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: southshore720 on February 28, 2016, 01:23:24 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on February 27, 2016, 11:32:56 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FCUiesSc.jpg&hash=376675bb6b89490c0464c2d3133228ac944532ba)

I cut a slight bit of glare to see the mile marker says "0.2". Also, Google S.V. had the time slider for roughly the point of your picture. In the 2007 picture, there was no 2/10 mile marker. Also, the Exit sign was still a BGS off to the side, with "CT" mentioned after both points in the current sign.
Ugh...the overlay looks terrible!  A box within a box?  :-/
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: AMLNet49 on February 28, 2016, 01:26:13 PM
What's up with the white border? Are the regular MassDOT ones just going to be green patches with no border (which looks much more natural).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: bob7374 on February 28, 2016, 04:21:03 PM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on February 28, 2016, 01:26:13 PM
What's up with the white border? Are the regular MassDOT ones just going to be green patches with no border (which looks much more natural).
The MassDOT project will be simple overlays of the exit number only. An image of the signing plan is here: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=16734.50 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=16734.50) on page 3 of the thread.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: AMLNet49 on February 28, 2016, 06:07:05 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on February 28, 2016, 04:21:03 PM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on February 28, 2016, 01:26:13 PM
What's up with the white border? Are the regular MassDOT ones just going to be green patches with no border (which looks much more natural).
The MassDOT project will be simple overlays of the exit number only. An image of the signing plan is here: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=16734.50 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=16734.50) on page 3 of the thread.
I've seen that document, but I'm assuming MassDOT did this overlay too. Unless, of course, it was just a local replacement.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on February 28, 2016, 06:29:07 PM
It looks like ConnDOT shipped a new exit tab and MassDOT just bolted it on rather than spend money on an overlay or removing the existing tab.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: bob7374 on March 01, 2016, 12:17:40 PM
Quote from: southshore720 on February 28, 2016, 01:23:24 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on February 27, 2016, 11:32:56 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FCUiesSc.jpg&hash=376675bb6b89490c0464c2d3133228ac944532ba)

I cut a slight bit of glare to see the mile marker says "0.2". Also, Google S.V. had the time slider for roughly the point of your picture. In the 2007 picture, there was no 2/10 mile marker. Also, the Exit sign was still a BGS off to the side, with "CT" mentioned after both points in the current sign.
Ugh...the overlay looks terrible!  A box within a box?  :-/
I've posted additional photos I took of the new I-395 signage (and exit numbers) from the border south to the US 6 exit in this blog post (plus photos of I-95 in MA construction and Mass Pike electronic toll gantries): http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2016/02/road-trip-to-future.html (http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2016/02/road-trip-to-future.html)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: The Ghostbuster on March 01, 2016, 01:10:47 PM
If Connecticut's other highways change exit numbers, will the new number be bolted on as well?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on March 01, 2016, 02:55:31 PM
The plan is to change exit numbers as signs are replaced, that's why the timeline for full state conversion is something like 20 years.  Honestly I hope it happens sooner than that.  This particular sign got a whole new tab in place because it's a modification of a Mass. install.  When I-395 signs were replaced, overheads were last to be replaced, and the exit numbers were modified in the interim right on the existing tabs.  I've got a couple shots of former Exit 81W altered to read Exit 13B.  Strange that they went through all that trouble to make the exit numbers continuous, even if it meant modifying a sign that was just going to get replaced anyway.  Seeing that makes me think some of the newer (post-2000/non button copy) installs will get the same treatment when the time comes to convert other roads in the state.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on March 01, 2016, 05:18:39 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on March 01, 2016, 02:55:31 PM
The plan is to change exit numbers as signs are replaced, that's why the timeline for full state conversion is something like 20 years.  Honestly I hope it happens sooner than that.  This particular sign got a whole new tab in place because it's a modification of a Mass. install.  When I-395 signs were replaced, overheads were last to be replaced, and the exit numbers were modified in the interim right on the existing tabs.  I've got a couple shots of former Exit 81W altered to read Exit 13B.  Strange that they went through all that trouble to make the exit numbers continuous, even if it meant modifying a sign that was just going to get replaced anyway.  Seeing that makes me think some of the newer (post-2000/non button copy) installs will get the same treatment when the time comes to convert other roads in the state.

IMO they should be done in this order:

Highways with no exit numbers:  CT 3, CT 20*, CT 189 stub, SR 571 (old 72 end), Willimantic Bypass, Whitehead Highway, Milford Connector*, Clarence B. Sharp Highway

"Stub" highways: US 7, I-291, I-691/CT 66, I-384, CT 2A, CT 11, CT 25** CT 40, CT 72, Norwalk Connector

Remaining highways in this order:  CT 8, CT 9, CT 2, I-84, I-91, CT 15***, I-95

*Signs already replaced
**Signs in the process of being replaced (one or two left)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: AMLNet49 on March 01, 2016, 05:35:37 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 01, 2016, 05:18:39 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on March 01, 2016, 02:55:31 PM
The plan is to change exit numbers as signs are replaced, that's why the timeline for full state conversion is something like 20 years.  Honestly I hope it happens sooner than that.  This particular sign got a whole new tab in place because it's a modification of a Mass. install.  When I-395 signs were replaced, overheads were last to be replaced, and the exit numbers were modified in the interim right on the existing tabs.  I've got a couple shots of former Exit 81W altered to read Exit 13B.  Strange that they went through all that trouble to make the exit numbers continuous, even if it meant modifying a sign that was just going to get replaced anyway.  Seeing that makes me think some of the newer (post-2000/non button copy) installs will get the same treatment when the time comes to convert other roads in the state.

IMO they should be done in this order:

Highways with no exit numbers:  CT 3, CT 20*, CT 189 stub, SR 571 (old 72 end), Willimantic Bypass, Whitehead Highway, Milford Connector*, Clarence B. Sharp Highway

"Stub" highways: US 7, I-291, I-691/CT 66, I-384, CT 2A, CT 11, CT 25** CT 40, CT 72, Norwalk Connector

Remaining highways in this order:  CT 8, CT 9, CT 2, I-84, I-91, CT 15***, I-95

*Signs already replaced
**Signs in the process of being replaced (one or two left)

Yes the Milford Parkway signs were replaced, but they were given exit numbers at that time, ending its status as a road with no exit numbers. Exits are sequential 1 to 4. At the same time, entrance ramps got signs that said "Milford Parkway" for the first time, also ending its status as an unsigned designation (however it is still not signed from I-95 or the Wilbur Cross/Merritt Parkways).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on March 01, 2016, 07:19:40 PM
I just can't see CT 189, SR 571, CT 349, and the Whitehead Highway getting exit numbers, as these sections are either too short             (< 1 mi), or have only one exit.  If anything, the CT 71 exit on SR 571 would be 34A as an auxiliary to CT 9 (SR 571 itself being Exit 34)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on March 01, 2016, 07:24:04 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on March 01, 2016, 07:19:40 PM
I just can't see CT 189, SR 571, CT 349, and the Whitehead Highway getting exit numbers, as these sections are either too short             (< 1 mi), or have only one exit.  If anything, the CT 71 exit on SR 571 would be 34A as an auxiliary to CT 9 (SR 571 itself being Exit 34)
I was referring to just sign replacements.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: dgolub on March 01, 2016, 07:28:46 PM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on March 01, 2016, 05:35:37 PM
Yes the Milford Parkway signs were replaced, but they were given exit numbers at that time, ending its status as a road with no exit numbers. Exits are sequential 1 to 4. At the same time, entrance ramps got signs that said "Milford Parkway" for the first time, also ending its status as an unsigned designation (however it is still not signed from I-95 or the Wilbur Cross/Merritt Parkways).

It was always signed as the Milford Parkway on US 1 in Milford.  That's nothing new.  See http://www.greaternyroads.info/roads/ctstate/us1/photogal/page3 for a photo of the old button-copy sign there.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on March 02, 2016, 11:21:00 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on March 01, 2016, 07:19:40 PM
I just can't see CT 189, SR 571, CT 349, and the Whitehead Highway getting exit numbers, as these sections are either too short             (< 1 mi), or have only one exit.  If anything, the CT 71 exit on SR 571 would be 34A as an auxiliary to CT 9 (SR 571 itself being Exit 34)

That would be Exit 24A.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on March 02, 2016, 11:48:36 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on March 02, 2016, 11:21:00 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on March 01, 2016, 07:19:40 PM
I just can't see CT 189, SR 571, CT 349, and the Whitehead Highway getting exit numbers, as these sections are either too short             (< 1 mi), or have only one exit.  If anything, the CT 71 exit on SR 571 would be 34A as an auxiliary to CT 9 (SR 571 itself being Exit 34)

That would be Exit 24A.

I was going by mile based after the conversion.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on March 03, 2016, 08:25:34 AM
Whoops! I am sorry for that! Yes, Exit 34A would be perfect in that case then. MM 35 is a hundred feet or so north of the Eliis Street overpass in New Britain, so Exit 35 should work fine there. I wonder if Exit 26 northbound (downtown NB - Columbus Boulevard) would be Exit 35 A, since I would make the exits for CT Route 72 West downtown as Exit 36. The last mile marker on this road now is 40, halfway between the New Britain/Farmington town line (just west of the CT Route 71 overpass) and the end at I-84.

Separately, I wonder how the exits would get numbered with CT Route 72, seeing as it doesn't have any mile markers now and that the brief overlap with I-84 in Plainville is only signed with I-84's Exit numbers.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on March 03, 2016, 10:14:20 AM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on March 03, 2016, 08:25:34 AM
Whoops! I am sorry for that! Yes, Exit 34A would be perfect in that case then. MM 35 is a hundred feet or so north of the Eliis Street overpass in New Britain, so Exit 35 should work fine there. I wonder if Exit 26 northbound (downtown NB - Columbus Boulevard) would be Exit 35 A, since I would make the exits for CT Route 72 West downtown as Exit 36. The last mile marker on this road now is 40, halfway between the New Britain/Farmington town line (just west of the CT Route 71 overpass) and the end at I-84.

Separately, I wonder how the exits would get numbered with CT Route 72, seeing as it doesn't have any mile markers now and that the brief overlap with I-84 in Plainville is only signed with I-84's Exit numbers.
Same thing happens with the US 7 overlap in Danbury or the CT 8/25 multiplex.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on March 03, 2016, 10:47:37 AM
For the CT 72/I-84 overlap, there are no intermediate exits between where CT 72 joins up with I-84 and then separates.  There used to be one WB for CT 372 but that was moved further west and instead of being on I-84/CT 72 West, it's solely on CT 72 West.

Regarding 8/25, they start at the same spot so their exits would be numbered the same, up to the split.

For the 7/84 overlap, I'd assume only I-84's numbers would be posted.  Exits on US 7 north of I-84 would just continue based on mileage from the start of US 7 at I-95.   
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on March 03, 2016, 10:50:27 AM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on March 01, 2016, 05:35:37 PM
At the same time, entrance ramps got signs that said "Milford Parkway" for the first time, also ending its status as an unsigned designation (however it is still not signed from I-95 or the Wilbur Cross/Merritt Parkways).

Post-sign replacement, the entrance ramps to the Milford Pkwy from US 1 say "To 15/NY City/Hartford", those from I-95 say "15/Merritt Pkwy/W Cross Pkwy" and those from CT 15 and Wellington Rd/Wheelers Farm Rd say "To 95/1/Milford".   There is no longer any mention of the Milford Parkway as such, except the small green signs at each end of the road which say "Daniel Wasson Connector". 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on March 03, 2016, 11:25:02 AM
There are some cool historical documents regarding I-84 planning (1940s, '50s, and 1970) at the I-84 Hartford Viaduct planning site: http://www.i84hartford.com/documents.html

And a 3-D aerial tour, which unfortunately sounded more interesting than it actually is: http://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/beta.storage.123bim.com/1069/3D%20Tour/3Dtour.htm. Instead of a flyover or drive-through of different alternatives, there are a set of 360-degree views of fixed spots, with some MS-paint-ish overlays at a few street intersections.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: noelbotevera on March 03, 2016, 04:15:35 PM
On an unrelated topic, how is the Mixmaster construction (CT-8/I-84) interchange progress? The most recent article about it relates to I-84 being widened through Waterbury dating only to July 2015.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on March 03, 2016, 05:03:29 PM
I'm thinking this is approximately how the mileage based exits would look on CT 72 (using mileage from CT 4)


14 (WB): CT 177 (Washington St)
16 (WB): CT 372
16 (EB): I-84 West
16A (EB): Woodford Ave
(50 on I-84 EB for CT 72 E, 49 on I-84 WB for CT 72 W)
18: CT 372 (Corbin Ave)
19 (EB): Downtown New Britain
20 (EB): CT 71
21 A-B: CT 9 N/S (to avoid an alphabet soup with CT 71)

The exit to East Main St on the ramp from 9 South to 72 West would be 36A from 9 with Chestnut St on 9 South being 36.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on March 03, 2016, 09:44:12 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on March 03, 2016, 04:15:35 PM
On an unrelated topic, how is the Mixmaster construction (CT-8/I-84) interchange progress? The most recent article about it relates to I-84 being widened through Waterbury dating only to July 2015.

No work has started yet on the I-84/CT 8 mixmaster... and probably won't for some time.  Haven't even seen a "web site" for it or any concrete plans.  This is all I've seen:
http://www.biznet.ct.gov/SCP_Documents/Bids/38636/2264_-_Engineering_Services_for_the_I-84_Rte_8__Mixmaster__Interchange_Reconstruction.pdf

Present I-84 widening begins east of the interchange.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: The Ghostbuster on March 04, 2016, 04:22:53 PM
By some time, does that mean a few decades? That seems to be the pace of highway improvements in Connecticut.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on March 04, 2016, 04:26:24 PM
ConnDOT is considering closing Exit 5B, a half-diamond interchange about 500 feet south of Exit 5A, on Route 2. This is part of a larger safety and rehab project along that stretch: http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?a=2135&Q=577756
Quote
The Department is considering the permanent closure of the ramps at Exit 5B (Cambridge St. on-ramp and Sutton Avenue off-ramp) to improve safety and traffic operations along this section of Route 2.  The conceptual plans and traffic study associated with these ramp closures will be presented.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on March 05, 2016, 01:27:53 AM
Sometimes project info is hard to find (or unavailable) on the ConnDOT site, but searching for the project number (usually cited) can uncover docs on town sites. Such as: proposed roundabout on CT 10, and additional lanes at the 10/202/20/189 intersection, both in Granby, CT: http://www.granby-ct.gov/Public_Documents/index
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: southshore720 on March 05, 2016, 01:53:17 PM
Quote from: kurumi on March 04, 2016, 04:26:24 PM
ConnDOT is considering closing Exit 5B, a half-diamond interchange about 500 feet south of Exit 5A, on Route 2. This is part of a larger safety and rehab project along that stretch: http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?a=2135&Q=577756
That will also alleviate some of the current (and future) alphabet soup in that stretch...
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JakeFromNewEngland on March 09, 2016, 12:08:31 PM
ConnDOT recently started tree clearing on I-95 SB between Exits 42 and 41. Does anyone know if this is a part of a new construction project (widening the shoulders or something like that), or if it's another one of CT's projects to clear trees from the ROW which I've seen a lot of recently.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on March 09, 2016, 05:30:19 PM
Quote from: JakeFromNewEngland on March 09, 2016, 12:08:31 PM
ConnDOT recently started tree clearing on I-95 SB between Exits 42 and 41. Does anyone know if this is a part of a new construction project (widening the shoulders or something like that), or if it's another one of CT's projects to clear trees from the ROW which I've seen a lot of recently.

As far as I know, ConnDOT has nothing lined up for that area, so I presume it's periodic tree trimming going on.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: wytout on March 09, 2016, 06:35:08 PM
Sign support replacement project. New gantry parts being stock piled at the commuter parking lot off exit 42 sb on i 91.  It appears they are going to complete the new gantry that spans both nb and sb main lines at exit 39&41 sb, exit 42 nb. This will replace 2 separate gantries for each mainline that are offset by about 75 feet. They poured the bases last October. 6 months seems a little quick for CT contract  to finish a ... Um... "Massssive infrustructure project" like a sign support. Maybe they are just gathering parts for now... Probably be August before they actually put them up.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on March 09, 2016, 09:56:59 PM
Quote from: wytout on March 09, 2016, 06:35:08 PM
Sign support replacement project. New gantry parts being stock piled at the commuter parking lot off exit 42 sb on i 91.  It appears they are going to complete the new gantry that spans both nb and sb main lines at exit 39&41 sb, exit 42 nb. This will replace 2 separate gantries for each mainline that are offset by about 75 feet. They poured the bases last October. 6 months seems a little quick for CT contract  to finish a ... Um... "Massssive infrustructure project" like a sign support. Maybe they are just gathering parts for now... Probably be August before they actually put them up.
My town let grading for an intersection re-alignment sit through the winter.  It's part of a larger project that included replacing the drain pipes and culverts.  But for some reason they didn't do a full mill-and-pave of the main road through that intersection so now the road is a complete patch job and a suspension failure waiting to happen.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: TravelingBethelite on March 13, 2016, 08:51:42 PM
I was looking at the I-95 crossing of the CT/NY state line and noticed it skips right to Exit 2. I can't find satellite evidence of there ever being an Exit 1. Does anyone know if there ever was an Exit 1?  :hmmm:
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on March 13, 2016, 08:54:34 PM
Quote from: TravelingBethelite on March 13, 2016, 08:51:42 PM
I was looking at the I-95 crossing of the CT/NY state line and noticed it skips right to Exit 2. I can't find satellite evidence of there ever being an Exit 1. Does anyone know if there ever was an Exit 1?  :hmmm:

I believe I read that the old Greenwich toll plaza was considered Exit 1.  Exit 2 should be renumbered Exit 1 when I-95 goes to mileage based exits (since it's at about MM 0.8)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: cl94 on March 13, 2016, 08:56:28 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on March 13, 2016, 08:54:34 PM
Quote from: TravelingBethelite on March 13, 2016, 08:51:42 PM
I was looking at the I-95 crossing of the CT/NY state line and noticed it skips right to Exit 2. I can't find satellite evidence of there ever being an Exit 1. Does anyone know if there ever was an Exit 1?  :hmmm:

I believe I read that the old Greenwich toll plaza was considered Exit 1.  Exit 2 should be renumbered Exit 1 when I-95 goes to mileage based exits (since it's at about MM 0.8)

Except the old toll plaza was east of Exit 2
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on March 13, 2016, 11:02:16 PM
It's generally speculated that "exit 1" was leaving the end of the turnpike by crossing into NY. This is sort of consistent with what other toll roads have done (c.f. NJTP), minus the lack of a terminal toll plaza because it wasn't ticketed.

This is unconfirmed (as far as I know), but no one has come up with a better explanation.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: dgolub on March 14, 2016, 09:01:23 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on March 13, 2016, 11:02:16 PM
It's generally speculated that "exit 1" was leaving the end of the turnpike by crossing into NY. This is sort of consistent with what other toll roads have done (c.f. NJTP), minus the lack of a terminal toll plaza because it wasn't ticketed.

This is unconfirmed (as far as I know), but no one has come up with a better explanation.

That makes sense.  Exit 2 is so close to the border that it seems unlikely that they would have been able to squeeze in another exit there, especially since there are no major roads that cross I-95 between the border and Delavan Avenue.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on March 14, 2016, 09:11:55 AM
I think you only pass over one other street between Exit 2 and the state line. Exit 2 is at mile marker 1, so that could be modified in the future.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on March 14, 2016, 11:29:49 AM
That aligns with everything I've ever heard: "Exit 1" on I-95 was the state line.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: The Ghostbuster on March 14, 2016, 05:15:37 PM
Exit 1 on a state line (in Interstate 95's case) would only make sense to me if there was an interchange to a road that hugged the state line. Exit 2 should have been Exit 1 from the get-go.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on March 15, 2016, 04:17:37 PM
Apparently the I-84 Waterbury project is now a year ahead of schedule.
http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-waterbury-i-84-widening-0316-20160315-story.html (http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-waterbury-i-84-widening-0316-20160315-story.html)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on March 15, 2016, 07:01:26 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 14, 2016, 05:15:37 PM
Exit 1 on a state line (in Interstate 95's case) would only make sense to me if there was an interchange to a road that hugged the state line. Exit 2 should have been Exit 1 from the get-go.

Modern standards of exit numbering were not yet really established at the time the CT Turnpike was designed. You can see a lot of exit numbering oddities on CT's older highways, such as how the Merritt continues the Hutch's original exit numbers, or how some interchanges (e.g. I-84/CT 8) use two different exit numbers for ramps leading to opposite directions of the same road in the same interchange instead of A-B or S-N/E-W as is more typical.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on March 15, 2016, 08:06:52 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 14, 2016, 05:15:37 PM
Exit 1 on a state line (in Interstate 95's case) would only make sense to me if there was an interchange to a road that hugged the state line. Exit 2 should have been Exit 1 from the get-go.

Since I've seen some maps identify the interchange between the turnpike and US 6 at its east end as Exit 91, its possible that Exit 1 was the NY border and Exit 91 was the RI border.  They may not have been signed in the field as such, but may have been more of an internal designation. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: noelbotevera on March 15, 2016, 08:12:21 PM
Hilarious error with exit numbers here.
http://ctarttrail.org/attraction/foxwoods-resort-exit-855-off-i-395/

Also, why did the CT 34 freeway stub get removed? I thought it was nice to get in and out of New Haven in a jiffy.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on March 15, 2016, 11:15:48 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on March 15, 2016, 08:12:21 PM
Hilarious error with exit numbers here.
http://ctarttrail.org/attraction/foxwoods-resort-exit-855-off-i-395/

Maybe after the I-395 extension to Bermuda.  Exit numbers now start at 0 in Hamilton and go up from there.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Rothman on March 16, 2016, 07:58:27 AM
Quote from: noelbotevera on March 15, 2016, 08:12:21 PM
Hilarious error with exit numbers here.
http://ctarttrail.org/attraction/foxwoods-resort-exit-855-off-i-395/

Stupid hippies should take a shower. :D
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on March 16, 2016, 10:11:57 AM
Quote from: noelbotevera on March 15, 2016, 08:12:21 PM
Hilarious error with exit numbers here.
http://ctarttrail.org/attraction/foxwoods-resort-exit-855-off-i-395/

Also, why did the CT 34 freeway stub get removed? I thought it was nice to get in and out of New Haven in a jiffy.

The removal of Route 34 in New Haven was the brainchild of former mayor John DeStefano, but its roots has its origins with the construction of the freeway back in the '50s and '60s. As the Route 34 freeway was being built, the city and state bulldozed entire neighborhoods from the New Haven Railyard, through downtown to Route 10 to make way for the Route 34 freeway, which was envisioned to ultimately continue west through Orange, then across the Housatonic River to either Derby or Shelton, and continue further west, following the Housatonic River to intersect I-84 and the (planned, but never finished) Route 25 freeway near Newtown.  The short section that used to end at the Air Rights Garage at Yale Avenue was the only portion of the freeway built before the remainder of the highway was blocked by lawsuits. 

Connecticut still had plans on the books until the 1990s to extend the Route 34 freeway to Orange; there is a commuter parking lot off Route 34 in Orange that was originally built as the freeway's anticipated tie-in to the existing Route 34.  The land cleared for the freeway between the Air Rights Garage and Route 10 remained vacant and under state ownership (ready for the freeway extension to be built), until it was sold off in the early 2000s to deal with the state's budget crisis at the time; much of that land has already been redeveloped with Pfizer building its medical research facility adjacent to the Air Rights Garage. 

Mayor DeStefano's prime motivation for removing the Route 34 Freeway was two-fold:  1) to reconnect portions of downtown divided by the highway, and 2) free up more land for development and add to the city's tax base.  At the time, DeStefano wielded significant political influence within the state, and using his political power, he was able to convince state leaders into converting the Route 34 freeway into a boulevard west of the New Haven Railyard so his vision of redeveloping the Route 34 corridor and reconnecting downtown could be realized.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on March 16, 2016, 01:19:51 PM
But does it actually allow for more development (aside from one building where exit 3 was)?  It looks like it just converts the freeway into an express lane for the garage and forces everyone else to sit at a couple more traffic lights.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: tckma on March 16, 2016, 02:05:45 PM
Quote from: TravelingBethelite on March 13, 2016, 08:51:42 PM
I was looking at the I-95 crossing of the CT/NY state line and noticed it skips right to Exit 2. I can't find satellite evidence of there ever being an Exit 1. Does anyone know if there ever was an Exit 1?  :hmmm:

"Exit 1" was the former toll booth at the state line.  The same kind of thing happens with "Exit 16" on the NYS Thruway (that's the toll booth at the start of the ticket system by Exit 17 for NY-17, which I'm sure is part of why that was done), as well as "Exit 1," "Exit 18W," and "Exit 16E" on the NJ Turnpike.  Toll roads seem to like to do things that way.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on March 16, 2016, 03:26:22 PM
Getting back to the CT 34 expressway, I believe there were plans at one time to extend it and tie it in with a proposed NY/CT 35 expressway that would connect to the US 9 expressway in Peekskill and maybe even to I-86/NY 17 in Woodbury.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: dgolub on March 16, 2016, 05:28:50 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on March 16, 2016, 03:26:22 PM
Getting back to the CT 34 expressway, I believe there were plans at one time to extend it and tie it in with a proposed NY/CT 35 expressway that would connect to the US 9 expressway in Peekskill and maybe even to I-86/NY 17 in Woodbury.

Yes, Steve Anderson discusses it here: http://www.nycroads.com/roads/CT-34/
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on March 16, 2016, 06:03:50 PM
Quote from: vdeane on March 16, 2016, 01:19:51 PM
But does it actually allow for more development (aside from one building where exit 3 was)?  It looks like it just converts the freeway into an express lane for the garage and forces everyone else to sit at a couple more traffic lights.

With property values being sky-high in downtown New Haven, even just one or two parcels being redeveloped into multi-story buildings would bring in a significant amount of tax revenue. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on March 16, 2016, 06:33:41 PM
Remember Route 11? Remember the push it got a couple years back? Oh yeah and that studt that started 2 years ago, what happened to it?

http://www.theday.com/columnists/20160214/route-11-lite-new-life-for-a-dead-end-road-project
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on March 16, 2016, 08:04:46 PM
Quote from: tckma on March 16, 2016, 02:05:45 PM
Quote from: TravelingBethelite on March 13, 2016, 08:51:42 PM
I was looking at the I-95 crossing of the CT/NY state line and noticed it skips right to Exit 2. I can't find satellite evidence of there ever being an Exit 1. Does anyone know if there ever was an Exit 1?  :hmmm:

"Exit 1" was the former toll booth at the state line.  The same kind of thing happens with "Exit 16" on the NYS Thruway (that's the toll booth at the start of the ticket system by Exit 17 for NY-17, which I'm sure is part of why that was done), as well as "Exit 1," "Exit 18W," and "Exit 16E" on the NJ Turnpike.  Toll roads seem to like to do things that way.
NY 17 is exit 16.  Exit 17 is for I-84.  The next exit to the south is exit 15A (also for NY 17), and further south, exit 15 for I-287.  Additionally, the end of the ticket system used to be between exits present day 14A and 14B (then 15; 14B wasn't built yet) at Spring Valley.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on March 16, 2016, 11:30:18 PM
btw, with the I-84 widening project underway, THIS:

(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5698/23262911896_fff6f41cc4_c.jpg)

is the oldest remaining sign on the mainline for I-84 WB.

this is gone
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8660/16865029641_cb3ab2eedf_c.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on March 16, 2016, 11:50:52 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on March 16, 2016, 06:33:41 PM
Remember Route 11? Remember the push it got a couple years back? Oh yeah and that studt that started 2 years ago, what happened to it?

http://www.theday.com/columnists/20160214/route-11-lite-new-life-for-a-dead-end-road-project
There's a better chance of I-484 being resurrected.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on March 17, 2016, 02:07:45 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on March 16, 2016, 06:33:41 PM
Remember Route 11? Remember the push it got a couple years back? Oh yeah and that studt that started 2 years ago, what happened to it?

http://www.theday.com/columnists/20160214/route-11-lite-new-life-for-a-dead-end-road-project

I think the closest Route 11 got to being built was during the Rowland years, when the EIS was nearly finished, which would have resulted in a Record of Decision enabling construction to start.  But the state never really had the money to pay to extend Route 11, so the FHWA wouldn't sign off on the EIS and issue a ROD.  When Jodi Rell became governor, the Route 11 extension was one of the projects she directed ConnDOT to remove from its list, effectively killing it.  Malloy has talked about resurrecting Route 11, but the state still doesn't have the money to build it. While Route 11 was mentioned in the governor's 30-year $100 billion transportation plan, that plan is nothing more than a pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking since there's too much opposition in the legislature to establish a transportation "lock-box" to finance the plan.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: tckma on March 17, 2016, 02:39:53 PM
Quote from: vdeane on March 16, 2016, 08:04:46 PM
NY 17 is exit 16.  Exit 17 is for I-84.  The next exit to the south is exit 15A (also for NY 17), and further south, exit 15 for I-287.  Additionally, the end of the ticket system used to be between exits present day 14A and 14B (then 15; 14B wasn't built yet) at Spring Valley.

Hmm, I coulda sworn that... well, I'll trust the NYSDOT employee versus my memory; I last lived in NYS about 15 years ago.

I've always wondered why there was that random tollbooth in Spring Valley.  Now I know.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Beeper1 on March 17, 2016, 07:19:03 PM
I think there should be a contest to see what badly-needed but unfunded project will get built first, if ever:  CT-11 or a third Cape Cod Canal bridge.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on March 17, 2016, 07:35:11 PM
Quote from: Beeper1 on March 17, 2016, 07:19:03 PM
I think there should be a contest to see what badly-needed but unfunded project will get built first, if ever:  CT-11 or a third Cape Cod Canal bridge.
Or Rye-Oyster Bay Bridge/Tunnel/Bridge-Tunnel. Or widening/double-decking Garden State Parkway in Essex County.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: cl94 on March 17, 2016, 08:47:30 PM
Quote from: Alps on March 17, 2016, 07:35:11 PM
Or widening/double-decking Garden State Parkway in Essex County.

I wish. They could quadruple-deck it and it would still be a traffic nightmare.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on March 17, 2016, 09:04:20 PM
Quote from: Beeper1 on March 17, 2016, 07:19:03 PM
I think there should be a contest to see what badly-needed but unfunded project will get built first, if ever:  CT-11 or a third Cape Cod Canal bridge.
Without getting too far OT I don't think a third Canal bridge is necessary.  Two new bridges?  Maybe.  I don't know how bad regular rush hour traffic is but travelling off-peak during the summer is fine. Its the rental changeover days (Sat.-Sun) that can be hectic.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on March 18, 2016, 01:05:44 AM
Quote from: cl94 on March 17, 2016, 08:47:30 PM
Quote from: Alps on March 17, 2016, 07:35:11 PM
Or widening/double-decking Garden State Parkway in Essex County.

I wish. They could quadruple-deck it and it would still be a traffic nightmare.
Since this isn't Fictional Highways, I stuck to actual proposals.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Rothman on March 18, 2016, 08:35:30 AM
Is the extension of CT 11 really "badly-needed"?  It's been that way for decades and doesn't seem to cause many problems.

Only went down that way to get to Ocean Beach Park, anyway. :D
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on March 18, 2016, 11:24:03 AM
This veers into "Fictional Non-highways"; but if the northern portion of CT 11 had not been built, I'm guessing no one (except us) would be talking about a freeway along CT 85. The DOT would probably consider some piecemeal upgrades and possibly a "Go Around" sign in Colchester, as there is on I-91 in Meriden ("To Middletown use CT 9" (instead of CT 66))
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on March 18, 2016, 02:11:46 PM
http://wnpr.org/post/tunnels-plans-pitfalls-and-promises#stream/0

A short piece from WNPR, a.k.a. Connecticut Public Radio. One of the things they touch on is about a tunnel proposal under Long Island Sound.

The funny thing is the picture shown under "Related Content" about other highway articles. It's about Connecticut and funding, yet they show a big green sign from I-195 West in Providence, at the junction with I-95.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on March 18, 2016, 03:38:51 PM
Quote from: kurumi on March 18, 2016, 11:24:03 AM
This veers into "Fictional Non-highways"; but if the northern portion of CT 11 had not been built, I'm guessing no one (except us) would be talking about a freeway along CT 85. The DOT would probably consider some piecemeal upgrades and possibly a "Go Around" sign in Colchester, as there is on I-91 in Meriden ("To Middletown use CT 9" (instead of CT 66))

I wonder if ConnDOT will consider dismantling CT 11 if the southern portion to I-95/I-395 never gets built.  Sign CT 2 as "New London", or better yet, just "phase out" the New London control city on the rest of CT 2 (and on I-91 and I-84).  Make a new interchange on CT 2 EB with CT 85 to handle the "Salem" traffic.  And there you go... just rip up what's there of CT 11 as if it never even existed.  Then, just like magic, the hopes and dreams of a completed CT 11 disappear.  Just like CT 34 in New Haven. 

Personally, I'd still like to see CT 11 make it to I-95/I-395.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: The Ghostbuster on March 18, 2016, 03:40:18 PM
Is there anywhere in Connecticut where a tunnel could "theoretically" be built?

Also, it seems more likely that CT-11 will be torn down than it ever reaching Interstates 95/395.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on March 18, 2016, 03:53:54 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 18, 2016, 03:40:18 PM
Is there anywhere in Connecticut where a tunnel could "theoretically" be built?

Also, it seems more likely that CT-11 will be torn down than it ever reaching Interstates 95/395.
I don't know how must of ConnDOT's maintenance budget goes specifically into CT 11, but I doubt it would be a big enough percentage where partially (super-2-ing) or fully decommissioning it would yield a lot of savings.

I'd say have it turn east and have the freeway portion end directly at CT 85 and then have 11 co-signed all the way to New London.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: cl94 on March 18, 2016, 06:50:58 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 18, 2016, 03:40:18 PM
Is there anywhere in Connecticut where a tunnel could "theoretically" be built?

Other than the tunnel on the Wilbur Cross (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.342285,-72.9731853,3a,24.1y,38.22h,89.55t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjWRmfHOjmzvi7VTeIfLzSg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)? Certainly. Connecticut isn't a flat state by any means (unless you're comparing it to Vermont or another state that is all mountains).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on March 19, 2016, 01:52:14 AM
Quote from: cl94 on March 18, 2016, 06:50:58 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 18, 2016, 03:40:18 PM
Is there anywhere in Connecticut where a tunnel could "theoretically" be built?

Other than the tunnel on the Wilbur Cross (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.342285,-72.9731853,3a,24.1y,38.22h,89.55t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjWRmfHOjmzvi7VTeIfLzSg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)? Certainly. Connecticut isn't a flat state by any means (unless you're comparing it to Vermont or another state that is all mountains).
Tunnel Road does not have a tunnel.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: dgolub on March 19, 2016, 09:58:19 AM
Quote from: Alps on March 19, 2016, 01:52:14 AM
Quote from: cl94 on March 18, 2016, 06:50:58 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 18, 2016, 03:40:18 PM
Is there anywhere in Connecticut where a tunnel could "theoretically" be built?

Other than the tunnel on the Wilbur Cross (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.342285,-72.9731853,3a,24.1y,38.22h,89.55t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjWRmfHOjmzvi7VTeIfLzSg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)? Certainly. Connecticut isn't a flat state by any means (unless you're comparing it to Vermont or another state that is all mountains).
Tunnel Road does not have a tunnel.

Actually, it looks like it sort of does: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8245837,-72.4627482,3a,75y,130.83h,88.44t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sY9suXPu_kU8vwRZFI5KXng!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on March 19, 2016, 10:36:32 AM
I pass by that along I-84 all the time and yet never knew that was there! Interesting!  :spin:
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on March 19, 2016, 11:59:56 AM
There's also this rail tunnel. (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3038246,-72.8793049,576m/data=!3m1!1e3)

An argument could be made to count the deckover on I-84 in Hartford, as well as this road through an underground parking garage in New Haven (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Pitkin+St+Tunnel,+New+Haven,+CT+06510/@41.3066573,-72.9261786,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x89e7d9b544e34b61:0x34cee8d78f27610f) that can be used as a through route when it's open during the week, although this was not its intended purpose.

And speaking of New Haven, let's not forget the new means of getting to the Air Rights Garage in the roadbed of former CT 34 (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3039598,-72.9303942,3a,30.6y,266.47h,80.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1siCeanbRSU9yAVg-RvB8FVg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on March 19, 2016, 05:58:49 PM
Two rail tunnels I know of in CT:  Terryville and Taftville, the latter is I believe the oldest in the US still in continuous use. 

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on March 19, 2016, 07:20:12 PM
Quote from: dgolub on March 19, 2016, 09:58:19 AM
Quote from: Alps on March 19, 2016, 01:52:14 AM
Quote from: cl94 on March 18, 2016, 06:50:58 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 18, 2016, 03:40:18 PM
Is there anywhere in Connecticut where a tunnel could "theoretically" be built?

Other than the tunnel on the Wilbur Cross (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.342285,-72.9731853,3a,24.1y,38.22h,89.55t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjWRmfHOjmzvi7VTeIfLzSg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)? Certainly. Connecticut isn't a flat state by any means (unless you're comparing it to Vermont or another state that is all mountains).
Tunnel Road does not have a tunnel.

Actually, it looks like it sort of does: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8245837,-72.4627482,3a,75y,130.83h,88.44t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sY9suXPu_kU8vwRZFI5KXng!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Doesn't meet the minimum length requirement by NJDOT definition. ^_^
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on March 23, 2016, 06:07:22 PM
Looks like the new I-91 SB gantry at Exit 40 in Windsor Locks that has been missing for a while has finally been replaced, along with new signs.  It's visible on the ConnDOT web cam "CCTV# 65 Windsor SB Exit 40 - Rt. 20", the signs only visible when the camera is facing north.  Cameras don't exist for Exits 41 and 42 where two gantries (one NB at Exit 42, one SB at Exit 41) are being replaced with a single one, so I can't see if those have been replaced yet.  If they haven't yet, I'd guess they will be soon, as the replacement of all 3 is under the same contract. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: wytout on March 23, 2016, 08:11:49 PM
The other gantry was put up last Friday night. The single gantry Spans nb and sb lanes. No signs were placed yet, and the two gantries it replaces were still intact. Will be driving by there in the morning tomorrow on my way to work.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on March 24, 2016, 12:52:58 PM
http://ctmirror.org/2016/03/21/decision-on-widening-i-95-key-step-in-transportation-master-plan/

An interesting article and it seems to be some of the same old...same old...politicians just don't want to try new ideas.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: The Ghostbuster on March 24, 2016, 03:38:35 PM
When I mentioned building a tunnel, I meant a freeway tunnel. As for the article, make the new lane a congestion-priced toll lane, and the induced travel argument goes out the window (I am not a proponent of that argument by any means).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on March 24, 2016, 04:16:05 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on March 24, 2016, 12:52:58 PM
http://ctmirror.org/2016/03/21/decision-on-widening-i-95-key-step-in-transportation-master-plan/

An interesting article and it seems to be some of the same old...same old...politicians just don't want to try new ideas.
I'd rather have them float the idea of a new Interstate than adding a lane.  You could potentially take away congestion on both I-84 and I-95 on a new corridor in between the two.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on March 24, 2016, 05:25:05 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on March 24, 2016, 12:52:58 PM
http://ctmirror.org/2016/03/21/decision-on-widening-i-95-key-step-in-transportation-master-plan/

An interesting article and it seems to be some of the same old...same old...politicians just don't want to try new ideas.

I could see a new toll lane working. I don't want them to convert an existing lane to a toll lane tho.

When the politicians/others met to hammer out details on how to pay for Gov Malloy's 30-year transportation vision, I expected some wonderful ideas.  However, not one new idea came about....tolls, taxes were the only ideas.  Amazing.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on March 24, 2016, 06:22:07 PM
Also, a new project to replace the god awful signage on the Merritt Parkway from Exits 27-53.  I always thought the signs were cheaply made.  They are not extruded like the other BGS signs and aren't even reflected correctly. 

Did they even last 10 years?

"Project 0173-0472 2016-A12-1 Sign updates on Route 15, Exits27-53 Page 7
Changes Amendment 12 adds a new Project
Reason Highway Resigning from the New York / Connecticut State Line to the Stratford / Milford
Town Line on the Merritt Parkway. Includes Exits 27 - 53, a distance of approximately
37.7 miles.
Recent structural failures of the large state furnished sheet aluminum highway signs on
the Merritt Parkway has resulted in a need for corrective action. The project will replace
all of the failing large signs sheeting and replace the regulatory signs, warning signs,
guide signs, and delineators along Route 15, on/off ramps and at ramp termini as
necessary."
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on March 24, 2016, 07:49:15 PM
Wow.... interesting.  Didn't expect to see this coming, but I did notice years ago some of the "buckling" of the signs.  They were installed around 2001, so they've definitely been around for 10 years.  So, seeing this project isn't even listed anywhere on ConnDOT, either upcoming or a "now up for bids" project, when can we expect this to get started?  Will new signage be MUTCD-compliant?  And this would again be a perfect time to renumber those exits!!!

And, oh yeah, will Exit 40 get the new sign treatment or will they hold out again for the interchange reconstruction which never came?  Given how ConnDOT just installs new signs only to have them replaced or modified in a future project, I'd guess they'll be replaced. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: dgolub on March 24, 2016, 07:57:07 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on March 24, 2016, 06:22:07 PM
Also, a new project to replace the god awful signage on the Merritt Parkway from Exits 27-53.  I always thought the signs were cheaply made.  They are not extruded like the other BGS signs and aren't even reflected correctly. 

Did they even last 10 years?

"Project 0173-0472 2016-A12-1 Sign updates on Route 15, Exits27-53 Page 7
Changes Amendment 12 adds a new Project
Reason Highway Resigning from the New York / Connecticut State Line to the Stratford / Milford
Town Line on the Merritt Parkway. Includes Exits 27 - 53, a distance of approximately
37.7 miles.
Recent structural failures of the large state furnished sheet aluminum highway signs on
the Merritt Parkway has resulted in a need for corrective action. The project will replace
all of the failing large signs sheeting and replace the regulatory signs, warning signs,
guide signs, and delineators along Route 15, on/off ramps and at ramp termini as
necessary."

Yes, I was on there for the first time in 2005, and they haven't replaced them since then.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on March 24, 2016, 08:26:48 PM
Makes sense that they should do the mileage based conversion on the Merritt/Wilbur Cross and Route 15 near Hartford when they replace these.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on March 24, 2016, 10:50:32 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on March 24, 2016, 07:49:15 PM
Wow.... interesting.  Didn't expect to see this coming, but I did notice years ago some of the "buckling" of the signs.  They were installed around 2001, so they've definitely been around for 10 years.  So, seeing this project isn't even listed anywhere on ConnDOT, either upcoming or a "now up for bids" project, when can we expect this to get started?  Will new signage be MUTCD-compliant?  And this would again be a perfect time to renumber those exits!!!

The STIP (http://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/documents/dpolicy/stip/2015STIPPROJECTS.pdf) has $3.5M funded for it in 2017. Ctrl+F for "0173-0472", it's on page 12. So, next year.

Difficult to say whether the new signs will be MUTCD compliant.

As for exit renumbering, I doubt it. Read the description closely (emphases mine):
QuoteThe project will replace all of the failing large signs sheeting and replace the regulatory signs, warning signs, guide signs, and delineators along Route 15, on/off ramps and at ramp termini as necessary.

It sounds like they're only doing spot replacements, not replacing all of the signs.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on March 24, 2016, 11:05:04 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on March 24, 2016, 06:22:07 PM
Also, a new project to replace the god awful signage on the Merritt Parkway from Exits 27-53.  I always thought the signs were cheaply made.  They are not extruded like the other BGS signs and aren't even reflected correctly. 

Did they even last 10 years?

"Project 0173-0472 2016-A12-1 Sign updates on Route 15, Exits27-53 Page 7
Changes Amendment 12 adds a new Project
Reason Highway Resigning from the New York / Connecticut State Line to the Stratford / Milford
Town Line on the Merritt Parkway. Includes Exits 27 - 53, a distance of approximately
37.7 miles.
Recent structural failures of the large state furnished sheet aluminum highway signs on
the Merritt Parkway has resulted in a need for corrective action. The project will replace
all of the failing large signs sheeting and replace the regulatory signs, warning signs,
guide signs, and delineators along Route 15, on/off ramps and at ramp termini as
necessary."

I found this on the South Central Regional Council of Governments website. 

Does anybody know why the Merritt signs weren't made of extruded aluminum like the other BGSs in the state?  Extruded seems to be more durable, I notice with the sign panels is that they blow off or fall down.

I also notice the signs on the Sikorsky Bridge have awful reflectivity.  At night, it looks like tin foil and when your headlights hit it at a certain angle, the whole sign looks white.  (the same can be said with the new Exit 46 Service Plaza signs)  I can't believe the feds allow that.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: roadman on March 25, 2016, 12:22:13 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on March 24, 2016, 11:05:04 PM

Does anybody know why the Merritt signs weren't made of extruded aluminum like the other BGSs in the state? 

Probably because the preservationists didn't want extruded signs, lest the Merritt - gasp - look like a freeway instead of a parkway.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on March 25, 2016, 02:25:46 PM
Quote from: roadman on March 25, 2016, 12:22:13 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on March 24, 2016, 11:05:04 PM

Does anybody know why the Merritt signs weren't made of extruded aluminum like the other BGSs in the state? 

Probably because the preservationists didn't want extruded signs, lest the Merritt - gasp - look like a freeway instead of a parkway.

Excellent post!  A state trooper friend told me why the revamped service plaza at Exit 46 NB still have no acceleration lane b/c  preservationists complained the footprint would be too big.

On a side note:
My favorite expressway in CT, CT-25 is getting new signage and the project is coming along.  All non BGS,BYS have been replaced for the most part, shields, speed limit signs etc.  There is a LGS for "Junction 111" on CT025 NB, although I think that should be a BGS since it's an expressway coming to a stop light. 

This relic has been replaced
Old:

(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1515/26004830466_f007673fe1_c.jpg)

New:
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1629/25938217862_5dea310aa0_c.jpg)

I liked the CT-25 expressway it was like a timewarp, graffiti on the rocks, concrete pavement, original signage.  An expressway that never had button copy on it for the most part.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on March 25, 2016, 02:42:13 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on March 24, 2016, 06:22:07 PM
Also, a new project to replace the god awful signage on the Merritt Parkway from Exits 27-53.  I always thought the signs were cheaply made.  They are not extruded like the other BGS signs and aren't even reflected correctly. 

Did they even last 10 years?

"Project 0173-0472 2016-A12-1 Sign updates on Route 15, Exits27-53 Page 7
Changes Amendment 12 adds a new Project
Reason Highway Resigning from the New York / Connecticut State Line to the Stratford / Milford
Town Line on the Merritt Parkway. Includes Exits 27 - 53, a distance of approximately
37.7 miles.
Recent structural failures of the large state furnished sheet aluminum highway signs on
the Merritt Parkway has resulted in a need for corrective action. The project will replace
all of the failing large signs sheeting and replace the regulatory signs, warning signs,
guide signs, and delineators along Route 15, on/off ramps and at ramp termini as
necessary."
Wonder how much longer we'll have to wait for new mileposts.  Hopefully on those we get both a route shield and Merrit/WC trailblazer.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: dgolub on March 25, 2016, 07:01:53 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 25, 2016, 02:42:13 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on March 24, 2016, 06:22:07 PM
Also, a new project to replace the god awful signage on the Merritt Parkway from Exits 27-53.  I always thought the signs were cheaply made.  They are not extruded like the other BGS signs and aren't even reflected correctly. 

Did they even last 10 years?

"Project 0173-0472 2016-A12-1 Sign updates on Route 15, Exits27-53 Page 7
Changes Amendment 12 adds a new Project
Reason Highway Resigning from the New York / Connecticut State Line to the Stratford / Milford
Town Line on the Merritt Parkway. Includes Exits 27 - 53, a distance of approximately
37.7 miles.
Recent structural failures of the large state furnished sheet aluminum highway signs on
the Merritt Parkway has resulted in a need for corrective action. The project will replace
all of the failing large signs sheeting and replace the regulatory signs, warning signs,
guide signs, and delineators along Route 15, on/off ramps and at ramp termini as
necessary."
Wonder how much longer we'll have to wait for new mileposts.  Hopefully on those we get both a route shield and Merrit/WC trailblazer.

Also, will the new signs continue the special Merritt Parkway signage style, or will they just go over to standard Connecticut style?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on March 25, 2016, 08:37:41 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 25, 2016, 02:42:13 PM
Wonder how much longer we'll have to wait for new mileposts.  Hopefully on those we get both a route shield and Merrit/WC trailblazer.

Actually, the ones on the Merritt were replaced when the signs got replaced in 2001.  Granted, they aren't the new style "smart" mileposts (with reassuring shields every mile and the smaller two tenths indicators), but they're a lot more legible than those on CT 9, CT 2, etc, which haven't been replaced since the 1980s. 

I'd guess in the future, we'll see traditional mileposts on the Merritt, and the smart mileposts on the Wilbur Cross. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on March 25, 2016, 10:15:25 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on March 25, 2016, 02:25:46 PM
This relic has been replaced

This sign actually got knocked over at some point in early summer 2011. I thought for sure it was a gonner then but to my surprise I later discovered it had been put back up!

I'm also kinda surprised they bothered replacing it instead of leaving it there to rot or removing it and leaving it gone. It's rather unnecessary coming from a dead end street and all.


For those of you keeping track at home, that means there are now five of those CT outline shields left, unless another one has also bitten the dust since I last checked.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on March 26, 2016, 10:49:58 AM
I honestly have no idea why CT abandoned the outline shields.  They should have kept them rather than reverting to the square.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on March 26, 2016, 03:44:42 PM
My 777th post!!

I don't know if the state outline shields were ever used outside of Fairfield (and maybe New Haven) County, usually on routes that crossed the Merritt/Wilbur Cross Parkway.  I remember seeing them as a kid driving to NYC, but I also remember seeing a couple of old square shields with a "CONN" over the route number around my parts, specifically one in Plainville on CT 10.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: cl94 on March 26, 2016, 04:53:10 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on March 26, 2016, 03:44:42 PM
My 777th post!!

I don't know if the state outline shields were ever used outside of Fairfield (and maybe New Haven) County, usually on routes that crossed the Merritt/Wilbur Cross Parkway.  I remember seeing them as a kid driving to NYC, but I also remember seeing a couple of old square shields with a "CONN" over the route number around my parts, specifically one in Plainville on CT 10.

You beat me to it. Everything I can find shows them using the square forever.
Title: Connecticut News
Post by: Pete from Boston on March 26, 2016, 07:18:20 PM
Does anyone know off the top of their head if there's a list somewhere of I-86 exit numbers?  Kurumi?  I'm trying to piece together some vague memories.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on March 26, 2016, 07:59:38 PM
Quote from: cl94 on March 26, 2016, 04:53:10 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on March 26, 2016, 03:44:42 PM
I don't know if the state outline shields were ever used outside of Fairfield (and maybe New Haven) County, usually on routes that crossed the Merritt/Wilbur Cross Parkway.  I remember seeing them as a kid driving to NYC, but I also remember seeing a couple of old square shields with a "CONN" over the route number around my parts, specifically one in Plainville on CT 10.

You beat me to it. Everything I can find shows them using the square forever.

The outline shields were only ever used on/near the Merritt Parkway.

It is not a coincidence that all five remaining examples are in Fairfield County, and four of the five are 15 shields.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on March 26, 2016, 08:15:28 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 26, 2016, 07:18:20 PM
Does anyone know off the top of their head if there's a list somewhere of I-86 exit numbers?  Kurumi?  I'm trying to piece together some vague memories.

They went from 92-106 based off of CT 15's original numbering.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on March 26, 2016, 08:35:36 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 24, 2016, 04:16:05 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on March 24, 2016, 12:52:58 PM
http://ctmirror.org/2016/03/21/decision-on-widening-i-95-key-step-in-transportation-master-plan/

An interesting article and it seems to be some of the same old...same old...politicians just don't want to try new ideas.
I'd rather have them float the idea of a new Interstate than adding a lane.  You could potentially take away congestion on both I-84 and I-95 on a new corridor in between the two.
Where would you ram a new interstate through Connecticut? Do you realize what the right of way acquisition costs would be? It's cost prohibitive, especially in the southwestern part of the state where a single property can be worth $10+ million in some of those towns like Greenwich, New Canaan, Darien, Westport, etc. I would just toll the f*ck out of 95. $20 at the NY border is where I'd start the pricing. Double the price Monday through Friday 4 PM-7 PM and 6 AM-9 AM, and also Saturdays and Sundays during the summer. If this little stretch of highway is so invaluable, why the heck isn't the state bringing in any revenue from it? 95 should be our cash cow. The conspiracy theorist in me has always thought those wealthy property owners in lower Fairfield County like the traffic because it increases the value of their property. If there was no traffic, people could still work in Greenwich or Stamford while being able to have a manageable commute living 30 miles away which means there would be less demand (leading to lower prices) for housing close in, and would more or less distribute the demand for housing over a wider area (an equalizing effect on housing prices) rather than concentrating it in just a few towns.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on March 26, 2016, 10:11:55 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on March 26, 2016, 08:15:28 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 26, 2016, 07:18:20 PM
Does anyone know off the top of their head if there's a list somewhere of I-86 exit numbers?  Kurumi?  I'm trying to piece together some vague memories.

They went from 92-106 based off of CT 15's original numbering.

I think it went like this

91- Forbes St (eliminated with construction of I-384 interchange)
92 is now 60 (US 6/44[A])
93 is now 62 (Buckland St)
94 is now 63 (CT 30/83)
95-96 is now 64-65 (CT 30/83)
97 is now 66 (Tunnel Rd)
98 is now 67 (CT 31)
99 is now 68 (CT 195)
100 is now 69 (CT 74, Formerly US 44)
101 is now 70 (CT 32)
102 is now 71 (CT 320)
NO EXIT 103
104 is now 72 (CT 89)
105 is now 73 (CT 190)
106 is now 74 (CT 171)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on March 26, 2016, 11:46:13 PM
JP is right; below is from a page of a Route Change Notice dated May 10, 1985:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimgur.com%2FYqirPrL.jpg&hash=a6c3e4e72b00548ae10bf6f073467f52339c8ea0)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: mariethefoxy on March 27, 2016, 02:15:16 AM
question about the older button copy signs, how come they didnt use a white background for the state and US shields and black button letters like South Carolina or Oklahoma?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Pete from Boston on March 27, 2016, 07:42:46 AM
Thanks, this is all great.  I occasionally have flashes of recollection while driving by.  The other day it was that Exit 63 was 94, which it turns out was right.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: dgolub on March 27, 2016, 09:43:07 AM
Quote from: kurumi on March 26, 2016, 11:46:13 PM
JP is right; below is from a page of a Route Change Notice dated May 10, 1985:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimgur.com%2FYqirPrL.jpg&hash=a6c3e4e72b00548ae10bf6f073467f52339c8ea0)

This is awesome.  Where did you get this from?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on March 27, 2016, 10:49:09 AM
Quote from: kurumi on March 26, 2016, 11:46:13 PM
JP is right; below is from a page of a Route Change Notice dated May 10, 1985:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimgur.com%2FYqirPrL.jpg&hash=a6c3e4e72b00548ae10bf6f073467f52339c8ea0)
Does this mean that all the advance signage for exit 61 was up as early as 1985?  I-291 wasn't officially completed until 9 years later.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: noelbotevera on March 27, 2016, 12:05:35 PM
Quote from: kurumi on March 26, 2016, 11:46:13 PM
JP is right; below is from a page of a Route Change Notice dated May 10, 1985:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimgur.com%2FYqirPrL.jpg&hash=a6c3e4e72b00548ae10bf6f073467f52339c8ea0)
There seems to be background text behind the page; it says Secondary(?) Highway. Effective December 31st, 1984. I-84 INTERCHANGE CONSTRUCTION. So what's that all about?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on March 27, 2016, 01:36:07 PM
Maybe for when they redid the I-84/I-91 interchange in Hartford some time later?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on March 27, 2016, 05:28:32 PM
That page is from a Route Change Notice, published occasionally by ConnDOT. I photocopied some from the CT State Library a few years ago. None of them, unfortunately, are online.

(Route changes are not as frequent these days.) It announces a planned change and doesn't specify exactly when the signs went up. Exit 61 is reserved for I-291 (see footnote) and would not have been signed yet. The 84/384/6/44/291 interchange complex was open for a few years, with I-291 stubs fenced off, before I-291 was completed in 1994.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on March 27, 2016, 06:31:55 PM
What would Exit 103 ever have been reserved for? Or was it an old exit subsequently closed?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on March 27, 2016, 08:10:54 PM
Quote from: Alps on March 27, 2016, 06:31:55 PM
What would Exit 103 ever have been reserved for? Or was it an old exit subsequently closed?

It was reserved for a proposed CT 190 freeway.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on March 27, 2016, 09:00:12 PM
So the next question is...beside the couple of shots going around online...does anybody have a pics of I-86 from back then?

I remember seeing the white signs after the new exit numbering took over above the exit tabs.  They were long rectangles saying "Formerly Exit 106."  Long black on white lettering.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on March 28, 2016, 12:16:23 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 27, 2016, 08:10:54 PM
Quote from: Alps on March 27, 2016, 06:31:55 PM
What would Exit 103 ever have been reserved for? Or was it an old exit subsequently closed?

It was reserved for a proposed CT 190 freeway.
I just... can't... why? I know the stub freeway over at I-91, but who ever thought there would be demand to head that far east to what's now 84?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on March 28, 2016, 11:00:18 PM
Just wanted to post this as I can't believe this sign has dodged all the sign replacement projects.  Sign dates to 1976.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1485/25988912381_3cd2040f8b_z.jpg)

And it seemed in the late 80s to early 90s CT was in a rush to blanket the state in REFLECTIVE button copy.  Every road got it except for CT-25 and US-7 north of I-84 it seemed.

Like on CT-8 in Beacon Falls, it seemed like non-reflective button copy was replaced only about 10 years or so after it was put up.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on March 28, 2016, 11:20:32 PM
Quote from: Alps on March 28, 2016, 12:16:23 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 27, 2016, 08:10:54 PM
Quote from: Alps on March 27, 2016, 06:31:55 PM
What would Exit 103 ever have been reserved for? Or was it an old exit subsequently closed?

It was reserved for a proposed CT 190 freeway.
I just... can't... why? I know the stub freeway over at I-91, but who ever thought there would be demand to head that far east to what's now 84?

Perhaps a well-connected individual lived in Stafford.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: mariethefoxy on March 29, 2016, 01:51:22 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on March 28, 2016, 11:00:18 PM
Just wanted to post this as I can't believe this sign has dodged all the sign replacement projects.  Sign dates to 1976.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1485/25988912381_3cd2040f8b_z.jpg)

And it seemed in the late 80s to early 90s CT was in a rush to blanket the state in REFLECTIVE button copy.  Every road got it except for CT-25 and US-7 north of I-84 it seemed.

Like on CT-8 in Beacon Falls, it seemed like non-reflective button copy was replaced only about 10 years or so after it was put up.

isnt that on CT 40?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on March 29, 2016, 02:04:04 AM
Re old exit 103: I don't know when that stretch of CT 15 (at the time) was exit numbered. Maybe 1954, when the freeway was completed? 1957 or 1958, when I-84 signs went up?

*If* Exit 103 had been reserved for a future route, it could have been a CT 32 freeway, which seemed a little less farfetched at the time (was in long-range plans in 1961 and 1963, but eventually dropped off in the 1970s).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Pete from Boston on March 29, 2016, 01:54:28 PM

Quote from: kurumi on March 29, 2016, 02:04:04 AM
Re old exit 103: I don't know when that stretch of CT 15 (at the time) was exit numbered. Maybe 1954, when the freeway was completed? 1957 or 1958, when I-84 signs went up?

*If* Exit 103 had been reserved for a future route, it could have been a CT 32 freeway, which seemed a little less farfetched at the time (was in long-range plans in 1961 and 1963, but eventually dropped off in the 1970s).

I wonder if there was a belief at the time that the Springfield and Hartford metropolitan areas were healthy enough to grow enough to make that area more viable for suburban development.  There was still a fair amount of small industry in Connecticut towns outside urban areas in 1954, though my understanding is its decline really sped up in 1955 with the floods of Connie and Diane.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Rothman on March 29, 2016, 02:12:51 PM
Mayor Albano didn't help things much, either. :D
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on March 29, 2016, 03:29:37 PM
Web cam shots reveal another new sign installed as part of the 2014 spot sign replacement project... I-84 East at Exit 57 (Roberts Street).  The new gantry is a side cantilever which replaced a full-width overhead truss.  The new gantry is a single "exit now" sign for Exit 57.  The old gantry also had a pullthrough "EAST 84 TO 384".  The new Exit 57 sign continues to read "Roberts St/Silver Ln/Burnside Ave", though I still can't understand why Burnside Ave keeps on appearing on Exit 57 BGSs. 

Maybe when all Exit 57 signs are replaced at some point in the future as part of a larger-scale project, Burnside Ave won't be listed.  It also is listed on secondary signs for Exit 60, but that makes more sense, as one exits at Exit 60 and Burnside Ave is right there.  Chalk that up to a "wtf, ConnDOT", just like why US 6 can't exit I-84 with US 44 at Exit 53.  Or why, for a period of time, US 44 exited at Exit 53, then got back on I-84 at (what is now) Exit 60. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on March 29, 2016, 06:15:52 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on March 29, 2016, 03:29:37 PM
Web cam shots reveal another new sign installed as part of the 2014 spot sign replacement project... I-84 East at Exit 57 (Roberts Street).  The new gantry is a side cantilever which replaced a full-width overhead truss.  The new gantry is a single "exit now" sign for Exit 57.  The old gantry also had a pullthrough "EAST 84 TO 384".  The new Exit 57 sign continues to read "Roberts St/Silver Ln/Burnside Ave", though I still can't understand why Burnside Ave keeps on appearing on Exit 57 BGSs. 

Maybe when all Exit 57 signs are replaced at some point in the future as part of a larger-scale project, Burnside Ave won't be listed.  It also is listed on secondary signs for Exit 60, but that makes more sense, as one exits at Exit 60 and Burnside Ave is right there.  Chalk that up to a "wtf, ConnDOT", just like why US 6 can't exit I-84 with US 44 at Exit 53.  Or why, for a period of time, US 44 exited at Exit 53, then got back on I-84 at (what is now) Exit 60.

The Roberts St/Silver Lane (and Burnside is ridiculous) exit is actually 58.  There's no Exit 57 EB (it's CT 15 south WB).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on March 29, 2016, 07:10:22 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on March 29, 2016, 03:29:37 PM
Web cam shots reveal another new sign installed as part of the 2014 spot sign replacement project... I-84 East at Exit 57 (Roberts Street).  The new gantry is a side cantilever which replaced a full-width overhead truss.  The new gantry is a single "exit now" sign for Exit 57.  The old gantry also had a pullthrough "EAST 84 TO 384".  The new Exit 57 sign continues to read "Roberts St/Silver Ln/Burnside Ave", though I still can't understand why Burnside Ave keeps on appearing on Exit 57 BGSs. 

Maybe when all Exit 57 signs are replaced at some point in the future as part of a larger-scale project, Burnside Ave won't be listed.  It also is listed on secondary signs for Exit 60, but that makes more sense, as one exits at Exit 60 and Burnside Ave is right there.  Chalk that up to a "wtf, ConnDOT", just like why US 6 can't exit I-84 with US 44 at Exit 53.  Or why, for a period of time, US 44 exited at Exit 53, then got back on I-84 at (what is now) Exit 60.
Governor's Street (exit 56) is the faster way to get to Burnside.  But it's closed eastbound now for bridge repairs.
Why not just sign US 6 along I-384?   That's the traditional route to Providence from Hartford, anyways.  Most locals refer to the 6/44 multiplex through East Hartford and Manchester by their street names.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on March 29, 2016, 07:52:12 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 29, 2016, 07:10:22 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on March 29, 2016, 03:29:37 PM
Web cam shots reveal another new sign installed as part of the 2014 spot sign replacement project... I-84 East at Exit 57 (Roberts Street).  The new gantry is a side cantilever which replaced a full-width overhead truss.  The new gantry is a single "exit now" sign for Exit 57.  The old gantry also had a pullthrough "EAST 84 TO 384".  The new Exit 57 sign continues to read "Roberts St/Silver Ln/Burnside Ave", though I still can't understand why Burnside Ave keeps on appearing on Exit 57 BGSs. 

Maybe when all Exit 57 signs are replaced at some point in the future as part of a larger-scale project, Burnside Ave won't be listed.  It also is listed on secondary signs for Exit 60, but that makes more sense, as one exits at Exit 60 and Burnside Ave is right there.  Chalk that up to a "wtf, ConnDOT", just like why US 6 can't exit I-84 with US 44 at Exit 53.  Or why, for a period of time, US 44 exited at Exit 53, then got back on I-84 at (what is now) Exit 60.
Governor's Street (exit 56) is the faster way to get to Burnside.  But it's closed eastbound now for bridge repairs.
Why not just sign US 6 along I-384?   That's the traditional route to Providence from Hartford, anyways.  Most locals refer to the 6/44 multiplex through East Hartford and Manchester by their street names.

The Governor St ramps to and from I-84 are still open, but not to and from CT 2.  If the Bolton-Windham expressway is never going to be built, I would decommission I-384 and put US 6 on it.  Otherwise, I always liked the idea of US 6 leaving at Exit 53 then routing it down East River Dr and Silver Lane/Spencer St/West Center St to meet US 44 just west of downtown Manchester.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on March 29, 2016, 09:11:09 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on March 29, 2016, 07:52:12 PM
The Governor St ramps to and from I-84 are still open, but not to and from CT 2.  If the Bolton-Windham expressway is never going to be built, I would decommission I-384 and put US 6 on it.  Otherwise, I always liked the idea of US 6 leaving at Exit 53 then routing it down East River Dr and Silver Lane/Spencer St/West Center St to meet US 44 just west of downtown Manchester.

Or even better, free US 6 from its I-84 tyranny altogether... have it run up Farmington Avenue from Farmington to Hartford, pass through Hartford via State St, cross the Founder's Bridge, then exit to meet up with East River Drive to Silver Ln/Spencer St to its existing route.  And free it from I-84 in Danbury. 

Or, I kinda like Robbie's idea of US 6 taking over I-384... then I-84 and US 6 just have to multiplex between Exits 54 and 59. 

US 44 can still 'plex with I-84 to get across the river... it's only 1/2 mile or so.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: mariethefoxy on March 29, 2016, 10:32:22 PM
those signs from Exit 57 to 63 were always unusual in the sense that they didnt fit the usual ConnDOT standards of the time. They didnt have button letters which CT seemed to use well into the late 90s.there were one or two that seemed to look like they were made to Massachusetts standards.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on March 30, 2016, 01:14:29 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 27, 2016, 10:49:09 AM
Quote from: kurumi on March 26, 2016, 11:46:13 PM
JP is right; below is from a page of a Route Change Notice dated May 10, 1985:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimgur.com%2FYqirPrL.jpg&hash=a6c3e4e72b00548ae10bf6f073467f52339c8ea0)
Does this mean that all the advance signage for exit 61 was up as early as 1985?  I-291 wasn't officially completed until 9 years later.
IIRC, since I've been driving that stretch of I-84 on holiday weekends since 1990; there were no advance signage erected for Exit 61 (I-291) erected prior to that road being completed.  There was just an intentional gap in the exit numbers & tabs until then.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on March 30, 2016, 04:17:54 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 30, 2016, 01:14:29 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 27, 2016, 10:49:09 AM
Quote from: kurumi on March 26, 2016, 11:46:13 PM
JP is right; below is from a page of a Route Change Notice dated May 10, 1985:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimgur.com%2FYqirPrL.jpg&hash=a6c3e4e72b00548ae10bf6f073467f52339c8ea0)
Does this mean that all the advance signage for exit 61 was up as early as 1985?  I-291 wasn't officially completed until 9 years later.
IIRC, since I've been driving that stretch of I-84 on holiday weekends since 1990; there were no advance signage erected for Exit 61 (I-291) erected prior to that road being completed.  There was just an intentional gap in the exit numbers & tabs until then.

When they reverted I-84 back to the Wilbur Cross Highway alignment in 1984, ConnDOT was very close to starting the rebuild of I-91, the reconstruction of the Bissell Bridge and the completion of I-291 between I-84 and I-91.  At that time, I-84 was in the middle of its reconstruction, and Exit 61 was deliberately set aside for the eventual interchange with I-291.  I remember driving on I-84 around 1990, before I-291 was finished; there was Exit 59 for I-384, then Exit 60, and then Exit 62 for Buckland Street.  In between Exits 60 and 62, ConnDOT was building the ramps and flyovers for I-291; at the time it only made sense to me that would eventually become the missing Exit 61.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on March 30, 2016, 06:00:02 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on March 30, 2016, 04:17:54 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 30, 2016, 01:14:29 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 27, 2016, 10:49:09 AM
Quote from: kurumi on March 26, 2016, 11:46:13 PM
JP is right; below is from a page of a Route Change Notice dated May 10, 1985:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimgur.com%2FYqirPrL.jpg&hash=a6c3e4e72b00548ae10bf6f073467f52339c8ea0)
Does this mean that all the advance signage for exit 61 was up as early as 1985?  I-291 wasn't officially completed until 9 years later.
IIRC, since I've been driving that stretch of I-84 on holiday weekends since 1990; there were no advance signage erected for Exit 61 (I-291) erected prior to that road being completed.  There was just an intentional gap in the exit numbers & tabs until then.

When they reverted I-84 back to the Wilbur Cross Highway alignment in 1984, ConnDOT was very close to starting the rebuild of I-91, the reconstruction of the Bissell Bridge and the completion of I-291 between I-84 and I-91.  At that time, I-84 was in the middle of its reconstruction, and Exit 61 was deliberately set aside for the eventual interchange with I-291.  I remember driving on I-84 around 1990, before I-291 was finished; there was Exit 59 for I-384, then Exit 60, and then Exit 62 for Buckland Street.  In between Exits 60 and 62, ConnDOT was building the ramps and flyovers for I-291; at the time it only made sense to me that would eventually become the missing Exit 61.
I was born in 1993, but I have strong memories of 55mph speed limit signs near those exits.   Did some digging and found out they may not have been raised to 65 until 1997.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on March 30, 2016, 06:36:31 PM
CT implemented 65 MPH speed limits on October 1, 1998.  All the current zones that became 65 MPH are still the ones to this day, including I-84 from Roberts St to the MA line, and all of I-291 and I-384.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on March 31, 2016, 04:45:20 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on March 30, 2016, 06:36:31 PM
CT implemented 65 MPH speed limits on October 1, 1998.  All the current zones that became 65 MPH are still the ones to this day, including I-84 from Roberts St to the MA line, and all of I-291 and I-384.

They did extend the 65 MPH zone on I-95 from Exit 54 in Branford to Exit 51 in East Haven after they widened that stretch to 3 lanes in each direction.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on March 31, 2016, 04:50:49 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on March 30, 2016, 06:36:31 PM
CT implemented 65 MPH speed limits on October 1, 1998.  All the current zones that became 65 MPH are still the ones to this day, including I-84 from Roberts St to the MA line, and all of I-291 and I-384.

In typical CT fashion, the last state to do so.  I remember politicians bickering over this, the classic it works everywhere but it can't work here response.  They argued that CT roads were not designed for 65mph and were designed for 55mph.  However, I took pleasure in finding an old photo of I-95 with a speed limit 60mph sign. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: tckma on March 31, 2016, 06:07:00 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on March 31, 2016, 04:50:49 PM
In typical CT fashion, the last state to do so.  I remember politicians bickering over this, the classic it works everywhere but it can't work here response.  They argued that CT roads were not designed for 65mph and were designed for 55mph.  However, I took pleasure in finding an old photo of I-95 with a speed limit 60mph sign.

Aren't roads over-engineered by about 20 MPH anyway?  So a 65 MPH road will have a design spec for 85 MPH max, with curves banked such that the least amount of steering wheel usage is at 65 MPH?  Can a highway engineer confirm or deny that?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on March 31, 2016, 08:13:24 PM
CT also was discussing raising a few spots to 75 MPH a couple of years ago.  I could see 4 stretches that could qualify for it: I-395/SR 695 north of CT 2 to the MA/RI lines, I-84 east of Exit 65 to the MA line, I-95 north of exit 90 to the RI line, and I-384.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on March 31, 2016, 09:11:46 PM
Quote from: tckma on March 31, 2016, 06:07:00 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on March 31, 2016, 04:50:49 PM
In typical CT fashion, the last state to do so.  I remember politicians bickering over this, the classic it works everywhere but it can't work here response.  They argued that CT roads were not designed for 65mph and were designed for 55mph.  However, I took pleasure in finding an old photo of I-95 with a speed limit 60mph sign.

Aren't roads over-engineered by about 20 MPH anyway?  So a 65 MPH road will have a design spec for 85 MPH max, with curves banked such that the least amount of steering wheel usage is at 65 MPH?  Can a highway engineer confirm or deny that?
Yes. Denied. Superelevation is tied to curve radius based on design speed. Typical urban design speeds range from 60 to 70 mph. Straightaways aren't the problem.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on March 31, 2016, 10:13:26 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on March 31, 2016, 08:13:24 PM
CT also was discussing raising a few spots to 75 MPH a couple of years ago.  I could see 4 stretches that could qualify for it: I-395/SR 695 north of CT 2 to the MA/RI lines, I-84 east of Exit 65 to the MA line, I-95 north of exit 90 to the RI line, and I-384.
I'd add CT 9 up to exit 11. That's a pretty desolate stretch of highway that's mostly straight, with exits far apart, by CT standards (generally 1-3 miles), although a bit hilly once you get past exit 5.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on March 31, 2016, 11:26:47 PM
Quote from: mariethefoxy on March 29, 2016, 10:32:22 PM
those signs from Exit 57 to 63 were always unusual in the sense that they didnt fit the usual ConnDOT standards of the time. They didnt have button letters which CT seemed to use well into the late 90s.there were one or two that seemed to look like they were made to Massachusetts standards.

My guess is that those signs (also up to Exits 64-65, EB, and beginning at Exit 64-WB) date to the early 1980s, where large route markers and direct applied text was used.  The same was used on CT 25.  What was strange was why, in the era of large-scale button copy, did Exit 61 for I-291 sneak by in non-button copy?  It opened around 1994, featuring all button copy "Phase III" signage on reflective backgrounds, along with all signage at the I-91/I-291 interchange.  Unless, perhaps, ConnDOT had previously made the Exit 61 signage and put them in storage until it was ready to open, some 10 years later.

Did signage east of Exit 65 ever go button copy?  Anyone know what year the present signage was installed?  I've seen pictures of some old signage for Exit 70-WB showing the same style of signage as in the Manchester area.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on April 01, 2016, 09:22:40 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on March 31, 2016, 11:26:47 PMDid signage east of Exit 65 ever go button copy?  Anyone know what year the present signage was installed?  I've seen pictures of some old signage for Exit 70-WB showing the same style of signage as in the Manchester area.
IIRC, most of the signs east of Exit 65 have been there since the late 80s/early 90s; with some intermittent replacements (mainly due to accidents or bridge redeckings (structure-mounted signs only)).  The only button-copy signs that may have been present a decade or two ago in that area were the blue service-related signs.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on April 01, 2016, 10:58:34 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 01, 2016, 09:22:40 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on March 31, 2016, 11:26:47 PMDid signage east of Exit 65 ever go button copy?  Anyone know what year the present signage was installed?  I've seen pictures of some old signage for Exit 70-WB showing the same style of signage as in the Manchester area.
IIRC, most of the signs east of Exit 65 have been there since the late 80s/early 90s; with some intermittent replacements (mainly due to accidents or bridge redeckings (structure-mounted signs only)).  The only button-copy signs that may have been present a decade or two ago in that area were the blue service-related signs.
The East Hartford-Union widening started in the 70's, west to east.  It's possible the first run of new signs were Phase III button-copy and were replaced on a seperate contract in the mid-90s.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on April 01, 2016, 11:43:35 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 01, 2016, 10:58:34 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 01, 2016, 09:22:40 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on March 31, 2016, 11:26:47 PMDid signage east of Exit 65 ever go button copy?  Anyone know what year the present signage was installed?  I've seen pictures of some old signage for Exit 70-WB showing the same style of signage as in the Manchester area.
IIRC, most of the signs east of Exit 65 have been there since the late 80s/early 90s; with some intermittent replacements (mainly due to accidents or bridge redeckings (structure-mounted signs only)).  The only button-copy signs that may have been present a decade or two ago in that area were the blue service-related signs.
The East Hartford-Union widening started in the 70's, west to east.  It's possible the first run of new signs were Phase III button-copy and were replaced on a seperate contract in the mid-90s.
IIRC widening/reconstruction started in Union around 1976 and worked its way west. 84/384/15 was the last piece (1989) before I-291 was connected (1994).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on April 01, 2016, 05:26:39 PM
Quote from: kurumi on April 01, 2016, 11:43:35 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 01, 2016, 10:58:34 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 01, 2016, 09:22:40 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on March 31, 2016, 11:26:47 PMDid signage east of Exit 65 ever go button copy?  Anyone know what year the present signage was installed?  I've seen pictures of some old signage for Exit 70-WB showing the same style of signage as in the Manchester area.
IIRC, most of the signs east of Exit 65 have been there since the late 80s/early 90s; with some intermittent replacements (mainly due to accidents or bridge redeckings (structure-mounted signs only)).  The only button-copy signs that may have been present a decade or two ago in that area were the blue service-related signs.
The East Hartford-Union widening started in the 70's, west to east.  It's possible the first run of new signs were Phase III button-copy and were replaced on a seperate contract in the mid-90s.
IIRC widening/reconstruction started in Union around 1976 and worked its way west. 84/384/15 was the last piece (1989) before I-291 was connected (1994).

and because CTDOT was proactive here and expanded the roads without scaling back due to NIMBY concerns or costs, I-84 east of Hartford is generally in good shape with regards to traffic flow.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on April 01, 2016, 06:04:12 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on April 01, 2016, 05:26:39 PM
Quote from: kurumi on April 01, 2016, 11:43:35 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 01, 2016, 10:58:34 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 01, 2016, 09:22:40 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on March 31, 2016, 11:26:47 PMDid signage east of Exit 65 ever go button copy?  Anyone know what year the present signage was installed?  I've seen pictures of some old signage for Exit 70-WB showing the same style of signage as in the Manchester area.
IIRC, most of the signs east of Exit 65 have been there since the late 80s/early 90s; with some intermittent replacements (mainly due to accidents or bridge redeckings (structure-mounted signs only)).  The only button-copy signs that may have been present a decade or two ago in that area were the blue service-related signs.
The East Hartford-Union widening started in the 70's, west to east.  It's possible the first run of new signs were Phase III button-copy and were replaced on a seperate contract in the mid-90s.
IIRC widening/reconstruction started in Union around 1976 and worked its way west. 84/384/15 was the last piece (1989) before I-291 was connected (1994).

and because CTDOT was proactive here and expanded the roads without scaling back due to NIMBY concerns or costs, I-84 east of Hartford is generally in good shape with regards to traffic flow.
Not during rush hours and definitely not between East Hartford and Vernon during those rush hours. I think they should add a lane from exit 59 to 65 TBH.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on April 06, 2016, 11:39:32 AM
"Let's Go CT", Gov. Malloy's statewide transportation initiative, has a project dashboard: http://www.letsgoct.com/RampUpDashboard.html. At first glance, it's a pretty clean summary of the state's plans.

Major projects (95 widening, 84/8 interchange, etc.) are broken out into when funding might arrive and when work could start and finish (most in the 2020s and 2030s). I have no idea how realistic the numbers are, but there are numbers.

Use "Previous Level" for "go back" navigation; it appears to be a single-page app.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on April 06, 2016, 03:13:15 PM
Some real pie-in-the-sky projects in there... I mean, come on... widening Stamford to Bridgeport?  While yes, it may be needed, I can't see it happening.  I'd like to see I-95 between Branford and Old Saybrook get another lane first. 

Nice to see CT 9 in Middletown make the list.  About time for that!  Well, the time for that was 15+ years ago, but I digress...

The West Rock Tunnel project is intriguing.  Wonder how that'll be pulled off.  I've never encountered a problem driving through there.

And still wondering about the I-91/I-691/CT 66/CT 15 interchange plans.  That'll be something interesting to see what they come up with.

No mention of I-84 from Danbury to Waterbury.  I'd give that another lane each way.  Relatively easy to do as its pretty rural out there, between the two ends. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: The Ghostbuster on April 06, 2016, 03:19:54 PM
Are there any projects not on the list that any of you think should be done?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Beeper1 on April 06, 2016, 05:19:32 PM
You all know that none of this is ever going to happen, right?   The list of even small-scale highway pipe dreams in CT is long. Plus the state is effectively broke.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: AMLNet49 on April 06, 2016, 07:39:16 PM
Quote from: Beeper1 on April 06, 2016, 05:19:32 PM
You all know that none of this is ever going to happen, right?   The list of even small-scale highway pipe dreams in CT is long. Plus the state is effectively broke.
What state DOTs are rolling in money (besides Texas which has a unique way of siphoning money for transportation projects)?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: cl94 on April 06, 2016, 07:46:25 PM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on April 06, 2016, 07:39:16 PM
Quote from: Beeper1 on April 06, 2016, 05:19:32 PM
You all know that none of this is ever going to happen, right?   The list of even small-scale highway pipe dreams in CT is long. Plus the state is effectively broke.
What state DOTs are rolling in money (besides Texas which has a unique way of siphoning money for transportation projects)?

I'm trying to figure out how the hell they can do it. Their politicians are nutjobs, too.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on April 06, 2016, 09:42:26 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 06, 2016, 03:19:54 PM
Are there any projects not on the list that any of you think should be done?

Route 11, I-384 Bolton to Windham, NW Quadrant of I-291 from CT 9 to Windsor.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on April 07, 2016, 10:47:00 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on April 06, 2016, 09:42:26 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 06, 2016, 03:19:54 PM
Are there any projects not on the list that any of you think should be done?

Route 11, I-384 Bolton to Windham, NW Quadrant of I-291 from CT 9 to Windsor.
These two projects can be done with federal funding, BTW.  Clearing the environmental/political hurdles is another issue.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on April 07, 2016, 12:37:33 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 07, 2016, 10:47:00 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on April 06, 2016, 09:42:26 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 06, 2016, 03:19:54 PM
Are there any projects not on the list that any of you think should be done?

Route 11, I-384 Bolton to Windham, NW Quadrant of I-291 from CT 9 to Windsor.
These two projects can be done with federal funding, BTW.  Clearing the environmental/political hurdles is another issue.

The reason I-291 and extending I-384 (or US-6 Bypass) from Bolton to Windham is because the can't complete the environmental/political process in the face of unwavering opposition to both projects by the EPA.  Since EPA clearance is once of the decision gates required to complete the EA/EIS and permitting process, it doesn't make any sense to pursue projects that everyone knows will never get approved.  Route 11 still has a fair chance of eventually being built, the factor holding up its completion for more than 40 years now is (and has always been) about finding the money to finish it.

For the overall list of short-term and long-term projects, I do believe that Governor Malloy and DOT Commissioner Redeker are correct in that the only way Connecticut could finance such an initiative is to create a transportation "lockbox" by amending the state's constitution.  The problem, is an amendment guaranteeing a dedicated funding stream for transportation investment is being attacked from both sides.  Republicans oppose it out of fear of bringing back tolls to Connecticut's highways, while many Democrats in the state legislature oppose it because it would create a huge pot of money that they can't raid to bolster the General Fund to keep "feeding the beast" that is the state budget.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on April 07, 2016, 02:34:44 PM
Well here's the list of long-term projects ConnDOT is at least considering.  CT 11 is still on there.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F7KPyG7v.png%3F1&hash=34bf084ecb47ed5706712d87d54b4b22071a287e)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: cl94 on April 07, 2016, 02:51:49 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 07, 2016, 02:34:44 PM
Well here's the list of long-term projects ConnDOT is at least considering.  CT 11 is still on there.

Good lord. Some of those will be traffic hell if they actually get past the paper stage.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Pete from Boston on April 11, 2016, 03:35:16 PM
So is Connecticut committing to permanent use of the very small, one- and two-panel logo signs? When I asked a few years ago here, I was told they would be temporary installations, but they seem to be popping up all over the place, and they still look like a substandard, thrown-together setup.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on April 11, 2016, 05:43:09 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on April 11, 2016, 03:35:16 PM
So is Connecticut committing to permanent use of the very small, one- and two-panel logo signs? When I asked a few years ago here, I was told they would be temporary installations, but they seem to be popping up all over the place, and they still look like a substandard, thrown-together setup.
The one for Exit 63 on I-84E was replaced this past summer, and the one on I-91S for Exit 40 is gone now too.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: wytout on April 11, 2016, 08:03:41 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on April 11, 2016, 03:35:16 PM
So is Connecticut committing to permanent use of the very small, one- and two-panel logo signs? When I asked a few years ago here, I was told they would be temporary installations, but they seem to be popping up all over the place, and they still look like a substandard, thrown-together setup.

are you talking about attractions signs (blue signs)?  I do believe those are "temporary" in so far as they'll be replaced with BBS during the next blanket signing project that covers a particular area.... which depending on where they are located will be anywhere from 50 -250 years... on CT's sign update schedule.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Pete from Boston on April 13, 2016, 08:18:17 AM
Yes, those are the ones.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: wytout on April 13, 2016, 08:36:34 PM
State Contracting schedule of upcoming solicitations shows that most of a much needed sign upgrade has been neutered.

Project 0171-0304: I-84: Update Signing vic. Exit 30 to Exit 52, has been scaled back to...
Update Signing vic. Exit 30 to Exit 39A

The Capitol infrastructure plan through 2020 does not include any additional signing projects that encompass the section that was removed.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on April 14, 2016, 01:26:01 PM
Actually it makes sense for ConnDOT to only tackle Exit 30-39A with this particular project.  As construction projects are pending from West Hartford to Hartford (viaduct, widening, etc), it makes sense to hold off.  And in reality, there isn't going to be much changing between Exits 30-39A, except Exits 31-32.  Spot replacements and the 84/72W project several years back replaced most of the button copy.  There's a little left for Exit 36, and pretty much all of Exits 39-39A, but that's essentially it.  Wonder if this project will realign the exit tabs for signage that was replaced already before the exit tabs started getting justified.  The CT 8 sign project from Thomaston to Winsted involves realigning exit tabs for Exit 38. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on April 14, 2016, 09:49:52 PM
Which tells me I-84 going to mileage based exits won't happen till 2064.  Does this sign replacement contract include smart mile markers?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on April 16, 2016, 12:18:45 PM
Quote from: kurumi on April 06, 2016, 11:39:32 AM
"Let's Go CT", Gov. Malloy's statewide transportation initiative, has a project dashboard: http://www.letsgoct.com/RampUpDashboard.html. At first glance, it's a pretty clean summary of the state's plans.

Major projects (95 widening, 84/8 interchange, etc.) are broken out into when funding might arrive and when work could start and finish (most in the 2020s and 2030s). I have no idea how realistic the numbers are, but there are numbers.

Use "Previous Level" for "go back" navigation; it appears to be a single-page app.


Why does every project take so long? Seems like most of them have a design milestone of this year, then a construction complete by some crazy date 10 or 20 years out even for small stuff. I mean the 91/15/691 interchange is going to take ten years to build and $58 million? That seems insane to me. No wonder nothing ever gets done - just seeing the numbers on paper is enough for me to say no thanks.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on April 16, 2016, 02:09:22 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on April 16, 2016, 12:18:45 PM
Quote from: kurumi on April 06, 2016, 11:39:32 AM
"Let's Go CT", Gov. Malloy's statewide transportation initiative, has a project dashboard: http://www.letsgoct.com/RampUpDashboard.html. At first glance, it's a pretty clean summary of the state's plans.

Major projects (95 widening, 84/8 interchange, etc.) are broken out into when funding might arrive and when work could start and finish (most in the 2020s and 2030s). I have no idea how realistic the numbers are, but there are numbers.

Use "Previous Level" for "go back" navigation; it appears to be a single-page app.


Why does every project take so long? ... I mean the 91/15/691 interchange is going to take ten years to build and $58 million? That seems insane to me. ...

The sad part is, I look at $58 million and think "there's not much they'll be able to do with only $58 million". IIRC, the single flyover ramp from I-95 NB to CT 34 WB (RIP) was $98 million.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on April 16, 2016, 02:32:10 PM
How a Historic Hartford Building Next to I-84 Survived Decades of Change (http://wnpr.org/post/how-historic-hartford-building-next-i-84-survived-decades-change#stream/0) (WNPR)

This is the story of a historic house that managed to dodge I-84's drunken careening through Hartford. Notable for roadgeeks is the photo of a plan dated June 29, 1956 (I think; date is faint) from Alfred Kaehrle and Associates, titled "Proposed East-West Expressway, Line G-1". This map details the proposed alignment, with interchanges, of future I-84.

Highlights:
* folded diamond (parclo) at New Park Avenue; an interchange for Prospect Road was built instead
* trumpet leading to Brookfield Street at site of today's SR 504 interchange
* folded diamond at Park Street, between today's exits 45 and 46 (plenty of room :-)
* detail of the proposed CT 189 freeway and extra ramps at Sisson Ave (SR 503)
* full diamond at Sigourney Street
* interchange with I-484 (that design survived, though 484 was never completed)
* two Broad Street entrance ramps that were built, but later removed
* two more Broad Street ramps, never built
* the Beatrice Fox braided ramps in the canyon (later removed)
* I-484 interchange at Pulaski Circle

As many ramps as there were before CT did some cleanup in the late 1980s -- there were even more proposed back in the day. Engineering standards have really changed.

I haven't seen this map anywhere else online. Grab a copy if you're interested.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on April 16, 2016, 07:06:54 PM
Quote from: kurumi on April 16, 2016, 02:32:10 PM
How a Historic Hartford Building Next to I-84 Survived Decades of Change (http://wnpr.org/post/how-historic-hartford-building-next-i-84-survived-decades-change#stream/0) (WNPR)

This is the story of a historic house that managed to dodge I-84's drunken careening through Hartford. Notable for roadgeeks is the photo of a plan dated June 29, 1956 (I think; date is faint) from Alfred Kaehrle and Associates, titled "Proposed East-West Expressway, Line G-1". This map details the proposed alignment, with interchanges, of future I-84.

Highlights:
* folded diamond (parclo) at New Park Avenue; an interchange for Prospect Road was built instead
* trumpet leading to Brookfield Street at site of today's SR 504 interchange
* folded diamond at Park Street, between today's exits 45 and 46 (plenty of room :-)
* detail of the proposed CT 189 freeway and extra ramps at Sisson Ave (SR 503)
* full diamond at Sigourney Street
* interchange with I-484 (that design survived, though 484 was never completed)
* two Broad Street entrance ramps that were built, but later removed
* two more Broad Street ramps, never built
* the Beatrice Fox braided ramps in the canyon (later removed)
* I-484 interchange at Pulaski Circle

As many ramps as there were before CT did some cleanup in the late 1980s -- there were even more proposed back in the day. Engineering standards have really changed.

I haven't seen this map anywhere else online. Grab a copy if you're interested.

I wish they built the 189 freeway.  That road gets seriously backed up through West Hartford/Bloomfield during rush hour, with UHart commuters and such.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: The Ghostbuster on April 18, 2016, 02:37:49 PM
There are so many things Connecticut could have/should have done, but didn't. Actually, that could be said for many things around the country.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on April 18, 2016, 09:16:50 PM
CT-25 sign replacement project moving along.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1441/26453554045_5ed1c7af76_z.jpg)

and

(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1661/25850736593_6b1e7dfde5_z.jpg)

You can see the foundations are up.

All route markers, mileage markers, warning and regulatory signs are up.  No new BGS or YGS are up yet.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on April 18, 2016, 09:53:43 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on April 18, 2016, 09:16:50 PM
CT-25 sign replacement project moving along.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1441/26453554045_5ed1c7af76_z.jpg)

and

(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1661/25850736593_6b1e7dfde5_z.jpg)

You can see the foundations are up.

All route markers, mileage markers, warning and regulatory signs are up.  No new BGS or YGS are up yet.

Well needed, IMO.  Those are the original signs from the 80's, during ConnDOT's brief non-button copy phase.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on April 20, 2016, 04:01:22 PM
This project seems to be moving quickly.  A couple of years ago there was no public documents or anything related to this project, just an unfunded pipe dream.

However, I'm not a fan of Exit 29 being a new left exit.  The two-lane I-84 via CT-15 should be a right two-lane exit.  But I guess land constraints prohibit that. I can see traffic still backing up with people for I-84 moving over to the left of I-91 ahead of time.

Public Information Meeting Regarding the Proposed Relocation of Interstate 91 Northbound Interchange 29 and Widening of Interstate 91 Northbound and Route 15 Northbound to Interstate 84 East in Hartford and East Hartford




The Connecticut Department of Transportation (Department) will conduct two public information meetings concerning the proposed relocation of I-91 northbound Interchange 29 and widening of I-91 northbound & Route 15 northbound to I-84 east.  The first will be held on Tuesday, April 26, 2016, in the Hartford Public Works Department, Keith Chapman Conference Room (2nd Floor) located at 50 Jennings Road, Hartford, CT 06120.  The second (a repeat of the first meeting), will be held on Thursday, April 28, 2016, in the Raymond Library, 840 Main Street, East Hartford, CT.  An open forum for individual discussions with Department officials will begin at 6:30 p.m., followed by a formal presentation at 7:00 p.m.


The project is identified as State Project No. 63-703.


The purpose of the project is to address safety concerns associated with congestion and operational deficiencies at the I-91 northbound Interchange 29, which routinely experiences significant traffic delays and above average crash frequency.  Much of this can be attributed to the steep vertical grade and single-lane configuration of the ramp, the heavy traffic weave on the Charter Oak Bridge, and the near-capacity traffic volumes on I-91.


The proposed improvements include widening I-91 northbound to extend the four-lane travel section from Interchange 27 to Interchange 29 to relieve congestion, address significant safety concerns, and provide an efficient I-91 to I-84 connection.  It is also proposed to remove the existing ramp at I-91 northbound Interchange 29 and provide a major diverge south of the I-91 bridge over Route 15 to address the existing adverse vertical grade and limited capacity of the existing ramp.  The new I-91 diverge will consist of three lanes to the right, maintaining I-91 traffic (existing condition), and two lanes to the left, conveying traffic to Route 15 northbound via a new structure over Route 15 southbound.  The existing pavement markings on the Charter Oak Bridge will be modified to accommodate the additional northbound lane from I-91.  Additional improvements include widening of Route 15 northbound to three travel lanes, from the Charter Oak Bridge to the Silver Lane underpass to address congestion concerns on Route 15 and allow a more desirable distance from Interchange 29 on I-91 to merge from three travel lanes to two prior to its merge with I-84 East.  The existing noise barrier walls on Route 15 northbound will need to be relocated to account for the road widening.  Noise barrier walls could potentially be added to Route 15 southbound from the Silver Lane on-ramp to the bridge over Main Street.


There are right-of-way impacts associated with the proposed improvements to allow for drainage easements and temporary construction easements.


Construction is anticipated to begin in spring 2018, based on the availability of funding.  The estimated construction cost for this project is approximately $287 million.  This project is anticipated to be undertaken with 80-percent federal funds and 20-percent state funds.


The public information meetings are being held to afford a full opportunity for public participation and to allow open discussion of any views and comments the community may have concerning this proposed project.


The meeting facilities are ADA accessible.  Language assistance may be requested by contacting the Department's Office of Communications (voice only) at (860) 594-3062 at least five (5) business days prior to the meeting.  Language assistance is provided at no cost to the public, and efforts will be made to respond to requests for assistance.


Plans of the proposed project will be on display for public review.  Department personnel will be available during the meetings to discuss this project.  More detailed information is available at the Department's Office of Engineering, 2800 Berlin Turnpike, Newington, Connecticut, Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., excluding holidays.  Anyone wishing to discuss the project may contact Susan M. Libatique at (860) 594-3179 or by e-mail at susan.libatique@ct.gov.  Plans are also available for review at the Permitting Office in the Hartford Department of Public Works and at the Engineering Department at the East Hartford Town Hall.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on April 20, 2016, 09:46:37 PM
I think a better long-term solution for the traffic issues at I-91, exit 29 would be a new bridge across the river at the end of the Whitehead Highway, then re-aligning CT 15 further north and west to meet it.  A simple reconfiguration of an interchange won't increase capacity.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on April 21, 2016, 09:34:59 AM
It is amazing how quick this went from a "pie in the sky" idea to something that may happen.  But a left exit?  Hmmm....My idea for the Exit 29 solution would be to move the ramp to where Exit 27 presently departs 91NB.  As shown in this street view from the present Exit 27-NB ramp, it wouldn't take much to send it to 15NB instead of Brainard/Airport Rd.  The ramp is already provided with a 1 1/4 mile long "operational" lane between Exit 26 and 27, and the ramp profile is downgrade, vs upgrade.  You could then probably widen the ramp to 2 lanes or give it an "option" lane.  You could then construct a new 91NB to Brainard Rd ramp to empty onto Airport Rd directly.  Not sure how to get 15NB traffic to that area, as my new 91NB-15NB ramp would interfere with present 15NB-Brainard ramp.  Finally, the new ramp could be renumbered Exit 27.  Brainard/Airport Rd can become Exit 29.  Then, you won't have the present 29A-27-28-26 situation, SB.  But it'll all be moot whenever the exit numbers change to mileage.

On a side note, back in the day, motorists had two ways to get from I-91 NB to I-84 EB:  Exit 29 (via 15/Charter Oak Bridge) and Exit 30 (via 2/Founders Bridge).  Today, you still have two:  present Exit 29 and Exit 35A (via 291/Bissell).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on April 24, 2016, 10:52:22 AM
Hartford Viaduct update.  Now they're talking about needing to raze buildings.  Eminent domain, anyone?
[url]http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-hartford-viaduct-update-0425-20160425-story.html/url]
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on April 25, 2016, 08:52:41 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 24, 2016, 10:52:22 AM
Hartford Viaduct update.  Now they're talking about needing to raze buildings.  Eminent domain, anyone?
http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-hartford-viaduct-update-0425-20160425-story.html (http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-hartford-viaduct-update-0425-20160425-story.html)
Link fixed.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on April 26, 2016, 02:39:43 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 25, 2016, 08:52:41 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 24, 2016, 10:52:22 AM
Hartford Viaduct update.  Now they're talking about needing to raze buildings.  Eminent domain, anyone?
http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-hartford-viaduct-update-0425-20160425-story.html (http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-hartford-viaduct-update-0425-20160425-story.html)
Link fixed.

We knew that was going to happen, especially to consolidate interchanges, eliminate all of the left-hand exits and straighten the mainline.  The ROW that the viaduct currently occupies is pretty tight, so some eminent domain is to be expected.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: The Ghostbuster on April 26, 2016, 03:38:55 PM
Have the NIMBYs shown up yet? Considering what I've read about Connecticut road construction, if this gets built as currently proposed, it will be a miracle!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on April 26, 2016, 05:59:16 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 26, 2016, 03:38:55 PM
Have the NIMBYs shown up yet? Considering what I've read about Connecticut road construction, if this gets built as currently proposed, it will be a miracle!
The NIMBYS need to understand that eminent domain is legal if the land is being taken for a project that benefits the public at-large.   At least, once the EIS is approved.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: cl94 on April 26, 2016, 07:05:43 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 26, 2016, 05:59:16 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 26, 2016, 03:38:55 PM
Have the NIMBYs shown up yet? Considering what I've read about Connecticut road construction, if this gets built as currently proposed, it will be a miracle!
The NIMBYS need to understand that eminent domain is legal if the land is being taken for a project that benefits the public at-large.   At least, once the EIS is approved.

That's the problem.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on April 26, 2016, 08:30:14 PM
Quote from: cl94 on April 26, 2016, 07:05:43 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 26, 2016, 05:59:16 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 26, 2016, 03:38:55 PM
Have the NIMBYs shown up yet? Considering what I've read about Connecticut road construction, if this gets built as currently proposed, it will be a miracle!
The NIMBYS need to understand that eminent domain is legal if the land is being taken for a project that benefits the public at-large.   At least, once the EIS is approved.

That's the problem.
I'm sure the public is allowed to comment on the EIS in front of EPA officials but I'm not sure how much that factors into their decisions.

ConnDOT has done a lot in terms of outreach, though.  They have open forums practically every week asking for citizens' input.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on April 27, 2016, 12:26:42 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 26, 2016, 08:30:14 PM
Quote from: cl94 on April 26, 2016, 07:05:43 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 26, 2016, 05:59:16 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 26, 2016, 03:38:55 PM
Have the NIMBYs shown up yet? Considering what I've read about Connecticut road construction, if this gets built as currently proposed, it will be a miracle!
The NIMBYS need to understand that eminent domain is legal if the land is being taken for a project that benefits the public at-large.   At least, once the EIS is approved.

That's the problem.
I'm sure the public is allowed to comment on the EIS in front of EPA officials but I'm not sure how much that factors into their decisions.

ConnDOT has done a lot in terms of outreach, though.  They have open forums practically every week asking for citizens' input.

And somebody (including a politician) will come out and say they weren't notified or there wasn't enough notice.

It happened with the 7/15 interchange, Q-Bridge and the I-95 Exit 44 project.  It angers me b/c I follow these and I've seen the DOT bend over backwards for these people and they STILL say no notice was given.

I remember when I-84 was widened in Cheshire, some complained the footprint was too big/wide.  But, then you look at the aerial view and compared to all the woods around, it's not big at all.  IDK why people freak out so muc.  Nobody complains when a super Walmart is built destroying woods.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on April 27, 2016, 01:17:29 PM
Perhaps ConnDOT could send notice via certified mail so they can shoot people down when the claim there was no notice?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: tckma on April 27, 2016, 02:05:51 PM
Quote from: vdeane on April 27, 2016, 01:17:29 PM
Perhaps ConnDOT could send notice via certified mail so they can shoot people down when the claim there was no notice?

Nah, that costs money which they'd likely need approval to spend from the same politicians who complain there was no notice.    :-D
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on April 27, 2016, 04:01:48 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on April 27, 2016, 12:26:42 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 26, 2016, 08:30:14 PM
Quote from: cl94 on April 26, 2016, 07:05:43 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 26, 2016, 05:59:16 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 26, 2016, 03:38:55 PM
Have the NIMBYs shown up yet? Considering what I've read about Connecticut road construction, if this gets built as currently proposed, it will be a miracle!
The NIMBYS need to understand that eminent domain is legal if the land is being taken for a project that benefits the public at-large.   At least, once the EIS is approved.

That's the problem.
I'm sure the public is allowed to comment on the EIS in front of EPA officials but I'm not sure how much that factors into their decisions.

ConnDOT has done a lot in terms of outreach, though.  They have open forums practically every week asking for citizens' input.

And somebody (including a politician) will come out and say they weren't notified or there wasn't enough notice.

It happened with the 7/15 interchange, Q-Bridge and the I-95 Exit 44 project.  It angers me b/c I follow these and I've seen the DOT bend over backwards for these people and they STILL say no notice was given.

I remember when I-84 was widened in Cheshire, some complained the footprint was too big/wide.  But, then you look at the aerial view and compared to all the woods around, it's not big at all.  IDK why people freak out so muc.  Nobody complains when a super Walmart is built destroying woods.
Are there people opposing the Waterbury widening project?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on April 27, 2016, 04:27:44 PM
Quote from: tckma on April 27, 2016, 02:05:51 PM
Quote from: vdeane on April 27, 2016, 01:17:29 PM
Perhaps ConnDOT could send notice via certified mail so they can shoot people down when the claim there was no notice?

Nah, that costs money which they'd likely need approval to spend from the same politicians who complain there was no notice.    :-D

But if there's anything the majority of CT politicians love, it's wasting taxpayer money.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on May 04, 2016, 04:58:58 PM
Well, well, well... here's typical Connecticut/ConnDOT practices:

http://www.myrecordjournal.com/news/southington/8396951-154/plan-to-close-southington-rest-area-draws-criticism.html

The state is planning to close I-84 rest areas in Southington (EB) and Willington (EB) and reduce the hours of the Willington (WB) facility.  Also planning to close is the I-95 welcome center in Westbrook (NB).  No decision yet on whether the buildings would be closed or the whole facility would be closed.  Honestly, the Westbrook-NB facility is no loss and would most likely be a victim of future widening in the area.  There's very little parking space for cars.  Even less for trucks.  Willington-EB honestly wouldn't be a big loss, especially with the truck stop a few miles up the road.... EXCEPT....

...... why, ConnDOT, why did you JUST renovate the Willington rest area EB (it reopened 12/2015) and now you're going to close it?  That's $$$ well spent.  They should've spent the money to renovate Danbury-EB or I-91's two rest areas.  I do have to admit, they did a really nice job with the renovation.  The bathrooms were the cleanest I've seen in a CT non-commercial rest area. 

On my recent trip last weekend, I also stopped at the North Stonington welcome center on I-95 SB.  I walked in and saw a sign on the door to the "welcome center portion" that said "CLOSED DUE TO BUDGET CUTS". 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Beeper1 on May 04, 2016, 05:51:30 PM
They tried this 3-4 years ago and the plan was scuttled by local state reps pressuring the DOT.  Hopefully they will keep the I-84 areas open, as these areas are always busy. 
Agreed that the Westbrook area would not be a big loss, its very close to the Madison Service Area.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on May 04, 2016, 06:46:52 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on May 04, 2016, 04:58:58 PM
Well, well, well... here's typical Connecticut/ConnDOT practices:

http://www.myrecordjournal.com/news/southington/8396951-154/plan-to-close-southington-rest-area-draws-criticism.html

The state is planning to close I-84 rest areas in Southington (EB) and Willington (EB) and reduce the hours of the Willington (WB) facility.  Also planning to close is the I-95 welcome center in Westbrook (NB).  No decision yet on whether the buildings would be closed or the whole facility would be closed.  Honestly, the Westbrook-NB facility is no loss and would most likely be a victim of future widening in the area.  There's very little parking space for cars.  Even less for trucks.  Willington-EB honestly wouldn't be a big loss, especially with the truck stop a few miles up the road.... EXCEPT....

...... why, ConnDOT, why did you JUST renovate the Willington rest area EB (it reopened 12/2015) and now you're going to close it?  That's $$$ well spent.  They should've spent the money to renovate Danbury-EB or I-91's two rest areas.  I do have to admit, they did a really nice job with the renovation.  The bathrooms were the cleanest I've seen in a CT non-commercial rest area. 

On my recent trip last weekend, I also stopped at the North Stonington welcome center on I-95 SB.  I walked in and saw a sign on the door to the "welcome center portion" that said "CLOSED DUE TO BUDGET CUTS".
Why is the rest stop, the ONLY rest stop on I-395 not being considered for closure?  It didn't get renovated with the rest of the CT Turnpike plazas so it seems like the writing is already on the wall.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Beeper1 on May 04, 2016, 07:26:59 PM
What are you talking about?  All 3 of the service plazas on I-395 were renovated as part of the service plaza revamp.   They came out nice and now actually have food available.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on May 04, 2016, 08:45:29 PM
The Willington rest areas on I-84 are being threatened? Really? After all the work they just did with them (both sides) in the last 2 years or so? Really?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on May 04, 2016, 10:10:21 PM
Quote from: Beeper1 on May 04, 2016, 07:26:59 PM
What are you talking about?  All 3 of the service plazas on I-395 were renovated as part of the service plaza revamp.   They came out nice and now actually have food available.
I don't know lol.  I drove by the southbound Plainfield stop over the weekend and I was expecting the exterior to look like the new I-95 ones and just assumed they hadn't been touched.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on May 05, 2016, 04:59:55 PM
The fuel pumps and the buildings were renovated.  Inside used to just be a MobilMart.  Now it's a MobilMart with Subway and Dunkin' Donuts.  Not a giant food court like those on I-95 but an improvement nevertheless.  I still think Montville-NB should've been reinstated, but can't win 'em all.  At least they're still open and have "fresh food" options now.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: cl94 on May 05, 2016, 06:59:38 PM
Would have been nice if ConnDOT did what New Hampshire did to what was once a run-down liquor store rest area on I-93 south of Concord (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1105397,-71.4767177,3a,61.4y,74.87h,84.9t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sKU3gW5tdaV-ge5Kf4aOKAA!2e0!5s20151101T000000!7i13312!8i6656).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on May 06, 2016, 11:17:33 PM
A new gantry on I-84 is up in Waterbury.  Seemingly overnight. A new sign for Exit 19, A LEFT EXIT for CT-8 South 1/2 Mile.  Complete with a Left Exit tab with a yellow LEFT and extra space for a suffix.   I remember that being in the contract plans saying the extra space was for a future suffix.

I'm glad the sign is up because there isn't sufficient signage saying that CT-8 SB from I-84 WB is a left exit.

You have two recently ground mounted LGS saying "Exit 19 CT-8 South Left Exit" but they are small.  A BGS saying CT-8 in general is 3/4 mile ahead and a CT-8 South KEEP LEFT sign and now the new one that just went up.  I wonder why no "1 MILE" sign was added?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JJBers on May 07, 2016, 11:19:24 AM
I wonder if there going to do anything north of Route 83 and 30 on I-84
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on May 07, 2016, 11:31:11 AM
Quote from: JJBers on May 07, 2016, 11:19:24 AM
I wonder if there going to do anything north of Route 83 and 30 on I-84

There's really nothing left to do east of Vernon on I-84 except to change the exit numbers on the tabs to mileage based.  The signs to the MA line are relatively new.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on May 07, 2016, 12:11:50 PM
Quote from: JJBers on May 07, 2016, 11:19:24 AM
I wonder if there going to do anything north of Route 83 and 30 on I-84
They'll eventually be replacing all the signs to coincide with the exit renumbering.  Some of them have already been replaced north of exit 66.

The signs from exit 60 to exit 65 are some of the oldest east of the river, dating back to the early 80s when that stretch was widened
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JJBers on May 07, 2016, 12:47:42 PM
Well, I guess I better be keeping look for that
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on May 07, 2016, 02:37:13 PM
Oh it'll be awhile.  No contracts on the horizon to replace any signs east of the river on I-84.  Same goes for I-91.  Only contracts upcoming in the next couple years I see are I-84 east of Southington to Hartford Farmington, CT 8 (whole thing in segments), I-95 Groton to RI state line, and I-95 from Branford to New London, segments only.

Now that ** COULD ** change, depending on what the Feds say regarding ConnDOT's timeline for exit renumbering.  Sure, the state could issue a contract to modify existing signs.  I see that happening first before signs on I-91 get replaced.  Some of them were installed in the late 1980s.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on May 08, 2016, 11:28:42 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on May 07, 2016, 02:37:13 PM
Oh it'll be awhile.  No contracts on the horizon to replace any signs east of the river on I-84.  Same goes for I-91.  Only contracts upcoming in the next couple years I see are I-84 east of Southington to Hartford Farmington, CT 8 (whole thing in segments), I-95 Groton to RI state line, and I-95 from Branford to New London, segments only.

Now that ** COULD ** change, depending on what the Feds say regarding ConnDOT's timeline for exit renumbering.  Sure, the state could issue a contract to modify existing signs.  I see that happening first before signs on I-91 get replaced.  Some of them were installed in the late 1980s.

It seems the DOT was in a rush to blanket the state in reflective button copy.  Almost all signs were replaced between 1985-1992 (about 7 years) or so. The US-7 Expressway from Danbury to Brookfield never got it and remained with non-reflective button copy until 2009.
(The only roads to not get reflective button copy were CT-25 Expressway and I-84 east of the river in Hartford.)

I wonder why the rush?  Now they seem laxed about it.  Just think how many signs were and were not replaced in the past 7-10 years.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on May 08, 2016, 03:56:31 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on May 08, 2016, 11:28:42 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on May 07, 2016, 02:37:13 PM
Oh it'll be awhile.  No contracts on the horizon to replace any signs east of the river on I-84.  Same goes for I-91.  Only contracts upcoming in the next couple years I see are I-84 east of Southington to Hartford Farmington, CT 8 (whole thing in segments), I-95 Groton to RI state line, and I-95 from Branford to New London, segments only.

Now that ** COULD ** change, depending on what the Feds say regarding ConnDOT's timeline for exit renumbering.  Sure, the state could issue a contract to modify existing signs.  I see that happening first before signs on I-91 get replaced.  Some of them were installed in the late 1980s.

It seems the DOT was in a rush to blanket the state in reflective button copy.  Almost all signs were replaced between 1985-1992 (about 7 years) or so. The US-7 Expressway from Danbury to Brookfield never got it and remained with non-reflective button copy until 2009.
(The only roads to not get reflective button copy were CT-25 Expressway and I-84 east of the river in Hartford.)

I wonder why the rush?  Now they seem laxed about it.  Just think how many signs were and were not replaced in the past 7-10 years.
Was there a series of button copy signs prior to 1985?

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F0DrVTU2.png&hash=03883fe1d0a0fd925fbeb502d4bb0af9caff1238)

This is a screen grab of a 1974 news story from WTIC (now WFSB) about possible changes in the Hartford area's highways.  The lettering on these long gone signs looks rather bold and pronounced, leading me to believe that they may be button copy.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on May 08, 2016, 05:24:46 PM
Screenshot is of what is today Exit 48 A&B (Capitol Ave/Asylum St.  The Asylum ramp being added about 15 years later).  That's when there was a proposal for a tunnel under Bushnell Park to connect to the Whitehead Highway to create I-484 as a connection to I-91 North, which is why there was never a direct connection from I-84 East to I-91 North until 1990.  Once that project was cancelled, one had to exit onto Morgan St, then turn onto Columbus Blvd. to get to I-91 North.  I remember the traffic nightmare trying to get to Bradley Airport as a kid, and having to allot an extra 10-15 minutes for it.  Speaking of Bradley: another fascinating story on that newscast was about the people mover planned for Bradley Airport that was partially built but never used. 

As for button copy, I remember seeing a lot of it as a kid, but the green paint on BGS's easily faded so after years of solar exposure the signs were basically a pale green.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on May 09, 2016, 10:24:41 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGjK_NQQjWE&index=25&list=FLxqRs_5SiHClOhFWAbR_mMQ The highway segment starts at the 3:18 mark. Enjoy! :)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on May 09, 2016, 01:55:40 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on May 09, 2016, 10:24:41 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGjK_NQQjWE&index=25&list=FLxqRs_5SiHClOhFWAbR_mMQ The highway segment starts at the 3:18 mark. Enjoy! :)
I like the part where they talk about the Bradley PeopleMover.  If only, if only...
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on May 09, 2016, 07:15:08 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on May 09, 2016, 01:55:40 PM
I like the part where they talk about the Bradley PeopleMover.  If only, if only...

...it would have been in the way of at least the new garage, and interfered with the construction of the new terminal.

Google has an archived news article (https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1915&dat=19790725&id=zC5SAAAAIBAJ&sjid=JzYNAAAAIBAJ&pg=5713,4084666&hl=en) on the demise of the people mover.  The cars now reside  at the Connecticut Trolley Museum (http://travelphotobase.com/v/USCT/CTKWST42.HTM).

Also, while trying to get an image to help guess where the people mover ran, I discovered that UCONN has a nifty little mashup (http://magic.lib.uconn.edu/mash_up/1934.html) to compare imagery from the 1934, 1990, 2004, 2006, and 2012 aerial photo surveys to current Google Maps imagery.  Following I-91 on the 1990 layer is interesting.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kefkafloyd on May 10, 2016, 08:37:36 PM
The people mover tracks ran from Terminal B to parking lots on Schoephoester road. Those lots are now under the ramp area for what is the new Terminal A as well as the postal service ramp and the Hertz/Avis rental lot. Until Terminal B was demolished there was one remaining bit of the people mover left, the escalator shelter had one of the old concrete pads left over.

Unfortunately there seems to be no aerials from 1975-1980. It was just ahead of its time; airport people movers are now all the rage. It didn't help the fate of the people mover that the off-airport parking lots all lobbied to essentially get it killed by Ella Grasso.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Beeper1 on May 10, 2016, 08:44:18 PM
Has there been any official word on what the next highway in CT to get mileage-based exit numbers will be?  I know there are plans in the works for sign replacements on Routes 8, 25, and the Merritt.  Will they be getting them?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on May 10, 2016, 10:03:08 PM
I believe 8 and 25 will be next.  All that remains will be two signing projects, after the current one:  Bridgeport to Derby/Shelton area, and from there, north to Waterbury. 

I-95 could be a possibility after that.  A project to replace signs from Groton to RI will begin later this year.  After that, just Branford to New London signage needs to be replaced, and even that is just "spotty" with the oldest signs being the 1993-vintage between Exits 54-59 (which replaced the original turnpike signage), and the 1993-vintage Exits 68-70.  I doubt signs would be replaced west of New Haven before exit numbers convert, and I doubt we'd see many exit changes through there anyway.  Maybe 1 or 2, but that's it. 

The last would probably be I-91, CT 2, and CT 9, as no projects to replace signs are on the horizon. 

But then again, it all could be done with overlays, if the 15-20 year timeline ConnDOT put out gets rejected by the Feds.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: mariethefoxy on May 13, 2016, 01:37:08 AM
i dunno why they didnt just replace the numbers only to fast track converting to mileage exits where the signs were still in good shape. Pennsylvania has quite a bit of button copy left, especially in Pittsburgh and Philly area where all they did was change the number in the tab.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on May 22, 2016, 08:13:06 AM
From THE DAY newspaper in New London about widening I-95.  Note: the funding that was taken b/c of the budget shortfalls...after all the talk it's still happening.

The commissioner of the state Department of Transportation has told local officials that widening Interstate 95 and improving the interchange with Interstate 395 is the long-term solution to accidents on the highway between Old Lyme and Waterford.
"I think that is imminent in terms of us looking to the Bond Commission shortly to get that going, which is good news," said James P. Redeker. "I think it's been on the back burner, if any burner, for too long, and it's time to bring it to the front burner."
Redeker was responding to a concern raised by local officials about the "growing problem" on I-95 in Old Lyme, East Lyme and Waterford, following his presentation to the Southeastern Connecticut Council of Governments on Tuesday morning in Norwich.
East Lyme First Selectman Mark Nickerson said the problem on the road goes beyond distracted driving and ongoing construction. He pointed to the tightening of the highway and hills in the area.
He asked Redeker if signs, lights and painting on the highway could alert people to slow down for the five-mile stretch that is a high-accident area.
"The highway has been shut down four times in the last two weeks, and we haven't started summer yet," Nickerson said of recent accidents.
An analysis of data by The Day found that between 1995 and 2014, the stretch from Exit 71 to the split with I-395 had the highest number of fatalities and injuries in the state east of the Connecticut River: 785, or about a quarter of the crashes that injured or killed.
Redeker said the rate of traffic incidents is not much different than it's been in the past prior to recent construction.
He said the DOT has added extra signage during the construction project, which is intended to improve safety in the area with features like safety barriers.
He said the state has looked at adding signs but said there are limits to what signs can do, and the DOT does not want to create more distractions.
"In the longer term and in the very near future, I think we'll be launching the initiation of the program to fix the interchange with 95/395 and begin to look at the widening of that section as a priority," Redeker said.
Gov. Dannel P. Malloy's 30-year "Let's Go CT" transportation plan calls for fixing the interchange and widening the stretch of I-95 between the Baldwin Bridge and the Gold Star Bridge.
Two-thirds of the projects within the "$100 billion, 30-year vision" would bring infrastructure to "a state of good repair," while the other third is "based solely on the economic impact and return on investment," Redeker said.
The I-95/I-395 interchange in East Lyme and Waterford is one of the "major bottlenecks" in the state, according to a DOT document for Let's Go CT.
"The left-hand exit from I-95 westbound to I-395 northbound creates safety and congestion problems," the document states. "The close proximity to interchange 75 (I-95/Route 1) also creates operational problems."
The expanse of I-95 between the Baldwin Bridge and the Gold Star Bridge is "the most in need of capacity and safety improvements" in eastern Connecticut, according to an online dashboard for Let's Go CT. 
The ramp-up plan calls for about $65 million to design improvements to I-95 between Old Lyme and New London and begin the right-of-way process. This phase is slated for 2018 to 2020 and onward, according to a state document.

The five-year plan also includes $750,000 for a study of a Shore Line East station in Niantic in 2016-17 and $32 million for construction to renovate the Gold Star Bridge in 2017-18.
Redeker said the state legislature has supported the five-year ramp-up plan to "Let's Go CT," which calls for $2.8 billion in bonding.
Later on Tuesday, while discussing with the Southeast Area Transit board of directors the likelihood of flat funding for the transit district, Redeker addressed some of the ongoing challenges facing transportation funding.
He said the hoped-for "lockbox" to secure transportation funding did not come to fruition.
He said the current state budget resolution cut $50 million from the transportation fund.
Meanwhile, the state budget and transportation fund are facing some negative trends of lower-than-expected gas prices and sales tax revenue.
The legislature and governor had anticipated the transportation fund would be solvent through 2020 or 2021, but the latest projections show a deficit in 2019, Redeker said.
State Department of Transportation spokesman Kevin Nursick said in an email interview that the DOT anticipates still being able to fund the Shore Line East station study, upgrades to the Gold Star Bridge and the design and right-of-way process for the stretch of I-95.
The redesign of I-95 would include the design for the I-395 interchange, if the DOT determines that is a priority for the corridor.
"Our expectation is that the recent budget resolution will not dramatically affect our ability to move forward with the ramp up," he wrote.
"The 30 Year vision has always necessitated discussion about future revenue sources. That issue remains unresolved at this time," he added.
At the council meeting, Salem First Selectman Kevin Lyden identified Route 85 safety improvements, which are in the five-year ramp-up plan, as one of the "highest priorities" for the regional council.
The improvement of I-95 between Old Lyme and New London, a stretch of road which he called "very problematic," is another priority, he said.
Lyden said the DOT held meetings and put up some additional signs for Route 85, and suggested a similar approach for I-95 in the interim.
He said he was glad the I-95 improvements would proceed to the design and right-of-way process, but that's still some time away, "so we're not going to have significant improvements in that area for several years."
"I would ask your team to really look at a way to make that area safer," Lyden added. "It's a very high-accident area, and maybe it compares with how accidents were in the past, but there's still an unacceptable number."
Redeker said he understood and would come back with some thoughts.
Carlos Virgen contributed to this report.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on May 22, 2016, 12:32:05 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on May 22, 2016, 08:13:06 AM
Meanwhile, the state budget and transportation fund are facing some negative trends of lower-than-expected gas prices and sales tax revenue.
The legislature and governor had anticipated the transportation fund would be solvent through 2020 or 2021, but the latest projections show a deficit in 2019, Redeker said.

Yes, well, that will happen when a significant chunk of your gas tax is set as a percentage of the wholesale price. Low gas prices = less revenue. Which is a shame because construction is cheaper when gas prices are lower, so there is a good opportunity being missed.

That said, I don't see an obvious cause for sales tax revenue being lower than expected.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on May 22, 2016, 08:35:07 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on May 22, 2016, 12:32:05 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on May 22, 2016, 08:13:06 AM
Meanwhile, the state budget and transportation fund are facing some negative trends of lower-than-expected gas prices and sales tax revenue.
The legislature and governor had anticipated the transportation fund would be solvent through 2020 or 2021, but the latest projections show a deficit in 2019, Redeker said.

Yes, well, that will happen when a significant chunk of your gas tax is set as a percentage of the wholesale price. Low gas prices = less revenue. Which is a shame because construction is cheaper when gas prices are lower, so there is a good opportunity being missed.

That said, I don't see an obvious cause for sales tax revenue being lower than expected.

There could be 3 reasons why sales tax revenue could be lower than expected:

Lower than expected tourism leading to lower sales overall.

Cheaper gas leading to citizens traveling out of state where some items are cheaper and/or sales tax is lower or even exempt (ie liquor and clothing in MA)

Less disposable income because of higher income tax rates.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: mariethefoxy on May 22, 2016, 08:47:38 PM
I know I time out big purchases when Im gunna be in NH and Delaware already for other things so I can take advantage of the fact those states don't have sales tax.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on May 23, 2016, 11:22:06 PM
Quote from: mariethefoxy on May 22, 2016, 08:47:38 PM
I know I time out big purchases when Im gunna be in NH and Delaware already for other things so I can take advantage of the fact those states don't have sales tax.
If you are a resident of NY, like CT, you are supposed to report that on your annual income tax filing with the state as use tax where you make up the difference between the tax you would have paid if purchased locally and what you did (or didn't) pay.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on May 23, 2016, 11:26:19 PM
What do they think they are going to do with the 95/395 interchange? There's nothing wrong with it, and it's not the cause of the accidents. The worst stretch is from the Baldwin Bridge to about Society Rd. Highway quickly goes from 4 to 2 lanes and there's hills, limited sight lines, and people are just flying coming over that bridge - it's almost a bit like a downhill slalom. And there are a ton of trucks and casino buses.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on May 24, 2016, 01:17:12 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on May 23, 2016, 11:22:06 PM
Quote from: mariethefoxy on May 22, 2016, 08:47:38 PM
I know I time out big purchases when Im gunna be in NH and Delaware already for other things so I can take advantage of the fact those states don't have sales tax.
If you are a resident of NY, like CT, you are supposed to report that on your annual income tax filing with the state as use tax where you make up the difference between the tax you would have paid if purchased locally and what you did (or didn't) pay.
I don't think I know anyone who ACTUALLY does that though.  It's unenforceable and would be a paperwork nightmare to even try to comply with.  You'd need to save every recipt for every purchase you ever made outside of the area where you live (even a different county within NY has use tax), have the tax itemized, figure out what the tax is where you live, computer that, compute the difference, enter into the tax form.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on May 24, 2016, 04:59:51 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on May 23, 2016, 11:26:19 PM
What do they think they are going to do with the 95/395 interchange? There's nothing wrong with it, and it's not the cause of the accidents. The worst stretch is from the Baldwin Bridge to about Society Rd. Highway quickly goes from 4 to 2 lanes and there's hills, limited sight lines, and people are just flying coming over that bridge - it's almost a bit like a downhill slalom. And there are a ton of trucks and casino buses.

I think the main problem with the interchange isn't just the interchange itself, but the whole highway from Exit 74 to Exit 76.  Northbound, you have a heavy merge from Exit 74, a steep downgrade, a short merge from Exit 75, and the left exit 76, with people from Exit 75 trying to reach.  Southbound, you have Exit 80 (which should be eliminated), a curve into a heavy merge from I-395, I-95 traffic trying to get off at Exit 75, before the steep upgrade, curve at Exit 74, then the exit itself.  Seeing all the traffic through here, I still find it amazing my dad and I crossed I-95 on foot at Exit 75 some 30 years ago (wow - that long?) to go fishing.  I don't think we caught anything.

My plan for the area is widening I-95 to 3 lanes in each direction from Exit 70 out to Exit 74, construct new Exit 74 nb on/off ramps by extending Industrial Drive, then widen to 4 lanes from this point to Exit 76.  Retain Exit 75 NB ramp.  Make Exit 76 a right exit (exit only + an option lane), intersecting with a realigned Exit 75 NB onramp that would split to 95NB and 395NB.  Then I-95 3 lanes from Exit 76 out to New London.  SB, a flyover Exit 75 leaving before the I-395 merge.  3 lanes would become 4 where I-395 comes in, narrowing down to 3 at Exit 74, which would be eliminated, SB, and a new realigned SB onramp.  This plan would eliminate all weaving conditions and help dramatically.  Would require replacement of the US 1 bridge at Exit 75 and widening to full shoulders.  Definitely needs to be done.  Basically, I just tweaked the ConnDOT plans for the project. 

But I do agree... there's just a lot of truck and bus traffic and its all "hauling ass" through the area.  An extra lane and interchange tweaking will help, as would required blasting and bridge replacements to give the highway a more "open" feel.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: cl94 on May 24, 2016, 05:32:55 PM
Quote from: vdeane on May 24, 2016, 01:17:12 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on May 23, 2016, 11:22:06 PM
Quote from: mariethefoxy on May 22, 2016, 08:47:38 PM
I know I time out big purchases when Im gunna be in NH and Delaware already for other things so I can take advantage of the fact those states don't have sales tax.
If you are a resident of NY, like CT, you are supposed to report that on your annual income tax filing with the state as use tax where you make up the difference between the tax you would have paid if purchased locally and what you did (or didn't) pay.
I don't think I know anyone who ACTUALLY does that though.  It's unenforceable and would be a paperwork nightmare to even try to comply with.  You'd need to save every recipt for every purchase you ever made outside of the area where you live (even a different county within NY has use tax), have the tax itemized, figure out what the tax is where you live, computer that, compute the difference, enter into the tax form.

I sure as hell don't. I buy alcohol on trips to New Hampshire I take every few months just to take advantage of the lower prices and lack of tax. Furthermore, living in a region with major shopping centers in 4 counties (Albany, Rensselaer, Saratoga, Warren, the latter 2 with a significantly lower tax rate), it would be nearly impossible for me to do it because I do too much shopping in a county where I don't live.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on May 24, 2016, 08:14:14 PM
Quote from: cl94 on May 24, 2016, 05:32:55 PM
Quote from: vdeane on May 24, 2016, 01:17:12 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on May 23, 2016, 11:22:06 PM
Quote from: mariethefoxy on May 22, 2016, 08:47:38 PM
I know I time out big purchases when Im gunna be in NH and Delaware already for other things so I can take advantage of the fact those states don't have sales tax.
If you are a resident of NY, like CT, you are supposed to report that on your annual income tax filing with the state as use tax where you make up the difference between the tax you would have paid if purchased locally and what you did (or didn't) pay.
I don't think I know anyone who ACTUALLY does that though.  It's unenforceable and would be a paperwork nightmare to even try to comply with.  You'd need to save every recipt for every purchase you ever made outside of the area where you live (even a different county within NY has use tax), have the tax itemized, figure out what the tax is where you live, computer that, compute the difference, enter into the tax form.

I sure as hell don't. I buy alcohol on trips to New Hampshire I take every few months just to take advantage of the lower prices and lack of tax. Furthermore, living in a region with major shopping centers in 4 counties (Albany, Rensselaer, Saratoga, Warren, the latter 2 with a significantly lower tax rate), it would be nearly impossible for me to do it because I do too much shopping in a county where I don't live.

The only purchase that will be caught is a car purchased out of state.  It'll raise a red flag when you go to register it and it shows up on your local town's property tax rolls, especially if you own a home (unless you own a home in the state where you purchased the car or registered it in a friend or relative's name who lives in that state.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on May 24, 2016, 09:38:16 PM
Re: 95/395 junction -

The close proximity of exits 75 and 76 would seem to make this a prime candidate for some braided ramps. A few homes would likely need to be demolished for this to be done northbound, though, which means it won't happen. At least not in that direction.
Widening this section of I-95 so that 395 is a lane drop instead of an outright left exit would be nice and perhaps even feasible.
A poor man's solution to the safety issue might be to simply close the northbound onramp at exit 75.

Re: out of state sales tax -

Should the state choose to audit this sort of thing they could ask to see your credit card statements and inquire as to what became of every listed out of state purchase. They could even put the burden of proof on you and assume that you owe use tax on every out of state purchase unless you can demonstrate that you don't. It's draconian but aren't all tax audits?

That said, I haven't heard of this being done. It is probably a fair statement to say that this rule is unenforced, but that doesn't mean it is unenforceable.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: roadman on May 25, 2016, 10:26:54 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on May 24, 2016, 09:38:16 PM

That said, I haven't heard of this being done. It is probably a fair statement to say that this rule is unenforced, but that doesn't mean it is unenforceable.

At one point, the Massachusetts Department of Revenue tried to collect sales tax from sales Town Fair Tire made at their New Hampshire stores to Massachusetts residents.  The Massachusetts State Supreme Court ruled against the state - http://www.searchautoparts.com/motorage/shop-owner/tire-topics/town-fair-tire-prevails-landmark-massachusetts-tax-appeal-case
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on May 25, 2016, 02:55:25 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on May 24, 2016, 09:38:16 PMRe: out of state sales tax -

Should the state choose to audit this sort of thing they could ask to see your credit card statements and inquire as to what became of every listed out of state purchase. They could even put the burden of proof on you and assume that you owe use tax on every out of state purchase unless you can demonstrate that you don't. It's draconian but aren't all tax audits?

That said, I haven't heard of this being done. It is probably a fair statement to say that this rule is unenforced, but that doesn't mean it is unenforceable.

ISTR (but my Google-fu is too weak today to confirm) that a few years ago, some states, including CT, were experimenting with pressuring out-of-state online retailers to provide data on purchases made by state residents, so that use tax enforcement could be pursued.

I also seem to recall that those efforts quit being discussed much in CT after Amazon agreed to collect sales tax on CT transactions.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on May 25, 2016, 10:25:25 PM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on May 25, 2016, 02:55:25 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on May 24, 2016, 09:38:16 PMRe: out of state sales tax -

Should the state choose to audit this sort of thing they could ask to see your credit card statements and inquire as to what became of every listed out of state purchase. They could even put the burden of proof on you and assume that you owe use tax on every out of state purchase unless you can demonstrate that you don't. It's draconian but aren't all tax audits?

That said, I haven't heard of this being done. It is probably a fair statement to say that this rule is unenforced, but that doesn't mean it is unenforceable.

ISTR (but my Google-fu is too weak today to confirm) that a few years ago, some states, including CT, were experimenting with pressuring out-of-state online retailers to provide data on purchases made by state residents, so that use tax enforcement could be pursued.

I also seem to recall that those efforts quit being discussed much in CT after Amazon agreed to collect sales tax on CT transactions.
Many online retailers these days have a business presence in many states to speed delivery and increase logistical efficiency, so they are forced to collect sales tax. In the internet's early days this was not the case, and I'm sure many remember the talk of a flat internet sales tax as it was killing local businesses. I guess now that most local brick and mortars have been killed off, or are on life support, and with many of the big online retailers collecting sales tax, that idea is no longer on the table and hasn't come up in many years. I know some years back Connecticut basically threatened people that were putting zero down on CT-1040 line 15 which is the use tax owed line, that it was a red flag that would increase the odds of an audit because the state knows everyone buys *something* online during the course of a year. The old tax form even required listing any purchases over $300 showing how much sales tax you paid and owed on individual items. If you put everything on a credit card, it's easy to figure out because you get those annual statements and it's easy to just dump it into Excel and sum it by payee knowing which of them charges sales tax and which don't. I live on the border and it's more convenient for me to go down the road and shop in NY and pay the extra ~2% sales tax. Too bad you couldn't use that negative sales tax difference to offset sales tax owed similar to income tax paid to another jurisdiction.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: southshore720 on June 02, 2016, 10:36:17 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on May 24, 2016, 09:38:16 PM
Re: 95/395 junction -

The close proximity of exits 75 and 76 would seem to make this a prime candidate for some braided ramps. A few homes would likely need to be demolished for this to be done northbound, though, which means it won't happen. At least not in that direction.
Widening this section of I-95 so that 395 is a lane drop instead of an outright left exit would be nice and perhaps even feasible.
A poor man's solution to the safety issue might be to simply close the northbound onramp at exit 75.

Re: out of state sales tax -

Should the state choose to audit this sort of thing they could ask to see your credit card statements and inquire as to what became of every listed out of state purchase. They could even put the burden of proof on you and assume that you owe use tax on every out of state purchase unless you can demonstrate that you don't. It's draconian but aren't all tax audits?

That said, I haven't heard of this being done. It is probably a fair statement to say that this rule is unenforced, but that doesn't mean it is unenforceable.

I'm surprised that no one has brought our favorite pipe dream, Route 11, into this equation for future fixes to this interchange.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on June 03, 2016, 06:25:34 PM
Quote from: southshore720 on June 02, 2016, 10:36:17 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on May 24, 2016, 09:38:16 PM
Re: 95/395 junction -

The close proximity of exits 75 and 76 would seem to make this a prime candidate for some braided ramps. A few homes would likely need to be demolished for this to be done northbound, though, which means it won't happen. At least not in that direction.
Widening this section of I-95 so that 395 is a lane drop instead of an outright left exit would be nice and perhaps even feasible.
A poor man's solution to the safety issue might be to simply close the northbound onramp at exit 75.

Re: out of state sales tax -

Should the state choose to audit this sort of thing they could ask to see your credit card statements and inquire as to what became of every listed out of state purchase. They could even put the burden of proof on you and assume that you owe use tax on every out of state purchase unless you can demonstrate that you don't. It's draconian but aren't all tax audits?

That said, I haven't heard of this being done. It is probably a fair statement to say that this rule is unenforced, but that doesn't mean it is unenforceable.

I'm surprised that no one has brought our favorite pipe dream, Route 11, into this equation for future fixes to this interchange.
I would have 11 terminate at 395 just before 95, then if you want to get from 11 to 95 and vice versa you do it via 395 where there is already half an interchange in place. There just isn't enough room to build a full interchange between all three routes in that spot - as it is the 95/395 interchange isn't a full one.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: tckma on June 07, 2016, 04:57:20 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on May 24, 2016, 08:14:14 PM
The only purchase that will be caught is a car purchased out of state.  It'll raise a red flag when you go to register it and it shows up on your local town's property tax rolls, especially if you own a home (unless you own a home in the state where you purchased the car or registered it in a friend or relative's name who lives in that state.

Car purchases are about the ONLY things they care about for sales tax purposes, and you can't even register a car without paying some sales tax to the state of registration.  In 2004, I bought a car in New Hampshire because I got my best price from a dealer in Nashua, and then I had to pay MA sales tax when I registered it.

Also, I had bought a mattress at the Jordan's Furniture location in Nashua, but had to pay MA sales tax as it was being delivered in Boston.

They only seem to care for larger purchases like those.

Regarding car registrations.  In 2007, I bought a car in Massachusetts, from a MA dealer, and paid their 5% sales tax.  The following year I moved to Virginia.  I claimed exemption from their 3% sales tax on vehicles because I already paid 5% to Massachusetts.  They granted me that.

Then in 2009, I moved to Maryland, with the same car.  You pay the difference of the sales tax you paid to the purchasing state to Maryland's 6%.  I argued that was 1% as I had paid 5% to Massachusetts.  The MVA idiot made me pay 3%, since the Virginia title stated "Tax paid to other state" or something like that on it, and VA was a 3% rate.  I argued with a manager and everything.  I had proof (bill of sale for the car and MA registration) stating I'd paid 5%.  I wrote a nastygram to Glen Burnie with those proofs.  I got a refund check for 2%, as the person who read my nastygram agreed that by MD law I should only have had to pay 1% (difference between MA's 5% and MD's 6%).

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on June 07, 2016, 07:33:52 PM
Quote from: tckma on June 07, 2016, 04:57:20 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on May 24, 2016, 08:14:14 PM
The only purchase that will be caught is a car purchased out of state.  It'll raise a red flag when you go to register it and it shows up on your local town's property tax rolls, especially if you own a home (unless you own a home in the state where you purchased the car or registered it in a friend or relative's name who lives in that state.

Car purchases are about the ONLY things they care about for sales tax purposes, and you can't even register a car without paying some sales tax to the state of registration.  In 2004, I bought a car in New Hampshire because I got my best price from a dealer in Nashua, and then I had to pay MA sales tax when I registered it.

Also, I had bought a mattress at the Jordan's Furniture location in Nashua, but had to pay MA sales tax as it was being delivered in Boston.

They only seem to care for larger purchases like those.

Regarding car registrations.  In 2007, I bought a car in Massachusetts, from a MA dealer, and paid their 5% sales tax.  The following year I moved to Virginia.  I claimed exemption from their 3% sales tax on vehicles because I already paid 5% to Massachusetts.  They granted me that.

Then in 2009, I moved to Maryland, with the same car.  You pay the difference of the sales tax you paid to the purchasing state to Maryland's 6%.  I argued that was 1% as I had paid 5% to Massachusetts.  The MVA idiot made me pay 3%, since the Virginia title stated "Tax paid to other state" or something like that on it, and VA was a 3% rate.  I argued with a manager and everything.  I had proof (bill of sale for the car and MA registration) stating I'd paid 5%.  I wrote a nastygram to Glen Burnie with those proofs.  I got a refund check for 2%, as the person who read my nastygram agreed that by MD law I should only have had to pay 1% (difference between MA's 5% and MD's 6%).
The only way to avoid this is to claim the car as a gift or an inheritance from someone's estate.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on June 07, 2016, 10:54:11 PM
Let's pause for a sign
(https://c8.staticflickr.com/2/1516/25670516903_376b928112_c.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on June 08, 2016, 10:23:12 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on June 03, 2016, 06:25:34 PM
Quote from: southshore720 on June 02, 2016, 10:36:17 PM
I'm surprised that no one has brought our favorite pipe dream, Route 11, into this equation for future fixes to this interchange.
I would have 11 terminate at 395 just before 95, then if you want to get from 11 to 95 and vice versa you do it via 395 where there is already half an interchange in place. There just isn't enough room to build a full interchange between all three routes in that spot - as it is the 95/395 interchange isn't a full one.

I dunno about that. Adding route 11 to the mix would make it a 4-way junction. I could conceivably see an interchange that is a cloverleaf save for two high speed ramps to serve the through movements on I-95 going there.

Of course, when route 11 gets finished in 2082, ConnDOT can worry about it then. For now, it's a question of improving safety with the existing roads.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on June 09, 2016, 04:52:11 PM
Saw this at Facebook today. It's looking generally east at the Exit 47 - Sigourney Street area of I-84 in Hartford, just before it was opened. No Exit 48A - Asylum Street ramp or cap over the highway between Exits 50 to 52 either!

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FztPCRJx.jpg&hash=cd7f3f19e7b9a4e88b07c14c6730c6b4fb8075b5)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on June 09, 2016, 06:12:27 PM
Looks like there's a left hand exit WB to Capitol Ave, and the entrance that now comes from Broad St used to come from Capitol Ave.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on June 09, 2016, 07:48:49 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on June 09, 2016, 06:12:27 PM
Looks like there's a left hand exit WB to Capitol Ave, and the entrance that now comes from Broad St used to come from Capitol Ave.

That interchange was originally meant to serve I-484. It appears in the photo to actually be a stub to nowhere, with neither the connections to Asylum or Capitol in place.

Indeed, looking at Historic Aerials confirms this:
- stub interchange on 1967 topo
- ramps to Capitol Ave only to/from the west only with stub still in place on 1973 topo
- ramps to Capitol Ave only to/from the west only with stub removed on 1984 topo
- ramps to Asylum Ave and the current configuration in place on 1992 aerial

Looks like the connection to Capitol was added to make the interchange useful without 484, and the ramps to/from the east were removed because they did not connect to anything and thus served no purpose once 484 was cancelled.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on June 09, 2016, 09:04:34 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on June 09, 2016, 07:48:49 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on June 09, 2016, 06:12:27 PM
Looks like there's a left hand exit WB to Capitol Ave, and the entrance that now comes from Broad St used to come from Capitol Ave.

That interchange was originally meant to serve I-484. It appears in the photo to actually be a stub to nowhere, with neither the connections to Asylum or Capitol in place.

Indeed, looking at Historic Aerials confirms this:
- stub interchange on 1967 topo
- ramps to Capitol Ave only to/from the west only with stub still in place on 1973 topo
- ramps to Capitol Ave only to/from the west only with stub removed on 1984 topo
- ramps to Asylum Ave and the current configuration in place on 1992 aerial

Looks like the connection to Capitol was added to make the interchange useful without 484, and the ramps to/from the east were removed because they did not connect to anything and thus served no purpose once 484 was cancelled.



So the ramps to and from the east were never used.  I've always tried to picture how I-484 would fit in there and was never able to do it.  That explains why b/c things were modified.

For example: One is able to picture the CT-10 expressway cement slabs at Exit 29 in Cheshire as you can see the grading etc.

I wonder when CT DOT do bridge inspections...do they inspect the never used parts of the stack in Farmington?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on June 09, 2016, 09:05:32 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on June 09, 2016, 04:52:11 PM
Saw this at Facebook today. It's looking generally east at the Exit 47 - Sigourney Street area of I-84 in Hartford, just before it was opened. No Exit 48A - Asylum Street ramp or cap over the highway between Exits 50 to 52 either!

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FztPCRJx.jpg&hash=cd7f3f19e7b9a4e88b07c14c6730c6b4fb8075b5)

I think there's a Michael Summa photo of I-84 Exit 49 before it was opened and it was 3-lanes each direction, now it's 4-lanes.  So at some point it was widened.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on June 09, 2016, 10:33:04 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on June 09, 2016, 09:04:34 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on June 09, 2016, 07:48:49 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on June 09, 2016, 06:12:27 PM
Looks like there's a left hand exit WB to Capitol Ave, and the entrance that now comes from Broad St used to come from Capitol Ave.

That interchange was originally meant to serve I-484. It appears in the photo to actually be a stub to nowhere, with neither the connections to Asylum or Capitol in place.

Indeed, looking at Historic Aerials confirms this:
- stub interchange on 1967 topo
- ramps to Capitol Ave only to/from the west only with stub still in place on 1973 topo
- ramps to Capitol Ave only to/from the west only with stub removed on 1984 topo
- ramps to Asylum Ave and the current configuration in place on 1992 aerial

Looks like the connection to Capitol was added to make the interchange useful without 484, and the ramps to/from the east were removed because they did not connect to anything and thus served no purpose once 484 was cancelled.



So the ramps to and from the east were never used.  I've always tried to picture how I-484 would fit in there and was never able to do it.  That explains why b/c things were modified.

For example: One is able to picture the CT-10 expressway cement slabs at Exit 29 in Cheshire as you can see the grading etc.

I wonder when CT DOT do bridge inspections...do they inspect the never used parts of the stack in Farmington?
Try to imagine two tunnels emerging from Bushnell Park.  I think I-484 with a new river crossing to a re-aligned CT 15 would help ease rush hour congestion at the Bulkley Bridge crossover.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on June 10, 2016, 12:37:36 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on June 09, 2016, 09:04:34 PM
I wonder when CT DOT do bridge inspections...do they inspect the never used parts of the stack in Farmington?

Yes. They have to. Just because the structure is unused doesn't mean it won't still slowly degrade over time. Any overpasses over active roadways are therefore routinely inspected even if they aren't used.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on June 10, 2016, 01:37:24 AM
My I-484 page (http://kurumi.com/roads/ct/i484.html) has a diagram of the entire freeway as proposed: 3-level I-84 interchange, Bushnell Park tunnel, and an assortment of tiny ramps of its own. Definitely an older style of highway design.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: 8.Lug on June 10, 2016, 08:23:14 AM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on May 25, 2016, 02:55:25 PM
ISTR (but my Google-fu is too weak today to confirm) that a few years ago, some states, including CT, were experimenting with pressuring out-of-state online retailers to provide data on purchases made by state residents, so that use tax enforcement could be pursued.

I also seem to recall that those efforts quit being discussed much in CT after Amazon agreed to collect sales tax on CT transactions.
NY tried that and eBay started collecting tax on sales for a bit - but that ended quite abruptly. Now it's actually a part of the NYS Income Tax filing.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: mariethefoxy on June 10, 2016, 11:01:01 PM
How does the reversable lane in Hartford work? I was looking at it on google street view but it doesnt seem straightforward where the traffic goes.

Its the one at the end of CT Route 2 in Downtown Hartford.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on June 11, 2016, 11:23:51 AM
Quote from: mariethefoxy on June 10, 2016, 11:01:01 PM
How does the reversable lane in Hartford work? I was looking at it on google street view but it doesnt seem straightforward where the traffic goes.

Its the one at the end of CT Route 2 in Downtown Hartford.

They've taken it out.  Both the one on Central Row and Asylum Ave.  Couldn't tell you why though, maybe someone else here knows.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: mariethefoxy on June 11, 2016, 11:55:11 PM
so its two way traffic all the time now?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on June 12, 2016, 01:16:26 AM
Not all the time.  I believe the reversible lanes are still active from 6-10 AM weekdays.  I went down State St eastbound a few months ago at about 9:30 AM on a weekday, and couldn't go straight onto the Founders Bridge.   Once past Prospect St, all traffic is forced into the one left lane to turn left onto Market St, as the remaining lanes to the right act as contraflow lanes for traffic to turn onto Prospect St.  Westbound from the bridge, State St is one way from Columbus Blvd. to Market St, and the lanes left of the yellow dashed lines only allow for the left turn onto Prospect St, which is also one way at the same time to the next block at Bob Steele (formerly Grove) St.   The yellow lines double as the dividing line for 2 way traffic and a lane divider when there's one way traffic.  The reversible lanes on Asylum Ave are indeed gone.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: wytout on June 14, 2016, 09:27:52 PM
So,  after a trip through eastern CT this weekend, I'm reminded that in ConnDOT district 2, all limited access highways have red and green delineators at the beginning and end of guardrails.  These seem to have been placed over the past 2-3 years. This is similar in application to those seen on all state and interstate highways in MA.  A red delineator marks the beginning of a guardrail section and a green delineator marks the end.

I'm curious if anyone knows whether this practice will be spreading to districts 1,3,4 or should it just be chalked up to District 2 daring to be different.  I have only seen them exclusively in district 2 and it's widespread on pretty much all limited access roads.  The latest edition of the CT Sign Catalog, revised in may 2015, still only lists  white and yellow delineators.  There is no listing for the red and green ones.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on June 14, 2016, 11:14:46 PM
And the tunnel option has officially been ruled out for I-84 in Hartford

http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-i-84-hartford-0615-20160614-story.html
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on June 18, 2016, 06:21:15 PM
Quote from: wytout on June 14, 2016, 09:27:52 PM
So,  after a trip through eastern CT this weekend, I'm reminded that in ConnDOT district 2, all limited access highways have red and green delineators at the beginning and end of guardrails.  These seem to have been placed over the past 2-3 years. This is similar in application to those seen on all state and interstate highways in MA.  A red delineator marks the beginning of a guardrail section and a green delineator marks the end.

I'm curious if anyone knows whether this practice will be spreading to districts 1,3,4 or should it just be chalked up to District 2 daring to be different.  I have only seen them exclusively in district 2 and it's widespread on pretty much all limited access roads.  The latest edition of the CT Sign Catalog, revised in may 2015, still only lists  white and yellow delineators.  There is no listing for the red and green ones.
They went up a couple of years ago. Not sure what the point of that practice is.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: SidS1045 on June 19, 2016, 10:56:30 PM
Quote from: tckma on June 07, 2016, 04:57:20 PMThey only seem to care for larger purchases like those.

Er, not quite.  If you file a MA resident income tax return, you are expected to report all purchases on which you did not pay MA sales tax *and* did not pay sales tax to another jurisdiction outside the state, and add the tax thus owed to any other taxes you owe or reduce your refund by that amount.

One of those voluntary things which is virtually impossible to enforce, unless a return is audited.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on June 20, 2016, 11:38:34 PM
Route 9 in Middletown has surfaced again (Hartford Courant article (http://www.courant.com/community/middletown/hc-middletown-route-9-traffic-lights-0621-20160620-story.html)). There's no details, since the DOT is presenting the plan tomorrow (Tues June 21) and the Courant couldn't get some early information. The mystery plan will reportedly get rid of both traffic lights.

The riverside boulevard section (Acheson Drive) of Route 9 opened in 1950; many proposals to make it a full freeway came forth over the intervening decades. Here are a few:
* 1965 city plan (http://www.middletownplanning.com/POD/65plancontents.html) - some great maps and details. Ambitious to the point of impossibility by today's standards.
* City of Middletown doc library (http://www.middletownplanning.com/doclibrary.html) - many plans and maps, such as a relatively recent 2006 proposal (http://www.middletownplanning.com/documents/Route9_proposal.pdf) that might be close to tomorrow's DOT unveiling; a 2003 tunnel proposal; and more interchange designs.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on June 21, 2016, 03:36:35 PM
Here is a cool link with a virtual tour of the CT 9 proposal in Middletown.https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/storage.123bim.com/1690/Virtual%20Tour/index.htm?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIYZHQDMA7X4TJZEA&Expires=1466550385&response-content-type=text%2Fhtml&Signature=Ey6NVhurR8twgB06xTfg%2BUWxFx0%3D
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on June 22, 2016, 12:45:21 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on June 21, 2016, 03:36:35 PM
Here is a cool link with a virtual tour of the CT 9 proposal in Middletown.https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/storage.123bim.com/1690/Virtual%20Tour/index.htm?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIYZHQDMA7X4TJZEA&Expires=1466550385&response-content-type=text%2Fhtml&Signature=Ey6NVhurR8twgB06xTfg%2BUWxFx0%3D

That particular link expired, but the one without the access key is OK: https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/storage.123bim.com/1690/Virtual%20Tour/index.htm

Newer Courant story: http://www.courant.com/community/middletown/hc-middletown-route-9-announcement-0622-20160621-story.html. There's a driving video of the area on that page, with an odd choice of soundtrack and prominent unblurred license plates. I prefer FreewayJim's work myself :-)

About the proposal itself... it looks super cheap. Raise the southbound lanes (only 2) in 2 places, providing access for one left exit from NB at CT 66, and one left entrance to NB at the Arrigoni Bridge connector (St. John's Square, formerly Hartford Ave). The estimate is $75 million, which seems low, but nonetheless this is the Nissan Versa (http://www.autotrader.com/best-cars/the-7-cheapest-new-cars-in-the-united-states-224878) of Route 9 proposals. Maybe that means it can get done.

If it gets done, then CT 17 is no longer continuous at its northern interchange with CT 9 (no way to follow CT 17 northbound). So we might see the 17 designation relocated to follow Main St to Washington St (SR 545), then move east to CT 9 so it can branch off again for the short CT 17 freeway. (Another plan calls for tearing down that freeway, building a SPUI at 9/17 and an at-grade intersection to replace the diamond interchange.) St. Johns Place would probably get a new SR 5xx designation as it connects two state highways (as SR 545 did).

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Henry on June 22, 2016, 10:37:25 AM
I find it amusing that the accompanying pic in the article shows the intersection being designated as Exit 16. I thought that was disallowed, and that these could only be applied to freeway interchanges (which it clearly is not).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: The Ghostbuster on June 22, 2016, 04:00:52 PM
Will the Highway 9 freeway conversion plan actually be constructed? Or is this another case of all talk but no action?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on June 24, 2016, 08:54:14 PM
I'm not a big fan of the left exits.  Can they elevate the NB lanes too and just have the ramps enter and exit from the right and go under both?  I don't see it taking up too much space.

With the left entrances and exits (something CT still seems to love) I can see that being a problem in the future with traffic flow.  Putting slower traffic in the left. 

Also NB  you have a right on-ramp merge followed by a left off-ramp just after that.  They could make it all right hand entrances exits by narrowing the median. Of course I'm no engineer.

Once the traffic lights are gone it's an expressway style and having lefts will create a problem as the traffic light era gets forgotten,

http://ctmirror.org/2016/06/21/if-you-can-wait-until-2023-no-more-red-lights-on-route-9/

and not related....the CT-8 design build stage one has been completed ahead of schedule.  http://rt8bridgeport.com/
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on June 27, 2016, 10:28:56 AM
Does anyone have any pictures of the CT 17 onramp to CT 9 NB in Middletown from the mid/late 90s?  Supposedly that onramp was metered for a period of time.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on June 27, 2016, 02:41:47 PM
Really nothing interesting to see there... it was just a simple red/green ground-mount traffic light a few hundred feet before the existing stop sign. 

I think this proposal is a good relatively-cheap idea.  A downside is it's going to throw a lot of traffic onto that portion of Washington St/Main St to get to Portland from CT 9 NB.  Though from what I've seen, the majority of Portland-bound traffic is coming from CT 9 SB.  Wonder how they're gonna elevate the SB lanes while maintaining traffic flow.  I'm glad I don't have to travel through there every day. 

I see not really any room for a right hand exit, even if you raise the NB lanes as well.  Look at a google streetview and you can see the lack of space between the NB lanes and the river.  The drawings in the link above over-exaggerate the space.  Besides, CT is adding more left exits anyway (Exit 29 from 91NB to the Charter Oak Bridge, in the latest plans).  And no doubt we'll lose some with the I-84 Viaduct replacement. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on July 06, 2016, 01:06:57 PM
One less (Stannis: "fewer") left exit in CT soon: http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?a=2135&Q=582464

I-95 NB to I-91 NB will be a right-hand exit as I-95 NB moves to new bridge over Water St. in New Haven.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on July 06, 2016, 05:36:59 PM
... and it's going to happen during the weekend I'll be in CT... July 14-17.  I plan on driving through there on the 15th (Friday) as part of my western CT road trip (9N-84W-7N-7S-84W-684S-287E-95N) but I doubt the change will be done in the first night.  I'll still get photos either way!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: dgolub on July 06, 2016, 05:56:01 PM
Quote from: kurumi on July 06, 2016, 01:06:57 PM
One less (Stannis: "fewer") left exit in CT soon: http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?a=2135&Q=582464

I-95 NB to I-91 NB will be a right-hand exit as I-95 NB moves to new bridge over Water St. in New Haven.

And it's happening the weekend before the New Haven meet, so we'll get to drive through the area right after the change.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on July 10, 2016, 09:41:42 PM
Quote from: kurumi on July 06, 2016, 01:06:57 PM
One less (Stannis: "fewer") left exit in CT soon: http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?a=2135&Q=582464

I-95 NB to I-91 NB will be a right-hand exit as I-95 NB moves to new bridge over Water St. in New Haven.

http://www.nhregister.com/20160710/new-haven-interstate-95-91-interchange-to-head-in-new-direction-for-first-time-in-60-years

Saw this on the New Haven Register's web site today.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on July 11, 2016, 08:34:30 PM
I may have to make a run to Union Station after 1am on Saturday morning to pick up my brother.  If that happens, I'll be right in the thick of it for the changeover.  Ramps from 34E to 95N will be closed during that time.  Either I'll do Rt 1 or head for the detour 95S->1st Ave->95N.  It'll depend on traffic, but I may opt for US 1, just to save time.  We will see.

Looks like there will be some left-exit shuffling coming up in the next 5+ years if the I-91 NB Exit 29 and CT 9 Middletown projects get off the drawing board and onto the pavement... which it's looking more and more likely.  We'll lose CT 9 Exit 16's left "exit" but gain I-91NB Exit 29 (again!) in the process.  Time will tell.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on July 12, 2016, 03:59:04 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on July 11, 2016, 08:34:30 PM
I may have to make a run to Union Station after 1am on Saturday morning to pick up my brother.  If that happens, I'll be right in the thick of it for the changeover.  Ramps from 34E to 95N will be closed during that time.  Either I'll do Rt 1 or head for the detour 95S->1st Ave->95N.  It'll depend on traffic, but I may opt for US 1, just to save time.  We will see.

Looks like there will be some left-exit shuffling coming up in the next 5+ years if the I-91 NB Exit 29 and CT 9 Middletown projects get off the drawing board and onto the pavement... which it's looking more and more likely.  We'll lose CT 9 Exit 16's left "exit" but gain I-91NB Exit 29 (again!) in the process.  Time will tell.

I'd rather have them re-align the entire interchange so that US 5/CT 15 runs down the middle of I-91 and have feeder ramps going to/from each highway.  Exit 87 (Airport Road) would probably have to be relocated, though.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on July 12, 2016, 04:37:49 PM
Have it run down the middle like in Meriden? Except there, CT 15 is on the outside of I-91.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on July 12, 2016, 07:52:26 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on July 12, 2016, 04:37:49 PM
Have it run down the middle like in Meriden? Except there, CT 15 is on the outside of I-91.
Precisely, except I-691 wouldn't be in the way, which IMO is part of why that interchange is ineffective and handling modern traffic flow.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: mariethefoxy on July 12, 2016, 11:04:07 PM
the ramp from 15N to 91N for some reason every single time I go that way no matter what time of day or night that ramp is backed up or slow moving to get onto 91 for no explainable reason other than the fact people cant merge, it becomes an exit only for 66 East but theres still plenty of time to get up to speed and move over.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on July 12, 2016, 11:09:58 PM
What they should do is restripe the 91 NB lanes.  Presently, there are 2 lanes until just before the merge from 15N enters, then the 3rd lane begins, and the 4th is the merge, becoming an exit only for 66E.  So why not restripe so that 91NB is two lanes and traffic from 15N gets a dedicated lane.  Make that ramp 2 lanes wide with the right lane on the ramp being an exit only for 66E.  Better yet, block off access from 91NB to 66E at Exit 18.  I tend to think DOT wants you to exit 91N at Exit 17 (15N) anyway to get to 66E, hence the way Exit 17 is signed "15 NORTH TO 691/66".  Just put up a jersey barrier blocking 91N to 66E access at Exit 18, a little bit of asphalt to make the 15N-91N ramp a little wider, and some striping.  Done. 

Solving the SB problem may take a little more than that, however.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: mariethefoxy on July 13, 2016, 12:31:55 PM
the southbound one is wierd, and once again im either stuck behind some slowpoke, or im doing 65-70 and some ass in an expensive car is tailgating, or even worse both at the same time.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on July 13, 2016, 10:04:37 PM
http://wtnh.com/2016/07/13/expect-delays-on-i-95-northbound-in-new-haven-this-weekend/

The changes with the I-91/I-95 junction from WTNH-TV (ABC) channel 8 of New Haven.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: yakra on July 14, 2016, 01:18:20 PM
Have the new mile-based exit numbers for CT2A (old exits 1 & 2) been posted in the field yet?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on July 14, 2016, 06:06:28 PM
Quote from: yakra on July 14, 2016, 01:18:20 PM
Have the new mile-based exit numbers for CT2A (old exits 1 & 2) been posted in the field yet?

Yup... start here...

https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/26076397194/in/album-72157667598037406/

... and go right
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on July 14, 2016, 07:44:52 PM
That gantry before the Mohegan Sun exit looks brand new. Meanwhile, I can't see why CT Route 2A doesn't start/end at I-395.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on July 14, 2016, 08:46:41 PM
Technically, it starts at the I-395/CT 2-32 interchange in Norwich (I-395 Exit 13).  Signage from CT 2 EB to I-395 SB has a CT 2A shield.  With the recent sign replacement on I-395 and CT 2A, CT 2A reassurance shields were added on I-395, and a CT 2A West shield was added on CT 2A at the ramp to I-395 North.  But yes, I agree, it should just begin/end at I-395.  But the way its currently signed, it services as a signed bypass around Norwich.


In other news....

Expect a FLICKR update later in the weekend, as I'm down in the Nutmeg State til Monday.  Didn't get any shots on the way down in CT (I-91 & CT 9), but tomorrow it's my Western CT trip, covering I-84WB and I-95NB.  Hope to get the trip done before I get stuck in the infamous 40-mile Fairfield County Friday afternoon nightmare.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: yakra on July 15, 2016, 11:58:44 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on July 14, 2016, 06:06:28 PM
Quote from: yakra on July 14, 2016, 01:18:20 PM
Have the new mile-based exit numbers for CT2A (old exits 1 & 2) been posted in the field yet?
Yup... start here...

https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/26076397194/in/album-72157667598037406/

... and go right
Nice, thanks!
One remaining question: Westbound, approaching I-395, is the I-395 interchange signed as Exit 4?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: bob7374 on July 15, 2016, 01:38:36 PM
Quote from: yakra on July 15, 2016, 11:58:44 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on July 14, 2016, 06:06:28 PM
Quote from: yakra on July 14, 2016, 01:18:20 PM
Have the new mile-based exit numbers for CT2A (old exits 1 & 2) been posted in the field yet?
Yup... start here...

https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/26076397194/in/album-72157667598037406/

... and go right
Nice, thanks!
One remaining question: Westbound, approaching I-395, is the I-395 interchange signed as Exit 4?
I took some photos of the new signage along West CT 2A back in April. Looking at them now, I have no photo of the exit signage at I-395 ramps because they had not been changed from my previous trip when the signage did not have any exit tabs. The 1/2 mile advance overhead for CT 32, now Exit 5, has a 'Junction I-395 1 1/2 Miles' sign next to it, but there is now exit tab with it. I will plan to post these photos shortly.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on July 15, 2016, 02:58:29 PM
I don't recall seeing an Exit 4 tab on the I-395 signs on CT 2A, but I was driving east, not west.  I usually check the rear view for things like that, however. 

The western CT circle trip was a success!  Got a ton of shots which I have uploaded to my FLICKR page (link at bottom), including traveling the Brookfield Bypass (US 7) for the first time.  Saw a MM 31 on the bypass NB north of Exit 12.  It's the only MM I saw on US 7.  Also I did not miss out on the Friday afternoon Fairfield County mess, though it wasn't 40 miles of stop-and-go... only from Stamford to Darien, a little in Bridgeport, and West Haven-Branford.  The new I-95 North roadway looks all ready to go for tomorrow morning's opening.  I-95 pullthroughs (on the right, before the I-91 exit) have an exit tab now.  I tried stopping at the Darien service plaza but the place was jamming, not a parking spot to be found.  Bummer, I wanted to check it out.  I continued on, passed Fairfield (where some mexican restaurant I never heard of apparently opened at Fairfield plaza NB/SB, and stopped at Milford plaza. 

Link to the pics in my sig below.  Descriptions are a work-in-progress.  Lots of new shots of CT 9, I-84, US 7, NY misc, and I-95.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on July 16, 2016, 08:54:42 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FcJkL55Q.jpg&hash=141112667942ea745f582ed521913bf055307d04)

A screen cap I got from WTNH-TV (ABC) channel 8 of New Haven. The road shift with Exit 48 and I-91 North has begun! :)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on July 17, 2016, 03:26:30 PM
Why not just install the permanent signs?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on July 17, 2016, 06:44:43 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 17, 2016, 03:26:30 PM
Why not just install the permanent signs?

An intriguing question, considering that when CT 34 was shifted to a right exit earlier in the same project, that is exactly what they did. Here's the same sign above a week after the ramp it points to was opened (7/18/2011):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FeqoBODl.jpg&hash=953724ff2a99db88afc483f05fff1ca220172497)


Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: TravelingBethelite on July 17, 2016, 07:20:30 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on July 16, 2016, 08:54:42 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FcJkL55Q.jpg&hash=141112667942ea745f582ed521913bf055307d04)

A screen cap I got from WTNH-TV (ABC) channel 8 of New Haven. The road shift with Exit 48 and I-91 North has begun! :)

Gonna miss the signs that were in that place before. Good ol' Connecticut button copy, you will be missed.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on July 17, 2016, 08:53:35 PM
I think the reasoning behind the orange signs was to attract attention to the fact that Exit 48 is now a right hand exit.  It is, after all, an exit to an interstate and the relocation of the exit was just part of the relocation... the whole I-95 NB roadway is on a new alignment past the exit.  After some time, the signs will become the permanent green ones. 

I bet this relocation of the exit marks the end of the diagrammatic just after Exit 44, NB.  It was still there as of Friday afternoon, before the shift.  It was modified when CT 34 was converted to a right hand exit.  If ConnDOT wanted to, they could just swap the button copy I-91 and I-95 shields, but eventually the lane markings on the sign will be incorrect.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on July 17, 2016, 09:10:02 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 17, 2016, 03:26:30 PM
Why not just install the permanent signs?

I believe local media coverage was all a tizzy about how many people will get lost because their SatNav devices tell them to use the incorrect lanes.   Hence there's plenty of advance warning on VMSes, and the nonstandard signs for a time.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: OracleUsr on July 17, 2016, 10:34:58 PM
Jay, speaking of Connecticut, I just saw your I-84 updates.  Anyone have a clue why, on the CT8 southbound sign, EXIT 19 is directly under the LEFT banner, as if they were going to add something else to the tab?

Plus, that's a good candidate, the photo, for the old/new thread since the old center-tabbed sign is on the next sign bridge westbound.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on July 18, 2016, 12:09:56 AM
Quote from: vdeane on July 17, 2016, 03:26:30 PM
Why not just install the permanent signs?
I wonder if the lanes are in the final positions yet. If not, the final signs would have to be a few feet off from these, and you'd really want to just install them once and be done.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: cl94 on July 18, 2016, 12:14:00 AM
Quote from: Alps on July 18, 2016, 12:09:56 AM
Quote from: vdeane on July 17, 2016, 03:26:30 PM
Why not just install the permanent signs?
I wonder if the lanes are in the final positions yet. If not, the final signs would have to be a few feet off from these, and you'd really want to just install them once and be done.

That's what I was wondering. Of course, those of us going to the meet will get a chance to look at it up close and report back.

Granted, lanes being in incorrect positions doesn't stop Ohio from installing the final signs in their final positions and putting a orange text box above the arrows.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on July 18, 2016, 12:27:01 PM
Quote from: OracleUsr on July 17, 2016, 10:34:58 PM
Jay, speaking of Connecticut, I just saw your I-84 updates.  Anyone have a clue why, on the CT8 southbound sign, EXIT 19 is directly under the LEFT banner, as if they were going to add something else to the tab?

Plus, that's a good candidate, the photo, for the old/new thread since the old center-tabbed sign is on the next sign bridge westbound.

Might be for when CT converts I-84 to mileage based and the exit becomes Exit 32A
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on July 18, 2016, 03:47:54 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on July 18, 2016, 12:27:01 PM
Quote from: OracleUsr on July 17, 2016, 10:34:58 PM
Jay, speaking of Connecticut, I just saw your I-84 updates.  Anyone have a clue why, on the CT8 southbound sign, EXIT 19 is directly under the LEFT banner, as if they were going to add something else to the tab?

Plus, that's a good candidate, the photo, for the old/new thread since the old center-tabbed sign is on the next sign bridge westbound.

Might be for when CT converts I-84 to mileage based and the exit becomes Exit 32A

I saw the plans and there was space left for a letter.  It actually said that "for future use"
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on July 18, 2016, 08:45:10 PM
Quote from: OracleUsr on July 17, 2016, 10:34:58 PM
Jay, speaking of Connecticut, I just saw your I-84 updates.  Anyone have a clue why, on the CT8 southbound sign, EXIT 19 is directly under the LEFT banner, as if they were going to add something else to the tab?

As mentioned already, the extra space is so that an "A" can be added for when I-84 gets converted to mile-based exits.  Also, the plans don't give any mention to the CT 8 North sign on the same assembly.  It must've been added after the contract plans were published.


Also, for those playing along at home, it looks like the I-395 sign project has wrapped up.  I've got photos of the rest of the northbound mile-based signs up to the Mass border, taken today, at the link below.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: cl94 on July 18, 2016, 09:09:55 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on July 18, 2016, 08:45:10 PM
Quote from: OracleUsr on July 17, 2016, 10:34:58 PM
Jay, speaking of Connecticut, I just saw your I-84 updates.  Anyone have a clue why, on the CT8 southbound sign, EXIT 19 is directly under the LEFT banner, as if they were going to add something else to the tab?

As mentioned already, the extra space is so that an "A" can be added for when I-84 gets converted to mile-based exits.  Also, the plans don't give any mention to the CT 8 North sign on the same assembly.  It must've been added after the contract plans were published.


Also, for those playing along at home, it looks like the I-395 sign project has wrapped up.  I've got photos of the rest of the northbound mile-based signs up to the Mass border, taken today, at the link below.

I'll try and check it out this weekend. Plan to clinch I-95 north of South Carolina by the end of the summer and everything I need outside of Maine is in CT and RI, so a loop onto I-395 is doable.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: OracleUsr on July 18, 2016, 09:38:47 PM
So, officially, CTDOT is scrapping the practice of sequentially numbering ramps?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on July 19, 2016, 12:12:09 AM
Quote from: OracleUsr on July 18, 2016, 09:38:47 PM
So, officially, CTDOT is scrapping the practice of sequentially numbering ramps?

If you mean two different numbers for different ramps to opposite directions on the same road (a la 19 and 20 for CT 8 from I-84), that practice was ended quite some time ago. Remaining examples are relics that have never been modified.

If you mean sequential exit numbering in general, yes, ConnDOT has acknowledged they will need to do away with it for the sake of MUTCD compliance. For now, however, they have only converted I-395, SR 695, and CT 2A since all the signs on these roads were being changed in one swoop. Resigning projects on other roads are for the time being only being designed to accommodate a future changeover by leaving enough space in the exit tabs for the new numbers. Presumably ConnDOT will at some point in the future go and change these roads over once all the necessary provisions are in place and the funding to deploy a bunch of greenouts materializes.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: OracleUsr on July 19, 2016, 07:30:30 AM
Yeah, I knew they were abandoning the sequential numbering in general, but I didn't know about lettering actual ramps being done away with some time ago (and, yes, that is what I am referring to).  It doesn't make sense, especially since they're going to distance numbering, to keep that practice up anyway, so I'm glad they're not doing that any more
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on July 19, 2016, 04:23:57 PM
Looks like CT is split, sometimes giving letter designations, sometimes assigning separate numbers.. I think the letters is the way to go, but back when CT 15 got exit numbers, there really was no system to go on.  So here's a brief list: 

I-84 interchange with CT 8, Exits 19 & 20
I-95 cloverleaf interchange with US 1, Exits 39 A&B
I-395 interchange with CT 2/32, Exits 13A-B (former Exits 81E-W)
I-395 interchange with US 6, Exits 37 (NB), Exits 37A-B (SB) (former Exits 91/91E-W)
I-691 interchange with I-84, Exits 1 & 2
I-691 interchange with I-91, Exits 10 & 11
CT 2 interchange with I-395, Exits 28N-S (EB), Exit 28 (WB)
CT 8 interchange with I-84, Exits 31 & 32
CT 9 interchange with I-91, Exits 20N-S
CT 9 interchange with I-84, Exits 31 & 32
CT 15 interchange with US 7 (new), Exits 39A-B (NB only)
CT 15 cloverleaf with US 7 (old), Exits 40A-B (originally signed as Exits 39 & 40, before new US 7 was built)
CT 15 cloverleaf with CT 34, Exits 57 & 58
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on July 19, 2016, 09:34:12 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on July 19, 2016, 04:23:57 PM
CT 15 interchange with US 7 (new), Exits 39A-B (NB only)
CT 15 cloverleaf with US 7 (old), Exits 40A-B (originally signed as Exits 39 & 40, before new US 7 was built)
CT 15 cloverleaf with CT 34, Exits 57 & 58

Worth noting that at one point every interchange on the Merritt/Wilbur Cross with two exit ramps had two numbers.
- 39 & 40 were used for what was then US 7 (now SR 719), as you mention. When the new US 7 was built those ramps became 39A-B while SR 719 became 40A-B.
- 44 & 45 were used at Black Rock Turnpike/CT 58, which once was an 8-ramp interchange. It is now only 4 ramps and signed as exit 44. There is no exit 45 anymore.
- 48 & 49 were used at what was then CT 25 (not CT 111), back when this interchange was a (really tight, really substandard) cloverleaf. The construction of the CT 25 expressway resulted in the number 49 being moved over there, the exit with old CT 25 was converted to a traditional diamond before being subsequently converted to the SPUI it is today.
- 52 & 53 were used for what was then CT 8 (now CT 110). The CT 8 expressway stole the number 52 away from that interchange, which was subsequently converted from a 7-ramp parclo with two NB exits to a 5-ramp parclo with neither direction having two exits.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on July 19, 2016, 09:53:53 PM
One more,

15/WCP SB:
Whitney Ave NB    Exit 62
Whitney Ave SB    Exit 61

Northbound, Exit 61 is a single ramp for both directions of Whitney Ave, while Exit 62 is a mile away for Dixwell Ave.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on August 03, 2016, 11:00:18 AM
Despite living only about 7 miles away in New Britain, I was finally on the newer boulevard section of CT Route 72 in Bristol on August 2nd. Although it looked unsigned, I wonder about what was Route 72 in the Forestville section of Bristol. I'm guessing the state still maintains that road as a "secret route"?   :hmmm:

At the end of the CT Route 72 expressway, near the Plainville/Bristol city line. Turn left for CT Route 372 East. Turn right for the old Route 72 west. Straight ahead is the newer boulevard section.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fp8kQNoE.jpg&hash=f37e1384194c8fefa1a4a60f330e7630714f67b5)

A pedestrian footbridge which carries the now-severed Forest Street over the roadway.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FvR6KHIX.jpg&hash=edbdb92dda615f75659a3ae9df4d3a3d46ac6830)

https://goo.gl/maps/wMhTPK8MPZS2 (Google Maps satellite view, showing severed Forest Street.)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: The Ghostbuster on August 03, 2016, 05:49:00 PM
Has the boulevard reduced congestion on the surrounding pre-existing streets and roads?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: DrSmith on August 03, 2016, 09:38:56 PM
Also I-84 East exits to I-91 North and South as Exits 51 & 52 respectively
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on August 03, 2016, 11:16:38 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on August 03, 2016, 11:00:18 AM
Despite living only about 7 miles away in New Britain, I was finally on the newer boulevard section of CT Route 72 in Bristol on August 2nd. Although it looked unsigned, I wonder about what was Route 72 in the Forestville section of Bristol. I'm guessing the state still maintains that road as a "secret route"?   :hmmm:

It was SR 500A (really; no relation to SR 500) for about 1-2 years, but is now locally maintained
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on August 03, 2016, 11:18:31 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 03, 2016, 05:49:00 PM
Has the boulevard reduced congestion on the surrounding pre-existing streets and roads?
Oh definitely. They're still busy, but it's now normal town traffic.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 12, 2016, 09:59:02 PM
Just past the Westbrook rest area on I-95 NB between Exits 65 & 66.  It is now closed (potentially permanently), blocked off with barrels and barricades.  Signage still remains but the distances are covered with an orange CLOSED placard.  The break in the shoulder line has been eradicated, with the small lane markings replaced with a solid white line. 

To be honest, the facility isn't a huge loss.  There was next to no truck parking, limited car parking, and earlier this summer the state closed the welcome center portion, leaving just restrooms and vending.  Plans published several years ago to widen I-95 through the area showed the facility being eliminated anyway.  Space constraints limit any future expansion, as the Westbrook outlets abut right up against the side opposite I-95.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on August 15, 2016, 04:43:48 PM
I read an article of truck parking or lack thereof in the northeast recently and wondered were any truck parking spots added with the rest area rehabs along I-95 or did they just rearrange everything?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: cl94 on August 15, 2016, 04:49:12 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on August 15, 2016, 04:43:48 PM
I read an article of truck parking or lack thereof in the northeast recently and wondered were any truck parking spots added with the rest area rehabs along I-95 or did they just rearrange everything?

The lack of truck parking in the region is my main research topic. I'll likely be presenting a paper at TRB on it.

I doubt that any truck spots were added. If any were, it couldn't have been more than one or two. Likely wasn't enough room.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: 64CatalinaVentura on August 15, 2016, 05:23:31 PM
I-95 south will have a minor realignment this Sunday at the West River bridge (West Haven/New Haven line) as traffic is moved over to a new bridge. http://www.nhregister.com/general-news/20160814/divide-on-i-95-southbound-in-new-haven-to-be-gone-by-sunday

Also interesting is if one follows the link to the DOT site, there have been recent changes proposed to the surface streets surrounding the bridge. For those who are not familiar with the project, exit 44 was eliminated and a new bridge was built to replace the original span. This caused a major realignment of surface streets in the area (Kimberly Avenue, Sea Street, Ella T. Grasso Blvd, etc). Among the proposed changes is a rotary on Sea St. http://www.i95westriver.com/Images/Sea%20Street%20Graphic_15-1106.pdf
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on August 15, 2016, 06:41:37 PM
Quote from: 64CatalinaVentura on August 15, 2016, 05:23:31 PM
I-95 south will have a minor realignment this Sunday at the West River bridge (West Haven/New Haven line) as traffic is moved over to a new bridge. http://www.nhregister.com/general-news/20160814/divide-on-i-95-southbound-in-new-haven-to-be-gone-by-sunday

Also interesting is if one follows the link to the DOT site, there have been recent changes proposed to the surface streets surrounding the bridge. For those who are not familiar with the project, exit 44 was eliminated and a new bridge was built to replace the original span. This caused a major realignment of surface streets in the area (Kimberly Avenue, Sea Street, Ella T. Grasso Blvd, etc). Among the proposed changes is a rotary on Sea St. http://www.i95westriver.com/Images/Sea%20Street%20Graphic_15-1106.pdf

I'm still not a fan of the side street portion.  I still think there's enough room to leave some of the formerly free flow movements that once were before the project.  I don't see why they took out the I-95 SB to Ella Grasso Boulevard NB free movement out.  Now, you have to come to a stop and make a right hand turn rather than just merging on.  The same goes for Blvd SB to I-95 SB. 

The old ramp is still there in Google maps: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Sea+St,+New+Haven,+CT+06519/@41.2838012,-72.9357093,586m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x89e7d8694fcf54c7:0xab4665a96b846077!8m2!3d41.282559!4d-72.9313377

The whole set up takes longer with the added lights to get from I-95 SB to Kimberly Ave SB.  I could see other states leaving in some free flow movements and putting in some channelized right turns etc.  but this is CT and they don't plan that way I guess.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on August 15, 2016, 06:59:47 PM
Quote from: cl94 on August 15, 2016, 04:49:12 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on August 15, 2016, 04:43:48 PM
I read an article of truck parking or lack thereof in the northeast recently and wondered were any truck parking spots added with the rest area rehabs along I-95 or did they just rearrange everything?

The lack of truck parking in the region is my main research topic. I'll likely be presenting a paper at TRB on it.

I doubt that any truck spots were added. If any were, it couldn't have been more than one or two. Likely wasn't enough room.

http://patch.com/connecticut/montville-ct/bp--truck-parking-shortage-will-continue-to-plague-ea0472cb2eca

I found this and didn't realize I-95 western CT added that many more trucking spots.  The Milford Plazas exceed demand at this point.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 15, 2016, 09:38:46 PM
One of the service plaza proposals was to convert many to over-the-highway facilities.  If that happened, a big increase in parking (truck and car) could have happened.  A month ago, I tried going to the Darien-NB service plaza but had to leave as the parking lot was filled - not a spot to be found. 

The Westbrook rest area which closed had no designated truck parking and about 10 spots for cars.  Trucks just parked along the ramps. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Beeper1 on August 15, 2016, 10:54:16 PM
The Westbrook rest area always seemed redundant.  Was it original to the turnpike when it first opened in the 1950s? 

Was the area on the SB side there, now a State Police facility, ever a "twin" rest area to this one?

It just seems weird to have had such a small rest area less than 10 miles after the Madison Service Plaza, which could have easily (and still could) contained an info desk. 

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on August 16, 2016, 12:51:00 AM
Quote from: Beeper1 on August 15, 2016, 10:54:16 PM
The Westbrook rest area always seemed redundant.  Was it original to the turnpike when it first opened in the 1950s? 

Was the area on the SB side there, now a State Police facility, ever a "twin" rest area to this one?

Historic Aerials shows a parking area with no structures on both sides of the highway at this location in 1957. In 1970, the state police facility has been built on the SB side and the NB side is still just a parking area. In 1991, the current structure is in place on the NB side.

This article says the rest area was built in 1988 (http://patch.com/connecticut/montville-ct/new-service-plazas-should-be-built-on-i95-east-of-madison), which jives with these observations.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on August 16, 2016, 03:59:06 PM
CTDOT Selects Firm to Recommend Options for I-84 Waterbury ‘Mixmaster’



                The Connecticut Department of Transportation has selected a design and engineering team led by HNTB Corporation to study and recommend options for replacing the Route 8 / I-84 interchange in Waterbury, popularly known as the “Mixmaster.”

                The complexities of the 50-year-old elevated, double-decked high-speed interchange, with left- and right-hand entrance and exit ramps over city streets and the Naugatuck River, make it unique in Connecticut. An estimated 150,000 vehicles travel through the interchange on an average day – triple the amount of traffic it first carried when it was constructed.

                “We have asked HNTB to take a fresh look at all options and to take fully into account how the interchange fits into the urban fabric of the city,” said CTDOT Commissioner James P. Redeker. “We want them to balance the requirements for improved traffic flow over the new structures, as well as look for enhanced economic development opportunities and a design that will be context sensitive and complement the urban landscape of our fifth-largest city.”

                “We are pleased the Department of Transportation selected HNTB as its partner for this vital project,” said Carrie Rocha, HNTB’s project manager.  “We look forward to working together with all stakeholders as we develop solutions that contribute to the improved safety and mobility of travelers through the region.”

                Construction on the I-84 Mixmaster began in 1965 and was completed in 1967. Under Governor Dannel P. Malloy’s 30-year, $100 billion “Let's Go CT” transportation initiative, preliminary replacement cost estimates for the Mixmaster range from approximately $3 billion for a partial replacement to $7 billion for a full replacement.  However, updates to these cost estimates will be re-evaluated by HNTB, taking into account all updates to the City’s and the State’s economic development plans.  The HNTB conceptual engineering study and preliminary design development will be a multi-year effort with public participation throughout the study.  Final design and construction would begin after that.

                  A new interchange will take several years to build and would support an estimated 5,000 to 11,000 construction jobs. The long-term impact of the Mixmaster replacement on jobs will be substantial.  For every year following the opening of the new interchange, the improved transportation efficiency and lower travel and shipping costs will save households time and money, and create a competitive advantage for the region’s businesses.  These transportation cost savings will support the creation of 2,000 – 3,000 jobs over the life of the new facility.

                HNTB is a 100-year-old design, engineering and construction management firm, headquartered in Kansas City, Missouri, with offices in Connecticut. HNTB will be supported in this effort by a multidisciplinary team of major sub-consultants, all with offices in Connecticut:  AECOM Technical Services and BL Companies Connecticut.



This is what I don't get, this was done 6-10 years ago in 2010. 
http://nvcogct.org/sites/default/files/COGCNV-I-84-Rt-8-Interchange-Needs-Study-Summary.pdf
I even went to one of the public hearings and submitted comments. So, now they're doing the same thing over again?!  It seems like a waste to me.  You study, do nothing and then you study the same thing again.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on August 16, 2016, 04:36:32 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on August 16, 2016, 03:59:06 PM
This is what I don't get, this was done 10 years ago in 2007.  I even went to one of the public hearings and submitted comments. So, now they're doing the same thing over again?!  It seems like a waste to me.  You study, do nothing and then you study the same thing again.

Because it's par for the course for any transportation project in CT.  How many times has the CT 11 extension been studied?  How many times have there been studies to extend I-384?  If and when they ever get built, we won't need them because we'll all de driving flying cars.  Seems the only things that get fast-tracked are things that are not needed like the Hartford-New Britain busway.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on August 17, 2016, 02:26:00 PM
I noticed they are close to opening a new ramp for the CT-8 Expressway.  The first new ramp in about 30 years.  A new on-ramp for CT-8 NB in Ansonia.  I hope to get some pics this weekend when there are no workers present.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on August 17, 2016, 10:55:12 PM
The trouble with studies is they have a short shelf life. A study published six years ago is well past its expiration date - six years is enough time that some significant changes will inevitably have occurred which impact the cost, benefit, and feasibility of various alternatives.

This means the state needs to redo the study before they can actually proceed with the project. And, once the study is done, the state will have a couple years to pull the trigger on moving forward to actual design before the new study expires and it needs to be redone again if any action is to be taken.


The failing here is not that the study is pointlessly being redone (it isn't). The failing is that the state took the first study and sat on it rather than moving forward to the next step.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Rothman on August 19, 2016, 02:10:53 PM
Quote from: cl94 on August 15, 2016, 04:49:12 PM

The lack of truck parking in the region is my main research topic. I'll likely be presenting a paper at TRB on it.


A common refrain at NYSDOT is that it is expected that the private sector will provide the parking at truck stops and the like if there is demand.

(personal opinion expressed)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on August 19, 2016, 11:31:05 PM
Quote from: Rothman on August 19, 2016, 02:10:53 PM
A common refrain at NYSDOT is that it is expected that the private sector will provide the parking at truck stops and the like if there is demand.

And the private sector will... if zoning boards allow it to. Problem is that people in some communities don't want trucks parked anywhere near them, on private or public land. Enough people say "go park elsewhere" and trucks start to run out of elsewheres to park.

In New England you especially have the problem that the concept of a truck stop doesn't really mesh well with the regional character, which results in community opposition on aesthetic grounds.

There's a saying that everything is bigger in Texas, the counterpart to that is that everything is smaller in New England.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: mariethefoxy on August 20, 2016, 12:58:58 AM
if they made a truck stop with a Dunkin and a CVS built in, itll match the regional character quite well lol
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on August 20, 2016, 07:43:50 PM
A recent acquisition:
(https://c5.staticflickr.com/9/8817/29081069316_e5fff72d29_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/LiN5JQ)Wooden US-44 sign. (https://flic.kr/p/LiN5JQ)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on August 20, 2016, 08:28:02 PM


You can watch the replacement of a bridge on the CT-8/CT-25 expressway.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on August 21, 2016, 01:10:58 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on August 20, 2016, 08:28:02 PM
You can watch the replacement of a bridge on the CT-8/CT-25 expressway.

Here's where the video's chord progression came from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aENX1Sf3fgQ :)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: 64CatalinaVentura on August 21, 2016, 04:38:46 PM
A couple quick updates:

Just drove over the new south bound West River span between New Haven and West Haven. The span was opened this weekend for the first time, eliminating the confusing split that was there for months while the lanes were being shifted. It is hard to tell how this will work out on a Sunday afternoon for rush hour traffic....tomorrow will be interesting.

All lanes are now open on the Quinnipiac River (Pearl Harbor) bridge in New Haven. Traffic flow has been much better over the bridge for the last few weeks since it opened. The slow down is now at Exit 46 due to the West River bridge work.

The Ansonia exit on Route 8 is almost done. Should be open soon!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 21, 2016, 06:12:26 PM
While the southbound "Q" has all of its lanes open, the northbound section is still 3 lanes, or at least it was last week.  This includes 2 lanes at the I-91/I-95 split, expanding to 3 lanes at the merge from I-91 North.  On the span itself, the northbound lanes have been shifted to where the old southbound lanes were located during the time the southbound bridge was being constructed.  I can't imagine it won't be too long before all 5 lanes are open northbound.  I'll update again in early September.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 31, 2016, 11:42:40 AM
Contract plans now on the ConnDOT web site for the replacement of signs on I-95 from vic. Exit 85 to Exit 93 in southeastern Connecticut.  After browsing the plans, here's a synopsis:

1.  Project begins at the eastern approach to the Gold Star bridge.  Only signs for Exit 85 replaced include the offramp overhead.
2.  Project will also replace signs along CT 349 and CT 184 in the area of I-95
3.  Exit numbers stay status-quo on the new signs on I-95, however exit numbers are added to CT 184 and CT 349.  CT 349 gets mile-based.
4.  No evidence of the new exit tabs supporting 3-digit exit numbers
5.  All overhead supports get replaced, except the recently-replaced Exit 87 monotube bridge, which gets just new signs
6.  Project plans show 4-chord cantilevers, 4-chord trusses, and monotube bridges. 
7.  All pullthroughs are gone, except the one NB at Exit 86
8.  Exit 87 gets changed from "Clarence B. Sharp Highway" to "Groton City"
9.  Exit 88 signs get mounted overhead.  "Noank/Groton Long Point" replace "Downtown Groton" on SB signs
10.  Exit 90 gets changed from "27/Mystic Aquarium/Mystic Seaport" to just "27/Mystic"
11.  Exit 91 gets changed from "234/No Main St/Stonington Borough" to just "234/Stonington"
12.  Blue attraction logo signs to be added to all exits, 86-93
13.  Two mileage distance signs will remain, one for "RI State Line/Providence" and one for "New London/New Haven". 
14.  Enhanced mile markers to be added

Plans are available in a ZIP file, accessible from:  http://www.biznet.ct.gov/scp_search/BidDetail.aspx?CID=40931
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on August 31, 2016, 01:30:42 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on August 31, 2016, 11:42:40 AM
3.  Exit numbers stay status-quo on the new signs on I-95, however exit numbers are added to CT 184 and CT 349.  CT 349 gets mile-based.
What does CT 184 get?

Quote
4.  No evidence of the new exit tabs supporting 3-digit exit numbers
That's awfully shortsighted of them... what are then gonna do when I-95 goes mile-based, replace the signs again?

Quote
11.  Exit 91 gets changed from "234/No Main St/Stonington Borough" to just "234/Stonington"
Perhaps people thought that Stonington didn't have a Main St and then got confused when there was one? ;)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 31, 2016, 02:22:32 PM
Quote from: vdeane on August 31, 2016, 01:30:42 PM
What does CT 184 get?
The CT 12 exit becomes Exit 1.

QuoteThat's awfully shortsighted of them... what are then gonna do when I-95 goes mile-based, replace the signs again?
Perhaps there is mention somewhere in the plans of the tabs being wide enough to support 3 digits, though after a second glance, I didn't see mention of it in the specs or the sign plans themselves.  Guess if worse came to worse, just the tabs could be replaced.  I'd think this would be a perfect time to start converting I-95 to mile-based exits.  It's at the end of the state so even if there was a "disconnect" in exits it wouldn't be too confusing. 

One thing, though that makes me think mileage-based exits won't be coming soon is the wording on the town line signs.  Rather than saying "STONINGTON/NEXT 3 EXITS/TOWN LINE", they chose "STONINGTON/EXITS 90-92/TOWN LINE".  And even North Stonington, with a single exit, will become "NORTH/STONINGTON/EXIT 93/TOWN LINE". 

QuotePerhaps people thought that Stonington didn't have a Main St and then got confused when there was one? ;)
I'm guessing it has something to do with the new MUTCD guidelines that a town and street can't be on the same sign, nor can a highway name be used as a destination.  That's why "Clarence B. Sharp Highway" gets axed.  I'm honestly surprised "US Sub Base" is allowed to stay.  I'm not surprised Mystic Aquarium and Mystic Seaport get thrown off Exit 90 guide signs.

The situation at Exit 91 on the existing signs could be confusing to some, however.  As the wording/layout presently in place implies, one would think CT 234 is North Main St, leading to Stonington Borough.  However, CT 234 is Pequot Trail and runs roughly parallel to I-95 in the area.  North Main St takes you to Stonington Borough.  I think it's a "secret" state route.   
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on August 31, 2016, 03:48:54 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on August 31, 2016, 02:22:32 PM
I'm guessing it has something to do with the new MUTCD guidelines that a town and street can't be on the same sign, nor can a highway name be used as a destination.  That's why "Clarence B. Sharp Highway" gets axed.

I believe the specific prohibition is against a street name sharing a guide sign with a place name or a route shield. You can have a route shield, a place name, or a street name on the sign, but you're only allowed to have two if it's a route shield and a place name.

So, this sort of change follows the same logic as changes made in recent years elsewhere, such as exit 3 going from "Arch St/Gteenwich" to simply "Arch St". Of course "Indian Field Rd/Cos Cob" remains at exit 4 despite the signs being replaced, so they're not being terribly consistent.

"Mystic Aquarium" and "Mystic Seaport" also had to go because putting the names of private businesses on guide signs is prohibited.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on August 31, 2016, 04:24:30 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on August 31, 2016, 03:48:54 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on August 31, 2016, 02:22:32 PM
I'm guessing it has something to do with the new MUTCD guidelines that a town and street can't be on the same sign, nor can a highway name be used as a destination.  That's why "Clarence B. Sharp Highway" gets axed.

I believe the specific prohibition is against a street name sharing a guide sign with a place name or a route shield. You can have a route shield, a place name, or a street name on the sign, but you're only allowed to have two if it's a route shield and a place name.
IIRC, the actual restriction is either:

a. Route shield(s) & destination(s); maximum of 2 listings for the latter.

b. Route shield(s) & street name(s); maximum of 2 listings for the latter (several exits in PA have such).

c. Street name(s); maximum of 2 listings.

Personally, MUTCD's discouragement/prohibition of not listing street names w/destinations on primary signs is a bit anal.  Thus far, recent sign installations in MA have (thankfully, IMHO) ignored such.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: dgolub on August 31, 2016, 07:17:06 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on August 31, 2016, 11:42:40 AM
Contract plans now on the ConnDOT web site for the replacement of signs on I-95 from vic. Exit 85 to Exit 93 in southeastern Connecticut.  After browsing the plans, here's a synopsis:

1.  Project begins at the eastern approach to the Gold Star bridge.  Only signs for Exit 85 replaced include the offramp overhead.
2.  Project will also replace signs along CT 349 and CT 184 in the area of I-95
3.  Exit numbers stay status-quo on the new signs on I-95, however exit numbers are added to CT 184 and CT 349.  CT 349 gets mile-based.
4.  No evidence of the new exit tabs supporting 3-digit exit numbers
5.  All overhead supports get replaced, except the recently-replaced Exit 87 monotube bridge, which gets just new signs
6.  Project plans show 4-chord cantilevers, 4-chord trusses, and monotube bridges. 
7.  All pullthroughs are gone, except the one NB at Exit 86
8.  Exit 87 gets changed from "Clarence B. Sharp Highway" to "Groton City"
9.  Exit 88 signs get mounted overhead.  "Noank/Groton Long Point" replace "Downtown Groton" on SB signs
10.  Exit 90 gets changed from "27/Mystic Aquarium/Mystic Seaport" to just "27/Mystic"
11.  Exit 91 gets changed from "234/No Main St/Stonington Borough" to just "234/Stonington"
12.  Blue attraction logo signs to be added to all exits, 86-93
13.  Two mileage distance signs will remain, one for "RI State Line/Providence" and one for "New London/New Haven". 
14.  Enhanced mile markers to be added

Plans are available in a ZIP file, accessible from:  http://www.biznet.ct.gov/scp_search/BidDetail.aspx?CID=40931

Any idea when it's supposed to actually happen?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 31, 2016, 08:16:00 PM
If I had to guess, now that the project is out to bid, the contract will be awarded in the next few months, and work will most likely take place 2017-2018. 

In other upcoming projects going out to bid this fall, the rehab of the SB Gold Star Bridge (I-95) is coming up on 9/21 (which may or may not include sign replacement over the span), and on 12/6, the next sign replacement project is I-84 - Exits 30-39A.  Originally, the I-84 project was supposed to go up to Exit 52 and go out to bid on the same day as I-95 Exits 85-93.  But ConnDOT pushed it back and shrank that particular project's scope.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on August 31, 2016, 09:03:14 PM
The CT 349 numbers will probably be Exit 3 for US 1 and Exits 4 A-B for I-95 since it officially "begins" at Shennecossett Rd.  My guess is I-95 and I-84 get renumbered when New Haven and Waterbury get cleaned up. 

Wonder how many other unnumbered interchanges get numbered:

The Foxwoods exits on CT 2 (47 and 48)
The CT 20  Bradley Connector exits (28A, 28B, 29, 30, and 31 A/B)
The SR 571 exit for CT 71 (1 or CT 9 Exit 34A),
The exits for US 5 and I-91 on CT 190 (3 and 4 A/B)
The exits on US 6 in Willimantic for CT 32 and CT 195 (90 and 92)
The CT 175 exit on the Berlin Turnpike (76)
The Exits on CT 17 in Middletown and South Glastonbury (22, 35, 36 A/B)
The CT 187/189 exit for Tariffville Rd ((8)
The mutual exits for US 1 and CT 100 (52/1)
The southern termini of I-91, US 7, CT 8/25, CT 9, and CT 40 (0 A/B [C on 40])
The western terminus of I-384 (0 A/B, since Spencer St would be Exit 1)
The eastern termini of I-291 (6 A/B) and CT 72 (20 A/B).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on August 31, 2016, 09:54:23 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on August 31, 2016, 09:03:14 PM
The CT 349 numbers will probably be Exit 3 for US 1 and Exits 4 A-B for I-95 since it officially "begins" at Shennecossett Rd.  My guess is I-95 and I-84 get renumbered when New Haven and Waterbury get cleaned up. 

Wonder how many other unnumbered interchanges get numbered:

The Foxwoods exits on CT 2 (47 and 48)
The CT 20  Bradley Connector exits (28A, 28B, 29, 30, and 31 A/B)
The SR 571 exit for CT 71 (1 or CT 9 Exit 34A),
The exits for US 5 and I-91 on CT 190 (3 and 4 A/B)
The exits on US 6 in Willimantic for CT 32 and CT 195 (90 and 92)
The CT 175 exit on the Berlin Turnpike (76)
The Exits on CT 17 in Middletown and South Glastonbury (22, 35, 36 A/B)
The CT 187/189 exit for Tariffville Rd ((8)
The mutual exits for US 1 and CT 100 (52/1)
The southern termini of I-91, US 7, CT 8/25, CT 9, and CT 40 (0 A/B [C on 40])
The western terminus of I-384 (0 A/B, since Spencer St would be Exit 1)
The eastern termini of I-291 (6 A/B) and CT 72 (20 A/B).
100 and 1 don't have exits...
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 31, 2016, 11:23:36 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on August 31, 2016, 09:03:14 PM
The CT 349 numbers will probably be Exit 3 for US 1 and Exits 4 A-B for I-95 since it officially "begins" at Shennecossett Rd. 

The plans show the US 1 exit becoming Exit 3 and the I-95 South exit becoming Exit 3A.  No number for the I-95 North exit, which is being considered the thru route.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on August 31, 2016, 11:40:44 PM
Quote from: Alps on August 31, 2016, 09:54:23 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on August 31, 2016, 09:03:14 PM
The CT 349 numbers will probably be Exit 3 for US 1 and Exits 4 A-B for I-95 since it officially "begins" at Shennecossett Rd.  My guess is I-95 and I-84 get renumbered when New Haven and Waterbury get cleaned up. 

Wonder how many other unnumbered interchanges get numbered:

The Foxwoods exits on CT 2 (47 and 48)
The CT 20  Bradley Connector exits (28A, 28B, 29, 30, and 31 A/B)
The SR 571 exit for CT 71 (1 or CT 9 Exit 34A),
The exits for US 5 and I-91 on CT 190 (3 and 4 A/B)
The exits on US 6 in Willimantic for CT 32 and CT 195 (90 and 92)
The CT 175 exit on the Berlin Turnpike (76)
The Exits on CT 17 in Middletown and South Glastonbury (22, 35, 36 A/B)
The CT 187/189 exit for Tariffville Rd ((8)
The mutual exits for US 1 and CT 100 (52/1)
The southern termini of I-91, US 7, CT 8/25, CT 9, and CT 40 (0 A/B [C on 40])
The western terminus of I-384 (0 A/B, since Spencer St would be Exit 1)
The eastern termini of I-291 (6 A/B) and CT 72 (20 A/B).
100 and 1 don't have exits...

The southern intersection just south of I-95 Exit 52 is a grade separated intersection.  Probably not, but just a thought.  But if we used that standard, would CT 10's junctions with CT 322 and US 6 would get numbers?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on September 01, 2016, 01:20:21 AM
Approaching the West Rock Tunnel along CT Route 15 South at the Hamden/New Haven, CT town line. The small green sign says "HEROES TUNNEL":
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FQE1KgVo.jpg&hash=80218ec2aae4b1aa35dceb31c9fb6e5becdda2ed)

Saw this atrocity near the baseball stadium in Bridgeport, CT on August 31, 2016. An old, faded and ugly 3DI sign for I-95:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FxTq9rLi.jpg&hash=d763126b0069fb861c0f0ba9e666f47ecdbc4ba6)

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on September 01, 2016, 01:38:50 AM
I remember when the tunnel was first named, ConnDOT misspelled "Heroes" as "Heros".  Maybe in Greece it would fly.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on September 01, 2016, 02:52:06 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on August 31, 2016, 09:03:14 PM
The CT 349 numbers will probably be Exit 3 for US 1 and Exits 4 A-B for I-95 since it officially "begins" at Shennecossett Rd.  My guess is I-95 and I-84 get renumbered when New Haven and Waterbury get cleaned up. 

Wonder how many other unnumbered interchanges get numbered:

The Foxwoods exits on CT 2 (47 and 48)
The CT 20  Bradley Connector exits (28A, 28B, 29, 30, and 31 A/B)
The SR 571 exit for CT 71 (1 or CT 9 Exit 34A),
The exits for US 5 and I-91 on CT 190 (3 and 4 A/B)
The exits on US 6 in Willimantic for CT 32 and CT 195 (90 and 92)
The CT 175 exit on the Berlin Turnpike (76)
The Exits on CT 17 in Middletown and South Glastonbury (22, 35, 36 A/B)
The CT 187/189 exit for Tariffville Rd ((8)
The mutual exits for US 1 and CT 100 (52/1)
The southern termini of I-91, US 7, CT 8/25, CT 9, and CT 40 (0 A/B [C on 40])
The western terminus of I-384 (0 A/B, since Spencer St would be Exit 1)
The eastern termini of I-291 (6 A/B) and CT 72 (20 A/B).

A couple others:
Exit 113 for SR 607 on US 6 in Killingly (an obscure "Super 2" interchange; signing currently almost nothing)
Exit 71 on US 5 for CT 372 (NB only)

And a few grade separations (not really interchanges, but at least one rampish connection is involved):
Exit 53 on US 6 for CT 10
Exit 21 on CT 10 for CT 322... not really, all connections are 2-way
Exit 1 on CT 222 for Naugatuck River industrial area (SB only)
Exit 1 on SR 712 for Canal St (SB only)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: mariethefoxy on September 01, 2016, 03:19:21 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on September 01, 2016, 01:38:50 AM
I remember when the tunnel was first named, ConnDOT misspelled "Heroes" as "Heros".  Maybe in Greece it would fly.

Route 8 in Bridgeport is named after my friend's great uncle
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Rothman on September 01, 2016, 09:46:40 AM
Quote from: mariethefoxy on September 01, 2016, 03:19:21 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on September 01, 2016, 01:38:50 AM
I remember when the tunnel was first named, ConnDOT misspelled "Heroes" as "Heros".  Maybe in Greece it would fly.

Route 8 in Bridgeport is named after my friend's great uncle

Did you call him Uncle Routey?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: AMLNet49 on September 01, 2016, 01:59:23 PM
Quote from: vdeane on August 31, 2016, 01:30:42 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on August 31, 2016, 11:42:40 AM
3.  Exit numbers stay status-quo on the new signs on I-95, however exit numbers are added to CT 184 and CT 349.  CT 349 gets mile-based.
CT 184 and 349 each have only one exit located immediately after each road leaves I-95. So how is it possible for one to have mileage-based numbers and the other to not? And wouldn't they just both be exit 1 (or 0?)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on September 01, 2016, 02:38:09 PM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on September 01, 2016, 01:59:23 PM
Quote from: vdeane on August 31, 2016, 01:30:42 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on August 31, 2016, 11:42:40 AM
3.  Exit numbers stay status-quo on the new signs on I-95, however exit numbers are added to CT 184 and CT 349.  CT 349 gets mile-based.
CT 184 and 349 each have only one exit located immediately after each road leaves I-95. So how is it possible for one to have mileage-based numbers and the other to not? And wouldn't they just both be exit 1 (or 0?)

Really doesn't matter on CT 184.  The exit would be Exit 1 whether you went sequential or mileage based, since it is an east/west route.  CT 349 is officially a north/south route, so its mileposts go up as you go north to I-95, which means US 1 would be Exit 3, not Exit 1, and I-95, if it does get a number, would be Exits 4 A/B.

What could be interesting is the mileage based exits on I-691 and CT 72.  ConnDOT logs both of those routes as north/south, although they are signed (and exits sequentially numbered) east/west.  Mileposts begin in Meriden and New Britain, respectively, and work westward.  CT 67 and CT 31, while they have no exits, are the opposite (signed north/south, logged east/west).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on September 01, 2016, 03:45:24 PM
The thing about I-691 though is that there are no mileposts in place.  The mileage is an internal state log and it indeed begins in Middlefield/Meriden and goes west.  That must date to when the expressway first opened (first to Exit 7, then to Exit 4, then to I-84).  Logic makes me think that when they convert to mile-based exits, ConnDOT will make MP 0 be at I-84.  But I've been wrong before. 

Come to think of it, I think I-395 is the only 3DI in CT with posted mile markers. 

The Bradley Airport Connector should really be a 3DI with MP 0 at I-91 and exits count up from there.  I-191 would work nicely.  I-391 would be acceptable. 

As for the other routes listed above which have random exits here n' there, I wouldn't bother numbering any exits EXCEPT those on the Berlin Turnpike.  Surface roads in CT don't have mile markers posted (the Berlin Tpke doesn't either, but should, to keep it contiguous with the northern expressway section), so in a case like the CT 17 expressway sections in Middletown and Portland, it would seem odd to number those exits.  I have to wonder how much longer the CT 17 expressway in Middletown will have that designation.  If the latest plans for removing the lights on Route 9 in Middletown leave the drawing board, it wouldn't make much sense to have CT 17 jump on CT 9 for such a short distance and then to cut over in 1/4 mile to the left to exit again.  It would seem more logical to have it stay on South Main St to Main St, adding < 2 miles to the state highway system. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on September 01, 2016, 07:59:02 PM
I've heard of a rule that says that 3dis are supposed to have their mileposts and exit numbers start at their parent regardless of direction; an example of this would be I-581.  NY and CT seem content to ignore this.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: cl94 on September 01, 2016, 09:10:24 PM
Quote from: vdeane on September 01, 2016, 07:59:02 PM
I've heard of a rule that says that 3dis are supposed to have their mileposts and exit numbers start at their parent regardless of direction; an example of this would be I-581.  NY and CT seem content to ignore this.

If such a rule does exist, far more states break it than those two. As in almost every state in the Northeast and Midwest.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on September 01, 2016, 09:19:56 PM
Quote from: vdeane on September 01, 2016, 07:59:02 PM
I've heard of a rule that says that 3dis are supposed to have their mileposts and exit numbers start at their parent regardless of direction; an example of this would be I-581.  NY and CT seem content to ignore this.
I've heard of the MUTCD, which provides guidelines for exit numbering.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: cl94 on September 01, 2016, 10:12:20 PM
Quote from: Alps on September 01, 2016, 09:19:56 PM
Quote from: vdeane on September 01, 2016, 07:59:02 PM
I've heard of a rule that says that 3dis are supposed to have their mileposts and exit numbers start at their parent regardless of direction; an example of this would be I-581.  NY and CT seem content to ignore this.
I've heard of the MUTCD, which provides guidelines for exit numbering.

Everything I can find in the MUTCD or on the FHWA website specifies "westernmost or southernmost point".
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on September 01, 2016, 11:54:43 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on September 01, 2016, 03:45:24 PMThe Bradley Airport Connector should really be a 3DI with MP 0 at I-91 and exits count up from there.  I-191 would work nicely.  I-391 would be acceptable. 

...except that I don't believe the connector is Interstate standard.  (There are standards about the length of acceleration lanes, right?)

That aside, I doubt that I-191 would be pursued due to the proximity to CT 191.  If it went I-391, I wonder if that would change the record on closest two interstates with the same number.  Locals would keep calling it "Route 20", however.

Oh...one more unnumbered interchange:  CT401 and Hamilton Road North.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: cl94 on September 02, 2016, 12:11:26 AM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on September 01, 2016, 11:54:43 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on September 01, 2016, 03:45:24 PMThe Bradley Airport Connector should really be a 3DI with MP 0 at I-91 and exits count up from there.  I-191 would work nicely.  I-391 would be acceptable. 

...except that I don't believe the connector is Interstate standard.  (There are standards about the length of acceleration lanes, right?)

That aside, I doubt that I-191 would be pursued due to the proximity to CT 191.  If it went I-391, I wonder if that would change the record on closest two interstates with the same number.  Locals would keep calling it "Route 20", however.


Tapered acceleration lanes are allowed and without doing detailed measurements, those look fine. Bigger issue is WB ramp spacing. That's likely the biggest issue.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on September 02, 2016, 12:44:04 AM
Quote from: cl94 on September 02, 2016, 12:11:26 AMTapered acceleration lanes are allowed and without doing detailed measurements, those look fine. Bigger issue is WB ramp spacing. That's likely the biggest issue.

I'll admit that I'm not certain what acceptable measurements consist of, but my northern residence is very close to the Hamilton Road South interchange.   Getting onto the Connector eastbound involves prayer and gunning of the engine if there is traffic on Route 20, thanks to the tight curve, the change in elevation, and the relative lack of an acceleration lane.

The entrance from Route 75 is normally somewhat better; most passenger vehicles' acceleration rates will permit reaching 50 or so before having to merge (speed limit is 65)....but construction currently complicates the situation.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on September 02, 2016, 01:03:11 AM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on September 01, 2016, 11:54:43 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on September 01, 2016, 03:45:24 PMThe Bradley Airport Connector should really be a 3DI with MP 0 at I-91 and exits count up from there.  I-191 would work nicely.  I-391 would be acceptable. 

...except that I don't believe the connector is Interstate standard.  (There are standards about the length of acceleration lanes, right?)

That aside, I doubt that I-191 would be pursued due to the proximity to CT 191.  If it went I-391, I wonder if that would change the record on closest two interstates with the same number.  Locals would keep calling it "Route 20", however.

Oh...one more unnumbered interchange:  CT401 and Hamilton Road North.

ConnDOT would probably renumber CT 191 if I-191 were used (I-591 would be the another less confusing option).  Easiest way to renumber CT 191 would be to renumber it as an extended CT 192 (which requires a 1.2 mile duplex with CT 190). Exits would be: 0 A/B (I-91 N/S); 1 (Old County Rd); 2 (CT 75): 3A (Hamilton Rd South); 3B (CT 20 West), and 4 (Hamilton Rd N)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on September 02, 2016, 01:18:16 AM
Probably a coincidence in planning and scheduling, but the southeast is rising in roadgeek interest compared to the rest of CT: super 2's, the only super 4, and the first 4 freeways with mile-based exit numbering.

Regarding interstate standards vs. the Bradley Airport Connector: the CT 20 trumpet overpass over SSR 401 seems to have a clearance of about 13 feet 6.0000001 inches. (The roadway opened 55 years ago.) Not sure what the minimum standards are in that respect.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on September 02, 2016, 10:23:01 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on September 01, 2016, 01:20:21 AM
Approaching the West Rock Tunnel along CT Route 15 South at the Hamden/New Haven, CT town line. The small green sign says "HEROES TUNNEL":
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FQE1KgVo.jpg&hash=80218ec2aae4b1aa35dceb31c9fb6e5becdda2ed)

I noticed a while ago that they took down these yellow signs (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.348096,-72.9668577,3a,88.9y,221.29h,83.49t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1seqG69px4N8LViS7tDgpYqw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.348096,-72.9668577,3a,88.9y,221.29h,83.49t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1seqG69px4N8LViS7tDgpYqw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)) at both entrances to the tunnel.  I think the first line started with "Caution" but I'm not sure what the rest said.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on September 03, 2016, 01:06:03 PM
    CAUTION
ICE CONDITIONS
   IN TUNNEL

Saw one uncovered once.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on September 03, 2016, 01:09:31 PM
Our beloved "more overlay than natural" diagrammatic on I-95 NB in New Haven has been replaced:

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8070/28805343984_a9edc013be_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/KTqVcN)IMG_2060 (https://flic.kr/p/KTqVcN) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

But that's not all...

All Exit 48 signage is now permanent... no more orange....

(https://c3.staticflickr.com/8/7696/29395118346_49dfc2cc2e_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/LMxEzh)IMG_2068 (https://flic.kr/p/LMxEzh) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

... and the full compliment of 3 full lanes through the interchange and 5 lanes over the "Q" is open.  Sooooo much nicer!

See link in my sig for photos.   
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on September 03, 2016, 01:17:51 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on September 03, 2016, 01:06:03 PM
    CAUTION
ICE CONDITIONS
   IN TUNNEL

Saw one uncovered once.
Awesome.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on September 04, 2016, 06:25:21 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on September 03, 2016, 01:09:31 PM
Our beloved "more overlay than natural" diagrammatic on I-95 NB in New Haven has been replaced:

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8070/28805343984_a9edc013be_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/KTqVcN)IMG_2060 (https://flic.kr/p/KTqVcN) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

Is the CT-34 ramp two-lanes? 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on September 04, 2016, 06:42:37 PM
For the first time in about 35 years a new ramp for the CT-8 Expressway.

(https://c5.staticflickr.com/9/8177/29171698540_25988768e4_c.jpg)[/url]A new on-ramp for the CT-8 expressway is about to open. Ansonia, CT. (For the first time in about 35 years) (https://flic.kr/p/LrNzDE) by mergingtraffic (https://www.flickr.com/photos/98731835@N05/), on Flickr

(https://c7.staticflickr.com/9/8387/29171712550_a0e94ee55e_c.jpg)

(https://c3.staticflickr.com/9/8886/29351884562_624e505a4f_c.jpg)[/url]A new on-ramp for the CT-8 expressway is about to open. Ansonia, CT. (For the first time in about 35 years) (https://flic.kr/p/LHJ5Fd) by mergingtraffic (https://www.flickr.com/photos/98731835@N05/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on September 04, 2016, 06:47:49 PM
Quote from: Alps on August 31, 2016, 09:54:23 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on August 31, 2016, 09:03:14 PM
The CT 349 numbers will probably be Exit 3 for US 1 and Exits 4 A-B for I-95 since it officially "begins" at Shennecossett Rd.  My guess is I-95 and I-84 get renumbered when New Haven and Waterbury get cleaned up. 

Wonder how many other unnumbered interchanges get numbered:

The Foxwoods exits on CT 2 (47 and 48)
The CT 20  Bradley Connector exits (28A, 28B, 29, 30, and 31 A/B)
The SR 571 exit for CT 71 (1 or CT 9 Exit 34A),
The exits for US 5 and I-91 on CT 190 (3 and 4 A/B)
The exits on US 6 in Willimantic for CT 32 and CT 195 (90 and 92)
The CT 175 exit on the Berlin Turnpike (76)
The Exits on CT 17 in Middletown and South Glastonbury (22, 35, 36 A/B)
The CT 187/189 exit for Tariffville Rd ((8)
The mutual exits for US 1 and CT 100 (52/1)
The southern termini of I-91, US 7, CT 8/25, CT 9, and CT 40 (0 A/B [C on 40])
The western terminus of I-384 (0 A/B, since Spencer St would be Exit 1)
The eastern termini of I-291 (6 A/B) and CT 72 (20 A/B).
100 and 1 don't have exits...

anybody notice the font for some of the exit tab numbers?   and anybody notice the "Welcome to CT ...still revolutionary" sign in the plans?

based on the contract, these signs look like they will remain:

(https://c5.staticflickr.com/8/7327/27556494756_a3d2e23c3d_c.jpg)

(https://c7.staticflickr.com/8/7575/27313856950_11a2dded58_c.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on September 04, 2016, 07:03:29 PM
Each contract for sign replacements in CT seems to be different as to what information is displayed via the ConnDOT web site.  Some projects show each individual sign, existing and proposed.  This one just showed the new signs.  I'd say the above photos on the CT 349 ramp to US 1 will, in fact, be removed, to be replaced by smaller individual shields/town signs, etc. 

The font will most likely be the traditional font used on past sign replacement projects (except the Merritt Pkwy).  The plans take some liberties and aren't exactly a carbon copy of what the signs will look like.  The exact font to be used on the signs most likely isn't shown on the plans.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on September 07, 2016, 10:34:30 AM
I would hope as part of the project the Exit 92 signage pays a little more homage to Route 78 and Westerly for those traveling northbound on I-95, and for casino traffic southbound.   Northbound signage should read: CT 2/CT 49 TO CT 78 Pawcatuck, Westerly RI.  Southbound signage would say CT 2/ CT 49 Ledyard, Voluntown.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on September 24, 2016, 02:30:57 PM
Contract plans for the rehabilitation of the SB Gold Star Bridge on I-95 have been released.  And with it comes the replacement of signs on the bridge itself.  Looks like the new-ish Exit 84 signs will get replaced and Exit 83 will be "simplified".  I isolated the sign plans into an image in my I-95 CT album on FLICKR:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/29816950481/in/album-72157659006078550/

No more references to "Shopping Malls" for Exit 83, and "Hodges Square" gets mentioned on the I-95 mainline BGS for the first time.  No more brown "New London Waterfront Dist" and no more pull-thrus for I-95 SB.  The 3 gantries will be mounted on 4-chord trusses, replacing the existing older truss supports. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: OracleUsr on September 25, 2016, 09:30:39 PM
Wait, did I read that right?  They're using S-N-E lettering for Exit 84?  Um, I thought that wasn't allowed.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on September 25, 2016, 10:24:58 PM
Quote from: OracleUsr on September 25, 2016, 09:30:39 PM
Wait, did I read that right?  They're using S-N-E lettering for Exit 84?  Um, I thought that wasn't allowed.

That'll change when all the exit numbers change to mileage based.  This is laying the foundation for the changeover; the number change is the top coat, and why change them twice?  First they'd change to 84 A-B-C, then most likely to 93 B-C-D (current Exit 83 would be 93A) .  I'm wondering why they are allowed to use US 1 with Frontage Roads (a street name) going where a control city would go; I thought that was a no-no by MUTCD standards.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Beeper1 on September 25, 2016, 11:01:36 PM
Are they intending to change the numbers on 95 to mile-based?  Since they are replacing signs on the bridge and the section of 95 from there east to the RI line, I'd think they would be making the switch as part of that contract the way they did on 395.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on September 25, 2016, 11:51:19 PM
Quote from: Beeper1 on September 25, 2016, 11:01:36 PM
Are they intending to change the numbers on 95 to mile-based?  Since they are replacing signs on the bridge and the section of 95 from there east to the RI line, I'd think they would be making the switch as part of that contract the way they did on 395.

According to the plans Jay posted, no change in exit numbers will take place with this sign replacement project other than CT 349 and CT 184 getting their first set of (mileage based) exit numbers.  It wouldn't be that hard to renumber the exits east of I-395, since there is already a jump in numbers from 76 to 80.  The jump would just be a little bigger from 76 to 89, but they may just wait until any major widening projects on the highway are done before doing the whole thing at once.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on September 26, 2016, 07:17:37 PM
Any widening project on I-95 east of New Haven is still many years off.  I, too, wonder why mileage-based numbers aren't appearing in these projects.  It would make a lot more sense.  And as jp stated, starting the mileage system off at Exit 80/81 would be logical.  Just put up a sign... "Next Exit 89".  Oh wait, there's not a sign there saying "Next Exit 81" or "No Exits 77-79".  That's not a CT thing. 

Regarding Exit 83's new signage of US 1/Frontage Road, I believe its okay to have either a route number and a street OR a route number and a control city, but not both a street and city.  Eventually, Exit 82, currently signed as CT 85/Broad St/Waterford, will have to pick either Broad St or Waterford. 

A question.... is a street name and a village okay?  For instance, Exit 3 on I-95 used to be signed "Arch St/Greenwich".  When signs were replaced a few years ago, it was changed to just "Arch St".  But Exit 2, for "Delavan Ave/Byram" was retained".  So was Exit 4, "Indian Field Road/Cos Cob", with Byram and Cos Cob both being villages of Greenwich. 

One point the Groton-North Stonington resigning project brings up is the addition of "Groton City" / "Downtown Groton" / "Groton Waterfront".  That seems a lot more confusing to me than what currently exists on signage.  "Groton Waterfront" is okay, but "New London Waterfront District" is not? 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on September 28, 2016, 01:29:44 PM
In Colebrook, water levels are low enough to reveal an old Route 8 iron bridge across the Farmington River. Remnants of an old ghost town as well: http://www.courant.com/community/colebrook/hc-marteka-colebrook-river-ghost-town-0911-20160910-story.html

There's also more old pavement along former Route 8 that's accessible by foot.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on September 28, 2016, 04:26:38 PM
Quote from: kurumi on September 28, 2016, 01:29:44 PM
In Colebrook, water levels are low enough to reveal an old Route 8 iron bridge across the Farmington River. Remnants of an old ghost town as well: http://www.courant.com/community/colebrook/hc-marteka-colebrook-river-ghost-town-0911-20160910-story.html

There's also more old pavement along former Route 8 that's accessible by foot.
TIL there is an old alignment of 8 there at all. The northern end is still a road, including the through truss. The southern section surfaces at a couple of places on the west shore of the lake even when full. Looks worthy of checking out anytime.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on October 03, 2016, 11:42:21 AM
New plans for a $10 billion possible toll tunnel through Hartford on I-84 that would run from near Flatbush Avenue (Exit 45) to Roberts Street (Exit 58) in East Hartford and replace the Aetna viaduct.  Notice one of the names working with Congressman Larson: the son of Mr. I-99.

http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-larson-tunnel-i84-20161001-story.html
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: bob7374 on October 03, 2016, 11:51:06 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on October 03, 2016, 11:42:21 AM
New plans for a $10 billion possible toll tunnel through Hartford on I-84 that would run from near Flatbush Avenue (Exit 45) to Roberts Street (Exit 58) in East Hartford and replace the Aetna viaduct.  Notice one of the names working with Congressman Larson: the son of Mr. I-99.

http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-larson-tunnel-i84-20161001-story.html
"In the reverse direction, motorists would enter the [I-84] tunnel near Roberts Street, drive through the Connecticut River, and eventually come out near Flatbush Avenue in Hartford, which is exit 45 on I-84."

Sounds like this route would be a little too damp for me. :-/
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on October 03, 2016, 12:23:47 PM
Quote from: Rep. Larson"I've been to China and to Korea — Korea just in August,'' Larson said. "We look like a Third World country compared to them in what they've invested in their infrastructure, including their airports, their trains, their buses, and their highway system. In China, driving from Beijing out almost to Mongolia, we went through almost 20 different tunnels, where they went through mountains.''
I'm sure projects in those nations go through a lot less red tape & NIMBY BS than such would here.

Do projects built in China or Korea even require EIS' for example?

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: The Ghostbuster on October 03, 2016, 04:08:47 PM
What is the likelihood that an Interstate 84 tunnel might be built? Although, personally, I imagine it may be the only option the locals might approve of. Correct me if I'm wrong, since I've never been to Hartford.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on October 03, 2016, 07:59:11 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 03, 2016, 04:08:47 PM
What is the likelihood that an Interstate 84 tunnel might be built? Although, personally, I imagine it may be the only option the locals might approve of. Correct me if I'm wrong, since I've never been to Hartford.


:bigass: :spin: MY 1000th POST :spin: :bigass:


This would take a lot of urban engineering.  The stretch it bypasses is about a 5 mile stretch of highway, but it's about 3.6 miles miles as the crow flies from the Flatbush Avenue curve to near Roberts St (which is also where the CT 15 expressway merges in from the Charter Oak Bridge. It would also have to pass under places like Trinity College and Hartford Hospital, but the direct line looks like it would pass south of downtown.  The other question is how traffic would access downtown, I-91, and CT 2.  Would there be exits from the tunnel?  Would traffic have to exit onto city streets once again?  Would existing I-84 from East Hartford over the Bulkeley Bridge become a 3DI (I-184?) to provide access to and from I-91 to the north and CT 2 for westbound traffic (obviously, the Charter Oak Bridge will still be used for access to and from I-91 to the south)?  Many questions would have to be answered.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on October 03, 2016, 08:52:43 PM
Wow... interesting idea to be presented, but in all honesty, I can't see it coming to fruition.  Tunneling under a river is one thing, but a whole urban area is another.  Can anyone imagine just how long it would take to construct?  And how much more $$$ would have to be sunk into the present Aetna viaduct to keep it safe while the tunnel is built? 

But let's do a what-if, just for fun:

I-84 East would still need some sort of access into Hartford.  The viaduct could be rebuilt at ground level, perhaps terminating somewhere near Bushnell Park.  The "canyon" (High St to I-91) could be filled in and built up.  From the west side, I-84 could have access to downtown Hartford as it does now, via the Founders Bridge.  The "mixmaster" could be (mostly) removed or significantly reduced.  Take that opportunity to remove the Governor Street ramps, which were, of course, meant for I-284.  The Bulkley Bridge would be retained but created into more of an "urban boulevard", a surface road gateway into Hartford.  Keep US 6 & 44 on this routing. 

The new tunnel would have to have some sort of interchange with I-91, most likely in the South Meadows area.  Otherwise, eastbound would also need an interchange with CT 2, which could also serve access to East Hartford.  Westbound, only the I-91 interchange would be required.  Where the tunnel pops out near Flatbush in Hartford, put in a ramp to present I-84, which would lead to the converted viaduct to ground level, as an alternative to downtown from the west.  Where the tunnel pops out near Roberts St, keep existing I-84 WB in tact up to the mixmaster, with access to Founders Bridge and CT 2 maintained as is. 

If I had to put money on it, I'd wager the grade level/slightly below grade option for the viaduct gets built.  A tunnel would be a good idea in the perfect economy, but the state is already practically broke and this would just add fuel to the fire. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Beeper1 on October 03, 2016, 11:33:28 PM
Smart money says they keep patching the existing viaduct for at least another 20 years before a shovel hits dirt on any sort of replacement.  And that replacement will most likely be some form of sub-standard 6 lane highway along the existing routing. 

It took the state how long just to plan and build the Brookfield bypass?  A project of this magnitude is just not something ConnDOT has the ability (money or certainly politically) to do. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on October 04, 2016, 01:29:31 AM
I think I've posted this before, but it might cost less than $10 billion:
* a second Charter Oak Bridge span
* widen I-691 to 8 lanes
* upgrade 91/691 interchange
* widen I-91 to 10 lanes between 691 and COB
* upgrade 91/15 interchange at COB
* widen CT 15 from COB to present I-84
* move I-84 to 691 and 91 (you all saw this one coming :-)
* old 84 becomes I-584 (Southington to West Hartford) and I-784 (East Hartford to Founders Bridge)
* Aetna Viaduct becomes a boulevard as a lot of thru traffic is moved off it

If the dual tunnel under Hartford gets built as described in our lifetimes, I will host an AARoads roadmeet at a downtown Hartford hotel with open bar. (must be roadgeek to attend... don't drag along all your frat brothers. You'll have to pass an quick exam at the door.)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: SectorZ on October 04, 2016, 07:54:14 AM
Quote from: kurumi on October 04, 2016, 01:29:31 AM
I think I've posted this before, but it might cost less than $10 billion:
* a second Charter Oak Bridge span
* widen I-691 to 8 lanes
* upgrade 91/691 interchange
* widen I-91 to 10 lanes between 691 and COB
* upgrade 91/15 interchange at COB
* widen CT 15 from COB to present I-84
* move I-84 to 691 and 91 (you all saw this one coming :-)
* old 84 becomes I-584 (Southington to West Hartford) and I-784 (East Hartford to Founders Bridge)
* Aetna Viaduct becomes a boulevard as a lot of thru traffic is moved off it

If the dual tunnel under Hartford gets built as described in our lifetimes, I will host an AARoads roadmeet at a downtown Hartford hotel with open bar. (must be roadgeek to attend... don't drag along all your frat brothers. You'll have to pass an quick exam at the door.)

As someone who had grandparents that lived in 'Old Wethersfield' and already had their road bisected by the build of 91 over 50 years ago, I can tell you that there is no way to widen 91 north of exit 26 at all. It's a great idea, but there is no space to do it, at least not without destroying more of those areas. Now, maybe you can do more with 2 and 3 to divert some traffic east of it.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on October 04, 2016, 10:41:15 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on October 04, 2016, 07:54:14 AM
Quote from: kurumi on October 04, 2016, 01:29:31 AM
I think I've posted this before, but it might cost less than $10 billion:
* a second Charter Oak Bridge span
* widen I-691 to 8 lanes
* upgrade 91/691 interchange
* widen I-91 to 10 lanes between 691 and COB
* upgrade 91/15 interchange at COB
* widen CT 15 from COB to present I-84
* move I-84 to 691 and 91 (you all saw this one coming :-)
* old 84 becomes I-584 (Southington to West Hartford) and I-784 (East Hartford to Founders Bridge)
* Aetna Viaduct becomes a boulevard as a lot of thru traffic is moved off it

If the dual tunnel under Hartford gets built as described in our lifetimes, I will host an AARoads roadmeet at a downtown Hartford hotel with open bar. (must be roadgeek to attend... don't drag along all your frat brothers. You'll have to pass an quick exam at the door.)

As someone who had grandparents that lived in 'Old Wethersfield' and already had their road bisected by the build of 91 over 50 years ago, I can tell you that there is no way to widen 91 north of exit 26 at all. It's a great idea, but there is no space to do it, at least not without destroying more of those areas. Now, maybe you can do more with 2 and 3 to divert some traffic east of it.

Yes, it is threading the needle there, especially around Wethersfield Cove. (The Folly Brook nature area, between the Cove and the River, would be very nice without a freeway running through it.)

If we used CT 3, it would make engineering/capacity sense to dust off the I-491 proposal, but then you'd peel the scab off a big controversy in the area circa 1971.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on October 04, 2016, 11:09:19 AM
Quote from: kurumi on October 04, 2016, 01:29:31 AM
I think I've posted this before, but it might cost less than $10 billion:
* a second Charter Oak Bridge span
* widen I-691 to 8 lanes
* upgrade 91/691 interchange
* widen I-91 to 10 lanes between 691 and COB
* upgrade 91/15 interchange at COB
* widen CT 15 from COB to present I-84
* move I-84 to 691 and 91 (you all saw this one coming :-)
* old 84 becomes I-584 (Southington to West Hartford) and I-784 (East Hartford to Founders Bridge)
* Aetna Viaduct becomes a boulevard as a lot of thru traffic is moved off it

If the dual tunnel under Hartford gets built as described in our lifetimes, I will host an AARoads roadmeet at a downtown Hartford hotel with open bar. (must be roadgeek to attend... don't drag along all your frat brothers. You'll have to pass an quick exam at the door.)

Doing that would require a whole host of exit number changes, could be quite hellacious now that we're going over to MP-based numbers.

I've always envisioned a hybrid solution:

*move I-84 in Hartford from New Park Ave. to Asylum Ave. below grade
*relocate I-84 from Asylum Ave. to Exit 57 to a tunnel.  Include full interchange with I-91.
*Restore local access between E. Hartford and Hartford via the Bulkley Bridge.  US 44 goes back to its pre-Interstate alignment in that area. 
*Simplify the CT2 Mixmaster interchange.  Provide more straightforward access to Founders Bridge via old I-84.  Have CT 2 end at Governor's Street (or possibly extend expressway to US 5 at the South Windsor/EH line).  Old I-84/Founder's Bridge becomes I-284.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on October 07, 2016, 11:36:16 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on October 04, 2016, 11:09:19 AM
Quote from: kurumi on October 04, 2016, 01:29:31 AM
I think I've posted this before, but it might cost less than $10 billion:
* a second Charter Oak Bridge span
* widen I-691 to 8 lanes
* upgrade 91/691 interchange
* widen I-91 to 10 lanes between 691 and COB
* upgrade 91/15 interchange at COB
* widen CT 15 from COB to present I-84
* move I-84 to 691 and 91 (you all saw this one coming :-)
* old 84 becomes I-584 (Southington to West Hartford) and I-784 (East Hartford to Founders Bridge)
* Aetna Viaduct becomes a boulevard as a lot of thru traffic is moved off it

If the dual tunnel under Hartford gets built as described in our lifetimes, I will host an AARoads roadmeet at a downtown Hartford hotel with open bar. (must be roadgeek to attend... don't drag along all your frat brothers. You'll have to pass an quick exam at the door.)

Doing that would require a whole host of exit number changes, could be quite hellacious now that we're going over to MP-based numbers.

I've always envisioned a hybrid solution:

*move I-84 in Hartford from New Park Ave. to Asylum Ave. below grade
*relocate I-84 from Asylum Ave. to Exit 57 to a tunnel.  Include full interchange with I-91.
*Restore local access between E. Hartford and Hartford via the Bulkley Bridge.  US 44 goes back to its pre-Interstate alignment in that area. 
*Simplify the CT2 Mixmaster interchange.  Provide more straightforward access to Founders Bridge via old I-84.  Have CT 2 end at Governor's Street (or possibly extend expressway to US 5 at the South Windsor/EH line).  Old I-84/Founder's Bridge becomes I-284.

Another thought...how about rerouting I-84 along Route 72 and Route 9 from New Britain to I-91, then follow I-91 north to the Putnam Bridge and then completing the once-proposed freeway to near the present I-84/I-384/I-291 interchange in East Hartford (or maybe use the Charter Oak Bridge and existing freeway connections); then eliminate the section of I-84 through downtown Hartford and make the remainder of I-84 from New Britain to Hartford an I-x84 spur (I-584, perhaps)?  Would that be a viable alternative that could be more cost effective than doing another "Big Dig" project through Hartford?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on October 18, 2016, 04:50:13 PM
The CT-15/US-7 interchange project is back....hopefully for good this time.

http://www.7-15norwalk.com/

Of course it's a project that should've been finished already and is a poster child for what's wrong with the DOT and planning in this state to begin with.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: The Ghostbuster on October 18, 2016, 05:34:47 PM
I would hold my breath that this project gets constructed this time. It seems like you can't build anything in Connecticut anymore.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Beeper1 on October 18, 2016, 06:10:40 PM
It'll never get built.  The MPC will once again scream bloody murder until the project is killed again.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on October 18, 2016, 07:48:42 PM
http://www.7-15norwalk.com/purpose.php

Quote
Missing connections include:
-Route 7 North to the Merritt Parkway North
-Merritt Parkway South to Route 7 South
-Add other missing connections
So missing connections include "other missing connections".  No shit, Sherlock.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on October 19, 2016, 12:38:51 AM
Quote from: vdeane on October 18, 2016, 07:48:42 PM
http://www.7-15norwalk.com/purpose.php

Quote
Missing connections include:
-Route 7 North to the Merritt Parkway North
-Merritt Parkway South to Route 7 South
-Add other missing connections
So missing connections include "other missing connections".  No shit, Sherlock.

The first two do seem more important, if it gets to building only some of the four missing ramps.

The original 7/15 design (not shown at the site) from the 1950s/60s was a 4-level stack. I've only seen a newspaper rendition (which I can't track down right now).

Remember about 10-15 years ago when CT 11 plans were dusted off and the governor was saying this was a high priority and we totally want to have this completed within 10 years? This interchange proposal has that same feeling. I-84/CT 8 may be revamped before 7/15 is; it's more expensive, but end-of-life issues with the structure may force ConnDOT's hand, as the Aetna viaduct is in Hartford.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: BamaZeus on October 19, 2016, 11:17:11 AM
In the early 80's, I remember reading in the Norwalk Hour that it was estimated that it would take 30 or so years to complete Super 7 to Danbury, if it was completed at all.

I also get the same feeling here, that this will never be finished.  I do kinda like the D2 alternative on that website, in terms of using the available space the best way, while causing the least disturbance to the businesses and homes nearby. 

It just feels to me like if this was ever going to get done, it would be part of the larger Super 7 project and not as a standalone deal, but I could be wrong.  And since I don't see a big push to get Super 7 finished right now, ConnDOT will probably spend the money on more urgent things like 84/8.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on October 19, 2016, 05:05:38 PM
RIP

http://www.theday.com/article/20161018/NWS01/161019218
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: amroad17 on October 19, 2016, 05:21:55 PM
^ The sound of "Taps" being played.

Not ever having lived in Connecticut or never having a need to be in that area, it is a shame that CT 11 could not be completed. Looking at maps, it seemed that would help traffic in the area if it were completed.  It seems odd to have a freeway end before it should.  At least it will give us a conversation piece for a long time.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Beeper1 on October 19, 2016, 06:00:31 PM
Being a consultant for ConnDOT must be a pretty no-pressure.  You know the project you're working on will never be built and you still get to collect millions.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on October 19, 2016, 06:21:08 PM
Quote from: Beeper1 on October 19, 2016, 06:00:31 PM
Being a consultant for ConnDOT must be a pretty no-pressure.  You know the project you're working on will never be built and you still get to collect millions.

Part of the reason why taxes are high, the state is circling the drain, and cities are about to declare bankruptcy.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on October 19, 2016, 06:39:58 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on October 19, 2016, 05:21:55 PM
^ The sound of "Taps" being played.

Not ever having lived in Connecticut or never having a need to be in that area, it is a shame that CT 11 could not be completed. Looking at maps, it seemed that would help traffic in the area if it were completed.  It seems odd to have a freeway end before it should.  At least it will give us a conversation piece for a long time.

Better yet, rip it up... all of CT 11.  Every time I've been on it, I've seen only a handful of cars.  If it gets as bad as they say on CT 85, then routing traffic away from that route would be the way to go.  Just put up signs "New London - 2 EAST to 395 SOUTH".  I guess you could keep CT 11 and overlay "SALEM" over "NEW LONDON", but in this era of GPS, it doesn't matter what the signs say.  If the road's there, the GPS is going to tell you the best way between Hartford and New London is 2-11-82-85.  So just get rid of the damn thing altogether.  And put a new ramp off 2EB to access 85 so there's still Salem access.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on October 20, 2016, 12:28:27 AM
Honestly I'm surprised this proposal stayed active as long as it did, considering that plans to extend I-384  (a similar project that is much more sorely needed) were dropped several years ago. CT 85 between Salem and Waterford is a picnic compared to US 6 between Bolton and Willimantic.

Honestly it is a head scratcher for me where the justification to finish CT 11 as a freeway comes from, although perhaps the corridor would see more traffic if it were completed. Still, if there are safety problems on CT 85, those can be addressed without a freeway bypass, and the existing road can be widened if need be.

Also, what Connecticut should do, but won't because they're Connecticut, is realign things in Salem such that CT 11 defaults directly into CT 85. This way through traffic doesn't need to make two turns.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on October 20, 2016, 11:37:21 AM
The simple solution here would be to de-commission CT 11 and realign CT 85 onto it from Exit 18, CT 2 south to the end of the freeway.  Then old 85 becomes 85A along that stretch.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: zzyzx on October 20, 2016, 12:26:55 PM
With the Route 11 extension no longer being pursued, CTDOT will now focus on improving I-95, specifically from exits 70-82 and between Bridgeport and Stamford.  As mentioned before, they are also looking into improvements for Route 85. Some info from their press release: http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?A=1373&Q=586846 (http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?A=1373&Q=586846)

QuoteThe studies are made possible by recent funding allocations by the state Bond Commission — $1 million for the I-95 West study and $125,000 for I-95 East.

QuoteThe I-95-East effort will begin with an update of a 2004 study outlining the needs and deficiencies of I-95 itself.  Separate investment studies are anticipated for rail and transit programs as additional funding is allocated.

QuoteWhile the entire corridor requires additional capacity, the primary area of need and the focus of the "East"  effort will be the section of I-95 between the Baldwin Bridge in Old Lyme and the Gold Star Bridge in New London, including the I-95 / I-395 interchange

      CTDOT is also committing to addressing safety and traffic issues on Route 85 in Salem, Montville and Waterford in lieu of an earlier proposal to extend Route 11 to the I-95 / I-395 interchange. CTDOT has been unable to get the required federal environmental approvals for a Route 11 extension and has determined the extension project will no longer be pursued. Route 85 is the primary alternative to Route 11, and local officials have repeatedly expressed a strong desire to address the Route 85 issues as soon as possible.

      The I-95 East improvements are needed to better serve residents and businesses in the region, which has an economy distinctly different from much of the rest of the state.  Much of southeastern Connecticut's economy is driven by strong tourism and manufacturing sectors.  Both are dependent on a good highway system that provides easy access for tourists from outside the region, and for trucks that transport much of the materials needed for the industries in the region.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on October 20, 2016, 02:57:02 PM
The Feds shut it down b/c CTDOT couldn't get their act together according to the article.  The Feds waited for responses and got nothing.

I remember since 2005, more studies...2007 a FEIS was done, then a couple years back another study was started around 2012 or so and then the DOT slacks and the studies become outdated. 

I sure hope they fix the I-95/I-395 interchange and make it right hand exits with flyovers.  and if they fix CT-85, the should NOT do what they did with US-7 and CT-66 (making it 4-lanes with no left turn lanes in spots and no median barrier which makes things even more unsafe) 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on October 20, 2016, 03:36:31 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on October 20, 2016, 12:28:27 AM
Also, what Connecticut should do, but won't because they're Connecticut, is realign things in Salem such that CT 11 defaults directly into CT 85. This way through traffic doesn't need to make two turns.

That was actually one of the proposals I saw on maps from the early 1980s.  It showed CT 11 being proposed from south of present terminus at CT 82 a mile or so curving into and ending at CT 85.  If such a situation had been built, it would be similar to the scaled-back US 7-North project that DID get built but as more of a bypass around Brookfield vs its original northern terminus in New Milford.  It makes it look like the expressway doesn't just end, but flows seemlessly into a surface road.  That would work for CT 11 into CT 85.  Thru traffic would bypass Salem Four Corners, but introduce more high speed traffic onto CT 85. 

Here's another idea I had... rather than just rip up all of CT 11, start out by converting it into a "Super 2".  Retain the southbound roadway and throw a jersey barrier down the middle, from CT 82 up to just before Exit 7.  Southbound exits/entrances remain the same.  Northbound, you could eliminate Exit 6 offramp but retain the onramp.  From CT 2, overlay "SALEM" over "NEW LONDON" and put up "Best Route To New London - 2 to 395 South", similar to what was done to discourage Middletown/Meriden traffic from I-91 and CT 9, respectively, from using CT 66.  Then do a study X amount of years down the line to see if traffic has increased on CT 85 or backs up on CT 11 with one lane each way.  If its dead, then consider ripping up all of CT 11.  Retain the exit from CT 2 EB but only to serve Lake Hayward Rd with access to CT 85/354 to Salem. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on October 20, 2016, 06:44:17 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on October 20, 2016, 12:28:27 AM
Honestly I'm surprised this proposal stayed active as long as it did, considering that plans to extend I-384  (a similar project that is much more sorely needed) were dropped several years ago. CT 85 between Salem and Waterford is a picnic compared to US 6 between Bolton and Willimantic.

Honestly it is a head scratcher for me where the justification to finish CT 11 as a freeway comes from, although perhaps the corridor would see more traffic if it were completed. Still, if there are safety problems on CT 85, those can be addressed without a freeway bypass, and the existing road can be widened if need be.
The 11 freeway itself feels like a rare legacy of the Freeway Planning Era that actually got built. It's out there with NJ 60 and NJ 74 as a "nice to have" that was never really needed but had outsized projections of grandeur if it was built.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Beeper1 on October 20, 2016, 07:55:45 PM
Quote from: zzyzx on October 20, 2016, 12:26:55 PM
With the Route 11 extension no longer being pursued, CTDOT will now focus on improving I-95, specifically from exits 70-82 and between Bridgeport and Stamford.  As mentioned before, they are also looking into improvements for Route 85. Some info from their press release: http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?A=1373&Q=586846 (http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?A=1373&Q=586846)

QuoteThe studies are made possible by recent funding allocations by the state Bond Commission – $1 million for the I-95 West study and $125,000 for I-95 East.

QuoteThe I-95-East effort will begin with an update of a 2004 study outlining the needs and deficiencies of I-95 itself.  Separate investment studies are anticipated for rail and transit programs as additional funding is allocated.

QuoteWhile the entire corridor requires additional capacity, the primary area of need and the focus of the “East” effort will be the section of I-95 between the Baldwin Bridge in Old Lyme and the Gold Star Bridge in New London, including the I-95 / I-395 interchange

      CTDOT is also committing to addressing safety and traffic issues on Route 85 in Salem, Montville and Waterford in lieu of an earlier proposal to extend Route 11 to the I-95 / I-395 interchange. CTDOT has been unable to get the required federal environmental approvals for a Route 11 extension and has determined the extension project will no longer be pursued. Route 85 is the primary alternative to Route 11, and local officials have repeatedly expressed a strong desire to address the Route 85 issues as soon as possible.

      The I-95 East improvements are needed to better serve residents and businesses in the region, which has an economy distinctly different from much of the rest of the state.  Much of southeastern Connecticut’s economy is driven by strong tourism and manufacturing sectors.  Both are dependent on a good highway system that provides easy access for tourists from outside the region, and for trucks that transport much of the materials needed for the industries in the region.

Great!  More studies!  And, for budget planning purposes, we had better be ready to submit in 2025 for funds to update the 2017 study of expanding I-95.  The problem isn't a mystery and hasn't done anything but get worse in the last 12 years from the original study.  Sadly, the same can be said for most of the state of CT.

I will say that the new Q bridge looks great, but if the standard for moving a project forward is "Holy crap, the existing bridge is one windy day away from actually falling into the river!", then we aren't being pro-active enough.   
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on October 20, 2016, 09:17:34 PM
It doesn't take an engineer or yet another study to develop a solution to I-95 between Exits 70-82... add a freakin' lane and make some interchange improvements.  Start small if you want... for Exits 71-72, I'd close Exit 71 and extend the Rocky Neck Connector to the north/west to meet Four Mile River Rd.  Starting small, rebuild at least a half mile of I-95 on either side of the connector.  Or starting even smaller, close the Exit 75 onramp from US 1 to I-95 North during peak hours to eliminate cross-traffic. 

Alas, ConnDOT couldn't even get the median replacement in the area done right.  Why they didn't just pave the entire median and install a "jersey barrier" down the middle is beyond me.  Instead, they left the grass and have the barrier zig zag its way... sometimes hugging the northbound left shoulder, sometimes the southbound left shoulder.  It should've been done like it is west of the Connecticut River... right down the middle.  Now we'll see what they do to the last grass median area in East Norwalk when that project begins in the near future.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Beeper1 on October 20, 2016, 10:08:36 PM
Just close the Exit 75 NB onramp altogether.   Traffic from Route 1 to I-95 has plenty of other nearby options for getting on 95.  The ramps at Exits 74, 80, and 81 are all close by.  To get on I-395, just direct US-1 traffic to the Exit 74 onramp (or savvy locals can go up to I-395 Exit 2 via Oil Mill Rd.

I agree with eliminating Exit 71.  Exit 73 (Society Rd) also seems like it could be eliminated.  Or at least it could be improved, those ramps seem sub-standard.   
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: southshore720 on October 21, 2016, 03:15:11 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on October 20, 2016, 03:36:31 PM
That was actually one of the proposals I saw on maps from the early 1980s.  It showed CT 11 being proposed from south of present terminus at CT 82 a mile or so curving into and ending at CT 85.  If such a situation had been built, it would be similar to the scaled-back US 7-North project that DID get built but as more of a bypass around Brookfield vs its original northern terminus in New Milford.  It makes it look like the expressway doesn't just end, but flows seemlessly into a surface road.  That would work for CT 11 into CT 85.  Thru traffic would bypass Salem Four Corners, but introduce more high speed traffic onto CT 85.

This is a really good and feasible alternative.  Why didn't they consider this?  I think CT 11 deserves to have a logical end.  I refuse to give up hope, even though I know that this project is 99% hopeless.  I'll hang onto that 1%!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on October 21, 2016, 03:59:35 PM
Quote from: Beeper1 on October 20, 2016, 10:08:36 PM
I agree with eliminating Exit 71.  Exit 73 (Society Rd) also seems like it could be eliminated.  Or at least it could be improved, those ramps seem sub-standard.   

Speaking of which, I just observed an hour ago, the new Society Road overpass at Exit 73 is now open to traffic and its abutments are set way back, proabably far enough to accommodate at least one additional lane in each direction.  Too bad they weren't that forward-thinking with other recent bridge replacements on I-95 in Old Lyme and East Lyme.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: zzyzx on October 21, 2016, 04:30:31 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on October 21, 2016, 03:59:35 PM
Quote from: Beeper1 on October 20, 2016, 10:08:36 PM
I agree with eliminating Exit 71.  Exit 73 (Society Rd) also seems like it could be eliminated.  Or at least it could be improved, those ramps seem sub-standard.   

Speaking of which, I just observed an hour ago, the new Society Road overpass at Exit 73 is now open to traffic and its abutments are set way back, proabably far enough to accommodate at least one additional lane in each direction.  Too bad they weren't that forward-thinking with other recent bridge replacements on I-95 in Old Lyme and East Lyme.

I travel over Society Rd. frequently. They're still tearing down the old bridge, but the new one opened back in August.  According to CTDOT, the new span is 242 ft.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeCL on November 06, 2016, 01:05:47 AM
I was wondering what's going on in Stamford at exit 8 NB are they trying to widen the road or something?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on November 07, 2016, 02:43:45 PM
Quote from: MikeCL on November 06, 2016, 01:05:47 AM
I was wondering what's going on in Stamford at exit 8 NB are they trying to widen the road or something?

They are fixing/widening the off ramp, it will touch down just past Atlantic Avenue.
http://www.stamfordct.gov/sites/stamfordct/files/pages/2016_06_09_135-326_atlantic_street_phase1_pim.pdf

http://atlanticstreetbridge.com/
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on November 07, 2016, 07:45:44 PM
Oh hey something's happening there.

Atlantic Street south of the train tracks was widened back in 2009 in conjunction with Dock Street being extended to meet it. As things currently stand it awkwardly narrows down from 4 through lanes to 2 to go under the tracks only to widen back to 4 through lanes immediately after. With that bridge replaced the awkward neckdown will go away after being in place for a decade (i.e., it's about time).

The reconfiguration of the offramp is intriguing although it's immediately apparent (to me, as someone who grew up in Stamford) why they're doing it: that ramp, during rush hour, can sometimes back up onto the highway. By making it longer that problem will be alleviated since it will have more queue storage space. This sort of mirrors what was done with the southbound offramp to Elm St (exit 8) back in the late 90s, although that ramp was extended back to diverge from the highway sooner rather than extended forward to not meet the service road until later. This project will force traffic bound for Atlantic St to start using exit 7. But it will also improve access from the train station since left turns off of South State St onto Atlantic St will now be possible.

This project also perhaps explains why South State St was added to the state highway system a couple years ago.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on November 07, 2016, 08:33:37 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on November 07, 2016, 07:45:44 PM
Oh hey something's happening there.

Atlantic Street south of the train tracks was widened back in 2009 in conjunction with Dock Street being extended to meet it. As things currently stand it awkwardly narrows down from 4 through lanes to 2 to go under the tracks only to widen back to 4 through lanes immediately after. With that bridge replaced the awkward neckdown will go away after being in place for a decade (i.e., it's about time).

The reconfiguration of the offramp is intriguing although it's immediately apparent (to me, as someone who grew up in Stamford) why they're doing it: that ramp, during rush hour, can sometimes back up onto the highway. By making it longer that problem will be alleviated since it will have more queue storage space. This sort of mirrors what was done with the southbound offramp to Elm St (exit 8) back in the late 90s, although that ramp was extended back to diverge from the highway sooner rather than extended forward to not meet the service road until later. This project will force traffic bound for Atlantic St to start using exit 7. But it will also improve access from the train station since left turns off of South State St onto Atlantic St will now be possible.

This project also perhaps explains why South State St was added to the state highway system a couple years ago.

I've always wondered about the Exit 8 SB off-ramp, as before reading this post, I suspected and it looked like the original diverge was a bit farther south.

When the 4th aux lane was built instead of having the ramp from US-1/Exit 9 on-ramp dump just before the Exit 8 off-ramp, as it currently stands, the on ramp should've come on after the Exit 8 off ramp diverges.  Like what they are doing with Exit 23 and Exit 25 on I-84 in Waterbury.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on November 10, 2016, 01:36:53 PM
In other news, ConnDOT has issued a press release regarding next year's spot sign replacement project....

http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?A=2135&Q=587522

The majority of the gantries getting replaced are older style trusses. 

What will be interesting is whether they restripe the lanes when they replace the sign at I-95 SB Exit 75, similar to what they're going to do on I-84 EB Exit 11.  The 3rd lane on I-95 presently ends just past Exit 75.  Making the 3rd lane an exit only lane for Exit 75 makes sense.

Still no sign of progress on some of the sites for last year's spot replacement project.  That one was replacing I-84 EB Exit 11 (2 sites), I-91 NB Exit 23 1 mile, I-91 NB Exit 38 1 mile, modifying the left-slip from 84EB to the HOV lane in East Hartford, among other sites. 

And in December, we can look forward to the plans for the replacement of I-84 signage from Exits 30-39A.  I'm guessing several in that area will remain as they are relatively new.  Will more signs be moved to the ground, such as Exit 32 (CT 10/Queen St), Exit 37, 38?  Some old gantries in there, and some really old signs for Exit 31 (CT 229/West St).  Or will everything go back overhead?   Time will tell.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: roadman on November 10, 2016, 02:11:58 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on November 10, 2016, 01:36:53 PM
In other news, ConnDOT has issued a press release regarding next year's spot sign replacement project....

http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?A=2135&Q=587522

The majority of the gantries getting replaced are older style trusses. 

What will be interesting is whether they restripe the lanes when they replace the sign at I-95 SB Exit 75, similar to what they're going to do on I-84 EB Exit 11.  The 3rd lane on I-95 presently ends just past Exit 75.  Making the 3rd lane an exit only lane for Exit 75 makes sense.

Still no sign of progress on some of the sites for last year's spot replacement project.  That one was replacing I-84 EB Exit 11 (2 sites), I-91 NB Exit 23 1 mile, I-91 NB Exit 38 1 mile, modifying the left-slip from 84EB to the HOV lane in East Hartford, among other sites. 

And in December, we can look forward to the plans for the replacement of I-84 signage from Exits 30-39A.  I'm guessing several in that area will remain as they are relatively new.  Will more signs be moved to the ground, such as Exit 32 (CT 10/Queen St), Exit 37, 38?  Some old gantries in there, and some really old signs for Exit 31 (CT 229/West St).  Or will everything go back overhead?   Time will tell.
Announcing a routine maintenance project that isn't even in design yet.  Must be a slow day at the ConnDOT PR office.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on November 10, 2016, 08:30:22 PM
Quote from: roadman on November 10, 2016, 02:11:58 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on November 10, 2016, 01:36:53 PM
In other news, ConnDOT has issued a press release regarding next year's spot sign replacement project....

http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?A=2135&Q=587522

The majority of the gantries getting replaced are older style trusses. 

What will be interesting is whether they restripe the lanes when they replace the sign at I-95 SB Exit 75, similar to what they're going to do on I-84 EB Exit 11.  The 3rd lane on I-95 presently ends just past Exit 75.  Making the 3rd lane an exit only lane for Exit 75 makes sense.

Still no sign of progress on some of the sites for last year's spot replacement project.  That one was replacing I-84 EB Exit 11 (2 sites), I-91 NB Exit 23 1 mile, I-91 NB Exit 38 1 mile, modifying the left-slip from 84EB to the HOV lane in East Hartford, among other sites. 

And in December, we can look forward to the plans for the replacement of I-84 signage from Exits 30-39A.  I'm guessing several in that area will remain as they are relatively new.  Will more signs be moved to the ground, such as Exit 32 (CT 10/Queen St), Exit 37, 38?  Some old gantries in there, and some really old signs for Exit 31 (CT 229/West St).  Or will everything go back overhead?   Time will tell.
Announcing a routine maintenance project that isn't even in design yet.  Must be a slow day at the ConnDOT PR office.

The new gantry on CT-25 at the split with CT-8 has finally gone up.  As of this morning, new signs and old signs were there.  The old ones will probably come down tonight.  The foundations have been there since the summer.  Signs say "25 North Danbury" and an Exit 7 advance sign.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on November 16, 2016, 08:28:04 PM
http://www.theday.com/local/20161116/state-dot-to-conduct-study-of-i-95

Points from the article:
1) Another study?,,,you don't say. 
2) they would like to decrease the footprint of the I-95/I-395 interchange.  Isn't it already small?!?
3) Plans to reduce the CT-32 interchange in New London and make CT-32 more pedestrian friendly. Oh, good let's make traffic even slower.  I don't see TX or VA downgrading roads like this. 
4) Exit 74 revamp.  I don't see projects listed anywhere.  More transparency needed.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Beeper1 on November 16, 2016, 08:35:32 PM
Somewhere in ConnDOT HQ:

"Hey, we should commission a study to determine if we are doing too many studies."

Repeat studies: because actually getting things done is just a hassle.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Beeper1 on November 16, 2016, 08:38:49 PM
Also,  I was on the upper end of CT-8 last weekend, from Winsted to Thomaston.  Work on the sign replacement contract is underway, with footings being excavated for some new BGS bases.   Also some new LGS and auxiliary signs were already in place, including new exit gore signs.

Major thing to note: all the new exit gore signs have the current sequential numbers.  Has CT also ditched it's plans to convert to mile-based numbering on the rest of its highways?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on November 16, 2016, 10:29:03 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on November 16, 2016, 08:28:04 PM
2) they would like to decrease the footprint of the I-95/I-395 interchange.  Isn't it already small?!?
Something may have gotten lost in translation there.

But I will note that reconfiguring the interchange to eliminate the left exit would result in somewhat of a reduction to its footprint. Maybe that's what they meant and The Day latched onto the wrong detail.

Quote3) Plans to reduce the CT-32 interchange in New London and make CT-32 more pedestrian friendly. Oh, good let's make traffic even slower.  I don't see TX or VA downgrading roads like this.

Texas and Virginia have more spare land than Connecticut does. And are more actively expanding their road networks such that if it were TX 32 or VA 32 there would likely be a freeway connecting to that interchange by now or at the very least active plans for one. But Connecticut abandoned any proposal to build a CT 32 freeway decades ago, leaving that large interchange that was built in anticipation of it overpowered for anything it currently connects to or ever will connect to. And taking up a large amount of potentially valuable real estate that I'm sure the city of New London would love to see returned to private owners so they can start
collecting taxes on it again.

I would also imagine that at least some of the bridge structures in that interchange are at the point where they are soon to be in need of a major rehab, and given CT's lack of fiscal solvency downsizing it represents a much needed opportunity to save money both in the near term on construction costs and in the long term on maintenance costs.

This could, perhaps, all be summarized as "why we can't have nice things", but it's reality.

Quote from: Beeper1 on November 16, 2016, 08:38:49 PM
Major thing to note: all the new exit gore signs have the current sequential numbers.  Has CT also ditched it's plans to convert to mile-based numbering on the rest of its highways?

Officially, no, but ConnDOT's interpretation seems to be they are not required to change exit numbers unless replacing every sign on a highway at once. Which means unless FHWA smacks them, don't plan on seeing any mile-based numbers on any freeways of significant length in CT anytime soon. I-395 was a bit of a fluke since despite its length it DID have a comprehensive full-length sign replacement project.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on November 17, 2016, 01:04:59 PM
Wasn't CT 8 supposed to be the next road to convert?
http://www.sheltonherald.com/55801/new-exit-numbers-coming-to-route-8/
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: zzyzx on November 17, 2016, 10:41:06 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on November 16, 2016, 08:28:04 PM
http://www.theday.com/local/20161116/state-dot-to-conduct-study-of-i-95

4) Exit 74 revamp.  I don't see projects listed anywhere.  More transparency needed.

They're building a new Costco / shopping center by Exit 74 in East Lyme.  Supposedly the southbound ramps will be reconfigured to dump traffic on the access road instead of Route 161. The developer put up plans a couple of years ago, but I haven't seen anything official other than the state planning to widen the overpass to 6 lanes over 161 around 2018.

The image I found is a few years old, and doesn't show the widening of 95, but at least you get the idea of the new ramp configuration:

http://imgur.com/a/udtuZ (http://imgur.com/a/udtuZ)


Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on November 18, 2016, 10:13:03 PM
Quote from: vdeane on November 17, 2016, 01:04:59 PM
Wasn't CT 8 supposed to be the next road to convert?
http://www.sheltonherald.com/55801/new-exit-numbers-coming-to-route-8/

That's a 2 year old article. Seeing as the new signs according to the plans do not in fact feature any changed numbers I would say the article's information is outdated.

Also note that the article mentions I-95 changing before route 8 does. No sign of that happening either.



It's probably not helping matters that every state which was using sequential numbers in 2009 still is mostly if not entirely doing so and FHWA has not shown any indication that they're going to set a compliance deadline or play hardball about this. When all of your peers are dragging their heels and getting away with it you have little incentive to not do so as well.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Rothman on November 19, 2016, 12:10:18 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on November 18, 2016, 10:13:03 PM
When all of your peers are dragging their heels and getting away with it you have little incentive to not do so as well.
If FHWA was serious, they could actually provide a fiscal incentive to change the numbering.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: bob7374 on November 19, 2016, 12:59:30 PM
Quote from: Rothman on November 19, 2016, 12:10:18 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on November 18, 2016, 10:13:03 PM
When all of your peers are dragging their heels and getting away with it you have little incentive to not do so as well.
If FHWA was serious, they could actually provide a fiscal incentive to change the numbering.
Well, at least for Massachusetts anyway, the feds were willing to pay for 90% of the cost. Apparently, still not enough motivation to proceed with the planned conversion project.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: wanderer2575 on November 19, 2016, 01:52:03 PM
Quote from: Beeper1 on November 16, 2016, 08:35:32 PM
Somewhere in ConnDOT HQ:

"Hey, we should commission a study to determine if we are doing too many studies."

Repeat studies: because actually getting things done is just a hassle.

"Consulting:  If you're not a part of the solution, there's good money to be made in prolonging the problem."

from Despair.com
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on November 19, 2016, 06:49:38 PM
Did some digging around and snapped pics of....

CT-10 Expressway stub
(https://c6.staticflickr.com/6/5760/31118461285_f62045f0ab_z.jpg)

and what would've been I-291

[url=https://flic.kr/p/PcddT1](https://c7.staticflickr.com/6/5790/30975634222_f4159fa800_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/PpQfoz)The unused and never opened northbound lanes of what would&#x27;ve been I-291. Farmington, CT. Note: you can see the partially used 4-level stack of I-84 in the back. (https://flic.kr/p/PcddT1) by mergingtraffic (https://www.flickr.com/photos/98731835@N05/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Rothman on November 19, 2016, 10:22:43 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on November 19, 2016, 12:59:30 PM
Quote from: Rothman on November 19, 2016, 12:10:18 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on November 18, 2016, 10:13:03 PM
When all of your peers are dragging their heels and getting away with it you have little incentive to not do so as well.
If FHWA was serious, they could actually provide a fiscal incentive to change the numbering.
Well, at least for Massachusetts anyway, the feds were willing to pay for 90% of the cost. Apparently, still not enough motivation to proceed with the planned conversion project.

Given how that project played out, I do wonder if the whole HSIP funding was a charade.

(personal opinion emphasized)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on November 21, 2016, 09:00:11 PM
I'm guessing the picture taken in Farmington, CT was taken from the South Street bridge looking north. It's a short distance west from WestFarms Mall.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on November 22, 2016, 11:04:37 PM
Quote from: Beeper1 on November 16, 2016, 08:38:49 PM
Also,  I was on the upper end of CT-8 last weekend, from Winsted to Thomaston.  Work on the sign replacement contract is underway, with footings being excavated for some new BGS bases.   Also some new LGS and auxiliary signs were already in place, including new exit gore signs.

Major thing to note: all the new exit gore signs have the current sequential numbers.  Has CT also ditched it's plans to convert to mile-based numbering on the rest of its highways?

The issue is that the entire length of Route 8 must be switch to mile-based exit numbers at the same time.  There are actually three contracts to replace highway signs on Route 8.  One from Waterbury to Winsted, which is underway, a second contract from I-95 in Bridgeport to Shelton which I think has been awarded but not started, the third contract covering the section between Shelton and Waterbury, which is schedule to go out to bid in the summer of 2017.  Possibly when all three contracts are finished the state will renumber exits by overlaying the new exit numbers over the old ones and placing "Old Exit XX' placards above the exit tabs for a couple of years, like on I-395.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on November 22, 2016, 11:19:06 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on November 22, 2016, 11:04:37 PM
Quote from: Beeper1 on November 16, 2016, 08:38:49 PM
Also,  I was on the upper end of CT-8 last weekend, from Winsted to Thomaston.  Work on the sign replacement contract is underway, with footings being excavated for some new BGS bases.   Also some new LGS and auxiliary signs were already in place, including new exit gore signs.

Major thing to note: all the new exit gore signs have the current sequential numbers.  Has CT also ditched it's plans to convert to mile-based numbering on the rest of its highways?

The issue is that the entire length of Route 8 must be switch to mile-based exit numbers at the same time.  There are actually three contracts to replace highway signs on Route 8.  One from Waterbury to Winsted, which is underway, a second contract from I-95 in Bridgeport to Shelton which I think has been awarded but not started, the third contract covering the section between Shelton and Waterbury, which is schedule to go out to bid in the summer of 2017.  Possibly when all three contracts are finished the state will renumber exits by overlaying the new exit numbers over the old ones and placing "Old Exit XX' placards above the exit tabs for a couple of years, like on I-395.
No, as long as they start renumbering from the north, they can do it in pieces.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on November 23, 2016, 03:05:53 PM
Quote from: Alps on November 22, 2016, 11:19:06 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on November 22, 2016, 11:04:37 PM
Quote from: Beeper1 on November 16, 2016, 08:38:49 PM
Also,  I was on the upper end of CT-8 last weekend, from Winsted to Thomaston.  Work on the sign replacement contract is underway, with footings being excavated for some new BGS bases.   Also some new LGS and auxiliary signs were already in place, including new exit gore signs.

Major thing to note: all the new exit gore signs have the current sequential numbers.  Has CT also ditched it's plans to convert to mile-based numbering on the rest of its highways?

The issue is that the entire length of Route 8 must be switch to mile-based exit numbers at the same time.  There are actually three contracts to replace highway signs on Route 8.  One from Waterbury to Winsted, which is underway, a second contract from I-95 in Bridgeport to Shelton which I think has been awarded but not started, the third contract covering the section between Shelton and Waterbury, which is schedule to go out to bid in the summer of 2017.  Possibly when all three contracts are finished the state will renumber exits by overlaying the new exit numbers over the old ones and placing "Old Exit XX' placards above the exit tabs for a couple of years, like on I-395.
No, as long as they start renumbering from the north, they can do it in pieces.

I remember reading an article not too long ago (need to find it now) where a ConnDOT employee was interviewed about the upcoming exit conversion, and that individual was quoted in the article stating that the FHWA would not allow the DOT to renumber exits in a piecemeal fashion; the conversion would have to occur over the length of the highway at once. 

As for the new exit signs, where were the located?  If the new signs were around Thomaston, you probably wouldn't see a change in exit numbers between sequential and mileage-based numbering because the original exit numbers, even though sequential, already match the mileposts on the stretch around Thomaston, so the new mile-based numbers wouldn't be different for that section.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on November 23, 2016, 04:32:57 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on November 23, 2016, 03:05:53 PM
I remember reading an article not too long ago (need to find it now) where a ConnDOT employee was interviewed about the upcoming exit conversion, and that individual was quoted in the article stating that the FHWA would not allow the DOT to renumber exits in a piecemeal fashion; the conversion would have to occur over the length of the highway at once. 

If that is indeed the case, we won't see a change of exit numbers on any major road in CT for a while yet.  For CT 8, that would mean waiting for the completion of the current (Thomaston-Winsted) contract, then the Shelton to Waterbury contract (to be released next year), then the Bridgeport-Shelton contract (date tba).  Once those are all done and the new signs up, then CT 8 AND CT 25 can be converted.  As far as I-95, the current contract for signs from Groton to North Stonington, then another contract to take care of Branford-New London, and then that can get converted.  Gold Star Bridge signs are part of the rehab of the bridge. 

Don't expect signs on I-91, CT 2, and CT 9 to be converted anytime soon.  I see no contracts on the horizon for those routes.  I guess each of these routes could get a big contract to do all signs at once, but probably not until 2018 at the earliest.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: southshore720 on November 23, 2016, 05:07:30 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on November 23, 2016, 04:32:57 PM
Don't expect signs on I-91, CT 2, and CT 9 to be converted anytime soon.  I see no contracts on the horizon for those routes.  I guess each of these routes could get a big contract to do all signs at once, but probably not until 2018 at the earliest.
That's too bad.  CT 2 and CT 9 are in dire need of new signage.  Rusted button copy and you cannot read them at night.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on November 23, 2016, 10:03:47 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on November 23, 2016, 04:32:57 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on November 23, 2016, 03:05:53 PM
I remember reading an article not too long ago (need to find it now) where a ConnDOT employee was interviewed about the upcoming exit conversion, and that individual was quoted in the article stating that the FHWA would not allow the DOT to renumber exits in a piecemeal fashion; the conversion would have to occur over the length of the highway at once. 

If that is indeed the case, we won't see a change of exit numbers on any major road in CT for a while yet.  For CT 8, that would mean waiting for the completion of the current (Thomaston-Winsted) contract, then the Shelton to Waterbury contract (to be released next year), then the Bridgeport-Shelton contract (date tba).  Once those are all done and the new signs up, then CT 8 AND CT 25 can be converted.  As far as I-95, the current contract for signs from Groton to North Stonington, then another contract to take care of Branford-New London, and then that can get converted.  Gold Star Bridge signs are part of the rehab of the bridge. 

Don't expect signs on I-91, CT 2, and CT 9 to be converted anytime soon.  I see no contracts on the horizon for those routes.  I guess each of these routes could get a big contract to do all signs at once, but probably not until 2018 at the earliest.

That's why ConnDOT stated it would take up to 20 years to complete the full conversion statewide.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on November 24, 2016, 12:42:43 PM
Quote from: southshore720 on November 23, 2016, 05:07:30 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on November 23, 2016, 04:32:57 PM
Don't expect signs on I-91, CT 2, and CT 9 to be converted anytime soon.  I see no contracts on the horizon for those routes.  I guess each of these routes could get a big contract to do all signs at once, but probably not until 2018 at the earliest.
That's too bad.  CT 2 and CT 9 are in dire need of new signage.  Rusted button copy and you cannot read them at night.

Yeah they are, considering they were installed in the late 1980s, shortly before the extension [direction] west of I-91 opened.  Meanwhile in Mass, they've been through 3 sign iterations since that time. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on November 24, 2016, 03:18:29 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on November 24, 2016, 12:42:43 PM
Quote from: southshore720 on November 23, 2016, 05:07:30 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on November 23, 2016, 04:32:57 PM
Don't expect signs on I-91, CT 2, and CT 9 to be converted anytime soon.  I see no contracts on the horizon for those routes.  I guess each of these routes could get a big contract to do all signs at once, but probably not until 2018 at the earliest.
That's too bad.  CT 2 and CT 9 are in dire need of new signage.  Rusted button copy and you cannot read them at night.

Yeah they are, considering they were installed in the late 1980s, shortly before the extension [direction] west of I-91 opened.  Meanwhile in Mass, they've been through 3 sign iterations since that time. 

Kind of interesting, that CTDOT seemed to be in a rush to implement reflective button copy in the 1980s (some roads that opened in late 70s or early 80s, had new reflective button copy signs installed around 1990, which means the NON-reflective button copy was only up for about 10 years) but today they seem to be taking their time replacing it. 

Basically the whole state was blanketed in reflective button copy around that time.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on November 25, 2016, 09:09:02 PM
Aside from CT 20, 99% of District 1's signage is outdated.  The other 1% being spot improvements on 84 and 91.

District 2's signage is a little bit better.  They just opened up a signing contract for I-95 near the Gold Star Bridge.

All of District 4's surface SRs just underwent sign/shield replacement.  They look great.

Not sure about District Three.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on November 26, 2016, 05:59:53 PM
What defines districts with Connecticut DOT? Our meager 8 counties?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on November 26, 2016, 06:48:15 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on November 26, 2016, 05:59:53 PM
What defines districts with Connecticut DOT? Our meager 8 counties?

No, the districts don't follow county lines - they follow town lines. Remember, counties don't exist as a political division in CT, they are a historical vestige with no modern meaning. The four districts are shown on this map:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FdJ8J5Md.png&hash=e4ea29f07274a8da73789febe96f9a3de169da3b)

As an aside, the unsigned "secret" route numbers are mostly assigned based on district. Numbers in the 500s are in district 1, the 600s in district 2, the 700s in district 3, and the 800s in district 4.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on November 26, 2016, 07:12:14 PM
Thank you for the map! As for the secret routes, it sounds about right. I know the Willow Brook Connector in Berlin, Exit 24 from CT Route 9 North, is secret route 571. It connects to CT Routes 71, 372 and Willow Brook Park (which includes New Britain Stadium).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: dgolub on November 26, 2016, 07:27:00 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on November 26, 2016, 06:48:15 PM
As an aside, the unsigned "secret" route numbers are mostly assigned based on district. Numbers in the 500s are in district 1, the 600s in district 2, the 700s in district 3, and the 800s in district 4.

Ah, that explains a lot.  It was pretty clear that they were based on region but didn't exactly coincide with county lines, but I never knew exactly how they divided things.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on November 26, 2016, 07:35:12 PM
I'm still trying to figure out what this means then:

https://goo.gl/maps/2HyTJ33ZdtP2

It's on the bridge over I-84 West in Danbury, not long after crossing the Bethel/Danbury town line.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: noelbotevera on November 27, 2016, 02:39:18 AM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on November 26, 2016, 07:35:12 PM
I'm still trying to figure out what this means then:

https://goo.gl/maps/2HyTJ33ZdtP2

It's on the bridge over I-84 West in Danbury, not long after crossing the Bethel/Danbury town line.
My guess is that District 4 ran out of numbers in the 800s and had to use spares in the 900s to avoid duplication, unless there are still unused numbers in the 800s.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: dgolub on November 27, 2016, 09:23:11 AM
Quote from: noelbotevera on November 27, 2016, 02:39:18 AM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on November 26, 2016, 07:35:12 PM
I'm still trying to figure out what this means then:

https://goo.gl/maps/2HyTJ33ZdtP2

It's on the bridge over I-84 West in Danbury, not long after crossing the Bethel/Danbury town line.
My guess is that District 4 ran out of numbers in the 800s and had to use spares in the 900s to avoid duplication, unless there are still unused numbers in the 800s.

There are a batch of them scattered throughout the state.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on November 27, 2016, 10:43:15 AM
The 900 series routes are used for extremely short connectors, but are not based on district.  SR 919 is the little piece of the Berlin Turnpike southbound from the point parallel to where 5 and 15 split from the road and the remaining road becomes CT 314 to the point where 5/15 join the Turnpike by Hooters.  SR 918 is the official number for the one-way piece of roadway that most use to continue east on CT 372 at the New Britain/Berlin town line.  SR 911 is the westbound connection from where US 6 west joins I-84 to where the one-way rejoins Newtown Road (which itself is SR 806).

400 series State Service Roads are statewide and usually serve airports or state parks (401 is the number for the stub end of the Bradley connector and Schoepoester Rd. to CT 75).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on December 06, 2016, 03:43:17 PM
Tomorrow, 12/7, ConnDOT bid plans are expected to be posted on their web site for an upcoming I-84 resigning project from Exit 30 to 39A (Southington to Farmington).  Originally the project was to encompass out to Exit 52 IIRC, but has since been scaled back, most likely because any viaduct construction will replace signs through Hartford.  As for between the "Stack" and the viaduct, who knows what'll happen through there with signs, perhaps waiting on other projects to come along. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on December 06, 2016, 03:48:42 PM
Thank goodness.  Getting tired of seeing this lovely setup:

https://goo.gl/maps/pkiWpWGss882

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on December 06, 2016, 05:19:27 PM
Had a feeling that sign was what you were talking about, before I even clicked the link!  If I'd have to guess, I'd say those signs for Exit 32 will all be ground-mounted as part of this project, given ConnDOT's latest overhead reduction plans (see Exits 38-37 in Farmington). 

At the same time, we'll soon mourn the loss of this one, so old it doesn't have a dividing line between the sign and the exit tab:

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6255005,-72.8840094,3a,33.4y,251.38h,87.19t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssGkbG4853iRN0HJsQGpaaA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on December 06, 2016, 05:41:33 PM
Just digging for articles about the US-7/CT-15 interchange project.  I have never seen so much hoopla over an interchange.  It's redic.  This is the poster child for what's wrong in today's society with groups and their interests and perceived realities.

http://www.thehour.com/news/article/Ramping-up-Route-7-Merritt-Parkway-interchange-9517210.php

NORWALK – After years of false starts, the state's overhaul of the Route 7-Merritt Parkway interchange is moving forward with the approval of $4 million for design work.

The money, released by the State Bond Commission on Friday, will pay for the preliminary design of the overhaul.

"We have retained Stantec, an engineering and design firm as the prime designer for this project,"  said Judd Everhart, spokesman for the Connecticut Department of Transportation. "BL Companies will serve as a sub(contractor) to Stantec and do some highway/bridge design and environmental work."

Everhart released a timetable for the project, which he described as "very preliminary."  The schedule anticipates local stakeholder meetings in 2016-17, development and evaluation of design alternatives in 2017-2018, and construction starting in 2022.

"˜Broken promises'

The purpose of the project hasn't changed: create a full-directional interchange between U.S. Route 7 and Route 15, otherwise known as the Merritt Parkway, while maintaining access at Main Avenue to and from the parkway, according to the DOT.

At present, motorists traveling west on the Merritt Parkway cannot exit to either the north- or southbound Route 7 Connector. Motorists driving either north or south on the connector cannot exit to the eastbound parkway.

State Senate Majority Leader Bob Duff, D-Norwalk, has described the situation as a "broken promise"  to residents and businesses, and a frustration and inconvenience for motorists.

He considers the $4 million for design work and the project's inclusion in the five-year ramp-up to Gov. Dannel P. Malloy's 30-year transportation plan as evidence that the interchange reconfiguration will become a reality.

"I made certain this was in the 30-year transportation plan,"  Duff said. "And then because of the fact that we have now diverted some of the sales tax to the transportation fund, it allows this project to move up and get going sooner than it would have been done had we not made that decision."

Once the project goes into design, Duff said, the DOT will put it on the federal government's work schedule. The project will be 80 percent funded by the federal government, he added.

False starts

Overhaul of the Route 7/Merritt Parkway/Main Avenue interchange has been more than a decade in planning and got underway a decade ago albeit not to everyone's liking.

In May 2005, the Merritt Parkway Conservancy and other preservationist groups filed a lawsuit against the Federal Highway Administration and the DOT in an effort to get the state to downsize its original design, which the groups considered too large, too costly and destructive to the parkway.

The following year, U.S. District Court in New Haven found that the Federal Highway Administration had not met its legal "obligation to ensure that all possible planning was done to minimize harm prior to approving the interchange project."

Design work began anew and community consensus was reached in 2009 on design Alternate 21C, which would create the four missing connections and improve the existing connections while minimizing the impact on wetlands and existing bridges. Further, the design wouldn't employ high-flying ramps, according to the DOT.

"Starting the project anew, certainly 21C will be on the table, but we have to do an alternatives analysis under NEPA, so it's possible another alternative would rise to the top,"  Everhart said Wednesday.

Community input

In order to move forward with the new project, the DOT will have to meet the requirements of the Environmental Policy Act and obtain various regulatory approvals. Community outreach also will be part of the process as design work advances.

Jill Smyth, executive director of the Merritt Parkway Conservancy, said the DOT reached out to her organization in July. She described the meeting as a preliminary meet-and-great with Stantec representatives also at the table. The conservancy's priorities remain unchanged, she indicated.

"We certainly want something that's scaled down and keeping within the character of the parkway, and most importantly, to keep those communication lines open so we can see the development of the design,"  Smith said. "It's communication and keeping in mind it needs to be within the character of the parkway and have the least amount of impact."

State Rep. Gail Lavielle, R-Wilton, said Wilton, Redding and Ridgefield residents remain nervous that the interchange overhaul will become "some kind of prelude"  to the creation of Super 7 – the never-realized expressway between Norwalk and Danbury.

"There is no stated connection and provided that the interchange is completed as an isolated project, it should be fine,"  Lavielle said. "It is really too early in the whole transportation program to get either worried or excited about any project."

She described the current interchange configuration as an inconvenience for motorists and lent her support to the overhaul provided the forthcoming design incorporates community input and addresses local concerns.

Finding money to see the project to completion will be the biggest hurdle, according to Lavielle. She said money has been allocated for other transportation project only to be removed.

"I'm very concerned about transportation funding in general,"  Lavielle said. "They can't keep what they've assigned in the transportation budget."


Look at the state rep of Wilton getting so anxious.  My god.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on December 06, 2016, 07:24:56 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on December 06, 2016, 03:43:17 PM
Tomorrow, 12/7, ConnDOT bid plans are expected to be posted on their web site for an upcoming I-84 resigning project from Exit 30 to 39A (Southington to Farmington).  Originally the project was to encompass out to Exit 52 IIRC, but has since been scaled back, most likely because any viaduct construction will replace signs through Hartford.  As for between the "Stack" and the viaduct, who knows what'll happen through there with signs, perhaps waiting on other projects to come along. 

There will be an aux lane project soon between exits 40-42, so maybe that's why they stopped at Exit 39A. 
Kinda interesting, CT DOT was in a rush to blanket the state in reflective button copy but seems to be cold feet to replace it.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Beeper1 on December 06, 2016, 07:43:00 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on December 06, 2016, 05:41:33 PM
Just digging for articles about the US-7/CT-15 interchange project.  I have never seen so much hoopla over an interchange.  It's redic.  This is the poster child for what's wrong in today's society with groups and their interests and perceived realities.

http://www.thehour.com/news/article/Ramping-up-Route-7-Merritt-Parkway-interchange-9517210.php

NORWALK — After years of false starts, the state’s overhaul of the Route 7-Merritt Parkway interchange is moving forward with the approval of $4 million for design work.

The money, released by the State Bond Commission on Friday, will pay for the preliminary design of the overhaul.

“We have retained Stantec, an engineering and design firm as the prime designer for this project,” said Judd Everhart, spokesman for the Connecticut Department of Transportation. “BL Companies will serve as a sub(contractor) to Stantec and do some highway/bridge design and environmental work.”

Everhart released a timetable for the project, which he described as “very preliminary.” The schedule anticipates local stakeholder meetings in 2016-17, development and evaluation of design alternatives in 2017-2018, and construction starting in 2022.

‘Broken promises’

The purpose of the project hasn’t changed: create a full-directional interchange between U.S. Route 7 and Route 15, otherwise known as the Merritt Parkway, while maintaining access at Main Avenue to and from the parkway, according to the DOT.

At present, motorists traveling west on the Merritt Parkway cannot exit to either the north- or southbound Route 7 Connector. Motorists driving either north or south on the connector cannot exit to the eastbound parkway.

State Senate Majority Leader Bob Duff, D-Norwalk, has described the situation as a “broken promise” to residents and businesses, and a frustration and inconvenience for motorists.

He considers the $4 million for design work and the project’s inclusion in the five-year ramp-up to Gov. Dannel P. Malloy’s 30-year transportation plan as evidence that the interchange reconfiguration will become a reality.

“I made certain this was in the 30-year transportation plan,” Duff said. “And then because of the fact that we have now diverted some of the sales tax to the transportation fund, it allows this project to move up and get going sooner than it would have been done had we not made that decision.”

Once the project goes into design, Duff said, the DOT will put it on the federal government’s work schedule. The project will be 80 percent funded by the federal government, he added.

False starts

Overhaul of the Route 7/Merritt Parkway/Main Avenue interchange has been more than a decade in planning and got underway a decade ago albeit not to everyone’s liking.

In May 2005, the Merritt Parkway Conservancy and other preservationist groups filed a lawsuit against the Federal Highway Administration and the DOT in an effort to get the state to downsize its original design, which the groups considered too large, too costly and destructive to the parkway.

The following year, U.S. District Court in New Haven found that the Federal Highway Administration had not met its legal "obligation to ensure that all possible planning was done to minimize harm prior to approving the interchange project."

Design work began anew and community consensus was reached in 2009 on design Alternate 21C, which would create the four missing connections and improve the existing connections while minimizing the impact on wetlands and existing bridges. Further, the design wouldn't employ high-flying ramps, according to the DOT.

“Starting the project anew, certainly 21C will be on the table, but we have to do an alternatives analysis under NEPA, so it’s possible another alternative would rise to the top,” Everhart said Wednesday.

Community input

In order to move forward with the new project, the DOT will have to meet the requirements of the Environmental Policy Act and obtain various regulatory approvals. Community outreach also will be part of the process as design work advances.

Jill Smyth, executive director of the Merritt Parkway Conservancy, said the DOT reached out to her organization in July. She described the meeting as a preliminary meet-and-great with Stantec representatives also at the table. The conservancy’s priorities remain unchanged, she indicated.

“We certainly want something that’s scaled down and keeping within the character of the parkway, and most importantly, to keep those communication lines open so we can see the development of the design,” Smith said. “It’s communication and keeping in mind it needs to be within the character of the parkway and have the least amount of impact.”

State Rep. Gail Lavielle, R-Wilton, said Wilton, Redding and Ridgefield residents remain nervous that the interchange overhaul will become “some kind of prelude” to the creation of Super 7 — the never-realized expressway between Norwalk and Danbury.

“There is no stated connection and provided that the interchange is completed as an isolated project, it should be fine,” Lavielle said. “It is really too early in the whole transportation program to get either worried or excited about any project.”

She described the current interchange configuration as an inconvenience for motorists and lent her support to the overhaul provided the forthcoming design incorporates community input and addresses local concerns.

Finding money to see the project to completion will be the biggest hurdle, according to Lavielle. She said money has been allocated for other transportation project only to be removed.

“I’m very concerned about transportation funding in general,” Lavielle said. “They can’t keep what they’ve assigned in the transportation budget.”


Look at the state rep of Wilton getting so anxious.  My god.

And the Parkway Conservancy goes into full panic mode in 3...2...1...
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on December 07, 2016, 12:05:33 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on December 06, 2016, 05:41:33 PM
Just digging for articles about the US-7/CT-15 interchange project.  I have never seen so much hoopla over an interchange.  It's redic.  This is the poster child for what's wrong in today's society with groups and their interests and perceived realities.

http://www.thehour.com/news/article/Ramping-up-Route-7-Merritt-Parkway-interchange-9517210.php

NORWALK – After years of false starts, the state's overhaul of the Route 7-Merritt Parkway interchange is moving forward

Really? That's good news

Quote
with the approval of $4 million for design work.

Oh

Quote
State Rep. Gail Lavielle, R-Wilton, said Wilton, Redding and Ridgefield residents remain nervous that the interchange overhaul will become "some kind of prelude"  to the creation of Super 7 – the never-realized expressway between Norwalk and Danbury.

Is this her first time living in Connecticut? I know it's 2016, anything can happen, but Wilton is saaaaaafe. (Well, not from bumper to bumper traffic, or the eventual undivided 4-laning of the entire stretch, but at least there won't be a freeway.)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: bob7374 on December 07, 2016, 01:00:11 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on December 06, 2016, 03:43:17 PM
Tomorrow, 12/7, ConnDOT bid plans are expected to be posted on their web site for an upcoming I-84 resigning project from Exit 30 to 39A (Southington to Farmington).  Originally the project was to encompass out to Exit 52 IIRC, but has since been scaled back, most likely because any viaduct construction will replace signs through Hartford.  As for between the "Stack" and the viaduct, who knows what'll happen through there with signs, perhaps waiting on other projects to come along. 
The Project Plans are now online in a zip file at:
http://www.biznet.ct.gov/scp_search/BidDetail.aspx?CID=41626 (http://www.biznet.ct.gov/scp_search/BidDetail.aspx?CID=41626)

The sign plans are in the 03-Traffic PDF file.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on December 07, 2016, 01:16:49 PM
Quite a number of signs along that stretch (Exits 32 & 33 between Exits 33 through 35 in particular) were replaced not all that long ago.  Replacing such again seems like a waste of money.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on December 07, 2016, 02:01:34 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 07, 2016, 01:16:49 PM
Quite a number of signs along that stretch (Exits 32 & 33 in particular) were replaced not all that long ago.  Replacing such again seems like a waste of money.

32 was not replaced.  I drive this stretch all the time. 30 is done.  31 and 32 need replacement.  33-35 are new from when the 84/72/Crooked Street interchange was reconstructed around 2002.  36 needs replacement.  37 is done.  38, 39, and 39A need replacement. 

Interesting in reading the signs that they put Plantsville on a separate sign now rather than on the actual exit sign for Exit 30.  Also, the Exit 31 Eastbound, Exit 33 Westbound,  and Exit 40 signs appear not to be MUTCD compliant as they have a route shield, street name, and control city on them. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on December 07, 2016, 02:32:28 PM
I'm beginning to think that towns vs villages are different as far as the MUTCD is concerned.  That's why the signs for Exit 40, stating New Britain Ave and Corbins Corner are okay.  Look back at the I-95 sign replacement project in Fairfield County.  Exit 3 used to say "Arch St/Greenwich", now just says "Arch St".  Meanwhile, Exit 2 says "Delavan Ave/Byram", with Byram being a section of Greenwich.  Same goes for Exit 4, being allowed to keep "Indian Field Rd/Cos Cob".  Again, Cos Cob being a section of Greenwich.  Perhaps that's okay with the MUTCD.

I was correct in assuming the Exit 32 signs would be moved to ground supports.  As for Exit 31 stating "Bristol" along with West St, perhaps its because you're not in Bristol at that point, you're in Southington. 

Originally, the signs at Exit 30 used to say "Marion Ave/West Main St/Southington".  Southington was removed when I-84 was widened and those signs replaced.  I've never seen "Plantsville" on a BGS on I-84, always just on a secondary sign. 

Also, why is Lake Compounce on its own separate sign?  Too many Attractions to list on the new blue ATTRACTIONS logo sign?  Too important an attraction to combine with others? 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on December 07, 2016, 03:20:09 PM
I like the 3-arrow exit only sign for CT-72 and CT-372 on I-84 WB. 

Also, did you notice the Exit 38 WB "exit now" sign was just replaced recently with only "Bristol" as a control city and now the new sign in the contract says "Farmington Bristol" rather than just "Bristol."  However, the advance signs for Exit 38 says only "Bristol."

Also the Exit 37 1 Mile sign EB was just replaced a couple years ago with a right aligned non-border exit tab (which I like) and that's also being replaced.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on December 07, 2016, 03:37:14 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on December 07, 2016, 02:01:34 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 07, 2016, 01:16:49 PM
Quite a number of signs along that stretch (Exits 32 & 33 between Exits 33 through 35 in particular) were replaced not all that long ago.  Replacing such again seems like a waste of money.
32 was not replaced.  I drive this stretch all the time. 30 is done.  31 and 32 need replacement.  33-35 are new from when the 84/72/Crooked Street interchange was reconstructed around 2002.  36 needs replacement.  37 is done.  38, 39, and 39A need replacement.
My bad, I meant the stretch between the CT 72 interchanges.  I've since corrected my earlier post to reflect such.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on December 07, 2016, 04:55:23 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on December 07, 2016, 02:32:28 PM
I'm beginning to think that towns vs villages are different as far as the MUTCD is concerned.  That's why the signs for Exit 40, stating New Britain Ave and Corbins Corner are okay.  Look back at the I-95 sign replacement project in Fairfield County.  Exit 3 used to say "Arch St/Greenwich", now just says "Arch St".  Meanwhile, Exit 2 says "Delavan Ave/Byram", with Byram being a section of Greenwich.  Same goes for Exit 4, being allowed to keep "Indian Field Rd/Cos Cob".  Again, Cos Cob being a section of Greenwich.  Perhaps that's okay with the MUTCD.

I was correct in assuming the Exit 32 signs would be moved to ground supports.  As for Exit 31 stating "Bristol" along with West St, perhaps its because you're not in Bristol at that point, you're in Southington. 

Originally, the signs at Exit 30 used to say "Marion Ave/West Main St/Southington".  Southington was removed when I-84 was widened and those signs replaced.  I've never seen "Plantsville" on a BGS on I-84, always just on a secondary sign. 

Also, why is Lake Compounce on its own separate sign?  Too many Attractions to list on the new blue ATTRACTIONS logo sign?  Too important an attraction to combine with others?

I'm surprised the ESPN visitors' center wasn't included on the sign.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on December 07, 2016, 06:18:41 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on December 07, 2016, 03:20:09 PM
Also, did you notice the Exit 38 WB "exit now" sign was just replaced recently with only "Bristol" as a control city and now the new sign in the contract says "Farmington Bristol" rather than just "Bristol."  However, the advance signs for Exit 38 says only "Bristol."

Also the Exit 37 1 Mile sign EB was just replaced a couple years ago with a right aligned non-border exit tab (which I like) and that's also being replaced.

Don't see any sign for Exit 38 in the plans saying "Farmington/Bristol".  What I do find interesting is that they're keeping the placement of "4-Farmington" on the WB 1 mile advance for Exit 39.  I can understand why it was aligned that way before, being beneath the stack, mounted to the unused I-291 mainline, but the new sign will get its own support.

Also, there's an annotation for the Exit 37-EB signs, saying they won't be replaced, being done already under a previous contract.  Each of those signs has a "3" in a hexagon, which means "existing sign, support, & foundation to remain". 


June 14, 2017 will be the next big sign contract release date... two projects now listed on that date:  Route 8 from Shelton to I-84 and Route 15 from Greenwich to Milford.  The interesting part of the Route 15 contract is that instead of saying "upgrade signing", it says "Replace Large Sheet Alum. Signs with Extruded Alum. Signs".  Will the Merritt go MUTCD?  Time will tell.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on December 07, 2016, 10:34:25 PM
That would also be the time to consider converting both highways to mileage based exits, since CT 8 would pretty much be done from Bridgeport to Winsted and the Wilbur Cross is pretty much done up to Meriden (except the signs along 5/15 in Hartford need replacing). 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on December 07, 2016, 10:39:57 PM
The current signs were supposed to be extruded aluminum until the Merritt Parkway Conservancy complained that the proposed supports were too big and unsightly. So the state used flat sheet aluminum instead to reduce the weight and be able to use smaller supports.

Also, I have a bit of a mental issue with the fact that those signs, whose initial erection I remember vividly, are somehow coming due for a replacement in a couple years. They're only about 15 years old and while some of them have gotten a little beat up they aren't otherwise suffering from fading or loss of reflectivity.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on December 08, 2016, 12:19:27 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on December 07, 2016, 06:18:41 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on December 07, 2016, 03:20:09 PM
Also, did you notice the Exit 38 WB "exit now" sign was just replaced recently with only "Bristol" as a control city and now the new sign in the contract says "Farmington Bristol" rather than just "Bristol."  However, the advance signs for Exit 38 says only "Bristol."

Also the Exit 37 1 Mile sign EB was just replaced a couple years ago with a right aligned non-border exit tab (which I like) and that's also being replaced.

Don't see any sign for Exit 38 in the plans saying "Farmington/Bristol".  What I do find interesting is that they're keeping the placement of "4-Farmington" on the WB 1 mile advance for Exit 39.

Check out page 340 of project specifications
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on December 08, 2016, 12:22:36 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on December 07, 2016, 10:39:57 PM
The current signs were supposed to be extruded aluminum until the Merritt Parkway Conservancy complained that the proposed supports were too big and unsightly. So the state used flat sheet aluminum instead to reduce the weight and be able to use smaller supports.

Also, I have a bit of a mental issue with the fact that those signs, whose initial erection I remember vividly, are somehow coming due for a replacement in a couple years. They're only about 15 years old and while some of them have gotten a little beat up they aren't otherwise suffering from fading or loss of reflectivity.

My god that damn conservancy. Who's in charge them or the DOT?! The conservancy is so anal about these small things that don't make a difference.

A state trooper told me when they redid the service plazas, the DOT wanted to extend the exit and entrance ramps but the conservancy complained.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: pugnamedmax on December 08, 2016, 12:31:30 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on December 07, 2016, 06:18:41 PM
Will the Merritt go MUTCD?  Time will tell.

More likely: Will the Merritt ever go mile based? Obviously changing the exit numbers to a more logical system would "ruin our parkway's character". Let's not get ahead of ourselves.

I'm fine with the extruded aluminum signs as long as they'll last longer and save money in the long run, which they should.

(Btw first post! Been following this thread for a while!)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on December 09, 2016, 08:25:51 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on December 08, 2016, 12:22:36 AM
A state trooper told me when they redid the service plazas, the DOT wanted to extend the exit and entrance ramps but the conservancy complained.

Definitely true in at least one case. Check out the exit from the NB plaza in Fairfield. (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.2192534,-73.2556835,3a,90y,351.94h,84.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAt_Xpl8bvlEMANltwLA0lw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) This was actually safer before it was rebuilt!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on December 11, 2016, 08:55:07 PM
How about a sign replacement for Route 9? Or do we have to wait until they take out the traffic lights for them to ever do anything on that highway ever again?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on December 12, 2016, 04:30:21 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on December 11, 2016, 08:55:07 PM
How about a sign replacement for Route 9? Or do we have to wait until they take out the traffic lights for them to ever do anything on that highway ever again?

Most likely!  Every time I drive down Route 9 at night, I wonder about those signs.  Many are barely legible.  I remember when they were installed, around 1987.  The sign replacement included numbering the exits in downtown Middletown.  Exits 13-16 never originally had numbers. 

The original expressway Route 9 (I-95 to I-91) has also escaped having any spot sign replacement done.  One of the earlier spot overhead replacement projects removed two overhead gantries for Exit 11, but instead of getting new signs, the existing ones were moved off the gantry and placed on the ground.  The I-91 jct got new shields several years back, slapped right on the existing reflective background.  But that's it... Route 9 hasn't had much work done to it at all, outside of paving projects, a few bridge replacements, and a heck of a lot of tree clearing between Exits 2 & 3.  And in the town of Haddam, secondary signage was replaced a couple years ago.  At least the mile markers are legible, and there's a Speed Limit 65 sign about every 1/2 mile in that stretch (overkill, if you ask me... here in VT, there's only one posted after each exit, so you could go 15 miles without seeing a single speed limit sign). 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on December 12, 2016, 04:47:29 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on December 12, 2016, 04:30:21 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on December 11, 2016, 08:55:07 PM
How about a sign replacement for Route 9? Or do we have to wait until they take out the traffic lights for them to ever do anything on that highway ever again?

Most likely!  Every time I drive down Route 9 at night, I wonder about those signs.  Many are barely legible.  I remember when they were installed, around 1987.  The sign replacement included numbering the exits in downtown Middletown.  Exits 13-16 never originally had numbers. 

The original expressway Route 9 (I-95 to I-91) has also escaped having any spot sign replacement done.  One of the earlier spot overhead replacement projects removed two overhead gantries for Exit 11, but instead of getting new signs, the existing ones were moved off the gantry and placed on the ground.  The I-91 jct got new shields several years back, slapped right on the existing reflective background.  But that's it... Route 9 hasn't had much work done to it at all, outside of paving projects, a few bridge replacements, and a heck of a lot of tree clearing between Exits 2 & 3.  And in the town of Haddam, secondary signage was replaced a couple years ago.  At least the mile markers are legible, and there's a Speed Limit 65 sign about every 1/2 mile in that stretch (overkill, if you ask me... here in VT, there's only one posted after each exit, so you could go 15 miles without seeing a single speed limit sign). 

I noticed some signs were replaced rather quickly. CT-8 opened in 1980 in spots and there's new signage was put up around 1990 (I checked the dates on the sign) so CT did a blanket job of signs around that time.  Replacing everything it seemed regardless of how old.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on December 13, 2016, 10:52:03 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on December 09, 2016, 08:25:51 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on December 08, 2016, 12:22:36 AM
A state trooper told me when they redid the service plazas, the DOT wanted to extend the exit and entrance ramps but the conservancy complained.

Definitely true in at least one case. Check out the exit from the NB plaza in Fairfield. (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.2192534,-73.2556835,3a,90y,351.94h,84.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAt_Xpl8bvlEMANltwLA0lw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) This was actually safer before it was rebuilt!

And the big point to take home about the Merritt Parkway Conservancy is its members include a lot of deep-pocketed lower Fairfield County residents who can afford hiring a dream team of lawyers to force their agenda through the courts.  ConnDOT knows this (likely through past experience), so they just simply give into whatever the Conservancy demands.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on December 13, 2016, 01:50:22 PM
Perhaps ConnDOT should get some backing from FHWA?  The Merritt is on the NHS, so I imagine the feds wouldn't be too happy with CT compromising safety because the Conservancy wants to put the road in a time warp rather than undertake needed safety upgrades.  I'm VERY surprised there haven't been some high profile fatalities on that road due to the heavy traffic combined with terribly substandard ramps.  While I can certainly understand why the Conservancy doesn't want to change the character of the road (which CT shouldn't, within reason), they take it WAY too far.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on December 13, 2016, 01:58:47 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on December 12, 2016, 04:47:29 PM
I noticed some signs were replaced rather quickly. CT-8 opened in 1980 in spots and there's new signage was put up around 1990 (I checked the dates on the sign) so CT did a blanket job of signs around that time.  Replacing everything it seemed regardless of how old.

What I find interesting is how long some of the original signage stuck around.  Original Connecticut Turnpike signage dating to the opening of the road in 1958 was still present between Exits 53 & 59 until 1992.  I-84 is still holding onto old signage through the East Hartford-Manchester-Vernon area, dating to when the road was rebuilt/widened/HOV'd/I-384 extended.  I-691 is maintaining its 1988-signage from when it was completed to I-84. 

ConnDOT is taking their time to replace signs nowadays, but within a few years, I'd guess button copy will be more rare than present in the state.  There's not much left on I-84 and I-95 (after present contracts are completed), so you've just got I-91 north of Hartford, plus CT 8 (which will dwindle), CT 2, and CT 9. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on December 13, 2016, 02:52:45 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 13, 2016, 01:50:22 PM
Perhaps ConnDOT should get some backing from FHWA?  The Merritt is on the NHS, so I imagine the feds wouldn't be too happy with CT compromising safety because the Conservancy wants to put the road in a time warp rather than undertake needed safety upgrades.  I'm VERY surprised there haven't been some high profile fatalities on that road due to the heavy traffic combined with terribly substandard ramps.  While I can certainly understand why the Conservancy doesn't want to change the character of the road (which CT shouldn't, within reason), they take it WAY too far.

Backing from the feds won't necessarily help. There are no federal laws mandating that road improvement projects bring them up to modern safety standards. There are federal laws mandating that road improvement projects pass an environmental review process, which is easily exploited to block an improvement by anyone who opposes it and has deep pockets.

And for what it's worth ConnDOT has been undertaking efforts to improve safety on the Merritt - over the past 30 years many interchanges have been improved to add accel/decel lanes, remove tight curves, and such. The state used a bunch of ARRA money to add paved shoulders to a good chunk of the road.  One of the more dangerous curves in Greenwich now has advance warning signage with flashing lights, in spite of opposition by the Conservancy to this. And perhaps most notably, a few years ago the state went in and removed/pruned quite a few trees within the clear zone in the hopes of reducing incidents of trees falling across the road during storms (people have been killed on the Merritt Parkway by this) - also in spite of considerable opposition.

The example I gave where the service plaza exit was made less safe is unusual.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on December 13, 2016, 04:27:39 PM
CT 2, especially from east of Glastonbury, needs major sign replacement.  The signs are unreadable at night from busted reflectors and it makes for a rough experience for those coming back from the casinos that may be unfamiliar with the road.  I-291 isn't as bad but needs replacement, as well as I-384, I-691 (mostly from Exit 4 east), and CT 40 (each would probably be done at once and converting to mileage based numbers would be simple, and CT 40 numbering is done if the I-91 and Bailey Rd ramps remain unnumbered).  CT 72 has been done except for Exits 3/4 eastbound and a couple of signs for Exit 7.  The signage in the I-84 contract is ambiguous though; it makes it look like CT 372 is Exit 33 and CT 72 West has no exit number, then all of a sudden you'll see signage saying CT 372 is Exit 2
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on December 13, 2016, 07:11:17 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 13, 2016, 01:50:22 PM
Perhaps ConnDOT should get some backing from FHWA?  The Merritt is on the NHS, so I imagine the feds wouldn't be too happy with CT compromising safety because the Conservancy wants to put the road in a time warp rather than undertake needed safety upgrades.  I'm VERY surprised there haven't been some high profile fatalities on that road due to the heavy traffic combined with terribly substandard ramps.  While I can certainly understand why the Conservancy doesn't want to change the character of the road (which CT shouldn't, within reason), they take it WAY too far.

As Duke said, There have been from falling down trees. Which up until a couple of years ago, the DOT was reluctant to take them down Bc the conservancy would've cried fowl. So if you ever have an accident with a tree on the Merrit include the MPC in your lawsuit

They actually complained ab the flashers?!?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on December 13, 2016, 07:43:39 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on December 13, 2016, 01:58:47 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on December 12, 2016, 04:47:29 PM
I noticed some signs were replaced rather quickly. CT-8 opened in 1980 in spots and there's new signage was put up around 1990 (I checked the dates on the sign) so CT did a blanket job of signs around that time.  Replacing everything it seemed regardless of how old.

What I find interesting is how long some of the original signage stuck around.  Original Connecticut Turnpike signage dating to the opening of the road in 1958 was still present between Exits 53 & 59 until 1992.  I-84 is still holding onto old signage through the East Hartford-Manchester-Vernon area, dating to when the road was rebuilt/widened/HOV'd/I-384 extended.  I-691 is maintaining its 1988-signage from when it was completed to I-84. 

ConnDOT is taking their time to replace signs nowadays, but within a few years, I'd guess button copy will be more rare than present in the state.  There's not much left on I-84 and I-95 (after present contracts are completed), so you've just got I-91 north of Hartford, plus CT 8 (which will dwindle), CT 2, and CT 9.

Hell, I-84 E in Vernon is still holding on to its 1979-83 OG pavement, complete with spaces for reflectors.  I-395 north of Putnam has the same thing.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on December 14, 2016, 02:27:16 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on December 13, 2016, 07:43:39 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on December 13, 2016, 01:58:47 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on December 12, 2016, 04:47:29 PM
I noticed some signs were replaced rather quickly. CT-8 opened in 1980 in spots and there's new signage was put up around 1990 (I checked the dates on the sign) so CT did a blanket job of signs around that time.  Replacing everything it seemed regardless of how old.

What I find interesting is how long some of the original signage stuck around.  Original Connecticut Turnpike signage dating to the opening of the road in 1958 was still present between Exits 53 & 59 until 1992.  I-84 is still holding onto old signage through the East Hartford-Manchester-Vernon area, dating to when the road was rebuilt/widened/HOV'd/I-384 extended.  I-691 is maintaining its 1988-signage from when it was completed to I-84. 

ConnDOT is taking their time to replace signs nowadays, but within a few years, I'd guess button copy will be more rare than present in the state.  There's not much left on I-84 and I-95 (after present contracts are completed), so you've just got I-91 north of Hartford, plus CT 8 (which will dwindle), CT 2, and CT 9.

Hell, I-84 E in Vernon is still holding on to its 1979-83 OG pavement, complete with spaces for reflectors.  I-395 north of Putnam has the same thing.

Amazing how well concrete holds up, do you know how much the statw would save if they still had concrete showing? 
I-84 in Waterbury still has it from when the Exit 22-23 area was reconstructed in 1978.  CT-25 still concrete as well.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on December 14, 2016, 06:29:36 PM
QuoteAmazing how well concrete holds up, do you know how much the statw would save if they still had concrete showing? 
I-84 in Waterbury still has it from when the Exit 22-23 area was reconstructed in 1978.  CT-25 still concrete as well.

CT 9 has a stretch of concrete in New Britain, from Exit 25 to just south of Exit 29.  So does I-691 between Exits 3 & 4.  I remember when CT 9 was paved from Old Saybrook up to Middletown.  That was in the late 1980s.  It's been repaved several times since then in parts.  Where it hasn't, it's rough.  I-691 was supposed to be repaved between Exits 3 & 4 but the concrete was grinded down instead and retained.  It's pretty smooth and has held up welll, similar to the New England Thruway in New York, from New Rochelle up to Rye.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on December 14, 2016, 10:49:50 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on December 14, 2016, 02:27:16 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on December 13, 2016, 07:43:39 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on December 13, 2016, 01:58:47 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on December 12, 2016, 04:47:29 PM
I noticed some signs were replaced rather quickly. CT-8 opened in 1980 in spots and there's new signage was put up around 1990 (I checked the dates on the sign) so CT did a blanket job of signs around that time.  Replacing everything it seemed regardless of how old.

What I find interesting is how long some of the original signage stuck around.  Original Connecticut Turnpike signage dating to the opening of the road in 1958 was still present between Exits 53 & 59 until 1992.  I-84 is still holding onto old signage through the East Hartford-Manchester-Vernon area, dating to when the road was rebuilt/widened/HOV'd/I-384 extended.  I-691 is maintaining its 1988-signage from when it was completed to I-84. 

ConnDOT is taking their time to replace signs nowadays, but within a few years, I'd guess button copy will be more rare than present in the state.  There's not much left on I-84 and I-95 (after present contracts are completed), so you've just got I-91 north of Hartford, plus CT 8 (which will dwindle), CT 2, and CT 9.

Hell, I-84 E in Vernon is still holding on to its 1979-83 OG pavement, complete with spaces for reflectors.  I-395 north of Putnam has the same thing.

Amazing how well concrete holds up, do you know how much the statw would save if they still had concrete showing? 
I-84 in Waterbury still has it from when the Exit 22-23 area was reconstructed in 1978.  CT-25 still concrete as well.

I wasn't talking about the concrete.  I was talking about this stretch further east.  Lasts from Exit 64 to just before Exit 66.https://goo.gl/maps/FK32ddUNr1T2 (https://goo.gl/maps/FK32ddUNr1T2)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on December 16, 2016, 09:39:42 PM
I was looking at Google Maps Street View along Routes 8 and 25 today and noticed that both highways have updated street views dated between October and November 2016.  The main things I noticed were:

1.  The northbound onramp to Route 8 at Exit 18 (Division Street) in Ansonia is now shown as being complete and open to traffic.
2.  Sign replacement is occurring on Route 25, but it looks like ConnDOT is sticking with sequential exit numbers for the time being. Same observation on Route 8 north of Waterbury.
3.  Resurfacing of the northbound Route 8/25 connector in Bridgeport was ongoing at the time of the Street View update--ramp gores to Exits 2 and 4 northbound marked with chevrons.
4.  Recent resurfacing of I-95 between Fairfield and Stratford has increased the number of ramp gores marked with chevrons (Exits 22(NB) 24, 25, 29, 30, 31, and 32 also confirmed by ConnDOT traffic cams).  Looks like ConnDOT is trending toward marking ramp gores with chevrons.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on December 17, 2016, 02:35:05 AM
My guess is that CT 8 and CT 25 will be done at the same time, since they share common exits up to the split.  Would look strange if the exits jumped from 6 down to 4, plus the entire highway has to be changed at the same time.   According to Shadyjay, the rest of CT 8 south of Waterbury contract will be let next year, so I'd look for a changeover then (CT 25 may have the new numbers on the sign with temporary sequential numbers overlain).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on December 17, 2016, 10:05:15 PM
Looks like CT uses:
http://www.interstatesigns.com/deliverySystems.html

Look: Exut 9 Daniels Farns are on CT-25
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on December 18, 2016, 04:33:08 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on December 17, 2016, 10:05:15 PM
Looks like CT uses:
http://www.interstatesigns.com/deliverySystems.html

Look: Exut 9 Daniels Farns are on CT-25

I think that is just a transport company that ships the signs from the manufacturer to the contractor charged with installing the signs.  Interesting to see though that they use the Daniels Farm Road sign loaded onto one of their trucks as a prop for their marketing materials.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: wytout on December 19, 2016, 05:26:50 AM
They manufacture also. And on their extrududed and incremental page there is a partial extruded Merritt and Wilbur cross parkways sign.

http://www.interstatesigns.com/extrudedSigns.html
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: roadman on December 19, 2016, 09:15:32 AM
Quote from: wytout on December 19, 2016, 05:26:50 AM
They manufacture also. And on their extrududed and incremental page there is a partial extruded Merritt and Wilbur cross parkways sign.

http://www.interstatesigns.com/extrudedSigns.html

They not only manufacture, they are one of the principal BGS manufacturers in the US.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: pugnamedmax on December 19, 2016, 12:18:39 PM
I've been out of Connecticut for several months at school, and since being back for the holiday, I've noticed several changes that I've never seen in this state (in addition to the chevrons previously mentioned).

1. Grooved centerlines on more rural routes: Both route 77 and route 79 (north of route 80) now have grooved centerlines. I've never seen CT do this before. However, there is absolutely NO signage indicating the grooved centerline, unlike in other states that have them, and I had no idea what the rumbling was at first when I ran over the centerline. Are there any other spots where CT has implemented grooved centerlines? Is there signage indicating it?

2. Rectangular 3 digit state route shields: The current standard for CT, as far as I'm aware, is that there is no 3 digit wide standalone shield. The three digits are just condensed onto a square shield. However, in my travels, I saw several new rectangular 3 digit shields at the junction of routes 145 and 148 in Chester. Originally, I thought that this was a contractor error, until I saw another one of these new rectangular shields with the same specs on the exit 59 offramp for route 146 in Guilford. If I can, I'll try to get pictures of these in the next few days. What's interesting is that this error has occurred twice in two different districts. Are these rectangular shields the new standard?

Just curious if anyone knows anything about these new developments.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: wytout on December 19, 2016, 04:03:08 PM
Wide 3 d standalone trailblazers are standard since a 2013-2014 update of the ConnDOT catalogue of signs.

There are more centerline rumble strip installation projects scheduled for advertising in all districts over the next year.

Without any fanfare, chevrons are simply popping up in the engineering project plans for our limited access roads for more consistently these days.. one true oddity being i91 between exits 33 and 36. The latest pavement preservation project there also put chevrons on the ENTRANCE gores, a-la FL and to some extent RI.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on December 19, 2016, 07:27:56 PM
Quote from: wytout on December 19, 2016, 04:03:08 PM
Wide 3 d standalone trailblazers are standard since a 2013-2014 update of the ConnDOT catalogue of signs.

There are more centerline rumble strip installation projects scheduled for advertising in all districts over the next year.

Without any fanfare, chevrons are simply popping up in the engineering project plans for our limited access roads for more consistently these days.. one true oddity being i91 between exits 33 and 36. The latest pavement preservation project there also put chevrons on the ENTRANCE gores, a-la FL and to some extent RI.

ConnDOT appears to be inconsistent with marking exit gores with chevrons.  When I was looking at Street View on Google Maps, I noticed a recently resurfaced section of Route 8 near its interchange with the Merritt Parkway has no markings in the exit gores.  Same is the case for a recent resurfacing project along I-95 in Waterford.  No ramp gore striping, except for the I-95/I-395 northbound split, which is marked with chevrons.  The DOT also resurfaced I-84 near the Route 9 stack interchange in 2016.  Exits 39A and 40 eastbound used to have ramp gores marked with chevrons prior to resurfacing, but the gore areas were not striped with chevrons following resurfacing.  I'm curious as to what direction ConnDOT is headed with regard to striping its exit gores on freeways.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on December 19, 2016, 08:18:12 PM
Quote from: wytout on December 19, 2016, 04:03:08 PM
Wide 3 d standalone trailblazers are standard since a 2013-2014 update of the ConnDOT catalogue of signs.

There are more centerline rumble strip installation projects scheduled for advertising in all districts over the next year.

Without any fanfare, chevrons are simply popping up in the engineering project plans for our limited access roads for more consistently these days.. one true oddity being i91 between exits 33 and 36. The latest pavement preservation project there also put chevrons on the ENTRANCE gores, a-la FL and to some extent RI.
For some reason Buckland Hills Drive in Manchester has a center rumble strip now.  Are there other town DPWs in CT that do this?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: wytout on December 19, 2016, 11:46:13 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on December 19, 2016, 08:18:12 PM

For some reason Buckland Hills Drive in Manchester has a center rumble strip now.  Are there other town DPWs in CT that do this?


Old Stafford Road in Tolland, CT is a rather narrow town road with center rumble strip, and they also have signs warning of the rumble strips.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on December 21, 2016, 03:59:53 PM
In other news....

http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?A=1373&Q=588546

QuoteThe Connecticut Department of Transportation (CTDOT) has initiated the planning process for the rebuilding of an eight-mile, heavily congested stretch of I-84 between Exits 3 and 8 in Danbury — a project that will improve safety, increase capacity, and improve operations and access to the highway.

Wonder what we'll see here... elimination of left exits?  3 thru lanes of I-84 at Exit 3 and at Exit 7?  4 lanes between Exits 3-7?  I wonder if the idea to relocate Exit 4 EB to empty onto Seger St is still on the table, eliminating the present cross-US 7 NB traffic.   

To be honest, I'd like to see I-84 improved from Exit 8 to Waterbury first.  That section gets congested... 2 lanes with climbing lanes.  A lot of truck traffic.  Interchanges are spread out and there's a wide variable median, so adding an additional lane is relatively easy.  And the Rochambeau Bridge is already wide enough to accommodate 3 lanes each way.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Beeper1 on December 21, 2016, 05:00:11 PM
Don't worry, it's a ConnDOT planning process.   Our great-grandkids are gonna hate sitting the work zone traffic once they actually start construction on this.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on December 21, 2016, 06:23:55 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on December 21, 2016, 03:59:53 PM
In other news....

http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?A=1373&Q=588546

QuoteThe Connecticut Department of Transportation (CTDOT) has initiated the planning process for the rebuilding of an eight-mile, heavily congested stretch of I-84 between Exits 3 and 8 in Danbury – a project that will improve safety, increase capacity, and improve operations and access to the highway.

Wonder what we'll see here... elimination of left exits?  3 thru lanes of I-84 at Exit 3 and at Exit 7?  4 lanes between Exits 3-7?  I wonder if the idea to relocate Exit 4 EB to empty onto Seger St is still on the table, eliminating the present cross-US 7 NB traffic.   

To be honest, I'd like to see I-84 improved from Exit 8 to Waterbury first.  That section gets congested... 2 lanes with climbing lanes.  A lot of truck traffic.  Interchanges are spread out and there's a wide variable median, so adding an additional lane is relatively easy.  And the Rochambeau Bridge is already wide enough to accommodate 3 lanes each way.

to waterbury was part of the plan but remember the DOT could never get the EIS started.  It took them 10 years to start it and then there was no money and are now just focusing on the Exit 3-8 section.  I contacted the COG about this and they said the base will be what was originally planned in 2000.

8-lanes between exits 3-7 and 6-lanes to Exit 8.  The US-7 SB ramp to I-84 EB by exit 7 would be a flyover coming in on the right and combining exit 8.  Both left exits would remain. That is what I was told a year ago, so things could change.  Of course THAT (the left exits) is the reason for the backups, not volume.  It backs up b/c people slow to merge into their correct lane and cut over. 

I-84 WB at the Exit 7 on-ramp should NOT slow down b/c US-7 gains a lane as they merge on, but it does back up b/c people have to change lanes and it slows people up.  Actually the Exit 7 on-ramp to I-84 WB should be two lanes.


I also have a gut feeling that this is going to be done on the cheap......even though you'd think it shouldn't b/c it's a scaled down project only focusing on Exits 3-8 rather then Exits 3-20.  So, I bet all they will do is add a lane, which doesn't really help anything b/c the same traffic patterns remain.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on January 09, 2017, 04:15:18 PM
I recently noticed these stickers on the back of a fairly new sign in Berlin, CT:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FwqunqFH.jpg&hash=9da6a7fa270bd6c4a108846858e21e04ed5af7fa)

It was close to the off-ramp of Exit 23 (Christian Lane) from CT Route 9 southbound.

Obviously it was made in April 2015 and installed in May 2015. What about the rest? "HAMMONASSET" is the Madison area on the shoreline, west of Old Saybrook.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on January 09, 2017, 07:33:36 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on January 09, 2017, 04:15:18 PM
I recently noticed these stickers on the back of a fairly new sign in Berlin, CT:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FwqunqFH.jpg&hash=9da6a7fa270bd6c4a108846858e21e04ed5af7fa)

It was close to the off-ramp of Exit 23 (Christian Lane) from CT Route 9 southbound.

Obviously it was made in April 2015 and installed in May 2015. What about the rest? "HAMMONASSET" is the Madison area on the shoreline, west of Old Saybrook.

Probably the name of the construction contractor that installed it.  Be like having Quinebaug on the back of a sign in Danbury.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on January 12, 2017, 09:47:34 PM
Today, ConnDOT released its 5-year capital plan which spans from 2017-2021.  Some interesting items can be found within the link:
http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?A=1373&Q=589196

Here's what we can expect this year:
QuoteLooking ahead towards 2017, major new initiatives planned for this next year include repairs to the southbound Gold Star Bridge in New London; painting and structural repairs to the Commodore Hull Bridge in Shelton; rehabilitation of eight bridges within the I-84 Viaduct and surrounding area in Hartford; and the start of the next phase of the Merritt Parkway rehabilitation program in the Westport area. The Department will continue with planning for the replacement of the I-84 Hartford Viaduct; the Relocation and Reconfiguration of the I-91/Route 15 Interchange in Hartford; and the Reconfiguration of the I-91/I-691/Route 15 Interchange in Meriden. The Department will also continue to advance the ongoing corridor study for I-95. Design will continue on the Traffic Signal Removal on Route 9 in Middletown; the last remaining segment of the Merritt Parkway Corridor Improvement Project in Norwalk; and tunnel improvements to the Heroes Tunnel, located along Route 15 in Woodbridge and New Haven.

And upcoming "big projects":
QuoteThe Department's projected outlook for construction commitments in 2018 through 2021 are the Tunnel Improvements to the Heroes Tunnel on Route 15 in Woodbridge/New Haven; I-91 Resurfacing, Bridge, and Safety Improvements in Wethersfield; I-84 Resurfacing, Bridge, and Safety Improvements in Newtown; and superstructure replacement of the Rochambeau Bridge on I-84 in Newtown.

When perusing through the list of projects broken down by year, here's what I find for sign replacement:

FY2017:  CT 8, Shelton to I-84;  CT 15, Merritt Parkway
FY2018:  I-84, Exits 40-56;  CT 8, I-95 to Shelton
FY2019:  CT 9, Exits 25-31;  CT 72, Exits 1-9
FY2020:  none shown yet
FY2021:  none shown yet

Interesting to still not see any large-scale projects on I-91, CT 2, and CT 9.  (CT 9 Exits 25-31 is about 5 miles).

Unknown at this time what the present state's budget crisis will do to this list.  An article in today's Courant warned of the possible permanent closure of the state's 7 non-commercial rest areas due to the crisis.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Beeper1 on January 12, 2017, 10:22:34 PM
One of those rest areas, Westbrook on I-95 NB is already permanently closed.    The others are badly needed for truck parking and as welcome centers, except maybe Southington on I-84 EB, as that area is fairly small.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: D-Dey65 on January 12, 2017, 10:53:10 PM
Quote from: Beeper1 on January 12, 2017, 10:22:34 PM
One of those rest areas, Westbrook on I-95 NB is already permanently closed.    The others are badly needed for truck parking and as welcome centers, except maybe Southington on I-84 EB, as that area is fairly small.
I just hope somebody in Connecticut takes pictures of all the ones on I-95 and posts them in the Wikimedia Commons. All the ones that are available are south of New York City.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on January 12, 2017, 11:19:54 PM
Quote from: Beeper1 on January 12, 2017, 10:22:34 PM
One of those rest areas, Westbrook on I-95 NB is already permanently closed.    The others are badly needed for truck parking and as welcome centers, except maybe Southington on I-84 EB, as that area is fairly small.

Agree they are needed for truck parking and for tourism information. 

If they do get closed, I'd like to see potential private off-highway facilities developed.  One in Wallingford at Exit 15 of I-91 would replace Wallingford-SB and Middletown-NB.  Another facility in North Stonington at Exit 92 of I-95 would work.  Both sites have a good chunk of vacant land adjacent to the interstate, a perfect facility for an off-highway "service plaza", complete with truck parking.  Vermont just opened a similar facility off Exit 8 of I-89.  Southington and Willington can be sacrificed in favor of a rebuilt Danbury-EB and a new Union-WB (at that insanely large weigh station). 

Just some thoughts.

Westbrook is the 8th (there are two, one EB and one WB, in Willington).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Beeper1 on January 12, 2017, 11:46:51 PM
I always forget the one in Willington is both directions.  Replacing it with one in Union isn't
necessary.  If the state want to keep a rest area on 84 west, keep the existing location. It was recently refurbished anyway, which makes closing it seem like a waste.

Agreed on the need for additional private areas.  Interstate Oasis-type programs a-la Idaho and Vermont would be a big help, but NIMBYs don't like them. 

Could the existing truck stop at Exit 93 in North Stonington be expanded?  Exit 92 is generally very congested in the summer with beach and casino traffic.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on January 13, 2017, 12:10:07 PM
There looks to be a little wiggle room at Exit 93 for expansion, but residential homes aren't that far away.  Exit 92 seems to have much more space for a brand new facility.  See:  https://www.google.com/maps/@41.417557,-71.8509186,344m/data=!3m1!1e3
You could straighten out "SSR 617" once you tear down the old rest area on I-95 SB and have even more room. 

The idea behind relocating the I-84 WB facility to Union was this large facility:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9880512,-72.1749446,341m/data=!3m1!1e3
I know Willington-WB (and -EB) were just rebuilt but to provide expansion of parking, you'd have to relocate.  The Willington sites are limited. 

And here's an idea for a site for an off-highway service plaza in Wallingford:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4774465,-72.7683995,688m/data=!3m1!1e3
Maybe incorporate the hotel into part of the complex.  This section of CT 68 is well travelled and lacks any gas stations or food service, which I have always found amazing.  It's 4 lanes, undivided, from Research Parkway west to US 5. 

And finally, here's my Westbrook site, a bit more complicated:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.2905404,-72.4434901,345m/data=!3m1!1e3
Get the Scion dealer to relocate to the other side of Flat Rock Place.  Get Denny's to go along with the Service Plaza.  Tear down the existing Mobil and Dunkin' Donuts and incorporate them.  In the process, we get that little park & ride upgraded and improve the ramp to I-95 NB as well. 

All of these off-highway service plazas would be open 24/7, be similar in design to the CT service plazas, and offer a variety of options.  The state gets a facility to replace existing rest areas.  There's no more bathroom issues.  An electronic CT tourism kiosk is put up inside each plaza.  The end result would be only 2 non-commercial rest areas:  Danbury-EB and Willington-WB.  Those can go back to being open 24 hours/day, or if not, then 7am-9pm (more respectable hours than the closing at 3:30PM thing).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on January 13, 2017, 12:48:19 PM
IIRC, all the Welcome Centers now have reduced (some would say banker's) hours.  They're only open during the morning & early afternoon.  Parking for the Rest Areas are still open & Porta-Johns have since been placed for after-hours restroom breaks.

With all this talk of refurbishing Rest Areas/Welcome Centers in this thread; is there a possibility that the Welcome Centers' be open again during the late afternoons & evenings?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on January 13, 2017, 02:03:26 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 13, 2017, 12:48:19 PM
With all this talk of refurbishing Rest Areas/Welcome Centers in this thread; is there a possibility that the Welcome Centers' be open again during the late afternoons & evenings?

The state's projected budget deficit is $1.5 billion.

The implications are left as an exercise for the reader.  :)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Beeper1 on January 13, 2017, 11:53:26 PM
I could possibly see the one on I-95 going back to later hours in the summer season, due to the very high tourist traffic on that route.   But the ones on I-84 and I-91 and most likely only going to edge closer to closure.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: wytout on January 14, 2017, 08:17:53 AM
With so much traffic coming through the area enroute from greater Boston heading to NYC and other points southwest, along with the fact that they are always filled with cars and trucks, it seems a case could be made for continuing the life of the recently refurbished eb and wb rest areas in willington. This remains true in spite of the long-established TA travel center 2 exits east. You know that and the fact that we spent $3 million to replace septic facilities and complete pavement resurface less than 2 years ago at both facilities
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Beeper1 on January 14, 2017, 12:41:46 PM
Ideally, to really accommodate the needs of the public if the state wasn't being driven into the ground by incompetent leadership, you would see something like the following:

The existing rest areas would all remain open, with some parking expanded if possible. 
The development of an additional 4 or 5 private truck stops/rest areas, with state partnership like the new area in VT, along the I-84, I-91 and I-95 corridors.
The existing large weigh station on I-84 in Union to be turned into a large trucks-only parking/rest area. It can continue to also be a weigh station, as that is the only weigh station in all of New England that is regularly actually open.

These developments would be complimented by existing private areas just over the state lines on I-84 in Mass and I-95 in RI.

The fact is that CT has to bear the heaviest burden of truck traffic of all the New England states, with all trucking from points south and most from the west having to pass through en route to the rest of the region, and it all gets funneled along just two primary corridors. A such they require the most investment and creative solutions in addressing truck congestion and needs compared to the rest of the region.   
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Pete from Boston on January 19, 2017, 03:02:35 PM
I'm a little puzzled at the hours they chose. 8:30 AM opening covers very little of rush hour. 3:30 PM closing — why bother?

Another option, but one that would change the state's liability picture, would be to install an exterior door on the rest rooms as is the case in the Johnny Appleseed rest area on Mass Route 2.  This allows basic rest room access at least.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on January 19, 2017, 05:58:34 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 19, 2017, 03:02:35 PM
I'm a little puzzled at the hours they chose. 8:30 AM opening covers very little of rush hour. 3:30 PM closing — why bother?

Just a guess: consider the hours that normal, non-professional (and non-viatologist) drivers are on the road and likely to inquire about assistance from the attendant

The other thought that has crossed my mind was that if you factor in travel time to/from some off-site location, you get up to an 8-hour duty day.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on January 20, 2017, 01:21:04 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 19, 2017, 03:02:35 PM
I'm a little puzzled at the hours they chose. 8:30 AM opening covers very little of rush hour. 3:30 PM closing — why bother?

Another option, but one that would change the state's liability picture, would be to install an exterior door on the rest rooms as is the case in the Johnny Appleseed rest area on Mass Route 2.  This allows basic rest room access at least.

CT's rest areas have nothing inside them but a foyer with vending machines and access to the restrooms.  Would it kill them if this was left "unattended" during the overnight hours?  Or just have a "state-y" on duty. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on January 31, 2017, 11:47:31 AM
ConnDOT unveiled its new traffic and roadway incident site, https://cttravelsmart.org/. Looks interesting.

With a Google Maps base, you can select overlays for traffic congestion, construction projects, accidents, traffic cams, Park and Ride lots, and more.

There's also a link that shows you the current messages displayed by 99 VMS (Variable Message Signs for traffic info) around the state: https://cttravelsmart.org/list/messagesigns?start=0&length=25&order%5Bi%5D=0&order%5Bdir%5D=asc

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeCL on February 01, 2017, 12:10:41 AM
Quote from: kurumi on January 31, 2017, 11:47:31 AM
ConnDOT unveiled its new traffic and roadway incident site, https://cttravelsmart.org/. Looks interesting.

With a Google Maps base, you can select overlays for traffic congestion, construction projects, accidents, traffic cams, Park and Ride lots, and more.

There's also a link that shows you the current messages displayed by 99 VMS (Variable Message Signs for traffic info) around the state: https://cttravelsmart.org/list/messagesigns?start=0&length=25&order%5Bi%5D=0&order%5Bdir%5D=asc
That's pretty cool with the message sign but I might need to get on the DOT again for the VMS at the weigh station NB for Greenwich, it no longer lights up again.. last time i sent a email every day to them until one day I jumped on and it was lit. My complaint was because it was snowing out and it's the florescent type and not backlit I could not see it.. My issue is the next sign is not until Stamford and what if I had a lane closure or something?

IMHO they should replace this and the one in Darien because they are starting to cloud over.. Whatever the state is doing to the LED signs they glitch out whenever I guess they are updating if it changes part of the LED remain lit and it gets garbled then corrects it's self.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on February 02, 2017, 05:30:59 PM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on January 19, 2017, 05:58:34 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 19, 2017, 03:02:35 PM
I'm a little puzzled at the hours they chose. 8:30 AM opening covers very little of rush hour. 3:30 PM closing – why bother?

Just a guess: consider the hours that normal, non-professional (and non-viatologist) drivers are on the road and likely to inquire about assistance from the attendant

The other thought that has crossed my mind was that if you factor in travel time to/from some off-site location, you get up to an 8-hour duty day.



The hours were chosen because of DOT staff shifts.  They do 7a-3p, so the rest areas are maintained from 8:30-2:30pm, it gives them time to get to and from without OT.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on February 02, 2017, 05:33:58 PM
Quote from: kurumi on January 31, 2017, 11:47:31 AM
ConnDOT unveiled its new traffic and roadway incident site, https://cttravelsmart.org/. Looks interesting.

With a Google Maps base, you can select overlays for traffic congestion, construction projects, accidents, traffic cams, Park and Ride lots, and more.

There's also a link that shows you the current messages displayed by 99 VMS (Variable Message Signs for traffic info) around the state: https://cttravelsmart.org/list/messagesigns?start=0&length=25&order%5Bi%5D=0&order%5Bdir%5D=asc



The VMS signs on US-44 Avon Mtn are still not listen nor is the lone VMS that CT maintains on the NE Thruway in NY.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on February 02, 2017, 07:22:37 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on February 02, 2017, 05:33:58 PM
Quote from: kurumi on January 31, 2017, 11:47:31 AM
ConnDOT unveiled its new traffic and roadway incident site, https://cttravelsmart.org/. Looks interesting.

With a Google Maps base, you can select overlays for traffic congestion, construction projects, accidents, traffic cams, Park and Ride lots, and more.

There's also a link that shows you the current messages displayed by 99 VMS (Variable Message Signs for traffic info) around the state: https://cttravelsmart.org/list/messagesigns?start=0&length=25&order%5Bi%5D=0&order%5Bdir%5D=asc



The VMS signs on US-44 Avon Mtn are still not listen nor is the lone VMS that CT maintains on the NE Thruway in NY.

The NE Thruway sign is on there:   95N Mamaroneck NY S/O Old White Plains Rd

Speaking of I-95:  http://wtnh.com/2017/02/02/malloy-working-to-add-a-lane-in-both-directions-along-i-95/

Guess is our great-grandkids will still be paying for this
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeCL on February 02, 2017, 07:39:35 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on February 02, 2017, 07:22:37 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on February 02, 2017, 05:33:58 PM
Quote from: kurumi on January 31, 2017, 11:47:31 AM
ConnDOT unveiled its new traffic and roadway incident site, https://cttravelsmart.org/. Looks interesting.

With a Google Maps base, you can select overlays for traffic congestion, construction projects, accidents, traffic cams, Park and Ride lots, and more.

There's also a link that shows you the current messages displayed by 99 VMS (Variable Message Signs for traffic info) around the state: https://cttravelsmart.org/list/messagesigns?start=0&length=25&order%5Bi%5D=0&order%5Bdir%5D=asc



The VMS signs on US-44 Avon Mtn are still not listen nor is the lone VMS that CT maintains on the NE Thruway in NY.

The NE Thruway sign is on there:   95N Mamaroneck NY S/O Old White Plains Rd

Speaking of I-95:  http://wtnh.com/2017/02/02/malloy-working-to-add-a-lane-in-both-directions-along-i-95/

Guess is our great-grandkids will still be paying for this

OMG why don't they start at that damn exit 25A in bridgeport? each time I get on NB from home I'm always greeted by the sign that says 25 mile delay to exit 25A, Figure out how to make that damn interchange from one lane to two lanes  jesus it's not that friken hard.. sometimes during the summer I have to sit home until after 7 just because I'm so worn out of being stuck in traffic getting home but to go to Norwalk get stuck in it again just to go so little.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on February 03, 2017, 07:04:48 PM
Why not start allowing travel in the breakdown lane during rush hour like on parts of MA 128?  Its supposed to go away once the add-a-lane project is done.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Beeper1 on February 03, 2017, 11:20:19 PM
The add-a-lane project won't be done in this century.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on February 04, 2017, 12:39:40 AM
Quote from: Beeper1 on February 03, 2017, 11:20:19 PM
The add-a-lane project won't be done in this century.

The only thing Connecticut is good at doing is wasting millions of taxpayer dollars in conducting one study after the next to analyze and reanalyze the same problem, yet in the end each study reaches the same general conclusions, but the state takes no action on any of these studies.  They've been talking about widening I-95 in one form or another for at least 40 years, yet only a couple of sections around Bridgeport and New Haven were actually widened. 

The biggest obstacle to doing any more widening of I-95 is getting the money and environmental clearances for construction.  A recent study showed that DOTs are spending as much (and in some instances more) on environmental studies as they are for actual construction.  Even if Connecticut manages to find a funding stream to finance the widening of I-95, I doubt it'll ever get all of the environmental approvals and permits needed before the first shovelful of dirt can be moved.  I think there'd be a better chance of getting funding and environmental clearance to widen I-84 from New York to Danbury than widening I-95, just because of where I-95 is situated with respect to Long Island Sound and adjacent estuaries.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeCL on February 04, 2017, 02:05:16 AM
Hey I've always been wondering about this i guess abandoned on-ramp in Stamford just after the exit 9 ramp most of the time you just see troopers on it.. Yesterday while driving the UPS truck was the first time I saw at the very bottom of the ramp and saw it had a gate with two large stop signs on it..

What happened with this ramp?

https://goo.gl/maps/JUWvTCcmMNK2
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on February 04, 2017, 11:59:42 AM
Quote from: MikeCL on February 04, 2017, 02:05:16 AM
Hey I've always been wondering about this i guess abandoned on-ramp in Stamford just after the exit 9 ramp most of the time you just see troopers on it.. Yesterday while driving the UPS truck was the first time I saw at the very bottom of the ramp and saw it had a gate with two large stop signs on it..

What happened with this ramp?

https://goo.gl/maps/JUWvTCcmMNK2

That ramp was closed off when I-95 was reconstructed and widened in that area in the late '90s/early 2000s timeframe.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on February 04, 2017, 01:40:20 PM
Interesting... I never realized there was a closed ramp there.  Though looking at the map, I'm guessing its a reentry point for state trucks coming from the maintenance garage that abuts the service plaza just to the north.  IIRC, there used to be an emissions testing station located at that garage, perhaps the ramp was open to the public then.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on February 04, 2017, 01:49:39 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on February 04, 2017, 01:40:20 PM
Interesting... I never realized there was a closed ramp there.  Though looking at the map, I'm guessing its a reentry point for state trucks coming from the maintenance garage that abuts the service plaza just to the north.  IIRC, there used to be an emissions testing station located at that garage, perhaps the ramp was open to the public then.

If you go to the site http://www.historicaerials.com/ you can see the onramp still being used in the 1991 aerial image (which doesn't have very good resolution), but there are better resolution aerial images of that ramp available for 1960 and 1971.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeCL on February 04, 2017, 03:04:23 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on February 04, 2017, 01:49:39 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on February 04, 2017, 01:40:20 PM
Interesting... I never realized there was a closed ramp there.  Though looking at the map, I'm guessing its a reentry point for state trucks coming from the maintenance garage that abuts the service plaza just to the north.  IIRC, there used to be an emissions testing station located at that garage, perhaps the ramp was open to the public then.

If you go to the site http://www.historicaerials.com/ you can see the onramp still being used in the 1991 aerial image (which doesn't have very good resolution), but there are better resolution aerial images of that ramp available for 1960 and 1971.
It would suck for those living right by the ramp just to make everyone go around to The Post Rd just to get on the ramp.. I wonder why they did not keep it.. I mean I know the on-ramp from 9 must be like less then 3,000 Ft away I mean you can tell it's old just by the worn pavement I just hate to see something go to waste.. But I guess the came can be said about the stacks on I-84 as well...
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on February 04, 2017, 03:41:56 PM
Quote from: MikeCL on February 04, 2017, 03:04:23 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on February 04, 2017, 01:49:39 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on February 04, 2017, 01:40:20 PM
Interesting... I never realized there was a closed ramp there.  Though looking at the map, I'm guessing its a reentry point for state trucks coming from the maintenance garage that abuts the service plaza just to the north.  IIRC, there used to be an emissions testing station located at that garage, perhaps the ramp was open to the public then.

If you go to the site http://www.historicaerials.com/ you can see the onramp still being used in the 1991 aerial image (which doesn't have very good resolution), but there are better resolution aerial images of that ramp available for 1960 and 1971.
It would suck for those living right by the ramp just to make everyone go around to The Post Rd just to get on the ramp.. I wonder why they did not keep it.. I mean I know the on-ramp from 9 must be like less then 3,000 Ft away I mean you can tell it's old just by the worn pavement I just hate to see something go to waste.. But I guess the came can be said about the stacks on I-84 as well...

CONNDOT has been removing and consolidating ramps during some of the construction projects on I-95, as having too many interchanges closely spaced together along the highway is a contributing factor to chronic congestion on I-95.  Southbound Exit 28 (and corresponding northbound onramp) and all of Exit 49 were both removed in the past 15 or so years.  Exits 44 and 45 were recently consolidated into a single interchange as part of the West River Bridge replacement project.   
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeCL on February 04, 2017, 04:05:26 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on February 04, 2017, 03:41:56 PM
Quote from: MikeCL on February 04, 2017, 03:04:23 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on February 04, 2017, 01:49:39 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on February 04, 2017, 01:40:20 PM
Interesting... I never realized there was a closed ramp there.  Though looking at the map, I'm guessing its a reentry point for state trucks coming from the maintenance garage that abuts the service plaza just to the north.  IIRC, there used to be an emissions testing station located at that garage, perhaps the ramp was open to the public then.

If you go to the site http://www.historicaerials.com/ you can see the onramp still being used in the 1991 aerial image (which doesn't have very good resolution), but there are better resolution aerial images of that ramp available for 1960 and 1971.
It would suck for those living right by the ramp just to make everyone go around to The Post Rd just to get on the ramp.. I wonder why they did not keep it.. I mean I know the on-ramp from 9 must be like less then 3,000 Ft away I mean you can tell it's old just by the worn pavement I just hate to see something go to waste.. But I guess the came can be said about the stacks on I-84 as well...

CONNDOT has been removing and consolidating ramps during some of the construction projects on I-95, as having too many interchanges closely spaced together along the highway is a contributing factor to chronic congestion on I-95.  Southbound Exit 28 (and corresponding northbound onramp) and all of Exit 49 were both removed in the past 15 or so years.  Exits 44 and 45 were recently consolidated into a single interchange as part of the West River Bridge replacement project.

I understand the state has done yet another "study" to widen the whole length of 95..  :paranoid: Ok.. if I get on the ramp from where I live and I see the VMS near exit 2 saying a 26 mile delay to 25A wont it make sense to figure out how to fix exit 25A??

My understanding is only 1 lane to exit and the ramp/bridge is only 2 lanes which then opens to I think it's 3 until you can get to Rt 8..

I mean I said it before but during the summer I just hate going north.. sometimes I just get what I need in Yonkers like for say I need to go to Best buy or whatever.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 04, 2017, 08:01:20 PM
Quote from: MikeCL on February 04, 2017, 02:05:16 AM
What happened with this ramp?

https://goo.gl/maps/JUWvTCcmMNK2

I have driven by there a few times on I-95 and never noticed the ramp.  But looking at the south end of Brookside Drive, where it ties into U.S. 1 (Post Road), might an explanation (Brookside Drive itself is not on GSV). 

It appears that this is a private street (see GSV here (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0609994,-73.5071776,3a,25.5y,348.95h,83.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAIyW8NecVjHc_GfQPyMceQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) and here (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0609994,-73.5071776,3a,25.5y,54.75h,82.04t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAIyW8NecVjHc_GfQPyMceQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656))
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeCL on February 04, 2017, 08:05:37 PM
Yeah I tried last night to get a street view but it's not on it.. I only saw the gate with the stop signs on both when I was in the UPS truck on Friday I never knew it had a gate at the far end of it.


iPhone
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on February 06, 2017, 10:37:53 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 04, 2017, 08:01:20 PM
Quote from: MikeCL on February 04, 2017, 02:05:16 AM
What happened with this ramp?

https://goo.gl/maps/JUWvTCcmMNK2

I have driven by there a few times on I-95 and never noticed the ramp.  But looking at the south end of Brookside Drive, where it ties into U.S. 1 (Post Road), might an explanation (Brookside Drive itself is not on GSV). 

It appears that this is a private street (see GSV here (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0609994,-73.5071776,3a,25.5y,348.95h,83.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAIyW8NecVjHc_GfQPyMceQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) and here (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0609994,-73.5071776,3a,25.5y,54.75h,82.04t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAIyW8NecVjHc_GfQPyMceQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656))
If one zooms out a little further, one will notice that there's a service plaza (Darien Service Plaza) at the southbound of I-95.  Such is likely an access ramp to I-95 north for either official vehicles or service plaza employees.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 06, 2017, 10:52:00 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 06, 2017, 10:37:53 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 04, 2017, 08:01:20 PM
Quote from: MikeCL on February 04, 2017, 02:05:16 AM
What happened with this ramp?

https://goo.gl/maps/JUWvTCcmMNK2

I have driven by there a few times on I-95 and never noticed the ramp.  But looking at the south end of Brookside Drive, where it ties into U.S. 1 (Post Road), might an explanation (Brookside Drive itself is not on GSV). 

It appears that this is a private street (see GSV here (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0609994,-73.5071776,3a,25.5y,348.95h,83.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAIyW8NecVjHc_GfQPyMceQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) and here (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0609994,-73.5071776,3a,25.5y,54.75h,82.04t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAIyW8NecVjHc_GfQPyMceQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656))
If one zooms out a little further, one will notice that there's a service plaza (Darien Service Plaza) at the southbound of I-95.  Such is likely an access ramp to I-95 north for either official vehicles or service plaza employees.

Yes, I think that is reasonable.  Especially for road maintenance vehicles and Connecticut State Police.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: TravelingBethelite on February 19, 2017, 08:57:13 AM
Another article on the possible rest area closures, with more detail...

http://www.newstimes.com/local/article/Rest-areas-proposed-to-close-in-governor-s-10941642.php (http://www.newstimes.com/local/article/Rest-areas-proposed-to-close-in-governor-s-10941642.php)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on February 20, 2017, 07:29:41 PM
Quote from: MikeCL on February 04, 2017, 02:05:16 AM
Hey I've always been wondering about this i guess abandoned on-ramp in Stamford

Nitpick: the ramp is in Darien. The Noroton River, directly to the west of Brookside Drive, is the line between Darien and Stamford.

As for the story behind it, I don't know that it was ever open to the general public. I would say Historic Aerials is inconclusive on this matter since none of the older images are high res enough to clearly see the striping. I do know that it was shown on Hagstrom maps in the 1990s, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything. I grew up in Stamford and don't remember ever using this ramp, but then we would not have had a reason to.

Quote from: shadyjay on February 04, 2017, 01:40:20 PM
IIRC, there used to be an emissions testing station located at that garage

There was, I remember being with my parents when they got their cars tested there. We exited through the service plaza onto I-95 south, though, not via that ramp.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeCL on February 26, 2017, 09:15:19 PM
How many other roads in CT had ramps like this but then out of service?


iPhone
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeCL on February 28, 2017, 01:41:27 PM
Hey another question been trying to find out for years... you know on the highway (95) what are those square boxes on light pole or sometimes pointed at bridges is it some type of traffic monitor? I never could get a picture since I'm normally the one driving


iPhone
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on February 28, 2017, 06:12:42 PM
OH C'mon!!  Read a new idea about the CT15/US7 interchange in Norwalk. 

https://www.nancyonnorwalk.com/2017/01/conndot-consultant-reveals-new-idea-for-merritt-parkwayroute-7-interchange/#more-62076

http://www.7-15norwalk.com/

I'll say again, what is free flowing high speed highways frowned upon so much??  There is a place for it.

THEN:
IDK why people still think the connector will be built to Danbury just b/c they finish the connections of the interchange!?!?  People and their stereotypes.
Look at this comment in the above article:



I had Adolph's name wrong. Correction made.






Gordon Tully

January 31, 2017 at 1:57 pm


This design is the best news I have seen coming out of DOT in a long while. It shows that the extension of the connector is at least remote in their thinking, and it shows more respect for the character of the Merritt than the other scheme.

Support this scheme! The only better plan would be to do nothing, but I suspect that is off the table.

Mr. Cooper, more highways and cloverleafs is an idea left over from the 1950's. What has been found throughout the world is that if you build it, they will jam it. If you are worried about traffic jams, get the damned cars off the road.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: dgolub on February 28, 2017, 06:48:35 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on February 28, 2017, 06:12:42 PM
OH C'mon!!  Read a new idea about the CT15/US7 interchange in Norwalk. 

https://www.nancyonnorwalk.com/2017/01/conndot-consultant-reveals-new-idea-for-merritt-parkwayroute-7-interchange/#more-62076

Traffic lights?  Seriously?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on February 28, 2017, 07:11:46 PM
Quote from: dgolub on February 28, 2017, 06:48:35 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on February 28, 2017, 06:12:42 PM
OH C'mon!!  Read a new idea about the CT15/US7 interchange in Norwalk. 

https://www.nancyonnorwalk.com/2017/01/conndot-consultant-reveals-new-idea-for-merritt-parkwayroute-7-interchange/#more-62076

Traffic lights?  Seriously?

Looks like a VT style interchange. Go halfway and just put lights at the end of the ramps.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on February 28, 2017, 07:24:17 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on February 28, 2017, 06:12:42 PM
I'll say again, what is free flowing high speed highways frowned upon so much??

Fairfield County has an identity crisis. It's been largely sprawling suburbs for decades now, but many of its residents retain a small town mindset where large scale development and population growth are seen as a threat to their way of life.

The US 7 expressway is, perhaps, the single most epitomizing symptom of this problem. The traffic justification for building the whole thing was there decades ago when it was first planned. But the folks in Wilton and Ridgefield did not want the extra traffic and hustle and bustle that they believed it would bring to their communities, because again, identity crisis - they would like to believe they are small towns off in the middle of New England rather than suburbs a 90 minute ride from Grand Central Terminal.

Because of this, some of them seem to view the US 7 expressway in Norwalk as a loaded gun pointed at them, perpetually threatening their existence as they know it should the state ever pull the trigger on finishing it (an idea which still retains some support). Proposals such as the one seen in the link above, therefore, arise in order to placate the fears of people who think that the highway stub ending 1/4 mile short of the Norwalk/Wilton line is too close for comfort and want it shortened one way or another in order to more confidently ensure it is never finished as originally proposed.


Meanwhile the fact that this interchange involves the Merritt Parkway exacerbates the controversy, because the same identity crisis has people trying to preserve the parkway as though it is a tranquil country road instead of a woefully substandard suburban freeway... thus meaning that any freeway-freeway junction which comes anywhere near modern standards is out of the question because it's too big/not scenic enough.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on February 28, 2017, 08:36:46 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on February 28, 2017, 07:24:17 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on February 28, 2017, 06:12:42 PM
I'll say again, what is free flowing high speed highways frowned upon so much??

Fairfield County has an identity crisis. It's been largely sprawling suburbs for decades now, but many of its residents retain a small town mindset where large scale development and population growth are seen as a threat to their way of life.

The US 7 expressway is, perhaps, the single most epitomizing symptom of this problem. The traffic justification for building the whole thing was there decades ago when it was first planned. But the folks in Wilton and Ridgefield did not want the extra traffic and hustle and bustle that they believed it would bring to their communities, because again, identity crisis - they would like to believe they are small towns off in the middle of New England rather than suburbs a 90 minute ride from Grand Central Terminal.

Because of this, some of them seem to view the US 7 expressway in Norwalk as a loaded gun pointed at them, perpetually threatening their existence as they know it should the state ever pull the trigger on finishing it (an idea which still retains some support). Proposals such as the one seen in the link above, therefore, arise in order to placate the fears of people who think that the highway stub ending 1/4 mile short of the Norwalk/Wilton line is too close for comfort and want it shortened one way or another in order to more confidently ensure it is never finished as originally proposed.


Meanwhile the fact that this interchange involves the Merritt Parkway exacerbates the controversy, because the same identity crisis has people trying to preserve the parkway as though it is a tranquil country road instead of a woefully substandard suburban freeway... thus meaning that any freeway-freeway junction which comes anywhere near modern standards is out of the question because it's too big/not scenic enough.
The same people that opposed the freeways in the 70s are the same people bitching about the constant traffic.  And, I believe, are the same people who are left lane bandits and do 80 on the Merritt/WC.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on February 28, 2017, 08:50:05 PM
Nothing like creating a Breezewood in the middle of Fairfield County.  Super 7 needs to be built 40 years ago, and this is basically akin to the same lame compromise that ConnDOT reached in extending CT 72 into Bristol when in reality it should have been built as an expressway out to CT 8 in Thomaston.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on February 28, 2017, 10:00:40 PM
Not to mention Route 11, which was fast-tracked at some point in the early 00s, but has been cancelled indefinitely after $XXX million spent on studies.  Or the fact that there is no bypass around Hartford.  Or the fact that 40+ years later, traffic lights remain on Route 9 in Middletown. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on March 01, 2017, 03:30:44 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on February 28, 2017, 07:24:17 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on February 28, 2017, 06:12:42 PM
I'll say again, what is free flowing high speed highways frowned upon so much??

Fairfield County has an identity crisis. It's been largely sprawling suburbs for decades now, but many of its residents retain a small town mindset where large scale development and population growth are seen as a threat to their way of life.

The US 7 expressway is, perhaps, the single most epitomizing symptom of this problem. The traffic justification for building the whole thing was there decades ago when it was first planned. But the folks in Wilton and Ridgefield did not want the extra traffic and hustle and bustle that they believed it would bring to their communities, because again, identity crisis - they would like to believe they are small towns off in the middle of New England rather than suburbs a 90 minute ride from Grand Central Terminal.

Because of this, some of them seem to view the US 7 expressway in Norwalk as a loaded gun pointed at them, perpetually threatening their existence as they know it should the state ever pull the trigger on finishing it (an idea which still retains some support). Proposals such as the one seen in the link above, therefore, arise in order to placate the fears of people who think that the highway stub ending 1/4 mile short of the Norwalk/Wilton line is too close for comfort and want it shortened one way or another in order to more confidently ensure it is never finished as originally proposed.


Meanwhile the fact that this interchange involves the Merritt Parkway exacerbates the controversy, because the same identity crisis has people trying to preserve the parkway as though it is a tranquil country road instead of a woefully substandard suburban freeway... thus meaning that any freeway-freeway junction which comes anywhere near modern standards is out of the question because it's too big/not scenic enough.

beautifully said.  But when they build condos or a Home Depot nobody complains (as much).  I still don't see how the original proposal and Alt 21C is so bad.  It's not like there's no highway there to begin with. 

And don't say the traffic light scenario won't happen, because the DOT was thisclose to putting in the cloverleaf to ease the critics and take the easy way out.  But, the Silvermine people thankfully opposed because the clovers would be closer to their neighborhood.  But, the DOT was all set to do the cloverleaf option and even had a powerpoint showing effective cloverleafs! WTF!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on March 01, 2017, 08:00:47 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on March 01, 2017, 03:30:44 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on February 28, 2017, 07:24:17 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on February 28, 2017, 06:12:42 PM
I'll say again, what is free flowing high speed highways frowned upon so much??

Fairfield County has an identity crisis. It's been largely sprawling suburbs for decades now, but many of its residents retain a small town mindset where large scale development and population growth are seen as a threat to their way of life.

The US 7 expressway is, perhaps, the single most epitomizing symptom of this problem. The traffic justification for building the whole thing was there decades ago when it was first planned. But the folks in Wilton and Ridgefield did not want the extra traffic and hustle and bustle that they believed it would bring to their communities, because again, identity crisis - they would like to believe they are small towns off in the middle of New England rather than suburbs a 90 minute ride from Grand Central Terminal.

Because of this, some of them seem to view the US 7 expressway in Norwalk as a loaded gun pointed at them, perpetually threatening their existence as they know it should the state ever pull the trigger on finishing it (an idea which still retains some support). Proposals such as the one seen in the link above, therefore, arise in order to placate the fears of people who think that the highway stub ending 1/4 mile short of the Norwalk/Wilton line is too close for comfort and want it shortened one way or another in order to more confidently ensure it is never finished as originally proposed.


Meanwhile the fact that this interchange involves the Merritt Parkway exacerbates the controversy, because the same identity crisis has people trying to preserve the parkway as though it is a tranquil country road instead of a woefully substandard suburban freeway... thus meaning that any freeway-freeway junction which comes anywhere near modern standards is out of the question because it's too big/not scenic enough.

beautifully said.  But when they build condos or a Home Depot nobody complains (as much).  I still don't see how the original proposal and Alt 21C is so bad.  It's not like there's no highway there to begin with. 

And don't say the traffic light scenario won't happen, because the DOT was thisclose to putting in the cloverleaf to ease the critics and take the easy way out.  But, the Silvermine people thankfully opposed because the clovers would be closer to their neighborhood.  But, the DOT was all set to do the cloverleaf option and even had a powerpoint showing effective cloverleafs! WTF!

Another illogical decision by Connecticut highway planners.  Why would anyone in their right mind put an at-grade intersection on a freeway?  Let's think for a second:  40,000 vehicles a day moving at 70 mph, and all of a sudden there's a red light.  Leaving the rock cut opposite the end of the Route 7 freeway at Gristmill Road would have been a safer alternative than ConnDOT's latest plan for the Route 7/15 interchange.

And yes, Fairfield County does have an identity crisis.  People along the Route 7 corridor oppose completing the freeway between Norwalk and Danbury to preserve the "rural character" along the route, but have no problem with uncontrolled development of subdivisions, luxury condos, and strip malls within the same corridor.  What hypocrisy.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on March 01, 2017, 09:47:23 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on March 01, 2017, 08:00:47 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on March 01, 2017, 03:30:44 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on February 28, 2017, 07:24:17 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on February 28, 2017, 06:12:42 PM
I'll say again, what is free flowing high speed highways frowned upon so much??

Fairfield County has an identity crisis. It's been largely sprawling suburbs for decades now, but many of its residents retain a small town mindset where large scale development and population growth are seen as a threat to their way of life.

The US 7 expressway is, perhaps, the single most epitomizing symptom of this problem. The traffic justification for building the whole thing was there decades ago when it was first planned. But the folks in Wilton and Ridgefield did not want the extra traffic and hustle and bustle that they believed it would bring to their communities, because again, identity crisis - they would like to believe they are small towns off in the middle of New England rather than suburbs a 90 minute ride from Grand Central Terminal.

Because of this, some of them seem to view the US 7 expressway in Norwalk as a loaded gun pointed at them, perpetually threatening their existence as they know it should the state ever pull the trigger on finishing it (an idea which still retains some support). Proposals such as the one seen in the link above, therefore, arise in order to placate the fears of people who think that the highway stub ending 1/4 mile short of the Norwalk/Wilton line is too close for comfort and want it shortened one way or another in order to more confidently ensure it is never finished as originally proposed.


Meanwhile the fact that this interchange involves the Merritt Parkway exacerbates the controversy, because the same identity crisis has people trying to preserve the parkway as though it is a tranquil country road instead of a woefully substandard suburban freeway... thus meaning that any freeway-freeway junction which comes anywhere near modern standards is out of the question because it's too big/not scenic enough.

beautifully said.  But when they build condos or a Home Depot nobody complains (as much).  I still don't see how the original proposal and Alt 21C is so bad.  It's not like there's no highway there to begin with. 

And don't say the traffic light scenario won't happen, because the DOT was thisclose to putting in the cloverleaf to ease the critics and take the easy way out.  But, the Silvermine people thankfully opposed because the clovers would be closer to their neighborhood.  But, the DOT was all set to do the cloverleaf option and even had a powerpoint showing effective cloverleafs! WTF!

Another illogical decision by Connecticut highway planners.  Why would anyone in their right mind put an at-grade intersection on a freeway?  Let's think for a second:  40,000 vehicles a day moving at 70 mph, and all of a sudden there's a red light.  Leaving the rock cut opposite the end of the Route 7 freeway at Gristmill Road would have been a safer alternative than ConnDOT's latest plan for the Route 7/15 interchange.

And yes, Fairfield County does have an identity crisis.  People along the Route 7 corridor oppose completing the freeway between Norwalk and Danbury to preserve the "rural character" along the route, but have no problem with uncontrolled development of subdivisions, luxury condos, and strip malls within the same corridor.  What hypocrisy.
I am of the belief that you will never see a new Limited-access highway constructed in this state.  The corridors where they are proposed are too densely populated.  Yes, I know eminint domain is constitutional but are you, as the State, really going to relocate 30,40,50 homes all at once?  Then you have EPA regulatory procedures to deal with and the securing of funding.

The most effective long-term solutions to gridlock are going to be spot improvements that don't intrude on the  common person's lifestyle.  CT 72 and US 7 bypassing as an example.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on March 02, 2017, 02:04:16 AM
I was curious as to what sort of rural character in Wilton that the Super 7 would destroy forever -- and looked over some of the charming village mom and pop shops along existing Route 7. In rough order from south to north, these include Outback, Michaels, Dunkin Donuts, TJ Maxx, Radio Shack, Boston Market, Supercuts, Self Storage (x2), a Chevrolet dealership, Super Stop and Shop, CVS, Wells Fargo, Chase.

I understand why the town wants these businesses to serve their residents (surprisingly, sales tax is not a source of revenue)*. I also understand why the town wants to have it both ways, because that's the American way. Outskirts of New York City, but if they could only just ban all thru traffic (build a wall and make Norwalk pay for it) then life would be perfect, because all life's inconveniences are somebody else's fault.

There are towns in CT with 100% rural charm, and (for example) Route 109 is pretty quiet. But you're far from everything, you can't get a decent bagel, and you'll have to build your own shed to store your stuff. But go try it out. You won't have to worry about Super 109.

* (town budget, 2016 (http://www.wiltonct.org/departments/finance/documents/FinalAdopted2016Budgetv2.pdf) shows 95% of revenue ($114 million) is property taxes)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on March 02, 2017, 07:49:14 PM
Quote from: kurumi on March 02, 2017, 02:04:16 AM
(surprisingly, sales tax is not a source of revenue)

This does not surprise me at all - there are no local sales taxes in CT.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on March 02, 2017, 09:09:15 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on March 02, 2017, 07:49:14 PM
Quote from: kurumi on March 02, 2017, 02:04:16 AM
(surprisingly, sales tax is not a source of revenue)

This does not surprise me at all - there are no local sales taxes in CT.

That's why they have no problem with big box stores, strip malls, and expensive subdivisions because these towns only real source of revenue is from property taxes.  Undeveloped property yields less tax revenue for towns, while dense developments add greatly to the tax base.  Towns lose a huge chunk of potential property tax revenue when the state acquires private land for highways and other public uses, thus another source of the general opposition to highway expansion in the state.  Everyone gripes about traffic in Connecticut, but there is no political will bring forth real solutions to fix things.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Pete from Boston on March 04, 2017, 03:56:29 PM
Quote from: TravelingBethelite on February 19, 2017, 08:57:13 AM
Another article on the possible rest area closures, with more detail...

http://www.newstimes.com/local/article/Rest-areas-proposed-to-close-in-governor-s-10941642.php (http://www.newstimes.com/local/article/Rest-areas-proposed-to-close-in-governor-s-10941642.php)

I was thinking about the number of Boy Scout troops and other community groups that use these places for fundraising/public service projects, when it hit me like a stroke of genius–get the Boy Scouts to volunteer all the time and run the rest areas!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeCL on March 09, 2017, 10:33:58 AM
What are these on the highway? (https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170309/c98ce1479e3501b22431e7aa483da5b6.jpg)


iPhone
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on March 09, 2017, 06:08:42 PM
I believe that's part of ConnDOT's first generation of traffic cameras/ITS/IMS, as seen on I-95 in Fairfield and New Haven counties.  The newer installs, as seen in the greater Hartford area and east of Branford on I-95, are mounted on the same type of post as highway illumination, just higher up and with a more visible camera.  See this shot on I-91 NB at Exit 22 in Cromwell:

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.615777,-72.6965224,3a,75y,20.03h,101.5t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sTQs1uOOG2vF7zdaoDj1E-g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Here's a shot of I-95 at the Darien service plaza - SB, showing the "covered-up camera" and a higher mounted traditional camera:

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0670169,-73.5046665,3a,38.2y,262.91h,102.1t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sQvhBXZLeGJJHsJ2rgKCqQQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DQvhBXZLeGJJHsJ2rgKCqQQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D10.035127%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeCL on March 09, 2017, 07:13:30 PM
That's not covered up they always look like that square and gray looking


iPhone
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on March 09, 2017, 08:42:01 PM
Correct, hence why I put it in " ".  It just appears to be blanked out. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeCL on March 09, 2017, 08:43:23 PM
Oh sorry missed that haha Tapatalk shows the huge google link so I missed that


iPhone
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on March 14, 2017, 05:06:03 AM
Enjoy those ConnDOT traffic cam images! The state's travel ban just started here at 5 AM EDT. Enjoy the blizzard everyone! WAIT...

:-o

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on March 15, 2017, 04:29:36 PM
More typical CT. So, let's sure up development without thinking about people will get there.  It seems if it wasn't for Preston Officials, nobody would have thought of improving the roads. Also note: an EIS was done for a second bridge span and the DOT never acted on it.  So it was a waste.

http://www.theday.com/local/20170120/preston-officials-want-bridge-expansion-moved-up-in-infrastructure-plan

Colorful maps unveiled this week by the Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority depicting the potential for several hundred million dollars' worth of development at the former Norwich Hospital also showed a narrow line cutting across the Thames River just south of both the project property and Mohegan Sun.
That is the Mohegan-Pequot Bridge, a two-lane span across the river described by a state transportation official as adequate for current traffic volumes and in good physical condition.
An estimated $100 million to improve the Route 2/2A/32 corridor between Preston and Montville, including a potential second bridge span, is listed in Gov. Dannel P. Malloy's "Let's Go CT"  massive $100 billion, 30-year state transportation infrastructure plan released in February 2015.
Thomas J. Maziarz, chief of the state Department of Transportation's Bureau of Policy and Planning, said at the time that the Route 2/2A/32 project was envisioned as a "long-term need."
But Preston residents and town officials were quick to point out this week that the narrow span likely would not be able to support traffic for the destination resort development envisioned by tribal planners for the former Norwich Hospital property: a 40-acre theme park, outdoor adventure park, synthetic skiing, hotels, major sports complex and retail offerings.
The former Norwich Hospital Preston Riverwalk property, Preston and the Mohegan-Pequot Bridge are seen from the air Tuesday, May 17, 2016.  (Sean D. Elliot/The Day)
BUY PHOTO
The former Norwich Hospital Preston Riverwalk property, Preston and the Mohegan-Pequot Bridge are seen from the air Tuesday, May 17, 2016. (Sean D. Elliot/The Day)
On Wednesday, the morning after the unveiling, First Selectman Robert Congdon asked officials at the Southeastern Connecticut Council of Governments to set up a meeting with DOT Commissioner James P. Redeker to discuss moving up the proposed Route 2/2A/32 improvements, designating them as a high priority for this region.
"I think it makes perfect sense to move it up in the priority list to support economic growth of the region,"  Congdon said.
Council of governments Executive Director James Butler said the project already is listed among six "highest long-term priorities"  for the region, including a new bridge span over the Thames River, in the council's "Long-Range Regional Transportation Plan FY 2015-2040."
In both cases, Maziarz and Butler said, the plans can be altered to reflect changes in projected development or other regional priorities. For example, Butler said, the council listed completion of Route 11 as its top priority, a project since canceled by state officials.
The existing Mohegan-Pequot Bridge is seen in the lower right of this rendering of potential development at the former Norwich Hospital site. (Submitted by: Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority)
The existing Mohegan-Pequot Bridge is seen in the lower right of this rendering of potential development at the former Norwich Hospital site. (Submitted by: Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority)
"It wouldn't be unusual to move a project up,"  Maziarz said. "Occasionally, we're being asked to put something as a higher priority because conditions change."
According to traffic counts listed in the council of governments' long-range plan, average daily traffic volumes from Mohegan Sun Boulevard to Preston on Route 2A increased from 15,500 in 1992 to 23,900 in 2014, a 54 percent hike.

Maziarz said without the proposed Norwich Hospital development, the current traffic totals would not warrant the proposed widening project that calls for two lanes in each direction with a second bridge span.
A tentative schedule of development of the former hospital property calls for finalizing the Property Disposition and Development Agreement by late February, followed by one year of final environmental cleanup before the tribe takes ownership of the property.
Mohegan Tribal Council Chairman Kevin Brown said Tuesday the five-year timeframe called for the proposed agreement – not yet public – would have development substantially completed by 2023.
"It takes several years just to design a bridge,"  Butler said.
Other improvements to the corridor on both sides of the river also are anticipated and might be able to be done quicker than a bridge project, Maziarz said.
In addition, as the Preston developers seek permit approvals for various aspects of the project, they could be required to make improvements to state Route 12, which runs through the former Norwich Hospital property. Typically, the costs of those local improvements, such as new traffic lights or turning lanes, are borne by the developers, Maziarz said.
State officials likely would meet with the tribe and project developers to work out a partnership plan for traffic improvements as the plans become solidified, Maziarz said.
State officials first proposed the second bridge span in 2008. An illustration as part of an environmental impact statement showed the potential new span erected just north of the existing bridge.
Maziarz said the project was never engineered.
"The concept would have to be completely re-evaluated,"  he said.
(of course it would--sarcasm)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on March 17, 2017, 02:42:12 PM
The Legislative Committee on Transportation approved a bill on tolling the other day.  On to the General Assembly it goes.
http://www.courant.com/politics/hc-tolls-committee-vote-20170317-story.html (http://www.courant.com/politics/hc-tolls-committee-vote-20170317-story.html)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on March 17, 2017, 04:09:40 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 17, 2017, 02:42:12 PM
The Legislative Committee on Transportation approved a bill on tolling the other day.  On to the General Assembly it goes.
http://www.courant.com/politics/hc-tolls-committee-vote-20170317-story.html (http://www.courant.com/politics/hc-tolls-committee-vote-20170317-story.html)
Even if such were to pass tomorrow; I believe that placing tolls along existing free-Interstates still requires Federal approval prior to implementing/erecting such.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on March 21, 2017, 12:16:44 PM
ConnDOT is planning tangible improvements at the I-95 / CT 161 interchange:
* NB exit ramp relocated southward along CT 161
* new SB 161 entrance ramp to I-95 NB (left turn no longer needed)
* existing I-95 NB entrance ramp retained for NB 161 use
* replace I-95 overpass because of poor condition (and widening of 161 to 6 lanes underneath)
* add operational lanes between 161 interchange (exit 74) and US 1 (exit 75)
* and this quote:
Quote
I-95 will be widened to accommodate three travel lanes in each direction (one of the three lanes is intended for future use)

Evidently someone hacked into the ConnDOT website. Forward-looking changes? Real improvements to capacity and convenience? This is a little unfamiliar :-)

The whole thing will cost $140 million + inflation and might start in 2021.

http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?a=2135&Q=591238
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Rothman on March 21, 2017, 12:20:30 PM
2021? Might as well be never.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: cl94 on March 21, 2017, 02:07:04 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 21, 2017, 12:20:30 PM
2021? Might as well be never.

Knowing ConnDOT? Certainly.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on March 21, 2017, 02:41:31 PM
Quote from: kurumi on March 21, 2017, 12:16:44 PM
ConnDOT is planning tangible improvements at the I-95 / CT 161 interchange:
* NB exit ramp relocated southward along CT 161
* new SB 161 entrance ramp to I-95 NB (left turn no longer needed)
* existing I-95 NB entrance ramp retained for NB 161 use
* replace I-95 overpass because of poor condition (and widening of 161 to 6 lanes underneath)
* add operational lanes between 161 interchange (exit 74) and US 1 (exit 75)
* and this quote:
Quote
I-95 will be widened to accommodate three travel lanes in each direction (one of the three lanes is intended for future use)

Evidently someone hacked into the ConnDOT website. Forward-looking changes? Real improvements to capacity and convenience? This is a little unfamiliar :-)

The whole thing will cost $140 million + inflation and might start in 2021.

http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?a=2135&Q=591238

It's like the studies and public meetings they have...don't people know after the study is done and the meetings are completed....the DOT will lag and everything comes obsolete and will have to repeat everything 10 years later (Like the US-7/CT-15 interchange)

As much as I hate to admit it, there are some cases where CTDOT actually planned ahead:

-I-84 in Danbury was originally built to accomadete 3-lanes in 1961.  In 1988 it became reality.

-I-84 in Newtown by Exit 13, the bridges there were built for 3-future lanes and recently with bridge work they widened the highway between the bridges for future use.

-The Saltonstall Bridge on I-95 was built for 3 and it became reality when I-95 was widened there in 2004.

-I-95 had an extra lane added for CT-9 in 1993, which could be absorbed into future widening.


And now a list of where they did NOT think ahead....
I won't have enough time.  (the median project between Exits 70-74 on I-95 comes to mind)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on March 21, 2017, 08:29:15 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on March 21, 2017, 02:41:31 PM
Quote from: kurumi on March 21, 2017, 12:16:44 PM
ConnDOT is planning tangible improvements at the I-95 / CT 161 interchange:
* NB exit ramp relocated southward along CT 161
* new SB 161 entrance ramp to I-95 NB (left turn no longer needed)
* existing I-95 NB entrance ramp retained for NB 161 use
* replace I-95 overpass because of poor condition (and widening of 161 to 6 lanes underneath)
* add operational lanes between 161 interchange (exit 74) and US 1 (exit 75)
* and this quote:
Quote
I-95 will be widened to accommodate three travel lanes in each direction (one of the three lanes is intended for future use)

Evidently someone hacked into the ConnDOT website. Forward-looking changes? Real improvements to capacity and convenience? This is a little unfamiliar :-)

The whole thing will cost $140 million + inflation and might start in 2021.

http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?a=2135&Q=591238

It's like the studies and public meetings they have...don't people know after the study is done and the meetings are completed....the DOT will lag and everything comes obsolete and will have to repeat everything 10 years later (Like the US-7/CT-15 interchange)

As much as I hate to admit it, there are some cases where CTDOT actually planned ahead:

-I-84 in Danbury was originally built to accomadete 3-lanes in 1961.  In 1988 it became reality.

-I-84 in Newtown by Exit 13, the bridges there were built for 3-future lanes and recently with bridge work they widened the highway between the bridges for future use.

-The Saltonstall Bridge on I-95 was built for 3 and it became reality when I-95 was widened there in 2004.

-I-95 had an extra lane added for CT-9 in 1993, which could be absorbed into future widening.


And now a list of where they did NOT think ahead....
I won't have enough time.  (the median project between Exits 70-74 on I-95 comes to mind)
They didn't really think ahead when building I-291.  It solely needs a third lane between exits 4 and 3.  Those damn school busses clog up rush hour for being stuck at 50mph max.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on March 22, 2017, 05:02:41 PM
When the I-95 overpass over Route 85 in Waterford was replaced several years ago, it appears they left enough room for a 3rd lane.   My guess is when the bridge over Route 161 gets replaced, it'll be striped for 2 lanes with a very wide shoulder, and the operational lane will come in from the realigned NB 161 ramp.  And from there to Exit 75, 3 lanes with a very wide shoulder. 

I still haven't seen the new Society Road overpass to see if that's wide enough for 3 lanes.  The Flat Rock Road overpass (1 1/4 miles west of Exit 71) wasn't built with any extra space.  I don't believe the Cross Road overpass has any extra space for more lanes either. 

ConnDOT... one step forward, two steps back. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on March 22, 2017, 06:06:29 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 21, 2017, 08:29:15 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on March 21, 2017, 02:41:31 PM
Quote from: kurumi on March 21, 2017, 12:16:44 PM
ConnDOT is planning tangible improvements at the I-95 / CT 161 interchange:
* NB exit ramp relocated southward along CT 161
* new SB 161 entrance ramp to I-95 NB (left turn no longer needed)
* existing I-95 NB entrance ramp retained for NB 161 use
* replace I-95 overpass because of poor condition (and widening of 161 to 6 lanes underneath)
* add operational lanes between 161 interchange (exit 74) and US 1 (exit 75)
* and this quote:
Quote
I-95 will be widened to accommodate three travel lanes in each direction (one of the three lanes is intended for future use)

Evidently someone hacked into the ConnDOT website. Forward-looking changes? Real improvements to capacity and convenience? This is a little unfamiliar :-)

The whole thing will cost $140 million + inflation and might start in 2021.

http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?a=2135&Q=591238

It's like the studies and public meetings they have...don't people know after the study is done and the meetings are completed....the DOT will lag and everything comes obsolete and will have to repeat everything 10 years later (Like the US-7/CT-15 interchange)

As much as I hate to admit it, there are some cases where CTDOT actually planned ahead:

-I-84 in Danbury was originally built to accomadete 3-lanes in 1961.  In 1988 it became reality.

-I-84 in Newtown by Exit 13, the bridges there were built for 3-future lanes and recently with bridge work they widened the highway between the bridges for future use.

-The Saltonstall Bridge on I-95 was built for 3 and it became reality when I-95 was widened there in 2004.

-I-95 had an extra lane added for CT-9 in 1993, which could be absorbed into future widening.


And now a list of where they did NOT think ahead....
I won't have enough time.  (the median project between Exits 70-74 on I-95 comes to mind)
They didn't really think ahead when building I-291.  It solely needs a third lane between exits 4 and 3.  Those damn school busses clog up rush hour for being stuck at 50mph max.

That stretch was actually built in the late 1950's and was part of CT 291 for years.   Seems ConnDOT left that part untouched, and only rebuilt the I-91/CT 218 interchange, and the extension east of US 5.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on March 22, 2017, 07:40:45 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 21, 2017, 08:29:15 PM
They didn't really think ahead when building I-291.  It solely needs a third lane between exits 4 and 3.

No, they didn't think ahead with I-291 at all... heck, it solely needs a right of way west/southwest of I-91 to meet up with I-84 again ;-)  :cool:

Then again, maybe they thought TOO FAR ahead when the Stack was built.
:bigass:
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on March 23, 2017, 12:40:49 AM
Not really Connecticut News, but some interesting paragraphs from the 2008 Litchfield Hills Regional Transportation Plan (Litchfield Hills Council of Elected Officials):
Quote
Specific state road improvement needs are discussed by town in Section IV of this report and listed in Table 5.1. A major inter-regional improvement issue is the westerly extension of the Route 72 expressway to Route 8 in Thomaston. Extension of the Route 72 expressway is currently proposed from Plainville to Route 229 in Bristol.

This Regional Transportation Plan supports the extension of Route 72 to Route 8, or the development of an alternate route in this vicinity, in order to enhance access to the Hartford area from the southern part of the regional area provided congestion impacts on Thomaston center and other potential impacts are fully addressed and suitably mitigated. Routes 202 and 4 currently serve as the major corridors to the Hartford area for the southerly part of the Region. These two highways are prone to increasing traffic congestion and are topographically and physically unfit for major expansion. The Route 72 extension would provide a significant opportunity to enhance access from the southern part of the Litchfield Hills Region to the Hartford area.

Another inter-regional improvement issue is the extension of a new Route 8 expressway from its present interchange at Route 44 in Winchester to the Massachusetts line. Serious consideration of this roadway improvement is not merited, however, until such time as Massachusetts expresses interest in continuing such a roadway to the Massachusetts Turnpike.

Neither of these ideas are new; I'm just surprised that even in 2008 they were still around.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: zzyzx on March 24, 2017, 02:46:42 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on March 22, 2017, 05:02:41 PM
When the I-95 overpass over Route 85 in Waterford was replaced several years ago, it appears they left enough room for a 3rd lane.   My guess is when the bridge over Route 161 gets replaced, it'll be striped for 2 lanes with a very wide shoulder, and the operational lane will come in from the realigned NB 161 ramp.  And from there to Exit 75, 3 lanes with a very wide shoulder. 

I still haven't seen the new Society Road overpass to see if that's wide enough for 3 lanes.  The Flat Rock Road overpass (1 1/4 miles west of Exit 71) wasn't built with any extra space.  I don't believe the Cross Road overpass has any extra space for more lanes either. 

ConnDOT... one step forward, two steps back.

The Society Rd. overpass span is 242 ft, according to CTDOT, which should be enough room for 3+ lanes in either direction.  The reason why 161 is being widened is because they're building a Costco in East Lyme.  There were plans for the Exit 74 SB ramps to be realigned entering the new shopping center, but this is the first I've heard about CTDOT relocating the NB ramps and adding auxiliary lanes.  There's a rundown motel where the new offramp and loop ramp would be placed.  I'm planning on going to the meeting in April to get pictures of the plans.

Also, another bridge to add to the list: The ABC bridge replacements over Oil Mill Rd. (exit 80) that they finished last fall are 2 lanes each.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on March 25, 2017, 08:40:48 AM
WAIT...ABC bridge replacement? 2 lanes each, as in the room under these new bridges is still only 2 lanes for each side of I-95? (Sorry for the confusion!)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on March 25, 2017, 07:49:34 PM
I-95 spans Oil Mill Road, and the new spans are only 2 lanes wide (in each direction).  Underneath, the spans are wide enough to span the 2-lane country road that is Oil Mill Road, which somehow deserved a southbound exit/northbound entrance.  In reality, the exit should go.  There's literally nothing off the exit, and the Cross Road ramps are only a mile or so east. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: zzyzx on March 28, 2017, 03:43:07 PM
The Day published an article about the Exit 74 improvements, along with an interactive map showing the proposed design.  A frontage road would be built to handle SB traffic and connect to Route 161 in anticipation for the future construction of Costco.  NB ramps would see the most changes, with the old motel and Mobile station being demolished to make room for a new intersection across from the Burger King.  The loop ramp for traffic heading south on 161 to 95 North will connect with the current northbound ramp to form an auxiliary lane to exit 75. A commuter parking lot will be built where the current NB exit ramp is now. Design should be completed by the end of 2020 with construction starting in Spring 2021.

http://www.theday.com/local/20170326/state-plans-improvements-for-i-95-interchange-in-east-lyme
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on March 28, 2017, 05:30:20 PM
Quote from: zzyzx on March 28, 2017, 03:43:07 PM
The Day published an article about the Exit 74 improvements, along with an interactive map showing the proposed design.  A frontage road would be built to handle SB traffic and connect to Route 161 in anticipation for the future construction of Costco.  NB ramps would see the most changes, with the old motel and Mobile station being demolished to make room for a new intersection across from the Burger King.  The loop ramp for traffic heading south on 161 to 95 North will connect with the current northbound ramp to form an auxiliary lane to exit 75. A commuter parking lot will be built where the current NB exit ramp is now. Design should be completed by the end of 2020 with construction starting in Spring 2021.

http://www.theday.com/local/20170326/state-plans-improvements-for-i-95-interchange-in-east-lyme

Paywall.  Any way you can post the map?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: zzyzx on March 28, 2017, 09:01:33 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FYr5VNAw.jpg&hash=fecba0dc84f327bb145846c5da0f753a518b05a6)
Here's another from NBC CT that shows the auxiliary lanes to Exit 75:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C7-N7iWVYAIVzEp.jpg:large)

I'll go to the meeting in April and get better quality pics
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on March 29, 2017, 02:21:10 PM
I asked the DOT contact on their press release.  I got the plans within an hour of me e-mailing them.  It's a good project! 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on March 29, 2017, 04:03:49 PM
On a different topic:  anybody notice CT DOT no longer puts up "Route XX Next Left/Right" BGSs ahead of on-ramps anymore with recent signing contracts?
Instead they'll just put up stand alone shields.

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8757/17006225458_0303281dd3_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/rUMmkL)non-reflective button copy dating to around 1978.  Waterbury, CT. (https://flic.kr/p/rUMmkL) by mergingtraffic (https://www.flickr.com/photos/98731835@N05/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on March 29, 2017, 09:31:17 PM
The only other one I know of is at I-84 Exit 29

https://goo.gl/maps/4ydHaCwuTSQ2
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on March 29, 2017, 10:16:58 PM
Advance BGS for a freeway on a surface street (sorry for California lingo) was pretty rare from what I remember. I can only remember one on Main St in Glastonbury, bridge-mounted overhead, for CT 3: https://goo.gl/maps/cUabWzofBnu

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on March 29, 2017, 10:25:36 PM
Check this out: a "3-way street" in Meriden: https://goo.gl/maps/UN2xuA6Szx62

At Hanover St (one-way EB), Colony St (two-way) and W. Main St (one-way WB) is kind of a Texas U-turn without the freeway. The 3 channelized roads are: Hanover to W. Main "U-turn"; Colony SB; Colony NB.

US routes 5A and 6A used to intersect here.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on April 04, 2017, 12:32:38 AM
A DOT engineer (nickname "Cichlidae") has been posting to a long-running thread on SomethingAwful. Sometimes SA cuts off read access to non-members, but currently the thread is available.

There's an interesting post (link (https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3177805&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=235#post420402529)) from 2013 about the projected effects of a new I-84 EB exit to Forbes Street that the city of East Hartford wanted. Surprisingly, adding that single exit ramp would decrease the LOS at the I-84/384 split downstream. Average speed there would decrease from 45 mph to 33 mph.

But why?

His analysis showed that weaving decisions between the CT 15 / I-84 merge and the I-84/384 diverge would be affected by the new exit ramp (which would introduce its own weaving); the 84/384 people would end up postponing their weaving until they were past Forbes Street, causing more conflicts at the 384 exit.

So adding an exit ramp -- theoretically decreasing traffic volume on the freeway -- would increase congestion, after that traffic had exited.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on April 04, 2017, 12:41:34 PM
There was an exit there prior to the I-384 interchange being built.  It was I-86/CT 15 Exit 91.  Just drove by there this morning and there is a little paved path and a hole in the sound barrier where the ramp would be.  The exit traffic there is already dangerous enough, as many a car will cut from the I-84 to the less congested I-384 lanes, gun it up to 85 to pass a line of traffic, then cut back over into the I-84 lanes.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: 02 Park Ave on April 04, 2017, 01:21:11 PM
It has been reported that repairs on the Golden bridge in New London will start on the 17th of this month.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on April 11, 2017, 03:09:20 PM
In addition to the Aetna Viaduct is the possible relocation of the I-84/I-91 interchange.

CTDOT to Host Public Forums in April for the I-84 Hartford Project and the I-84/I-91 Interchange Study


The Connecticut Department of Transportation will host two open planning studios in April. These events will be held in Hartford and East Hartford on:

- Thursday, April 20th, 2017 from 4 to 8 PM at the Hartford Public Library, Downtown Branch, 500 Main Street, Hartford, and
- Tuesday, April 25th, 2017 from 4 to 8 PM at the Raymond Library, 840 Main Street, East Hartford

The open planning studios will include an open house, presentations, and public workshops in which the public can learn about the latest happenings of the I-84 Hartford Project and participate in the planning process for the I-84 / I-91 Interchange Study and the multimodal station area.  Both events will have the same format, and the public is invited to attend either event at any time.

There will be two public workshops during each event: One for the I-84 / I-91 Interchange Study and one for the potential new multimodal station near Hartford's Union Station The purpose of the I-84/I-91 study is to determine the feasibility of reconfiguring or relocating the interchange to improve mobility and reduce congestion. Alternatives could also affect I-91 and highways in East Hartford including I-84, Routes 2 and Routes5/15.  The study will broadly assess the benefits and impacts to residents, businesses, travelers, properties, neighborhoods, and the natural environment.  A new multimodal station will be included in the I-84 Hartford Project under the design alternative that relocates the railroad to allow the interstate to be brought down to ground or below ground level.  The new station would provide a unified connection for rail, bus, vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian use. At this stage in the process, the project team is reaching out to the public to receive input and ideas on how best to design a facility that will work for them.

Open planning studios are a way for local residents, commuters, business owners, and other interested parties to learn about and receive updates on the I-84 Hartford Project and its related work. They are an opportunity to interact with the project team's engineers and planners, and to give input on possible solutions for I-84.  As the end users, it is imperative that the public have the opportunity to share their thoughts in the design development of I-84 and its related projects in Hartford.  Visit http://www.i84hartford.com/get-involved.html for event details.

CTDOT is continuing to evaluate various highway design alternatives and options to reconfigure I-84 and its ramps in Hartford.  At this time, many aspects of the designs are coming together, and public input is critical to ensuring that the redesigned highway corridor benefits all. The purpose of the I-84 Hartford Project is to address structural deficiencies, as well as improve traffic operations, safety, and mobility on the I-84 mainline and its interchanges between Flatbush Avenue and I-91 in Hartford.   The I-84 Hartford Project strives to reduce the highway's negative impact on the city, while creating efficient connections to other modes of transportation.

CTDOT is evaluating the I-84 Hartford Project corridor in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration, the Capitol Region Council of Governments, the City of Hartford, the Town of East Hartford, the Town of West Hartford, as well as other local agencies and stakeholder groups.  A Public Advisory Committee, comprised of a wide range of stakeholders has been, and will continue to be, instrumental in guiding each of the alternatives.

The meeting facilities are ADA accessible.  Language assistance may be requested by contacting the Department of Transportation's Office of Communications (voice only) at (860) 594-3062 at least five working days prior to the meeting.  Language assistance is provided at no cost to the public, and efforts will be made to respond to requests for assistance.

Schedule of Events for Thursday, April 20th, 2017 and Tuesday, April 25th, 2017
4 — 8 PM: Open house
5:30 PM: Presentation
6:15 PM: I-84 / I-91 Interchange Study and multimodal station planning workshops
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on April 11, 2017, 06:31:36 PM
And also in today's news...

http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?A=2135&Q=591962

QuoteThe CTDOT is developing plans to replace existing highway signing from the Connecticut/New York border in Greenwich to just beyond the Stratford/Milford town line on the Merritt Parkway (Route 15). Replacement of the highway signing will consist of removing existing overhead, side-mounted, post-mounted, and variable message signs and installing new overhead, side-mounted, post-mounted, and variable message signs on existing sign supports and new sign supports. Ramp signing will also be included for removal and replacement on new sign supports.

Most of the signs in question were installed around 2000.  What remains to be seen is whether the new signage will MUTCD'ize the parkway, and whether or not this will include new exit numbers.  Seeing as the whole length of the parkway is involved, this would seem like the perfect time to switch to mile-based exits. 


Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on April 11, 2017, 08:30:02 PM
It covers the entire Merritt Parkway, but not all of CT 15.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on April 11, 2017, 08:41:47 PM
Correct.  So we'd still have to deal with the exits on the Wilbur Cross Parkway section.  Those signs were last replaced about the same time as the Merritt's, but it's my understanding the primary reason the Merritt is getting new signs is due to the failure of the single-sheet panels.   

So far, only I-395 and CT 2A have switched to mile-based exits.  These are the only two roads which had all of their signs replaced at once (relatively, though the southern section got done first, there was a few months lag between changes).  Current sign replacement projects on CT 8 (Thomaston-Winsted) and future projects on I-95 (Groton-RI) and I-84 (Southington-Farmington) retain the old numbers, but these are isolated segments, vs the whole road (like on I-395).  There's been mention that CT 8 would get new numbers, but only after other two signing contracts are done (Shelton to Waterbury and Bridgeport to Shelton). 

Back to CT 15, there's two possibilities:
(1)  Exits on the Merritt Pkwy retain their existing numbers, and exits are not renumbered until at some point in the distant future.
(2)  Exits on the Merritt Pkwy are renumbered as the signs are replaced, and overlays placed on existing WCP signage denoting new numbers.  Exits on the "Hartford Bypass" portion can either retain their existing numbers, get overlays, or new signage altogether.  I don't believe mile markers are posted on CT 15 north of I-691.

If #2 happens, I wonder if the rich and powerful Fairfield County residents will be up in arms about having to learn new numbers, in a similar fashion to those on Cape Cod who were against the renumbering of exits on the Mid-Cape.  The Cape Cod uproar seemed to have stopped MassDOT dead in its tracks for a statewide conversion to mile-based exits.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on April 11, 2017, 08:57:44 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on April 11, 2017, 08:41:47 PM
Correct.  So we'd still have to deal with the exits on the Wilbur Cross Parkway section.  Those signs were last replaced about the same time as the Merritt's, but it's my understanding the primary reason the Merritt is getting new signs is due to the failure of the single-sheet panels.   

So far, only I-395 and CT 2A have switched to mile-based exits.  These are the only two roads which had all of their signs replaced at once (relatively, though the southern section got done first, there was a few months lag between changes).  Current sign replacement projects on CT 8 (Thomaston-Winsted) and future projects on I-95 (Groton-RI) and I-84 (Southington-Farmington) retain the old numbers, but these are isolated segments, vs the whole road (like on I-395).  There's been mention that CT 8 would get new numbers, but only after other two signing contracts are done (Shelton to Waterbury and Bridgeport to Shelton). 

Back to CT 15, there's two possibilities:
(1)  Exits on the Merritt Pkwy retain their existing numbers, and exits are not renumbered until at some point in the distant future.
(2)  Exits on the Merritt Pkwy are renumbered as the signs are replaced, and overlays placed on existing WCP signage denoting new numbers.  Exits on the "Hartford Bypass" portion can either retain their existing numbers, get overlays, or new signage altogether.  I don't believe mile markers are posted on CT 15 north of I-691.

If #2 happens, I wonder if the rich and powerful Fairfield County residents will be up in arms about having to learn new numbers, in a similar fashion to those on Cape Cod who were against the renumbering of exits on the Mid-Cape.  The Cape Cod uproar seemed to have stopped MassDOT dead in its tracks for a statewide conversion to mile-based exits.
Addressing this post in the order things are bolded:

The WCP's signs are older than that.  They're of the 80's button copy variety.

CT 20 also has new signs but no numbers.

Re-numbering exits on the Merritt/WCPs will be difficult.  The numbers will be a collaborative effort between CONNDOT and NYSDOT since the numbers actually start counting from the beginning of the Hutch.  I'm guessing that MM's will be added on the Berlin Tpke and the Wilbur Cross Highway and that the interchanges on the Turnpike and Wilbur Cross will get mile-based exits continuing from the WCP.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on April 11, 2017, 09:15:36 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on April 11, 2017, 08:41:47 PM
Back to CT 15, there's two possibilities:
(1)  Exits on the Merritt Pkwy retain their existing numbers, and exits are not renumbered until at some point in the distant future.
(2)  Exits on the Merritt Pkwy are renumbered as the signs are replaced, and overlays placed on existing WCP signage denoting new numbers.  Exits on the "Hartford Bypass" portion can either retain their existing numbers, get overlays, or new signage altogether.  I don't believe mile markers are posted on CT 15 north of I-691.

(3) The numbers on the Merritt get changed and the numbers on the Wilbur Cross don't (yet). This would result in a jump from exit 37 to exit 54, but would not create any duplicate numbers (thanks to them not starting at 1 currently).

QuoteIf #2 happens, I wonder if the rich and powerful Fairfield County residents will be up in arms about having to learn new numbers

Yes.

Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 11, 2017, 08:57:44 PM
Re-numbering exits on the Merritt/WCPs will be difficult.  The numbers will be a collaborative effort between CONNDOT and NYSDOT since the numbers actually start counting from the beginning of the Hutch.

What makes you think this quirk would be maintained in the event of CT renumbering their exits? It exists as a historical vestige from when the standard of resetting exit numbers at state lines had not yet been established, not on account of some deliberate coordination to maintain it - indeed, the numbers don't match up, suddenly jumping from 30 back to 27 at the state line! Meanwhile CT's mile markers start at 0 at the state line, so therefore exits numbered according to mile marker would do so as well.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on April 11, 2017, 09:32:02 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on April 11, 2017, 09:15:36 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on April 11, 2017, 08:41:47 PM
Back to CT 15, there's two possibilities:
(1)  Exits on the Merritt Pkwy retain their existing numbers, and exits are not renumbered until at some point in the distant future.
(2)  Exits on the Merritt Pkwy are renumbered as the signs are replaced, and overlays placed on existing WCP signage denoting new numbers.  Exits on the "Hartford Bypass" portion can either retain their existing numbers, get overlays, or new signage altogether.  I don't believe mile markers are posted on CT 15 north of I-691.

(3) The numbers on the Merritt get changed and the numbers on the Wilbur Cross don't (yet). This would result in a jump from exit 37 to exit 54, but would not create any duplicate numbers (thanks to them not starting at 1 currently).

QuoteIf #2 happens, I wonder if the rich and powerful Fairfield County residents will be up in arms about having to learn new numbers

Yes.

Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 11, 2017, 08:57:44 PM
Re-numbering exits on the Merritt/WCPs will be difficult.  The numbers will be a collaborative effort between CONNDOT and NYSDOT since the numbers actually start counting from the beginning of the Hutch.

What makes you think this quirk would be maintained in the event of CT renumbering their exits? It exists as a historical vestige from when the standard of resetting exit numbers at state lines had not yet been established, not on account of some deliberate coordination to maintain it - indeed, the numbers don't match up, suddenly jumping from 30 back to 27 at the state line! Meanwhile CT's mile markers start at 0 at the state line, so therefore exits numbered according to mile marker would do so as well.
I wrote this not knowing that the MMs reverted to 0 at the border.  However, I think it would be rather nostalgic if the exit numbers still started at the Hutch and ended at I-84, but good luck getting NY to agree to MP-based exits.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on April 11, 2017, 09:54:59 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 11, 2017, 08:57:44 PM
The WCP's signs are older than that.  They're of the 80's button copy variety.

CT 20 also has new signs but no numbers.

WCP signage was replaced 2000-2001.  I drove the parkway frequently during that time and remember seeing the old signs (which were a mix of Phase II/III (button copy) and Phase IV) and the new signs, which were staged in the DOT yard adjacent to the NB Exit 59 onramp in New Haven (at the West Rock Tunnel).  The project replaced signs from Exit 56 (Rt 121/Orange) to Exit 66 (Rt 5/Wallingford).  For some reason, the project didn't replace signage for Exit 54-SB or Exit 55... perhaps it was thought the Sikorsky Bridge project would've taken care of those, but it didn't.  In addition, some advance signage for Exit 67-NB was not replaced either.  These 3 exits are the only button copy remaining on the WCP, from Exit 54 in Milford to the north end jct with US 5 at the start of the Berlin Tpke in Meriden (sometimes referred to as Exit 69). 

Regarding Route 20, I'm not sure why they at least didn't install blank exit tabs, like what is on the CT 2 "Super 4" in Mashantucket.  Perhaps the exits weren't numbered since they don't know how to number those exits.  I'd start with Exit 1 at Old County Road and count up to the airport.  However since it's CT 20, a mileage-based system would start at MILE XX in Granby/Windsor Locks and count up to I-91. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on April 11, 2017, 10:06:42 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on April 11, 2017, 09:54:59 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 11, 2017, 08:57:44 PM
The WCP's signs are older than that.  They're of the 80's button copy variety.

CT 20 also has new signs but no numbers.

WCP signage was replaced 2000-2001.  I drove the parkway frequently during that time and remember seeing the old signs (which were a mix of Phase II/III (button copy) and Phase IV) and the new signs, which were staged in the DOT yard adjacent to the NB Exit 59 onramp in New Haven (at the West Rock Tunnel).  The project replaced signs from Exit 56 (Rt 121/Orange) to Exit 66 (Rt 5/Wallingford).  For some reason, the project didn't replace signage for Exit 54-SB or Exit 55... perhaps it was thought the Sikorsky Bridge project would've taken care of those, but it didn't.  In addition, some advance signage for Exit 67-NB was not replaced either.  These 3 exits are the only button copy remaining on the WCP, from Exit 54 in Milford to the north end jct with US 5 at the start of the Berlin Tpke in Meriden (sometimes referred to as Exit 69). 

Regarding Route 20, I'm not sure why they at least didn't install blank exit tabs, like what is on the CT 2 "Super 4" in Mashantucket.  Perhaps the exits weren't numbered since they don't know how to number those exits.  I'd start with Exit 1 at Old County Road and count up to the airport.  However since it's CT 20, a mileage-based system would start at MILE XX in Granby/Windsor Locks and count up to I-91.

Wow, you're right.  I'm really slacking tonight.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on April 12, 2017, 12:40:31 PM
Renumbering the Merritt but (temporarily) not the Wilbur Cross and the South Meadows CT 15 section wouldn't be that confusing or duplicate any numbers.  Numbers would just jump from 37 to 54 (or 38 to 55) at the Milford Parkway exit.  When replaced, the Wilbur Cross exits, whose signs are pretty well updated south of the I-91/I-691/CT 66 interchange (which is being reconstructed) would run up to 65 A/B for the I-91 North and I-691 West exits, and would only require number overlays in most areas, the only issue being room for suffixed exits for CT 34 (57-58 becomes 43 A-B) and Whitney Ave/Dixwell Ave (61-62 would become 52 A-B)  The South Hartford bypass section has late 1980's vintage button copy signing from when the Charter Oak Bridge was replaced.  I'd imagine the signage would be replaced as part of the proposed I-91/CT 15 interchange reconstruction.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on April 12, 2017, 02:10:12 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on April 11, 2017, 09:54:59 PM
Regarding Route 20, I'm not sure why they at least didn't install blank exit tabs, like what is on the CT 2 "Super 4" in Mashantucket.  Perhaps the exits weren't numbered since they don't know how to number those exits.  I'd start with Exit 1 at Old County Road and count up to the airport.  However since it's CT 20, a mileage-based system would start at MILE XX in Granby/Windsor Locks and count up to I-91.

The other consideration for numbering the exits on CT 20 is how to handle CT 401.  There is one exit (Hamilton Road North) on 401, plus however you treat the intersection where controlled access ends.

If they tried numbering the exits in a compliant manner, they'd likely end up causing more confusion than it's worth.

ConnDOT would almost have to assign a new number to the entire connector to have exit numbers make any sense.  That might appeal to roadgeeks (I-591?), but outside our little fraternity it would seem like overkill.

(Obligatory disclosure: I've lived in sight of the Connector for the past decade and a half.)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on April 12, 2017, 05:37:01 PM
I'm voting for I-191, though we'd have to renumber existing CT 191, which is just across the river.  I'd have exits starting with #1 at Old County Road, and counting up towards the airport, with the last numbered exit being Hamilton Rd North.  Truncate CT 20 back to where it meets the connector. 

While we're at it, I'd also renumber I-291 to either I-491 or I-284, to remove any confusion with nearby I-291 in Springfield. 

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on April 14, 2017, 04:04:31 PM
Re-issued press release:

http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?A=2135&Q=592054

QuoteThe Connecticut Department of Transportation (CTDOT) is developing plans to replace the highway signs and their support structures on a 38.3-mile stretch of the Merritt Parkway from the Connecticut/New York border in Greenwich to the Stratford/Milford town line.
       "This project is necessary because of the age, condition and structural integrity of these signs and their support systems— some of which have little remaining reflectivity and are literally falling apart after 20 years along the roadway,"  said CTDOT Commissioner James P. Redeker. "This creates a safety issue, not to mention an inconvenience and distraction for motorists. As part of our ongoing asset management program, we are constantly evaluating the condition of all of our highways, bridges and ancillary structures. This project is a direct result of those efforts."
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on April 14, 2017, 05:22:02 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on April 14, 2017, 04:04:31 PM
Re-issued press release:

http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?A=2135&Q=592054

QuoteThe Connecticut Department of Transportation (CTDOT) is developing plans to replace the highway signs and their support structures on a 38.3-mile stretch of the Merritt Parkway from the Connecticut/New York border in Greenwich to the Stratford/Milford town line.
       “This project is necessary because of the age, condition and structural integrity of these signs and their support systems– some of which have little remaining reflectivity and are literally falling apart after 20 years along the roadway,” said CTDOT Commissioner James P. Redeker. “This creates a safety issue, not to mention an inconvenience and distraction for motorists. As part of our ongoing asset management program, we are constantly evaluating the condition of all of our highways, bridges and ancillary structures. This project is a direct result of those efforts.”

And you know why they reissued it? To quiet the vocal minority groups that will complain and will think this is a precursor to widening or tree cutting. It's also been in various newspapers
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: southshore720 on April 17, 2017, 10:51:28 AM
The inclusion of Milford and Orange in the press release suggests that the button-copy for Exits 54-55 will be replaced.  Do you think they are going to try to replicate the "saw edge" look of the signs, or are they going to go for the traditional BGS that they are installing elsewhere in CT?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on April 17, 2017, 01:17:12 PM
Probably just the traditional. The sawtooth signs are exclusively with the Merritt Parkway, as far as I know.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on April 17, 2017, 03:32:19 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on April 14, 2017, 04:04:31 PM
Re-issued press release:

http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?A=2135&Q=592054

QuoteThe Connecticut Department of Transportation (CTDOT) is developing plans to replace the highway signs and their support structures on a 38.3-mile stretch of the Merritt Parkway from the Connecticut/New York border in Greenwich to the Stratford/Milford town line.
       "This project is necessary because of the age, condition and structural integrity of these signs and their support systems— some of which have little remaining reflectivity and are literally falling apart after 20 years along the roadway,"  said CTDOT Commissioner James P. Redeker. "This creates a safety issue, not to mention an inconvenience and distraction for motorists. As part of our ongoing asset management program, we are constantly evaluating the condition of all of our highways, bridges and ancillary structures. This project is a direct result of those efforts."

I just now reread it...They even put in pictures.  My god...don't want to upset the people.  I hope they change the font of the new signs. 

I think the button copy at exit 55 will remain as only a VMS in Orange will be replaced.  The Stratford/Milford line is where it stops.  To me that says Sikorsky Bridge.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on April 17, 2017, 05:28:52 PM
Wow... those signs have definitely taken a beating in the past 16 years!  Too bad... I liked the unique-ness of them.  Guess we'll find out in a month when the plans are available of what the new signs will look like.  The Merritt held onto the old style CT shields (route numbers in the state outline) on BGSs longer than any other road.  In fact in my years of traveling the roads of CT (since the early/mid 80s), I never saw another road in CT with those old shields on the guide signs.  It's always had unique signing, except the section around Exits 39-40 which got the dreaded mid-late 1980s Phase III all-reflective button copy. 

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on April 17, 2017, 08:32:02 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on April 17, 2017, 05:28:52 PM
Wow... those signs have definitely taken a beating in the past 16 years!  Too bad... I liked the unique-ness of them.  Guess we'll find out in a month when the plans are available of what the new signs will look like.  The Merritt held onto the old style CT shields (route numbers in the state outline) on BGSs longer than any other road.  In fact in my years of traveling the roads of CT (since the early/mid 80s), I never saw another road in CT with those old shields on the guide signs.  It's always had unique signing, except the section around Exits 39-40 which got the dreaded mid-late 1980s Phase III all-reflective button copy. 



A state trooper told me the DOT went with the panel signs because certain groups complained.  IDK any details but he said they even complained about the service station rehabs.  Just let the DOT maintain the road like any other.

Quoteexcept the section around Exits 39-40 which got the dreaded mid-late 1980s Phase III all-reflective button copy. 

and yes it seems CT was in a rush to blanket the entire state in reflective button copy.  Within 10 years (1985-1994 or so) all roads had them except US-7 north of I-84 and CT-25 and a couple sections of I-84. Even signs that were up for only 10 years got replaced with reflective button copy.

They are a lot slower to get rid of the signs too.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on April 17, 2017, 08:55:36 PM
I don't remember the signs being anywhere near that bad during the Merritt Parkway meet a couple years ago.  Why did they deteriorate so much in just two years?  It looks almost like a storm blew a bunch of panels off.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on April 17, 2017, 09:41:27 PM
Quote from: vdeane on April 17, 2017, 08:55:36 PM
I don't remember the signs being anywhere near that bad during the Merritt Parkway meet a couple years ago.  Why did they deteriorate so much in just two years?  It looks almost like a storm blew a bunch of panels off.

Those signs were in that condition at the time of the Merritt Parkway meet. But, only a handful of signs were in pieces like that. Most of them were fine, so if you remember the signage being generally intact you remember correctly.

The signs which fell apart sustained that damage during the shoulder widening project (2014-16). The likely culprit is vibrations from the construction causing the bolts to come loose.

Meanwhile these signs were all repaired last summer (with new panels using the sawtooth design), so I find it intriguing that efforts to replace them are gearing up. Or, maybe, those few signs will be left out of the replacement - which could be an indication that the sawtooth design will be kept.


It appears to me that the key motivator here, though, is simply that the signs are losing their reflectivity. Which is not a statement as to their quality - by the time new signs are actually going up, the existing ones will have been in service for almost as long as the button copy signs they replaced (~20 years). So they're about due.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on April 18, 2017, 09:52:32 PM
Yes, start a massive sign replacement project on the Merritt while parts of I-84 are still holding on to their original '77-83 re-build signs.  Makes sense.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: zzyzx on April 18, 2017, 10:40:49 PM
I attended the meeting for the I-95 / Exit 74 improvement project, and got several photos of the plans in better detail.  Too many pictures to embed here--I made an album for those interested in seeing them in more detail: http://imgur.com/a/H3zuD (http://imgur.com/a/H3zuD)

This was the first public presentation of the project, and while most residents seemed receptive to the improvements, many were concerned about the Exit 75 and I-395 interchange (Exit 76).  Without giving specifics, the presenters mentioned that this was the next "high priority" area they were studying. With the completion of Route 11 now out of the question, I imagine they'll find a way to combine the 2 interchanges.

Back to Exit 74...this is still a concept design that will likely see further changes.  No, 95 will not be widened immediately to three lanes following completion ("too many safety issues going from 4 with the auxiliary lane to 2 lanes"). The DOT is basically eliminating the major choke points on 95 across the state, and rebuilding the infrastructure so the pavement is in place when it comes time to widen the highway (when that will be, who knows, maybe a few decades??)

I also spoke to one of the state DOT engineers afterwards about other improvements to 95.  I was able to confirm that all future interchange projects (at least on 95) will include an additional auxiliary lane in between exits (yes, even in Fairfield County, though he noted that "land issues" are a major factor).  When I joked to him about using DDIs and other modern designs, I was surprised to hear that they do try to include them in the preliminary design alternatives (ROW, the state's hilly terrain, and not enough room for opposing traffic to merge onto on-ramps are the major issues there). While I don't think we'll see DDIs being built anytime soon, it's refreshing to think that they're looking into actually modernizing interchanges rather than building something substandard.

So...what I got from the meeting in terms of priorities for future projects:
1. Eliminate traffic choke points and reconstruct sub-standard interchanges, while maintaining the current 4-lane highway
2. Widen bridges to accommodate 6 + 2 auxiliary lanes total
3. Actually widen the highway

I like the new CTDOT thinking...but rebuilding 95 is going to be a piecemealed process that'll take decades (no surprise there).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on April 18, 2017, 10:47:28 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on April 17, 2017, 09:41:27 PM
It appears to me that the key motivator here, though, is simply that the signs are losing their reflectivity. Which is not a statement as to their quality - by the time new signs are actually going up, the existing ones will have been in service for almost as long as the button copy signs they replaced (~20 years). So they're about due.
They could start by modifying the background to FHWA green instead of the darker, less reflective current color.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on April 19, 2017, 12:28:44 PM
Quote from: zzyzx on April 18, 2017, 10:40:49 PM

DOT engineers afterwards about other improvements to 95.  I was able to confirm that all future interchange projects (at least on 95) will include an additional auxiliary lane in between exits (yes, even in Fairfield County, though he noted that "land issues" are a major factor).  When I joked to him about using DDIs and other modern designs, I was surprised to hear that they do try to include them in the preliminary design alternatives (ROW, the state's hilly terrain, and not enough room for opposing traffic to merge onto on-ramps are the major issues there). While I don't think we'll see DDIs being built anytime soon, it's refreshing to think that they're looking into actually modernizing interchanges rather than building something substandard.

So...what I got from the meeting in terms of priorities for future projects:
1. Eliminate traffic choke points and reconstruct sub-standard interchanges, while maintaining the current 4-lane highway
2. Widen bridges to accommodate 6 + 2 auxiliary lanes total
3. Actually widen the highway

I like the new CTDOT thinking...but rebuilding 95 is going to be a piecemealed process that'll take decades (no surprise there).

I noticed since I-95 SB was widened between exits 15-14, the choke point is now Exit 13, which it never was before. Hopefully they'll address that soon.  Also, the loop ramp to CT-8 is awful. On the loop you curve down, then up and down again all in the loop. They need to make it a flyover.

But with Sen Boucher opposing tolls nothing will get done.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on April 19, 2017, 04:19:36 PM
Is exits 74 and 75 really a priority? Yes, 74 is of poor design, but right now I'd say rebuilding exit 80 into a route that gets you to I-395 (even if it means via Oil Mill up the road). It would be helpful for those who go to the Waterford Speedbowl rather than take CT 85 all the way up. There is room for an entrance ramp from Oil Mill to I-395 northbound.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on April 19, 2017, 05:37:18 PM
A lot of talk about tolls here in CT:

2 questions I have.
If CT charges tolls, is CT allowed to spend revenue raised from tolls on other issues or is it against FHWA rules and law?

I remember there being another reason the tolls were removed after 1983.  The media picks up and says the toll booth crash of 1983.  What was the other reasons?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on April 19, 2017, 06:20:19 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on April 19, 2017, 04:19:36 PM
Is exits 74 and 75 really a priority? Yes, 74 is of poor design, but right now I'd say rebuilding exit 80 into a route that gets you to I-395 (even if it means via Oil Mill up the road). It would be helpful for those who go to the Waterford Speedbowl rather than take CT 85 all the way up. There is room for an entrance ramp from Oil Mill to I-395 northbound.

If there was that much demand for a 95SB->395NB connector, it would have been done by now.  I don't believe it was even a feature of the plan for the 95/395/11 interchange (same with the 395SB->95NB merge).  Route 85 can effectively handle the connection between the two interstates, so can Route 32.  Personally, I'd get rid of Exit 80 altogether and move Exit 81-SB closer to Cross Road itself.  No need for an interchange with a backwoods country road when there's another one a mile away.  I have to wonder what ConnDOT's plans originally were when it was decided to have an interchange there.  Perhaps a placeholder for Route 11?  Or maybe, "why not?"

The problem at Exit 75-76 is the lack of travel lanes and a short merge from Exit 75-NB.  It'd be nice to have I-95 be 4 lanes from Exit 74, continuing to a rebuilt right-hand Exit 76, with 3 travel lanes continuing to I-95 (one being an option lane to I-395), and one dedicated lane to I-395.  With an Exit 76 on the right, a new Exit 75-NB onramp could split, with one half going to I-395 and the other going to I-95.  Southbound, have Exit 75 leave I-95 before the I-395 merge.  That way you eliminate all crossing traffic.  I-95 SB would have 3 lanes, then 4 lanes after the I-395 merge, with the right 4th lane becoming an exit-only for Exit 74. 

I'd also improve Exits 71-72.  Close Exit 71 completely, extend the Rocky Neck Connector to the north/west to Four Mile River Road, and make the existing ramps at Exit 72 intersections.  A ConnDOT plan for the area years ago maintained separate ramps at Exit 71 and 72 with flyovers.  Keep it simple.   Couple it with a widening from the Baldwin Bridge to Exit 72.  A later project can tackle Exit 72 to 74.  Then another from Exit 76 to Exit 83. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on April 19, 2017, 07:11:12 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on April 19, 2017, 05:37:18 PM
A lot of talk about tolls here in CT:

2 questions I have.
If CT charges tolls, is CT allowed to spend revenue raised from tolls on other issues or is it against FHWA rules and law?
At present, for CT to place tolls on existing free Interstates; permission to do such must be sought from the Feds/FHWA... period.  Additionally & if approved, the revenue generated from the tolls must go to the road(s) that are being tolled.

The only known exception to such I'm aware of is the recently-approved tolls for commercial vehicles (passenger vehicles will not be tolled) along RI highways.  That revenue will be spent on repairing other roadway bridges that aren't necessarily along the tolled highway corridor.

Quote from: Mergingtraffic on April 19, 2017, 05:37:18 PM
I remember there being another reason the tolls were removed after 1983.  The media picks up and says the toll booth crash of 1983.  What was the other reasons?
The collapse of the Mianus River Bridge/Overpass that also happened in 1983.  The removal of the tolls was a condition, at least along the CT Turnpike (I-95/395 (originally CT 52)), to received the needed-Federal money to make the emergency repairs to that bridge.

That collapse, for me, put to rest once and for all the notion that placing tolls on highways always means better, maintained roads.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on April 19, 2017, 07:51:04 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 19, 2017, 07:11:12 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on April 19, 2017, 05:37:18 PM
A lot of talk about tolls here in CT:

2 questions I have.
If CT charges tolls, is CT allowed to spend revenue raised from tolls on other issues or is it against FHWA rules and law?
At present, for CT to place tolls on existing free Interstates; permission to do such must be sought from the Feds/FHWA... period.  Additionally & if approved, the revenue generated from the tolls must go to the road(s) that are being tolled.

The only known exception to such I'm aware of is the recently-approved tolls for commercial vehicles (passenger vehicles will not be tolled) along RI highways.  That revenue will be spent on repairing other roadway bridges that aren't necessarily along the tolled highway corridor.


Interesting to note, because you don't hear that in news articles. You hear people being suspicious of money going actually towards transportation and talk about the lockbox to safeguard that money.  PS...I do think a lockbox is needed.

People think the lockbox needed are for the toll revenue based on the articles that are written.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on April 19, 2017, 07:58:33 PM
I would just like to say as a matter of fact that tolls were collected on the Charter Oak Bridge and the Bissell Bridge as late as 1989.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on April 19, 2017, 08:01:11 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 19, 2017, 07:11:12 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on April 19, 2017, 05:37:18 PM
A lot of talk about tolls here in CT:

2 questions I have.
If CT charges tolls, is CT allowed to spend revenue raised from tolls on other issues or is it against FHWA rules and law?
At present, for CT to place tolls on existing free Interstates; permission to do such must be sought from the Feds/FHWA... period.  Additionally & if approved, the revenue generated from the tolls must go to the road(s) that are being tolled.

The only known exception to such I'm aware of is the recently-approved tolls for commercial vehicles (passenger vehicles will not be tolled) along RI highways.  That revenue will be spent on repairing other roadway bridges that aren't necessarily along the tolled highway corridor.

Quote from: Mergingtraffic on April 19, 2017, 05:37:18 PM
I remember there being another reason the tolls were removed after 1983.  The media picks up and says the toll booth crash of 1983.  What was the other reasons?
The collapse of the Mianus River Bridge/Overpass that also happened in 1983.  The removal of the tolls was a condition, at least along the CT Turnpike (I-95/395 (originally CT 52)), to received the needed-Federal money to make the emergency repairs to that bridge.

That collapse, for me, put to rest once and for all the notion that placing tolls on highways always means better, maintained roads.
How can they get away with tolling commercial vehicles on Interstates? Wouldn't the Interstate Commerce Act have some interplay here? If you can't toll the highway, you can't toll any users.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on April 20, 2017, 08:55:43 AM
Quote from: Alps on April 19, 2017, 08:01:11 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 19, 2017, 07:11:12 PMThe only known exception to such I'm aware of is the recently-approved tolls for commercial vehicles (passenger vehicles will not be tolled) along RI highways.  That revenue will be spent on repairing other roadway bridges that aren't necessarily along the tolled highway corridor.
How can they get away with tolling commercial vehicles on Interstates? Wouldn't the Interstate Commerce Act have some interplay here? If you can't toll the highway, you can't toll any users.
One of the links in the Rhode Island News thread, see Reply #83 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=15363.75) might contain the answer/reasoning for such.  However, it is worth noting that fore-mentioned tolls have been enacted yet.

The only place I know where passenger vehicles aren't tolled but commercial vehicles are is the Spring Valley plaza along the NY Thruway (I-87/287) but that plaza originally charged a toll for all vehicles.  Then again, since the Thruway is & has been a tolled facility from day one; such is allowed without federal approval.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on April 21, 2017, 12:03:08 AM
Quote from: Alps on April 19, 2017, 08:01:11 PM
How can they get away with tolling commercial vehicles on Interstates? Wouldn't the Interstate Commerce Act have some interplay here? If you can't toll the highway, you can't toll any users.

Rhode Island is currently in possession of one of FHWA's special pilot approvals to toll interstates. They could toll everyone but have decided to specifically target trucks because of the same "they don't vote here" thing that motivates transponder discrimination.


As for Connecticut, they have an annual tradition of having some state legislator propose putting tolls back on I-95 and possibly other roads as well. Said proposal always generates a media flurry and then dies unceremoniously.

It's possible it may have actually happened by now if not for the FHWA prohibition against the practice. And knowing how Connecticut operates you would likely see extreme transponder discrimination, since there is precedent for this sort of thing already within the state. If you ever want to be entertained and possibly horrified, look up what it costs to get a summer beach parking pass in one of the shore towns in Fairfield county as a resident versus as a non-resident.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: dgolub on April 21, 2017, 06:46:09 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on April 21, 2017, 12:03:08 AM
If you ever want to be entertained and possibly horrified, look up what it costs to get a summer beach parking pass in one of the shore towns in Fairfield county as a resident versus as a non-resident.

Not to be confused with a whole batch of Long Island beaches that are flat-out closed to people who don't live in the town.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: roadman65 on April 23, 2017, 08:17:28 AM
If EZPASS existed in the 80's most likely I-95 and the Merrit Parkway would be ORT to this day, as that would be the excuse that the state would have used to keep the tolls when the decision was made to tear down the plazas.

Its a no brainer now with many other states going cash less, that CT government is pushing for reinstatement of implimenting the tolls again.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on April 24, 2017, 10:03:26 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 23, 2017, 08:17:28 AM
If EZPASS existed in the 80's most likely I-95 and the Merrit Parkway would be ORT to this day, as that would be the excuse that the state would have used to keep the tolls when the decision was made to tear down the plazas.

Its a no brainer now with many other states going cash less, that CT government is pushing for reinstatement of implimenting the tolls again.
This has been mentioned before.  The Feds ordered the removal of the tollbooths along I-95 as a condition for repair funding for the Mianus River Bridge that just coincidentally collapsed that same year as the toll-booth pile-up (1983).  Had AET been around during the 1980s; the tolls on non-Interstates in CT would've likely remained but the ones along I-95 still would've been removed due to the emergency bridge repair funding from the Feds.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: TravelingBethelite on April 24, 2017, 10:20:23 AM
I don't know if this has been mentioned yet, but Exit 47 on I-95 is now longer signed as being for CT 34. The overheads were modified to remove the CT 34 shields and to read 'MLK Blvd', with a "control city" of "Downtown New Haven". I saw this as my dad and I were headed home from Branford last night. :wave:
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on April 24, 2017, 02:31:22 PM
Interesting, though honestly I'm not surprised, given the downsizing of the "Oak Street Connector".  I'll check it out Saturday and get some pics.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on April 24, 2017, 02:48:11 PM
Wasn't that Exit 47 BGS a fairly new sign?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on April 24, 2017, 04:30:00 PM
Might just make sense to truncate CT 34 back to CT 10 if ConnDOT isn't going to sign it coming off of I-95 (and I'm assuming the I-91 Exit 1 sign will be changed too).  Actually, would be neat if they gave the mileage east of CT 10 to the west end in Newtown to connect it to US 6.   Unless you read the state route log, you don't even know where it officially ends and assume it connects to US 6.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: TravelingBethelite on April 24, 2017, 04:48:31 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on April 24, 2017, 04:30:00 PM
Might just make sense to truncate CT 34 back to CT 10 if ConnDOT isn't going to sign it coming off of I-95 (and I'm assuming the I-91 Exit 1 sign will be changed too).  Actually, would be neat if they gave the mileage east of CT 10 to the west end in Newtown to connect it to US 6.   Unless you read the state route log, you don't even know where it officially ends and assume it connects to US 6.

That's an interesting point you raise. Many locals actually think 34 ends at Wasserman Way. For the longest time, I did as well.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on April 24, 2017, 06:41:18 PM
All signs for CT-34 on I-95/I-91 etc are new b/c of the recent improvements.  I don't see the benefit of removing CT-34?!  People think of it as "Route 34." 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on April 24, 2017, 09:14:09 PM
Quote from: dgolub on April 21, 2017, 06:46:09 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on April 21, 2017, 12:03:08 AM
If you ever want to be entertained and possibly horrified, look up what it costs to get a summer beach parking pass in one of the shore towns in Fairfield county as a resident versus as a non-resident.

Not to be confused with a whole batch of Long Island beaches that are flat-out closed to people who don't live in the town.

Which used to happen in Connecticut as well, until the state supreme court ruled it unconstitutional for a municipality to deny access to public parks based on residency. (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=937782231402125231&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr) The logic behind this ruling is interesting - they ruled that a public park is a public forum, and therefore denying people access to it violates their right to free speech.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: dgolub on April 26, 2017, 09:10:56 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on April 24, 2017, 09:14:09 PM
Quote from: dgolub on April 21, 2017, 06:46:09 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on April 21, 2017, 12:03:08 AM
If you ever want to be entertained and possibly horrified, look up what it costs to get a summer beach parking pass in one of the shore towns in Fairfield county as a resident versus as a non-resident.

Not to be confused with a whole batch of Long Island beaches that are flat-out closed to people who don't live in the town.

Which used to happen in Connecticut as well, until the state supreme court ruled it unconstitutional for a municipality to deny access to public parks based on residency. (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=937782231402125231&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr) The logic behind this ruling is interesting - they ruled that a public park is a public forum, and therefore denying people access to it violates their right to free speech.

Interesting.  As far as I know, it's still happening in New York.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: dgolub on April 26, 2017, 09:15:27 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on April 24, 2017, 06:41:18 PM
All signs for CT-34 on I-95/I-91 etc are new b/c of the recent improvements.  I don't see the benefit of removing CT-34?!  People think of it as "Route 34."

My guess is that they didn't decommission it but just made it unsigned from the highways.  The purpose was probably to minimize through traffic in Downtown New Haven.  Motorists headed for points west are now directed to stay on I-95 to CT 10 and take that north to CT 34.

Does anyone know what the signage on CT 10 at CT 34 looks like now?  That would answer the question of whether or not it's unsigned east of CT 10 altogether or just from the highways.

Also, if it winds up that I'm wrong and they did decommission it, that begs the question of whether maintenance was transferred to the City of New Haven or if ConnDOT is still maintaining it, presumably under a new unsigned SR or SSR number.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on April 26, 2017, 09:29:54 AM
Quote from: dgolub on April 26, 2017, 09:10:56 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on April 24, 2017, 09:14:09 PMWhich used to happen in Connecticut as well, until the state supreme court ruled it unconstitutional for a municipality to deny access to public parks based on residency. (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=937782231402125231&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr) The logic behind this ruling is interesting - they ruled that a public park is a public forum, and therefore denying people access to it violates their right to free speech.
Interesting.  As far as I know, it's still happening in New York.
Maybe that's because nobody has yet raised the issue in New York nor took it to court (that I'm aware of).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on April 27, 2017, 08:53:31 PM
Quote from: dgolub on April 26, 2017, 09:15:27 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on April 24, 2017, 06:41:18 PM
All signs for CT-34 on I-95/I-91 etc are new b/c of the recent improvements.  I don't see the benefit of removing CT-34?!  People think of it as "Route 34."

My guess is that they didn't decommission it but just made it unsigned from the highways.  The purpose was probably to minimize through traffic in Downtown New Haven.  Motorists headed for points west are now directed to stay on I-95 to CT 10 and take that north to CT 34.

Does anyone know what the signage on CT 10 at CT 34 looks like now?  That would answer the question of whether or not it's unsigned east of CT 10 altogether or just from the highways.

Also, if it winds up that I'm wrong and they did decommission it, that begs the question of whether maintenance was transferred to the City of New Haven or if ConnDOT is still maintaining it, presumably under a new unsigned SR or SSR number.

I don't see people changing their driving habits b/c of this.  Locals will still use the same streets to get to where they want to go anyway.  Non-locals will use GPS and will still go thru downtown b/c of distance or mileage issues.  I really don't see anyone changing their driving patterns.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: TravelingBethelite on April 27, 2017, 09:06:01 PM
Quote from: dgolub on April 26, 2017, 09:15:27 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on April 24, 2017, 06:41:18 PM
All signs for CT-34 on I-95/I-91 etc are new b/c of the recent improvements.  I don't see the benefit of removing CT-34?!  People think of it as "Route 34."

My guess is that they didn't decommission it but just made it unsigned from the highways.  The purpose was probably to minimize through traffic in Downtown New Haven.  Motorists headed for points west are now directed to stay on I-95 to CT 10 and take that north to CT 34.

Does anyone know what the signage on CT 10 at CT 34 looks like now?  That would answer the question of whether or not it's unsigned east of CT 10 altogether or just from the highways.

Also, if it winds up that I'm wrong and they did decommission it, that begs the question of whether maintenance was transferred to the City of New Haven or if ConnDOT is still maintaining it, presumably under a new unsigned SR or SSR number.

There was still signage for it at CT 10 when I was there.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on April 27, 2017, 11:29:55 PM
First some good news:

Was out driving around today and caught the new Society Road overpass on I-95, definitely wide enough to accomodate 3 lanes each way:

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2888/33496162363_4319feb170_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/T2WA5K)IMG_3074 (https://flic.kr/p/T2WA5K) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

Also I observed the first sign being put up for the I-95 sign replacement project from Groton to RI.... a big orange "CONSTRUCTION AHEAD" sign.  And in the same area, work well underway on the I-95 southbound Gold Star Bridge reconstruction project.  At least one, if not two lanes closed (24/7 closure until further notice).  No work started NB, as that contract hasn't been released yet.

Lots more pics taken throughout the state over the past few days, at my FLICKR page (link at bottom).

Now the bad news:

Due to truck issues, I won't be taking I-95 to CT 8 to reach Thomaston on Saturday.  Instead, I'll be taking CT 9 to 66 to I691 to I84 to Waterbury, then up CT 8, then cutting over in the afternoon towards I-91 to head back to VT.  So I won't be clinching CT 8 this time around, nor will I check out I-95 Exit 47 signage in New Haven.  There's always next time for that!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on April 28, 2017, 11:42:40 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on April 27, 2017, 11:29:55 PM
First some good news:

Was out driving around today and caught the new Society Road overpass on I-95, definitely wide enough to accomodate 3 lanes each way:

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2888/33496162363_4319feb170_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/T2WA5K)IMG_3074 (https://flic.kr/p/T2WA5K) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

Also I observed the first sign being put up for the I-95 sign replacement project from Groton to RI.... a big orange "CONSTRUCTION AHEAD" sign.  And in the same area, work well underway on the I-95 southbound Gold Star Bridge reconstruction project.  At least one, if not two lanes closed (24/7 closure until further notice).  No work started NB, as that contract hasn't been released yet.

Lots more pics taken throughout the state over the past few days, at my FLICKR page (link at bottom).

Now the bad news:

Due to truck issues, I won't be taking I-95 to CT 8 to reach Thomaston on Saturday.  Instead, I'll be taking CT 9 to 66 to I691 to I84 to Waterbury, then up CT 8, then cutting over in the afternoon towards I-91 to head back to VT.  So I won't be clinching CT 8 this time around, nor will I check out I-95 Exit 47 signage in New Haven.  There's always next time for that!

That's always been one of the biggest limiting factors in expanding the Turnpike is while there's enough right-of-way to add a lane in most places (save for stretches through major cities), the length of most of the original overpasses does not provide enough space to add a lane to the mainline.  I'm glad to see that ConnDOT is showing some forethought and designing its new Turnpike overpasses to accommodate future expansion of the road.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on April 29, 2017, 10:37:33 PM
A couple items of note on today's trip around the state and heading back north to VT....

Progress is being made on the CT 8 signing project from Thomaston to Winsted.  I checked from Exit 38 up to Exit 41 and within that span, all regulatory, mile markers, exit signage, ramp signage, etc has been replaced.  This is everything that doesn't require a foundation... just posts stuck into the ground.  New sign posts to support new signs are installed for Exits 39, 40, and 41, and most likely all the way up to US 44 in Winsted (I saw no reason to drive all the way up that far if there is nothing but the posts in).  All of the new signs are being staged at the former weigh station (abandoned for years) north of Exit 40 in Thomaston.  Bridge construction just past Exit 41 (Route 8 spanning the Naugatuck RR/River) is nearing completion, though NB traffic still crosses over to the SB span. 

Drove through the I-84 Waterbury work zone... twice.  Looks like the new center median lighting being installed is of a slightly different design than that in place east of Exit 25A (and on parts of I-95 down in New Haven and Fairfield counties).  Lots of progress being made.  The large (and old) "69" shields WB are still in play.  Some new 4-chord cantilevers up between Exits 25 & 25A, but no signs on them yet.

A couple new signs on I-91, which I swear WERE NOT THERE ON MONDAY.... one for Exit 38 and one for Exit 45, both northbound, and both part of the state's random sign structure replacement project.

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2812/33540047823_e8e86c909b_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/T6PvGB)IMG_3175 (https://flic.kr/p/T6PvGB) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4186/33508835664_dc745b8854_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/T44xpW)IMG_3180 (https://flic.kr/p/T44xpW) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

Both of these sign installations replaced earlier button copy "Phase III" mounted on "yellow angled supports", along with most of I-91's signs in this area.

Despite issues which required leaving my truck in the state (and a subsequent trip down south to pick it up in a few weeks, fingers crossed), it was a good trip.  I didn't get to cover CT 8 South of Waterbury, but got a lot of other shots, all seen on my FLICKR page (see the link below). 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on April 30, 2017, 08:02:59 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on April 29, 2017, 10:37:33 PM
A couple items of note on today's trip around the state and heading back north to VT....

Progress is being made on the CT 8 signing project from Thomaston to Winsted.  I checked from Exit 38 up to Exit 41 and within that span, all regulatory, mile markers, exit signage, ramp signage, etc has been replaced.  This is everything that doesn't require a foundation... just posts stuck into the ground.  New sign posts to support new signs are installed for Exits 39, 40, and 41, and most likely all the way up to US 44 in Winsted (I saw no reason to drive all the way up that far if there is nothing but the posts in).  All of the new signs are being staged at the former weigh station (abandoned for years) north of Exit 40 in Thomaston.  Bridge construction just past Exit 41 (Route 8 spanning the Naugatuck RR/River) is nearing completion, though NB traffic still crosses over to the SB span. 

Drove through the I-84 Waterbury work zone... twice.  Looks like the new center median lighting being installed is of a slightly different design than that in place east of Exit 25A (and on parts of I-95 down in New Haven and Fairfield counties).  Lots of progress being made.  The large (and old) "69" shields WB are still in play.  Some new 4-chord cantilevers up between Exits 25 & 25A, but no signs on them yet.

A couple new signs on I-91, which I swear WERE NOT THERE ON MONDAY.... one for Exit 38 and one for Exit 45, both northbound, and both part of the state's random sign structure replacement project.

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2812/33540047823_e8e86c909b_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/T6PvGB)IMG_3175 (https://flic.kr/p/T6PvGB) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4186/33508835664_dc745b8854_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/T44xpW)IMG_3180 (https://flic.kr/p/T44xpW) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

Both of these sign installations replaced earlier button copy "Phase III" mounted on "yellow angled supports", along with most of I-91's signs in this area.


I hate the angled supports.  The signs always seem crooked on them, it's like the "angling" throws off the crews when they put up the sign.  and as I said before, CT seemed to be in a rush to blanket the state in reflective button copy between 1985-1994.  Even non-reflective button copy signs that were only a few years old were replaced during that time.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on April 30, 2017, 08:26:36 PM
I always thought CONNDOT cheaped out on signs.  These new one's look better IMO.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on April 30, 2017, 08:44:43 PM
I'd like the know the official designation for the angled supports.  I know these new ones are called "4-chord cantilevers" by looking at sign plans, but there's no mention of a name for the old support, even in cases when a new sign panel is attached to an existing angled support.  I'd also like to know why they were painted different colors... yellow/cream for those on I-91, fluorescent green on CT 9, dark green on I-84 in Danbury, brown on US 7 in Danbury, green on I-95 west of New Haven, grey elsewhere. 

BTW, these two signs are sites 8 and 10 of the 2015-released spot overhead support replacement project.  The other sites include replacement of two supports on I-84 EB Exit 11, one sign replacement on existing cantilever arch on I-84 WB Exit 26 (confirmed as not done yet), and various other locations statewide (Norwich, Hartford, Meriden, Windham, etc).  The plans for the I-91 NB Exit 38 support replacement show it as a "1/4 mile" sign, which obviously got changed to 1/2 mile (the first sign for Exit 38, NB, is 3/4 mile and a bridge-mount).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Pete from Boston on May 02, 2017, 11:28:08 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on April 30, 2017, 08:02:59 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on April 29, 2017, 10:37:33 PM
A couple items of note on today's trip around the state and heading back north to VT....

Progress is being made on the CT 8 signing project from Thomaston to Winsted.  I checked from Exit 38 up to Exit 41 and within that span, all regulatory, mile markers, exit signage, ramp signage, etc has been replaced.  This is everything that doesn't require a foundation... just posts stuck into the ground.  New sign posts to support new signs are installed for Exits 39, 40, and 41, and most likely all the way up to US 44 in Winsted (I saw no reason to drive all the way up that far if there is nothing but the posts in).  All of the new signs are being staged at the former weigh station (abandoned for years) north of Exit 40 in Thomaston.  Bridge construction just past Exit 41 (Route 8 spanning the Naugatuck RR/River) is nearing completion, though NB traffic still crosses over to the SB span. 

Drove through the I-84 Waterbury work zone... twice.  Looks like the new center median lighting being installed is of a slightly different design than that in place east of Exit 25A (and on parts of I-95 down in New Haven and Fairfield counties).  Lots of progress being made.  The large (and old) "69" shields WB are still in play.  Some new 4-chord cantilevers up between Exits 25 & 25A, but no signs on them yet.

A couple new signs on I-91, which I swear WERE NOT THERE ON MONDAY.... one for Exit 38 and one for Exit 45, both northbound, and both part of the state's random sign structure replacement project.

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2812/33540047823_e8e86c909b_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/T6PvGB)IMG_3175 (https://flic.kr/p/T6PvGB) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4186/33508835664_dc745b8854_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/T44xpW)IMG_3180 (https://flic.kr/p/T44xpW) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

Both of these sign installations replaced earlier button copy "Phase III" mounted on "yellow angled supports", along with most of I-91's signs in this area.


I hate the angled supports.  The signs always seem crooked on them, it's like the "angling" throws off the crews when they put up the sign.  and as I said before, CT seemed to be in a rush to blanket the state in reflective button copy between 1985-1994.  Even non-reflective button copy signs that were only a few years old were replaced during that time.

Throws off the crews?  Nobody should be in construction that can't work a level.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on May 02, 2017, 06:18:39 PM
Looking at the new I-95/I-91 interchange via google maps and I don't get why on I-95 SB, the second to left lane is not an option lane, when there is room to do it.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3051575,-72.9142961,3a,75y,203.54h,85.14t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sm63CV6fRJfvSEVPYooVQXQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

The signage also isn't as well marked as it could be either.
Just before Exit 4 on I-91 SB, they have I-95 SB signed with one downward arrow and one downward arrow for I-95 NB.  At exit 3, I-95 SB is finally signed as 2-lanes with 2 downward arrows.  It's finally 2-lanes thru why not sign it that way from the get go!?

The same on I-95 NB at Exit 46.  The first sign bridge points to only the left 2 lanes as I-95 NB, when it's actually 3.  It's not until the I-91 NB off ramp do they finally acknowledge it's 3-lanes thru NB. I don't get why they "hide" the lanes on the signage.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: zzyzx on May 03, 2017, 04:57:48 PM
This just showed up on my Twitter newsfeed...it looks like one of the options is to replace the I-84/I-91 interchange in Hartford and bury it underground, freeing up space for future riverfront developments:

(https://i.imgur.com/EWGwZT0.jpg)
http://imgur.com/a/r122Y (http://imgur.com/a/r122Y)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on May 03, 2017, 05:07:06 PM
Quote from: zzyzx on May 03, 2017, 04:57:48 PM
This just showed up on my Twitter newsfeed...it looks like one of the options is to replace the I-84/I-91 interchange in Hartford and bury it underground, freeing up space for future riverfront developments:

(https://i.imgur.com/EWGwZT0.jpg)
http://imgur.com/a/r122Y (http://imgur.com/a/r122Y)

http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-hartford-i-84-interchange-20170503-story.html
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: The Ghostbuster on May 03, 2017, 05:24:19 PM
Which plan would make the most sense traffic-wise?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on May 03, 2017, 07:44:24 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on May 02, 2017, 06:18:39 PM
Looking at the new I-95/I-91 interchange via google maps and I don't get why on I-95 SB, the second to left lane is not an option lane, when there is room to do it.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3051575,-72.9142961,3a,75y,203.54h,85.14t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sm63CV6fRJfvSEVPYooVQXQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

There really isn't. If you had an option lane here, then the former right through lane (4th lane back across the bridge) would be dropped at the first exit on I-91. This way, all four through lanes remain through lanes through the interchange, and the third lane on I-91 is added as a decel lane.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on May 03, 2017, 07:45:48 PM
Then there's this.  I'm assuming the north option doesn't apply in this case.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftu9srvbirvvtmtukd3d3lnryymltzy5jb200.g00.courant.com%2Fg00%2F2_d3d3LmNvdXJhbnQuY29t_%2FTU9SRVBIRVVTMTUkaHR0cDovL3d3dy50cmJpbWcuY29tL2ltZy01OTBhMWUxZS90dXJiaW5lL2hjLWhhcnRmb3JkLWktODQtaW50ZXJjaGFuZ2UtMjAxNzA1MDMtMDAxLzc1MC83NTB4NDIyP2kxMGMubWFyay5pbWFnZS50eXBl_%24%2F%24%2F%24%2F%24%2F%24%2F%24&hash=3b3d208dbd3fc001379fd8fcef9000da22a4a1af)

The smart thing with this plan would be to still keep the existing freeway and create a new Interstate designation, probably either I-284 or I-484.

The north option seems very indirect to me and I'm hesitant to support it.  Why can't they put the tunnel just north and parallel to the Bulkley?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on May 04, 2017, 08:50:49 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on May 03, 2017, 07:45:48 PMThe smart thing with this plan would be to still keep the existing freeway and create a new Interstate designation, probably either I-284 or I-484.
:confused: Are you saying that the existing freeway would get the new designation or the new corridor?  Either way, I-84 would still need to go through this region.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on May 04, 2017, 08:08:53 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 04, 2017, 08:50:49 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on May 03, 2017, 07:45:48 PMThe smart thing with this plan would be to still keep the existing freeway and create a new Interstate designation, probably either I-284 or I-484.
:confused: Are you saying that the existing freeway would get the new designation or the new corridor?  Either way, I-84 would still need to go through this region.

I mean that whatever solution is chosen to re-locate I-84 they should keep the existing freeway and give it an aux designation.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Beeper1 on May 04, 2017, 08:19:56 PM
Not to be too pessimistic, but this is Connecticut we're talking about.  This should all be filed under "fictional highways" because we all know none of this, despite how badly it's needed, will be built in our lifetimes. 

They'll do endless studies on it, but the best we can hope for is a half-assed attempted rehab or replace-in-kind of the existing viaduct.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on May 05, 2017, 05:04:37 PM
Only a roadgeek would find the error in this story:

http://www.wfsb.com/story/35355982/merritt-parkway-in-wallingford-closed-due-to-downed-tree-branches
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: dgolub on May 05, 2017, 07:02:20 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on May 05, 2017, 05:04:37 PM
Only a roadgeek would find the error in this story:

http://www.wfsb.com/story/35355982/merritt-parkway-in-wallingford-closed-due-to-downed-tree-branches

I assume you mean that the Merritt doesn't go to Wallingford?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on May 05, 2017, 08:58:11 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on May 05, 2017, 05:04:37 PM
Only a roadgeek would find the error in this story:

http://www.wfsb.com/story/35355982/merritt-parkway-in-wallingford-closed-due-to-downed-tree-branches

At least they fixed it in the actual broadcast.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: mariethefoxy on May 05, 2017, 09:13:10 PM
my friends from Connecticut tend to just call the whole thing Route 15 or 15
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on May 05, 2017, 11:50:30 PM
Quote from: dgolub on May 05, 2017, 07:02:20 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on May 05, 2017, 05:04:37 PM
Only a roadgeek would find the error in this story:

http://www.wfsb.com/story/35355982/merritt-parkway-in-wallingford-closed-due-to-downed-tree-branches

I assume you mean that the Merritt doesn't go to Wallingford?
Not that far.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: SectorZ on May 06, 2017, 08:44:23 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on May 05, 2017, 05:04:37 PM
Only a roadgeek would find the error in this story:

http://www.wfsb.com/story/35355982/merritt-parkway-in-wallingford-closed-due-to-downed-tree-branches

It's sad the state police don't know what it's called. It's their job to patrol the thing daily, you would think they would learn its name by accident after a while.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: AMLNet49 on May 06, 2017, 09:43:21 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on May 06, 2017, 08:44:23 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on May 05, 2017, 05:04:37 PM
Only a roadgeek would find the error in this story:

http://www.wfsb.com/story/35355982/merritt-parkway-in-wallingford-closed-due-to-downed-tree-branches

It's sad the state police don't know what it's called. It's their job to patrol the thing daily, you would think they would learn its name by accident after a while.
To be fair, the Merritt is a regionally famous road, WCP/H is not well known outside of locals. Long distance travelers probably don't even know that the Merritt name ends after the Milford Pkwy interchange
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Roadsguy on May 07, 2017, 05:48:23 PM
Why even does it end at the Milford Parkway?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on May 07, 2017, 06:39:42 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on May 07, 2017, 05:48:23 PM
Why even does it end at the Milford Parkway?

It doesn't. The changeover from Merritt to Wilbur Cross is at the Fairfield/New Haven county line in the middle of the Housatonic River.

As for why two different names well, the parkway was originally not planned to extend past Stratford. The extension was named after the governor of Connecticut who championed it (just as the original parkway is named after the congressman who played a similar role in getting it built).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Route123forMe on May 08, 2017, 08:36:35 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on May 07, 2017, 06:39:42 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on May 07, 2017, 05:48:23 PM
Why even does it end at the Milford Parkway?

It doesn't. The changeover from Merritt to Wilbur Cross is at the Fairfield/New Haven county line in the middle of the Housatonic River.

As for why two different names well, the parkway was originally not planned to extend past Stratford. The extension was named after the governor of Connecticut who championed it (just as the original parkway is named after the congressman who played a similar role in getting it built).

As I remember it from past decades, the separation was at the Stratford toll booths, just on the east side of the Housatonic.  I don't know when those were dismantled, though I can remember it in progress.  How I used to hate driving over that metal grid bridge!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: AMLNet49 on May 09, 2017, 10:58:10 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on May 07, 2017, 06:39:42 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on May 07, 2017, 05:48:23 PM
Why even does it end at the Milford Parkway?

It doesn't. The changeover from Merritt to Wilbur Cross is at the Fairfield/New Haven county line in the middle of the Housatonic River.

As for why two different names well, the parkway was originally not planned to extend past Stratford. The extension was named after the governor of Connecticut who championed it (just as the original parkway is named after the congressman who played a similar role in getting it built).
I meant de facto, in practice it ends at the Milford. I know the actual end point is on the Sikorsky bridge.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on May 09, 2017, 01:44:37 PM
Mixmaster news coming to the forefront.

http://www.wfsb.com/story/35366228/congresswoman-esty-to-discuss-mixmaster-construction-project-today
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on May 09, 2017, 11:20:44 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on May 09, 2017, 01:44:37 PM
Mixmaster news coming to the forefront.

http://www.wfsb.com/story/35366228/congresswoman-esty-to-discuss-mixmaster-construction-project-today

If you look at the track record of ConnDOT in completing major projects:  10 years to reconstruct I-95 through Bridgeport, and more than 15 years to reconstruct the Q-Bridge along with the I-91/I-95 and Route 34 interchange in New Haven, I anticipate that rebuilding the I-84/Route 8 Mixmaster will be at least a 10-year job, once started.  I'm not a bit surprised that they'll spend a few hundred million dollars and several years rehabilitating the existing viaducts to keep them serviceable until the replacement interchange is built.  So maybe we'll see the new Mixmaster interchange completed in 20-25 years at the rate ConnDOT is going right now.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on May 09, 2017, 11:42:14 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on May 09, 2017, 11:20:44 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on May 09, 2017, 01:44:37 PM
Mixmaster news coming to the forefront.

http://www.wfsb.com/story/35366228/congresswoman-esty-to-discuss-mixmaster-construction-project-today

If you look at the track record of ConnDOT in completing major projects:  10 years to reconstruct I-95 through Bridgeport, and more than 15 years to reconstruct the Q-Bridge along with the I-91/I-95 and Route 34 interchange in New Haven, I anticipate that rebuilding the I-84/Route 8 Mixmaster will be at least a 10-year job, once started.  I'm not a bit surprised that they'll spend a few hundred million dollars and several years rehabilitating the existing viaducts to keep them serviceable until the replacement interchange is built.  So maybe we'll see the new Mixmaster interchange completed in 20-25 years at the rate ConnDOT is going right now.

They are ahead though with the Waterbury add-a-lane project.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on May 09, 2017, 11:47:15 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on May 09, 2017, 11:42:14 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on May 09, 2017, 11:20:44 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on May 09, 2017, 01:44:37 PM
Mixmaster news coming to the forefront.

http://www.wfsb.com/story/35366228/congresswoman-esty-to-discuss-mixmaster-construction-project-today

If you look at the track record of ConnDOT in completing major projects:  10 years to reconstruct I-95 through Bridgeport, and more than 15 years to reconstruct the Q-Bridge along with the I-91/I-95 and Route 34 interchange in New Haven, I anticipate that rebuilding the I-84/Route 8 Mixmaster will be at least a 10-year job, once started.  I'm not a bit surprised that they'll spend a few hundred million dollars and several years rehabilitating the existing viaducts to keep them serviceable until the replacement interchange is built.  So maybe we'll see the new Mixmaster interchange completed in 20-25 years at the rate ConnDOT is going right now.

They are ahead though with the Waterbury add-a-lane project.

Let's see if they end up with sinkholes opening up in the roadway, storm drains that lead to nowhere, and light fixtures falling off their masts.  That occurred on the section of I-84 immediately east of where construction is happening now, which was widened about 10 years ago.  Surprisingly (or not...it's Corrupticut), no one ever went to jail over that mess. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on May 10, 2017, 04:26:47 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on May 09, 2017, 01:44:37 PM
Mixmaster news coming to the forefront.

http://www.wfsb.com/story/35366228/congresswoman-esty-to-discuss-mixmaster-construction-project-today

It'll be the same song and dance.  In 2007, they studied replacing the mixmaster and narrowed it down to 3 alternatives.  It seemed very promising, work could even start in 10 years.  Well, guess what?  The state couldn't get their act together and now they will study the same thing AGAIN to make sure nothing changed!  IDK who to blame the state or the DOT.  I guess the state because the DOT gets their funding from lawmakers, who can't prioritize transportation money.

It will happen again, they will study again to make sure the old 2007 study holds up or if "needs" changed and then there will be no money and it will lag and then in 2028 they will redo the study again.

Meanwhile, other states have kept up with their transportation system (although locals in their respective areas probably disagree, but compared to CT, other states do just fine) such as I-395 in DC, even though traffic clogged today was once a 4-lane road in the 1960s and the same with I-75 in Atlanta. Over the past 4 decades other states have made improvements to roads and got them done.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Beeper1 on May 10, 2017, 09:21:27 PM
Exactly.  The list of projects that are badly needed, and studied over and over and over but never seem closer to implementation is staggering:

- I-95 widening Branford to New London
- Mixmaster
- Route 11  (possibly dead at this point)
- I-84 widening Danbury-Waterbury
- US-7/Merritt Pkwy interchange
- I-84 Hartford viaduct replacement

The only time we see any real action seems to be in the case of imminent structural collapse, and that's generally only on bridges (Q Bridge, Sikorsky Bridge, Wheeler Bridge, Charter Oak Br, and going back a ways to the Baldwin Bridge).

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on May 10, 2017, 09:57:29 PM
Quote from: Beeper1 on May 10, 2017, 09:21:27 PM
Exactly.  The list of projects that are badly needed, and studied over and over and over but never seem closer to implementation is staggering:

- I-95 widening Branford to New London
- Mixmaster
- Route 11  (possibly dead at this point)
- I-84 widening Danbury-Waterbury
- US-7/Merritt Pkwy interchange
- I-84 Hartford viaduct replacement

The only time we see any real action seems to be in the case of imminent structural collapse, and that's generally only on bridges (Q Bridge, Sikorsky Bridge, Wheeler Bridge, Charter Oak Br, and going back a ways to the Baldwin Bridge).

Or actual structural crash, such as the Mianus River bridge.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on May 10, 2017, 10:44:38 PM
Quote from: Beeper1 on May 10, 2017, 09:21:27 PM
Exactly.  The list of projects that are badly needed, and studied over and over and over but never seem closer to implementation is staggering:

- I-95 widening Branford to New London
- Mixmaster
- Route 11  (possibly dead at this point)
- I-84 widening Danbury-Waterbury
- US-7/Merritt Pkwy interchange
- I-84 Hartford viaduct replacement

And I'll add Route 9-Middletown to that list!

I somehow wouldn't be surprised if, by 2050, I-95 is still 2 lanes each way (except some spot improvements).  The Hartford viaduct may be done by then, but I'm not holding out hope for the Merritt Pkwy/US 7 interchange.  I'm guessing button copy will still be around as well. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Beeper1 on May 10, 2017, 10:54:09 PM
..and I-395 will still be the only highway with milepost-based exit numbers.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on May 10, 2017, 11:27:34 PM
Quote from: Beeper1 on May 10, 2017, 10:54:09 PM
..and I-395 will still be the only highway with milepost-based exit numbers.

But they'll still have the old exit number supplemental signage up?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on May 10, 2017, 11:49:46 PM
Quote from: Beeper1 on May 10, 2017, 09:21:27 PM
Exactly.  The list of projects that are badly needed, and studied over and over and over but never seem closer to implementation is staggering:

- I-95 widening Branford to New London
- Mixmaster
- Route 11  (possibly dead at this point)
- I-84 widening Danbury-Waterbury
- US-7/Merritt Pkwy interchange
- I-84 Hartford viaduct replacement

The only time we see any real action seems to be in the case of imminent structural collapse, and that's generally only on bridges (Q Bridge, Sikorsky Bridge, Wheeler Bridge, Charter Oak Br, and going back a ways to the Baldwin Bridge).

CT 11 is officially dead AFIAK.  The viaduct is most definitely happening.  It wouldn't have gotten this far into planning in terms of community outreach of it wasn't.  The other three are up in the air and could go either way IMO.  I-95 widening is a matter of land acquisition and adequate ROW. 

But they at least went ahead with the Waterbury add-a-lane project.  The Q Bridge was also just finished as well as the I-91/95/34 interchange.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on May 11, 2017, 03:37:52 PM
http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/politics/Governor-Proposes-Wiping-Out-Reserves-Millions-in-Cuts-421904133.html

Malloy plans to raid the transportation fund to balance the budget.

Gee...he's one of the major talkers of a "lock box" on transportation funds but he is the one raiding it.  Irony. 

All year they talk about the importance of transportation funding but when it comes to budget balance time, they don't give a shit about transportation or anything.

Nothing will ever change...just like what I said above with the study after study...
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Beeper1 on May 11, 2017, 05:05:03 PM
I wonder if they are going to do a study to determine which studies should be continued.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on May 12, 2017, 09:13:57 PM
Connecticut has bigger problems than transportation funding, sadly. The state is in a very financially precarious situation because of its dependence on income tax revenue from billionaire hedge fund managers... who've been leaving the state in significant numbers in recent years. The top 50 taxpayers contributed $217 million less in 2016 than in 2015 (http://www.courant.com/politics/hc-final-day-general-assembly-20160504-story.html).

And this is during generally "good" economic times. The next time Wall Street decides it's time for a stock market crash, the state of Connecticut will be crashing along with it.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on May 15, 2017, 03:48:33 PM
http://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/documents/dhighwaydesign/rte9middletown_plan.pdf

I check the CT DOT site and there's still projects that sneak by. lol  Check out the CT-9 Middletown project.  What sneaked by me was Main St traffic circle with the CT-17 ramp configuration to CT-9 NB.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on May 15, 2017, 04:46:36 PM
Another trip down and back from VT to CT and I noticed another new sign on I-91 North:

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4169/33872329413_5d04f9f20c_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/TBbxrx)91NB-Exit23 (https://flic.kr/p/TBbxrx) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

This is from the same project that replaced the I-91 NB Exit 38 1/2 mile and I-91 NB Exit 45 signs.  This sign maintains the "status quo" of existing signs, even though the MUTCD bans a street and a town name from being on the same sign.  Perhaps in a future sign replacement project, "Rocky Hill" will be exchanged for "Shunpike Rd", or it'll just be "TO 3 / Rocky Hill". 

From the same project, the signs/support on the onramp from CT 15 South and Airport Rd to I-91 SB in Hartford are also to be replaced but haven't yet.  The graffitti-colored sign and assembly butt up against I-91 NB between Exits 28 & 29.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on May 15, 2017, 05:47:25 PM
Interesting that they removed the "TO" from the sign since Route 3 is about 1/2 mile or so away.  Route 3 is actually Cromwell Ave. in that area (becomes Shunpike at the Cromwell line).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on May 15, 2017, 07:06:15 PM
Actually, "TO" used to be displayed on the Phase III reflective button copy version.  Sometime in the late 1990s, all signs for Exit 23 were converted to Phase IV, and the "TO" was removed. 

Whoops, forgot Route 3 isn't Shunpike Rd in that area.  Okay then, I guess I can live with "TO 3/ROCKY HILL" instead.  I'd also change Exit 24 to "99/SILAS DEANE HWY".  The "Rocky Neck/Exits 23-24/Town Line" sign seems sufficient enough to denote that two exits access Rocky Hill.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on May 15, 2017, 08:35:43 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on May 15, 2017, 04:46:36 PM
Another trip down and back from VT to CT and I noticed another new sign on I-91 North:

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4169/33872329413_5d04f9f20c_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/TBbxrx)91NB-Exit23 (https://flic.kr/p/TBbxrx) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

This is from the same project that replaced the I-91 NB Exit 38 1/2 mile and I-91 NB Exit 45 signs.  This sign maintains the "status quo" of existing signs, even though the MUTCD bans a street and a town name from being on the same sign.  Perhaps in a future sign replacement project, "Rocky Hill" will be exchanged for "Shunpike Rd", or it'll just be "TO 3 / Rocky Hill". 

There's another street name-town name violator on I-84 EB in Danbury for Exit 3.  Sign was put up in 2015.  There's "Exit 3 Ridgefield Park Ave."  Where is "ridgefield park ave?"  oh wait it's the town Ridgefield.

PS....new signage for Exit 11 EB as well. The Exit 11 "exit now" sign that was put up in 2015 has been replaced with an "exit only exit now" sign.  Striping for the 3rd lane into an aux lane hasn't happened yet.

On another subject of I-84 EB in Danbury, there are 3 pull-throughs for Exit 3.  2 signs say "I-84 TO US-7 Waterbury Hartford" at the Exit 3 1 Mile and "exit now" sign bridge.  But the sign at the 1/2 mile bridge says ONLY "TO US-7 Waterbury Hartford"  That can't be allowed can it? Taking off the actual road you're on for one sign?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: SectorZ on May 15, 2017, 08:49:19 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on May 15, 2017, 03:48:33 PM
http://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/documents/dhighwaydesign/rte9middletown_plan.pdf

I check the CT DOT site and there's still projects that sneak by. lol  Check out the CT-9 Middletown project.  What sneaked by me was Main St traffic circle with the CT-17 ramp configuration to CT-9 NB.

Does this make all of CT 9 up to at least feasible Interstate standards? I've never driven the whole length but been through that Middletown stretch. Wonder if CT vies for an x84, x91, or x95 number for it?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on May 15, 2017, 09:17:43 PM
The I-84 EB Exit 11 signage is part of the same project... sites 1A and 1B.   There's also another I-84 EB sign change planned, replacing the HOV lane sign mounted on a bridge east of the I-84/I-384 split in East Hartford.  However, the 1980s I-84/I-384 jct sign will remain and just the HOV lane sign will be replaced. 

Regarding CT 9, I highly doubt that the stretch between Exit 12(NB) and Exit 14 is up to interstate standards.  There's almost no shoulder and a very narrow median and some sharp curves.  Outside of that, there's nothing "earth-shattering" that would forbade an interstate designation.  But I just can't see it.  Not unless CT 154 becomes CT 9 again, and is extended northward over CT 99, just like it did, pre-[existing]Route 9.

I'm not a huge fan of the present plan for getting rid of the lights on Route 9, though maybe it'll actually come to pass.  For the southern Route 17 connection with Route 9, I'd convert the connector to more of a surface road and a SPUI with full access to/from both directions of Route 9, improving access to the riverfront, and extending the connector right to River Rd.  Then have the intersection of Route 17 and Main St Ext be at-grade, vs an interchange with two traffic circles.   The new Route 9 "southern connector" interchange (present #13) would replace #14 and #15 and maintain access to the south end of Middletown from 9NB. 

One does have to wonder if Route 17 will revert to surface roads (South Main St/Main St) instead of piggybacking on with Route 9.  Northbound, no sooner would you enter Route 9, then you'd immediately have to take the next exit in 1/2 mile, a left exit no doubt.  Seems too like it would add too much traffic to Main St, as all Portland-bound traffic northbound would have to enter it to get across the river.  At least at present, you enter at the far north end, which is the west approach of the Arrigoni. 

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on May 15, 2017, 10:31:47 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on May 15, 2017, 08:49:19 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on May 15, 2017, 03:48:33 PM
http://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/documents/dhighwaydesign/rte9middletown_plan.pdf

I check the CT DOT site and there's still projects that sneak by. lol  Check out the CT-9 Middletown project.  What sneaked by me was Main St traffic circle with the CT-17 ramp configuration to CT-9 NB.

Does this make all of CT 9 up to at least feasible Interstate standards? I've never driven the whole length but been through that Middletown stretch. Wonder if CT vies for an x84, x91, or x95 number for it?
I see CT 9 as a primary route.  It's not like you're bypassing or spurring from/around a city.  Its a vector route: Hartford to Old Saybrook.  That's why CT 2 will never be a 3DI, it's Hartford to New London, a primary route linking two cities.  I-395 makes sense the way it is because it's the outermost bypass of Providence.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on May 16, 2017, 04:08:01 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on May 15, 2017, 09:17:43 PM

Regarding CT 9, I highly doubt that the stretch between Exit 12(NB) and Exit 14 is up to interstate standards.  There's almost no shoulder and a very narrow median and some sharp curves.  Outside of that, there's nothing "earth-shattering" that would forbade an interstate designation.  But I just can't see it.  Not unless CT 154 becomes CT 9 again, and is extended northward over CT 99, just like it did, pre-[existing]Route 9.

I'm not a huge fan of the present plan for getting rid of the lights on Route 9, though maybe it'll actually come to pass.  For the southern Route 17 connection with Route 9, I'd convert the connector to more of a surface road and a SPUI with full access to/from both directions of Route 9, improving access to the riverfront, and extending the connector right to River Rd.  Then have the intersection of Route 17 and Main St Ext be at-grade, vs an interchange with two traffic circles.   The new Route 9 "southern connector" interchange (present #13) would replace #14 and #15 and maintain access to the south end of Middletown from 9NB. 


I noticed from CT-9 NB to CT-66 will be a left off-ramp and CT-66 EB to CT-9 NB will be a left on-ramp.  I don't see why they can't make them both right hand extis/entrances to CT-9 NB?!  They can move the NB lanes of CT-9 NB towards the center and get rid of the grassy median and then have the ramps where the right of way of the current NB lanes are.  It would make the curves of the ramp not as tight.  looking at the PDF it looks like a switch-a-roo with the ramps and mainline NB lanes.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on May 16, 2017, 05:31:59 PM
I think the idea with the CT 9 proposal was to minimize impacts/views of the river and keep the costs down.  That's why only the southbound lanes would be elevated.  But they'll raise to climb over the NB onramp from Hartford Avenue, then drop down quickly to pass beneath the railroad bridge, then rise again to climb over the NB offramp to Washington Street.  I don't know if its the best design, but if it actually gets built, then at least the lights will be gone!   There really isn't much space at all to work with there.  In a perfect world, I'd send Route 9 over to Portland and back. 

I wonder, with Route 11 being cancelled, will Route 2 and Route 11 forever be signed as the "Route to New London"?  It's advertised as far north as the North Meadows on I-91.  But with Route 11 never being built (in our lifetimes, at least), perhaps it should be kept on Route 2 to I-395, and sign Route 11 as "Salem". 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on May 16, 2017, 05:48:13 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on May 16, 2017, 05:31:59 PM
I think the idea with the CT 9 proposal was to minimize impacts/views of the river and keep the costs down.  That's why only the southbound lanes would be elevated.  But they'll raise to climb over the NB onramp from Hartford Avenue, then drop down quickly to pass beneath the railroad bridge, then rise again to climb over the NB offramp to Washington Street.  I don't know if its the best design, but if it actually gets built, then at least the lights will be gone!   There really isn't much space at all to work with there.  In a perfect world, I'd send Route 9 over to Portland and back. 

I wonder, with Route 11 being cancelled, will Route 2 and Route 11 forever be signed as the "Route to New London"?  It's advertised as far north as the North Meadows on I-91.  But with Route 11 never being built (in our lifetimes, at least), perhaps it should be kept on Route 2 to I-395, and sign Route 11 as "Salem".
Or decommission CT 11 and sign it as "To CT 85 New London", that way you don't have to change a thing in Hartford.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on May 16, 2017, 06:12:23 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on May 16, 2017, 05:48:13 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on May 16, 2017, 05:31:59 PM
I think the idea with the CT 9 proposal was to minimize impacts/views of the river and keep the costs down.  That's why only the southbound lanes would be elevated.  But they'll raise to climb over the NB onramp from Hartford Avenue, then drop down quickly to pass beneath the railroad bridge, then rise again to climb over the NB offramp to Washington Street.  I don't know if its the best design, but if it actually gets built, then at least the lights will be gone!   There really isn't much space at all to work with there.  In a perfect world, I'd send Route 9 over to Portland and back. 

I wonder, with Route 11 being cancelled, will Route 2 and Route 11 forever be signed as the "Route to New London"?  It's advertised as far north as the North Meadows on I-91.  But with Route 11 never being built (in our lifetimes, at least), perhaps it should be kept on Route 2 to I-395, and sign Route 11 as "Salem".
Or decommission CT 11 and sign it as "To CT 85 New London", that way you don't have to change a thing in Hartford.

The signs in Hartford on I-91 South for the I-84 East exit say "I-84 East/ 2 /East Hartford/ New London.  There's no mention about Route 11 until you get to Colchester.  What can be done is keep the Route 11 number as is, just use Salem or Salem/Waterford as control cities, and just before the Route 11 exit, put an LGS for a time that says "New London: Follow CT 2 East TO I-395 South TO CT 32 South" (similar to the Meriden ones on CT 9 North in Middletown), and change all replacement signage from Hartford east to include both Norwich and New London as control cities for CT 2 East (it's among some of the most illegible Phase III reflective button copy out there, so it has to be replaced eventually) For Exit 28S on 2 East (future Exit 37A), change the control city from New Haven (which maybe 3% or less of traffic reaches taking the exit) or add New London on the BGS's. And while you're at it, I always hated Providence as a control city on Exit 28N (future 37B) since I-395 doesn't get within 30 miles of the city and I've never used 2 to 395 to 6 to get to Providence from Hartford; should be Worcester.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on May 16, 2017, 06:25:26 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on May 16, 2017, 06:12:23 PM
The signs in Hartford on I-91 South for the I-84 East exit say "I-84 East/ 2 /East Hartford/ New London.  There's no mention about Route 11 until you get to Colchester.  What can be done is keep the Route 11 number as is, just use Salem or Salem/Waterford as control cities, and just before the Route 11 exit, put an LGS for a time that says "New London: Follow CT 2 East TO I-395 South TO CT 32 South" (similar to the Meriden ones on CT 9 North in Middletown), and change all replacement signage from Hartford east to include both Norwich and New London as control cities for CT 2 East (it's among some of the most illegible Phase III reflective button copy out there, so it has to be replaced eventually)

What I meant was... While Route 11 isn't mentioned, Route 2 AND Route 11 make up the route from the Hartford area to New London.  I believe many of the entrance signs on CT 2 do indeed advertise both Norwich and New London.   And such a sign "To New London use 2 EAST to 395 SOUTH" would be perfect in this case.  Or, as I have suggested earlier, extend Route 11 just a short ways so it blends in with Route 85, a la the Brookfield Bypass' north end, and then improve Route 85 from there.  Or, tear it (Route 11) up completely, perhaps initiating it by converting it to a "Super 2" to gauge the traffic flow. 

Back when Route 11 was still "on the table", I thought a fun idea would be to resign Route 2 to Route 11 north/west of Colchester.  I always feel like I'm traveling more south than east on CT 2 East out of Hartford anyway.

Regarding I-395 control cities at Route 2 Exit 28, New London would be good, as would Worcester.  I always thought it was odd that Providence was used, perhaps a throwback to the "Turnpike" days, when it was the road to Providence.  I was kinda hoping all I-395 entrance signs would've been changed to New London, as I prefer that over Norwich.  At least Plainfield never got entrance sign status, outside of the I-95 NB Exit 76 signs.  (When Mass resigns the 'pike at Exit 10 in Auburn, New London CT will be a control city). 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on May 16, 2017, 08:40:20 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on May 16, 2017, 06:25:26 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on May 16, 2017, 06:12:23 PM
The signs in Hartford on I-91 South for the I-84 East exit say "I-84 East/ 2 /East Hartford/ New London.  There's no mention about Route 11 until you get to Colchester.  What can be done is keep the Route 11 number as is, just use Salem or Salem/Waterford as control cities, and just before the Route 11 exit, put an LGS for a time that says "New London: Follow CT 2 East TO I-395 South TO CT 32 South" (similar to the Meriden ones on CT 9 North in Middletown), and change all replacement signage from Hartford east to include both Norwich and New London as control cities for CT 2 East (it's among some of the most illegible Phase III reflective button copy out there, so it has to be replaced eventually)

What I meant was... While Route 11 isn't mentioned, Route 2 AND Route 11 make up the route from the Hartford area to New London.  I believe many of the entrance signs on CT 2 do indeed advertise both Norwich and New London.   And such a sign "To New London use 2 EAST to 395 SOUTH" would be perfect in this case.  Or, as I have suggested earlier, extend Route 11 just a short ways so it blends in with Route 85, a la the Brookfield Bypass' north end, and then improve Route 85 from there.  Or, tear it (Route 11) up completely, perhaps initiating it by converting it to a "Super 2" to gauge the traffic flow.

Back when Route 11 was still "on the table", I thought a fun idea would be to resign Route 2 to Route 11 north/west of Colchester.  I always feel like I'm traveling more south than east on CT 2 East out of Hartford anyway.

Regarding I-395 control cities at Route 2 Exit 28, New London would be good, as would Worcester.  I always thought it was odd that Providence was used, perhaps a throwback to the "Turnpike" days, when it was the road to Providence.  I was kinda hoping all I-395 entrance signs would've been changed to New London, as I prefer that over Norwich.  At least Plainfield never got entrance sign status, outside of the I-95 NB Exit 76 signs.  (When Mass resigns the 'pike at Exit 10 in Auburn, New London CT will be a control city).

What's CT 11's AADT at these days? Can't be too high.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on May 16, 2017, 10:09:28 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on May 16, 2017, 08:40:20 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on May 16, 2017, 06:25:26 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on May 16, 2017, 06:12:23 PM
The signs in Hartford on I-91 South for the I-84 East exit say "I-84 East/ 2 /East Hartford/ New London.  There's no mention about Route 11 until you get to Colchester.  What can be done is keep the Route 11 number as is, just use Salem or Salem/Waterford as control cities, and just before the Route 11 exit, put an LGS for a time that says "New London: Follow CT 2 East TO I-395 South TO CT 32 South" (similar to the Meriden ones on CT 9 North in Middletown), and change all replacement signage from Hartford east to include both Norwich and New London as control cities for CT 2 East (it's among some of the most illegible Phase III reflective button copy out there, so it has to be replaced eventually)

What I meant was... While Route 11 isn't mentioned, Route 2 AND Route 11 make up the route from the Hartford area to New London.  I believe many of the entrance signs on CT 2 do indeed advertise both Norwich and New London.   And such a sign "To New London use 2 EAST to 395 SOUTH" would be perfect in this case.  Or, as I have suggested earlier, extend Route 11 just a short ways so it blends in with Route 85, a la the Brookfield Bypass' north end, and then improve Route 85 from there.  Or, tear it (Route 11) up completely, perhaps initiating it by converting it to a "Super 2" to gauge the traffic flow.

Back when Route 11 was still "on the table", I thought a fun idea would be to resign Route 2 to Route 11 north/west of Colchester.  I always feel like I'm traveling more south than east on CT 2 East out of Hartford anyway.

Regarding I-395 control cities at Route 2 Exit 28, New London would be good, as would Worcester.  I always thought it was odd that Providence was used, perhaps a throwback to the "Turnpike" days, when it was the road to Providence.  I was kinda hoping all I-395 entrance signs would've been changed to New London, as I prefer that over Norwich.  At least Plainfield never got entrance sign status, outside of the I-95 NB Exit 76 signs.  (When Mass resigns the 'pike at Exit 10 in Auburn, New London CT will be a control city).

What's CT 11's AADT at these days? Can't be too high.

In 2015, AADT on CT 11 peaks at 10200, between Witch Meadow Rd and Lake Hayward Rd.

CT 85 gets to 15600 between I-395 and CT 82; max is 8000 ADT between CT 82 and CT 354. The highest ADT on CT 85 is 27100, near Crystal Mall between I-395 and I-95.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on May 17, 2017, 11:48:53 AM
Quote from: kurumi on May 16, 2017, 10:09:28 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on May 16, 2017, 08:40:20 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on May 16, 2017, 06:25:26 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on May 16, 2017, 06:12:23 PM
The signs in Hartford on I-91 South for the I-84 East exit say "I-84 East/ 2 /East Hartford/ New London.  There's no mention about Route 11 until you get to Colchester.  What can be done is keep the Route 11 number as is, just use Salem or Salem/Waterford as control cities, and just before the Route 11 exit, put an LGS for a time that says "New London: Follow CT 2 East TO I-395 South TO CT 32 South" (similar to the Meriden ones on CT 9 North in Middletown), and change all replacement signage from Hartford east to include both Norwich and New London as control cities for CT 2 East (it's among some of the most illegible Phase III reflective button copy out there, so it has to be replaced eventually)

What I meant was... While Route 11 isn't mentioned, Route 2 AND Route 11 make up the route from the Hartford area to New London.  I believe many of the entrance signs on CT 2 do indeed advertise both Norwich and New London.   And such a sign "To New London use 2 EAST to 395 SOUTH" would be perfect in this case.  Or, as I have suggested earlier, extend Route 11 just a short ways so it blends in with Route 85, a la the Brookfield Bypass' north end, and then improve Route 85 from there.  Or, tear it (Route 11) up completely, perhaps initiating it by converting it to a "Super 2" to gauge the traffic flow.

Back when Route 11 was still "on the table", I thought a fun idea would be to resign Route 2 to Route 11 north/west of Colchester.  I always feel like I'm traveling more south than east on CT 2 East out of Hartford anyway.

Regarding I-395 control cities at Route 2 Exit 28, New London would be good, as would Worcester.  I always thought it was odd that Providence was used, perhaps a throwback to the "Turnpike" days, when it was the road to Providence.  I was kinda hoping all I-395 entrance signs would've been changed to New London, as I prefer that over Norwich.  At least Plainfield never got entrance sign status, outside of the I-95 NB Exit 76 signs.  (When Mass resigns the 'pike at Exit 10 in Auburn, New London CT will be a control city).

What's CT 11's AADT at these days? Can't be too high.

In 2015, AADT on CT 11 peaks at 10200, between Witch Meadow Rd and Lake Hayward Rd.

CT 85 gets to 15600 between I-395 and CT 82; max is 8000 ADT between CT 82 and CT 354. The highest ADT on CT 85 is 27100, near Crystal Mall between I-395 and I-95.

Compare that to Route 7, which sees 20,000 to 40,000 vehicles per day between Norwalk and Danbury.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on May 17, 2017, 11:53:47 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on May 11, 2017, 03:37:52 PM
http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/politics/Governor-Proposes-Wiping-Out-Reserves-Millions-in-Cuts-421904133.html

Malloy plans to raid the transportation fund to balance the budget.

Gee...he's one of the major talkers of a "lock box" on transportation funds but he is the one raiding it.  Irony. 

All year they talk about the importance of transportation funding but when it comes to budget balance time, they don't give a shit about transportation or anything.

Nothing will ever change...just like what I said above with the study after study...
This is exactly why there will be a constitutional "lock box" for transportation in Connecticut.  In a state run by the Democrat political machine, a big pot of money sitting there is just too irresistible to not raid for "General Fund" expenditures (cough..."entitlements").
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: yakra on May 19, 2017, 01:01:27 AM
Quote from: kurumi on May 16, 2017, 10:09:28 PM
In 2015, AADT on CT 11 peaks at 10200, between Witch Meadow Rd and Lake Hayward Rd.

CT 85 gets to 15600 between I-395 and CT 82; max is 8000 ADT between CT 82 and CT 354. The highest ADT on CT 85 is 27100, near Crystal Mall between I-395 and I-95.
What's the AADT on CT 85 between Witch Meadow Rd and Lake Hayward Rd?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on May 19, 2017, 10:14:28 PM
Quote from: yakra on May 19, 2017, 01:01:27 AM
Quote from: kurumi on May 16, 2017, 10:09:28 PM
In 2015, AADT on CT 11 peaks at 10200, between Witch Meadow Rd and Lake Hayward Rd.

CT 85 gets to 15600 between I-395 and CT 82; max is 8000 ADT between CT 82 and CT 354. The highest ADT on CT 85 is 27100, near Crystal Mall between I-395 and I-95.
What's the AADT on CT 85 between Witch Meadow Rd and Lake Hayward Rd?

Min 2700, max 6100 (http://www.ct.gov/dot/otherreports)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on May 22, 2017, 02:57:00 PM
In upcoming sign replacement news, here are the latest bid announcements coming within the next year:

2017:
July 5:  sign support replacements - statewide - various locations - tba
August 16:  Merritt Parkway, replace signs, including VMS, vicinity of Exits 27-53
August 23:  CT 8, Upgrade Signing, from Shelton to I-84 in Waterbury

2018:
January 17:  CT 8, Upgrade Signing, from I-95 thru Shelton
April 18:  I-84, Replace Highway Signs & Supports from Exit 40 to 56

These projects will result in CT 8 being completely resigned, coupled with the currently-in-progress Thomaston to Winsted project.  Unknown if CT 8 will go to mile-based exits following completion, or at least during the last contract (I-95 through Shelton). 

What is unclear is why I-84 signs will be replaced through an area that will be drastically altered within the next few years (the Aetna viaduct).  I would have extended the project that just went out to bid this spring which encompasses Exits 30-39A to Exit 46, and then issued the 4/18/2018 project to cover Exits 53-(at least)65.  That way it covers the very old signage in Manchester and Vernon and leaves the viaduct/canyon signage alone for now.  Time will tell.

Looks like button copy on I-91 from downtown Hartford, north to Enfield (dating to the late 1980s-early 1990s) and those on CT 2 and CT 9 is safe for now.  As is the 1993-installed button copy along I-95 in Branford and Madison, which replaced the original 1958-vintage Connecticut Turnpike signage. 

Regardless, when July and August come this year, it'll be interesting to see the contract plans for the new signage. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on May 22, 2017, 03:52:51 PM
Looks like the Exit 54-55 signage on the Wilbur Cross is going to remain as well?  It would be the only signage not updated on the entire Merritt/Wilbur Cross Parkway.  Would love to see the parkway go mileage based to correct the God-awful 30-27 jump backwards at the NY/CT state line, but then the Hartford area section of CT 15 would have to be converted, as it's also reflective button copy.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on May 22, 2017, 06:28:38 PM
For the interim, I wouldn't even worry about the Hartford exits.  They can stay 85-91 for now.  There's no mile markers north of Meriden on Route 15, IIRC.  Just getting the Merritt and WCP on the mileage system would be a good start.  Then I'd worry about the Hartford exits later.  I'd like to see mile markers added along the Berlin Tpke section and actual exits there numbered. 

The contract to reconstruct I-91 Exit 29 is set to be released in April 2018, so maybe that'll include some signage in the area of Route 15.  I'd blanket the Hartford section of Route 15 in with a project to replace signs on I-384, I-291, and I-691, in an effort to get rid of as much button copy as possible.  Some of these signs are now dating back 30 years.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on May 23, 2017, 03:33:02 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on May 22, 2017, 06:28:38 PM
I'd blanket the Hartford section of Route 15 in with a project to replace signs on I-384, I-291, and I-691, in an effort to get rid of as much button copy as possible.  Some of these signs are now dating back 30 years.

CT seems slow to replace the reflective button copy...but between 1985-1995 CT seemed to be in a rush to replace all non-reflective button copy no matter how long it was up for with reflective button copy.  The whole state was blanketed during that time. 
(I never really understood the concept of reflective button copy)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on May 23, 2017, 05:04:41 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on May 23, 2017, 03:33:02 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on May 22, 2017, 06:28:38 PM
I'd blanket the Hartford section of Route 15 in with a project to replace signs on I-384, I-291, and I-691, in an effort to get rid of as much button copy as possible.  Some of these signs are now dating back 30 years.

CT seems slow to replace the reflective button copy...but between 1985-1995 CT seemed to be in a rush to replace all non-reflective button copy no matter how long it was up for with reflective button copy.  The whole state was blanketed during that time. 
(I never really understood the concept of reflective button copy)

Seems ConnDOT got a sweetheart deal on a closeout lot for it, since most states were moving away from button copy in the 80's and 90's (if you look at the Vermont thread, there's a sign with it in 1960!  Now, many of the signs are illegible at night due to the wear and tear on the reflectors.  The state route and US route shields are so ugly with their green backgrounds.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on May 23, 2017, 08:24:35 PM
I seem to remember a news story on Channel 3 (WFSB) back in the day which touted the new signs and said it had something to do with the company 3M, perhaps they're the ones that made the reflective background.  Nevertheless, it sprouted up like dandelions all over the state, except in some oddball locations.  I-95 between Exits 60 and 67 and Exits 70 and 82 never had it, nor did I-84 Exits 59-64, I-691 from I-84 to Exit 4, and most of independent Route 25.  The parkways were odd in that they didn't get a full-on "Phase III" assault, just in sections where some signs were replaced (in Hamden and in Norwalk).  I-84 is still holding onto this Phase II non-button copy signage right up to the present day, so is I-691.  And then the ultimate oddball of I-84 Exits 24-25A in Waterbury, which is holding on (by a thread!) to its (original?) Phase I button copy non-reflective signage, with oversized "69". 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on May 23, 2017, 08:52:06 PM
I wonder how old this sign is? It's attached to Christian Lane in Berlin (Exit 23 - SB off and NB on only). Behind me was an ancient sign that read "(up left arrow) CT 72 WEST". Only problem is that this hasn't been part of CT Route 72 since 1989-90!  :-D
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FC8muAhT.jpg&hash=2fc6b228e743c6195b987505ea7864abf444f91d)

I also saw this new device on the Berlin Turnpike (US 5/CT 15). There's one at the corner of Pane Road in Newington. This one is at the next intersection going south, at the corner of Webster Street.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F7suUq70.jpg&hash=8282c94b840bcaba6235ca96034ff87d6cdab903)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on May 23, 2017, 09:10:56 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on May 23, 2017, 08:52:06 PM
I wonder how old this sign is? It's attached to Christian Lane in Berlin (Exit 23 - SB off and NB on only). Behind me was an ancient sign that read "(up left arrow) CT 72 WEST". Only problem is that this hasn't been part of CT Route 72 since 1989-90!  :-D
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FC8muAhT.jpg&hash=2fc6b228e743c6195b987505ea7864abf444f91d)

I also saw this new device on the Berlin Turnpike (US 5/CT 15). There's one at the corner of Pane Road in Newington. This one is at the next intersection going south, at the corner of Webster Street.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F7suUq70.jpg&hash=8282c94b840bcaba6235ca96034ff87d6cdab903)

Don't think the sign itself is that old because it's Phase IV signage. Originally, the sign was old Phase II and said "372 TO 71" when the highway was CT 72.  When the East Berlin/Cromwell Route 9 link was completed in 1989 and CT 372 was rerouted away from the connector (which became SR 571) and extended to Cromwell, the sign was converted to reflective button copy that said "TO 71/372".  This sign can't be more than 10-15 years old, but the bracket on the other hand wasn't replaced so it has to be really old. 

As for the white thing, my guess is that it's a DOT traffic camera like the ones you see on most CT highways. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on May 23, 2017, 10:53:36 PM
GSV link to the CT 72 sign KEVIN_224 mentioned: https://goo.gl/maps/oVwUqU4V3qu

Put a "TO" tab above the 72 marker and the sign is correct again.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on May 24, 2017, 03:43:34 PM
I'm guessing the Exit 24 71/372 1 Mile sign photoed above is from the late 80s since it's reflective button copy.

The CT-72 sign has held up well and prob dates to 1989-1990 or so.

This sign also on Christian Lane is not button copy and probably dates to 1981-82 before reflective button copy took hold.  Notice the "9" is button copy and was added on later when CT-9 went through. It dates to the same era as the orginial CT-25 signage.  The CT-25 original signage had dates stenciled on the back, so I'm guessing this sign does too.  I'd love to get a close up pic of it.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6340782,-72.751581,3a,75y,236.19h,76.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s55wGEkxz07v4xh81l5WiUg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on May 24, 2017, 07:02:23 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F7GVLI29.jpg&hash=656282682a9b53277daa231cdc442caf3139e8a9)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JJBers on May 25, 2017, 10:20:32 AM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on May 24, 2017, 07:02:23 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F7GVLI29.jpg&hash=656282682a9b53277daa231cdc442caf3139e8a9)
I see that era of signs in Central Connecticut all the time.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on May 26, 2017, 09:48:21 AM
Strange goings-on with I-95 signs in New Haven: exit 47 north now says MLK Boulevard. Exit 44 southbound now says Ella Grasso Boulevard...CT 10 to CT 34.  :confused:
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on May 26, 2017, 04:38:15 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on May 26, 2017, 09:48:21 AM
Strange goings-on with I-95 signs in New Haven: exit 47 north now says MLK Boulevard. Exit 44 southbound now says Ella Grasso Boulevard...CT 10 to CT 34.  :confused:

Someone mentioned that Exit 47 sign a couple of weeks ago.  I wouldn't be surprised if CT 34 is truncated back to CT 10.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on May 26, 2017, 09:22:12 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on May 26, 2017, 04:38:15 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on May 26, 2017, 09:48:21 AM
Strange goings-on with I-95 signs in New Haven: exit 47 north now says MLK Boulevard. Exit 44 southbound now says Ella Grasso Boulevard...CT 10 to CT 34.  :confused:

Someone mentioned that Exit 47 sign a couple of weeks ago.  I wouldn't be surprised if CT 34 is truncated back to CT 10.

Too bad SR 734 is in use; I don't know what the new designation might be
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on May 26, 2017, 09:46:53 PM
Quote from: kurumi on May 26, 2017, 09:22:12 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on May 26, 2017, 04:38:15 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on May 26, 2017, 09:48:21 AM
Strange goings-on with I-95 signs in New Haven: exit 47 north now says MLK Boulevard. Exit 44 southbound now says Ella Grasso Boulevard...CT 10 to CT 34.  :confused:

Someone mentioned that Exit 47 sign a couple of weeks ago.  I wouldn't be surprised if CT 34 is truncated back to CT 10.

Too bad SR 734 is in use; I don't know what the new designation might be

704 is available, seeing North Frontage Rd is officially SR 706.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on May 26, 2017, 11:19:14 PM
ConnDOT has a list of approved speed limits by route number and segment: http://dot.si.ct.gov/dotsi/lib/dotsi/statetrafficcommission/postedspeeds.pdf

Each segment has direction (N E S W or "B" for both/bi), milepost start/end and length, speed limit in MPH, date approved (could match up with completed construction) and remarks.

Some of the tinier 900 routes are not included.

Unfortunately, the doc is not set up for sorting by speed or filtering by number of lanes, etc.

I think the highest speed limit in CT along an undivided two-lane road is 50 MPH (CT 85 in Hebron, CT 118 in Litchfield, US 202 in New Hartford, etc.)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on May 27, 2017, 08:15:35 AM
Yup, never seen a speed limit higher than 50 on a 2-lane road in CT.  Here in VT, we have speed limits of 55 on 2-lane roads ONLY if they are access-controlled.  The only road which meets that criteria is CT 118 east of Litchfield down to the CT 8 area, IIRC. 

I've never understood why SSR 695 (the far eastern end of the Conn Tpke) never went to 65 in 1998.  I was just on it last month and there's limited traffic, good geometry, and could easily support 65.  So could I-395 SB for another mile or so from Exit 2 (Route 85) closer to I-95.  When the speed limits were changed in 1998 from 55 to 65, CT 9 dropped to 55 mph before Exit 2, and a few years later it was kept at 65 right up to the I-95 split. 

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on May 27, 2017, 09:44:05 AM
There are a couple of areas that are still 55 that should be 65 (or at least 60).  Once the Waterbury construction is completed, I-84 from Austin Rd to Route 9 should be raised to 65 with the exception of the area of the 72 interchange in Plainville, which should remain at 50 because of all of the crossing traffic.  Route 8 should be 60 or 65 from the 25 split to the Naugatuck town line, as should Route 25 from the split to just before the end of the expressway.

BTW, just drove down Christian Lane in Berlin.  Looks like the little 72 West sign is gone.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on May 27, 2017, 02:08:22 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on May 27, 2017, 09:44:05 AM
BTW, just drove down Christian Lane in Berlin.  Looks like the little 72 West sign is gone.

we should have been more discreet in our discussion
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on May 27, 2017, 05:19:14 PM
Quote from: kurumi on May 27, 2017, 02:08:22 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on May 27, 2017, 09:44:05 AM
BTW, just drove down Christian Lane in Berlin.  Looks like the little 72 West sign is gone.

we should have been more discreet in our discussion
It didn't disappear this year.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on May 27, 2017, 07:00:18 PM
It's near my work place. I'll let you know soon enough.   :-D
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on May 28, 2017, 07:37:27 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on May 27, 2017, 07:00:18 PM
It's near my work place. I'll let you know soon enough.   :-D
I'm saying it was gone a year ago when I went through.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on May 28, 2017, 11:00:01 PM
Quote from: kurumi on May 26, 2017, 11:19:14 PM
I think the highest speed limit in CT along an undivided two-lane road is 50 MPH (CT 85 in Hebron, CT 118 in Litchfield, US 202 in New Hartford, etc.)

Can confirm this empirically from having driven the entire state highway system. Speed limits above 50 only exist on freeways. And even off freeways, 50 is used sparingly. The majority of 2-lane state highways outside of urban areas are posted at 40 or 45.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on May 29, 2017, 12:48:53 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on May 28, 2017, 11:00:01 PM
Quote from: kurumi on May 26, 2017, 11:19:14 PM
I think the highest speed limit in CT along an undivided two-lane road is 50 MPH (CT 85 in Hebron, CT 118 in Litchfield, US 202 in New Hartford, etc.)

Can confirm this empirically from having driven the entire state highway system. Speed limits above 50 only exist on freeways. And even off freeways, 50 is used sparingly. The majority of 2-lane state highways outside of urban areas are posted at 40 or 45.

Meanwhile in NY, the next state over, the exact same type of road would be signed at 55, while CT would have it at 40. Look at NY-55 to CT-55.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on May 29, 2017, 01:35:23 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on May 29, 2017, 12:48:53 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on May 28, 2017, 11:00:01 PM
Quote from: kurumi on May 26, 2017, 11:19:14 PM
I think the highest speed limit in CT along an undivided two-lane road is 50 MPH (CT 85 in Hebron, CT 118 in Litchfield, US 202 in New Hartford, etc.)

Can confirm this empirically from having driven the entire state highway system. Speed limits above 50 only exist on freeways. And even off freeways, 50 is used sparingly. The majority of 2-lane state highways outside of urban areas are posted at 40 or 45.

Meanwhile in NY, the next state over, the exact same type of road would be signed at 55, while CT would have it at 40. Look at NY-55 to CT-55.

CT speed limits are ridiculously low.  Residential area in CT that is 25 would be 40 in NYS.  I remember when the speed limit on I-84 through downtown Hartford was 40.  If you did 40 on that highway, you'd be run over like an old lady. 

I think stretches of CT 79, CT 80, and CT 81 are 50.  Seem to recall them going to Hammonasset and the Clinton Outlets.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: dgolub on May 29, 2017, 09:18:38 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on May 29, 2017, 01:35:23 AM
CT speed limits are ridiculously low.  Residential area in CT that is 25 would be 40 in NYS.  I remember when the speed limit on I-84 through downtown Hartford was 40.  If you did 40 on that highway, you'd be run over like an old lady. 

I think stretches of CT 79, CT 80, and CT 81 are 50.  Seem to recall them going to Hammonasset and the Clinton Outlets.

To be fair, rural state routes in Connecticut tend to be narrower than their New York counterparts.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on May 29, 2017, 12:07:03 PM
The CT Route 72 sign on Christian Lane in Berlin IS still there. It faces traffic heading north/east. That was as of 11:40 am Eastern on Memorial Day.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F82S0NpP.jpg&hash=6112ed93aedc26ccc9eaedf9cef4e912b30770de)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FLhVk7YL.jpg&hash=4f6ff1848d1d20940ce7bff9bb096af1c6c79d13)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on May 29, 2017, 06:17:12 PM
It's peculiar because state law allows for them to sign 2-lane highways up to 55.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on May 29, 2017, 09:16:42 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on May 29, 2017, 06:17:12 PM
It's peculiar because state law allows for them to sign 2-lane highways up to 55.

I would've thought CT 82 from CT 9 to CT 154 would be 55, but it's 50.  A stretch like that in most other states would be 55 or even 60 (wish CT would consider 60 for a couple of stretches of 84 between Waterbury and Hartford, or even CT 25 or the Parkway).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on May 31, 2017, 07:06:45 PM
http://www.courant.com/politics/hc-tolls-highways-connecticut-20170531-story.html

Interesting tid-bit: 

The federal government prohibits states from implementing tolls solely along state borders. Federal policy also dictates that all money generated through tolls must be used for road improvements, Guerrera said. "No ifs ands or buts about it,'' he told reporters this morning. "If we try and divert even one penny of it, we jeopardize our federal funding. No one in this building would ever want to do that."

So does the state really need a lock box?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on May 31, 2017, 07:08:48 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on May 29, 2017, 09:16:42 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on May 29, 2017, 06:17:12 PM
It's peculiar because state law allows for them to sign 2-lane highways up to 55.

I would've thought CT 82 from CT 9 to CT 154 would be 55, but it's 50.  A stretch like that in most other states would be 55 or even 60 (wish CT would consider 60 for a couple of stretches of 84 between Waterbury and Hartford, or even CT 25 or the Parkway).

Because people would complain and we're the land of steady habits.  Every time there is a crash people petition to take away passing zones on 2-lane roads.  Look at how many passing zones have been eliminated over the years.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on June 01, 2017, 09:09:26 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on May 31, 2017, 07:06:45 PM
http://www.courant.com/politics/hc-tolls-highways-connecticut-20170531-story.html

Interesting tid-bit: 

The federal government prohibits states from implementing tolls solely along state borders. Federal policy also dictates that all money generated through tolls must be used for road improvements, Guerrera said. "No ifs ands or buts about it,'' he told reporters this morning. "If we try and divert even one penny of it, we jeopardize our federal funding. No one in this building would ever want to do that."

So does the state really need a lock box?
Short answer: Yes!

Especially given CT's past history w/toll road maintenance (1983 Mianus River Bridge collapse, anyone?).

Truth be told, there are also other states (hello PA!) that could use a proverbial lock box as well.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on June 01, 2017, 01:25:21 PM
Plus I presume the lock box wouldn't just be for tolls; gas tax revenue needs to be protected too.  And the federal policy applies only to putting new tolls on existing interstates, and CT has quite a few non-interstates - plus it might go away if the prohibition on tolls is fully lifted!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on June 01, 2017, 01:38:46 PM
Quote from: vdeane on June 01, 2017, 01:25:21 PMPlus I presume the lock box wouldn't just be for tolls; gas tax revenue needs to be protected too.
As it should be.  I'm not sure about today; but during the mid-1980s, both CT's & RI's gas taxes went into a general fund as opposed to a highway or even transportation fund.  Big mistake right there.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on June 09, 2017, 02:05:45 AM
Tolls are dead...for now. 

http://www.ttnews.com/articles/basetemplate.aspx?storyid=46268


And yes, I did see the CT 72 sign on Christian Lane was still there.  Was looking too hard at the BGS on the bridge that was about 3 feet beyond it.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on June 09, 2017, 06:12:43 PM
http://m.newstimes.com/local/article/State-to-Danbury-tell-us-how-to-make-I-84-better-11209279.php

I will do just that.  I plan going and will recommend make I-84 EB exit 7 a right hand exit. Exit 3 as well.

I know it won't happen Bc I have s nagging feeling this will be done on the cheap. Even though it shouldn't be Bc it's already scaled down
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on June 09, 2017, 07:14:37 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on June 09, 2017, 06:12:43 PM
http://m.newstimes.com/local/article/State-to-Danbury-tell-us-how-to-make-I-84-better-11209279.php

I will do just that.  I plan going and will recommend make I-84 EB exit 7 a right hand exit. Exit 3 as well.

I know it won't happen Bc I have s nagging feeling this will be done on the cheap. Even though it shouldn't be Bc it's already scaled down

Priority #1: Get rid of the dangerous crossing traffic situation for Exit 4 Eastbound having to dart through 2 lanes of US 7 traffic to reach the ramp.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on June 09, 2017, 11:26:32 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on June 09, 2017, 07:14:37 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on June 09, 2017, 06:12:43 PM
http://m.newstimes.com/local/article/State-to-Danbury-tell-us-how-to-make-I-84-better-11209279.php

I will do just that.  I plan going and will recommend make I-84 EB exit 7 a right hand exit. Exit 3 as well.

I know it won't happen Bc I have s nagging feeling this will be done on the cheap. Even though it shouldn't be Bc it's already scaled down

Priority #1: Get rid of the dangerous crossing traffic situation for Exit 4 Eastbound having to dart through 2 lanes of US 7 traffic to reach the ramp.

Collector-distributor roads for Exits 5 and 6.  Add a lane on the Route 7 southbound ramp where it merges into I-84 west; I recall traffic always seemed to bottleneck there with Southbound Route 7 splitting into single-lane ramps for both east and west 84, and the onramp from Federal Road to Route 7 southbound immediately following. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JJBers on June 11, 2017, 04:26:04 AM
What's the current status on the state exit renumbering? I know that I-395 is done, but is there any others coming soon?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on June 11, 2017, 07:01:11 AM
Quote from: JJBers on June 11, 2017, 04:26:04 AM
What's the current status on the state exit renumbering? I know that I-395 is done, but is there any others coming soon?

CT 2A is also done.  CT 184 and CT 349 are getting mileage based numbers (whoppee) as part of an I-95 signing project.  I'd imagine CT 8 and CT 25 would be next in line.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: dgolub on June 11, 2017, 09:53:19 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on June 11, 2017, 07:01:11 AM
Quote from: JJBers on June 11, 2017, 04:26:04 AM
What's the current status on the state exit renumbering? I know that I-395 is done, but is there any others coming soon?

CT 2A is also done.  CT 184 and CT 349 are getting mileage based numbers (whoppee) as part of an I-95 signing project.  I'd imagine CT 8 and CT 25 would be next in line.

CT 184?  I thought that was a surface road?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on June 11, 2017, 01:02:56 PM
CT 184 just has that one exit... with CT 12 at it's western terminus. 

CT 8 still has 2 more sign replacement projects to go.  Derby to Waterbury gets tackled with a contract to be released this summer.  Next winter, the contract goes out for I-95 to Derby.  Then I'm guessing CT 8 will go mile-based, possibly CT 25 too, since the non-CT 8 portion of CT 25 already had its signs replaced. 

As for I-95, if I were in charge, I would've extended to current Groton-North Stonington sign project to the I-95/I-395 interchange and taken this opportunity to renumber exits.  There's already a jump in exit numbers there, so no big deal.  Then another contract from Branford to East Lyme to take care of signs/exit numbers there.  And not modify exits west of Branford.  In reality, we'll have to wait for a sign replacement project from Branford to (at least) Guilford before we see mile-based exits in the Branford-North Stonington stretch, as IIRC they want to replace numbers on a road all at once.

CT 2 and 9 are a ways off, and so is I-91, since there are no blanket sign replacement projects on those roads in the near future.  And as I've stated before, some of those signs were installed in the mid 1980s and are well overdue for replacement.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on June 15, 2017, 08:27:31 AM
http://www.courant.com/community/middletown/hc-middletown-arrigoni-dot-construction-suicide-prevention-0615-20170614-story.html

Mork work on the Arrigoni Bridge between Middletown and Portland come 2019, this time involving the approaches to the bridge.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JJBers on June 16, 2017, 10:18:33 AM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on June 15, 2017, 08:27:31 AM
http://www.courant.com/community/middletown/hc-middletown-arrigoni-dot-construction-suicide-prevention-0615-20170614-story.html

Mork work on the Arrigoni Bridge between Middletown and Portland come 2019, this time involving the approaches to the bridge.
I feel that CTDOT should rebuild the whole approach when they remove the intersections off of CT 9.
If that ever happens...
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JJBers on June 17, 2017, 12:35:48 AM
Here's a random photo of US 6 in the mean time:
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4258/35314913235_9a48808ae1_k.jpg)
Along with CT 66 and CT 17 in Middletown:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F8TYcWpS.jpg&hash=749f047bc4f630bd3ca5a60156edb1e1a7d50863)
Both are CC 2.0 by JJBers (Me)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: amroad17 on June 17, 2017, 01:41:09 AM
^ That US 6 photo should be in the Best of Signs thread!  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JJBers on June 17, 2017, 11:11:20 AM
Quote from: amroad17 on June 17, 2017, 01:41:09 AM
^ That US 6 photo should be in the Best of Signs thread!  :thumbsup:
Thanks, I'll post it there.
Anyways, gonna take more photos today, going down to Cheshire in a few hours.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: mariethefoxy on June 17, 2017, 10:37:25 PM
as far as mileage based numbers go, im not sure why they didnt do what PennDot did and just order new tabs or patch over the numbers on other tabs where the signs are still in good conditon
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on June 17, 2017, 11:03:18 PM
It can be summed up in 4 words: Land of Steady Habits.  The state is always among the last in the country to change archaic laws.  We were the last state in the lower 48 to raise the maximum speed limit from 55, and one of the last states to allow liquor sales on Sundays.  After 45 years, they fimally just gave up on Route 11 even though the need is there and the ROW is already reserved.  People are already complaining about I-395 having changed its exit numbers.  The easiest way would be the PennDOT way, but CT has prioritized throwing $$ into other projects like the (Empty) Busway and on EIS after EIS.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JJBers on June 18, 2017, 12:23:34 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on June 17, 2017, 11:03:18 PM
It can be summed up in 4 words: Land of Steady Habits.  The state is always among the last in the country to change archaic laws.  We were the last state in the lower 48 to raise the maximum speed limit from 55, and one of the last states to allow liquor sales on Sundays.  After 45 years, they fimally just gave up on Route 11 even though the need is there and the ROW is already reserved.  People are already complaining about I-395 having changed its exit numbers.  The easiest way would be the PennDOT way, but CT has prioritized throwing $$ into other projects like the (Empty) Busway and on EIS after EIS.
My family still messes up the exit numbers after 2 years.
And yes, CTfastrak is more of a paved ATV trail than a busway

I also hate to shove this in, but responding to earlier posts, I created a topic containing some road photos of mine: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=20512.0 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=20512.0)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on June 21, 2017, 11:28:00 AM
CT Fastrak also has still somewhat-shiny 2-year-old signage AND some old (historic?) house (?) at the Newington Juntion station...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FvDk42h3.jpg&hash=83be2c67f506912f4d12fc70b3149e1c78f7527f)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FQ5e1fwI.jpg&hash=6860a1044b138a7989bb88d7f7d9556f0f081d6c)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FMDcG1J4.jpg&hash=6f2938821094e32202d6e9e05f5f60ed8e3578c9)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FuB4iDzm.jpg&hash=791c11c871144d7066a1ff50a97a03e14c56b452)

I noticed this old section of concrete on the southbound Berlin Turnpike (US 5/CT 15) in Newington today. A milling and repaving project is underway from the corner of CT 160 (Deming Road) in Berlin north to the corner of Deming Street/Richard Street (southern terminus of CT 173) in Newington.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FWfx0xib.jpg&hash=472849e104ac5ca3e7018aabed53418fc0bc3bbf)

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JJBers on June 21, 2017, 01:00:04 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on June 21, 2017, 11:28:00 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FQ5e1fwI.jpg&hash=6860a1044b138a7989bb88d7f7d9556f0f081d6c)
There's already damage to that sign...
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JJBers on June 22, 2017, 11:19:15 PM
Do you think they're going to ever extend CT 11 to I-95...it seems dead, and the failure of the toll bill has killed it for the year at least.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Rothman on June 22, 2017, 11:42:55 PM
Quote from: JJBers on June 22, 2017, 11:19:15 PM
Do you think they're going to ever extend CT 11 to I-95...it seems dead, and the failure of the toll bill has killed it for the year at least.
No.  That plan went the way of the dodo.  Even Rand McNally stopped putting the dashed line in for it.  That is when you know that it is deader than coffin-nail dead.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Beeper1 on June 22, 2017, 11:50:11 PM
In another 5 years, they'll get funds for another feasibility study.  Then whine to their congressmen about how it should be fast-tracked, get the money, and then use the money for another project in another part of the state.  Then drop it again. 

Either way, it's been 40 years of wasted money on an effort to not build a highway that everyone agrees needs to be built.    but that's pretty much CT in a nutshell.....
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JJBers on June 22, 2017, 11:52:48 PM
Quote from: Beeper1 on June 22, 2017, 11:50:11 PM
In another 5 years, they'll get funds for another feasibility study.  Then whine to their congressmen about how it should be fast-tracked, get the money, and then use the money for another project in another part of the state.  Then drop it again. 

Either way, it's been 40 years of wasted money on an effort to not build a highway that everyone agrees needs to be built.    but that's pretty much CT in a nutshell.....
That was the US 6 expressway until that was killed in the 2000s.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: yakra on June 23, 2017, 12:13:46 AM
Quote from: Rothman on June 22, 2017, 11:42:55 PM
No.  That plan went the way of the dodo.  Even Rand McNally stopped putting the dashed line in for it.  That is when you know that it is deader than coffin-nail dead.
Look, major. Hif I'adn't nailed that 'ighway to Route 82... 'e woulda muscled up to them in'erchange ramps, bent'em apart wiv 'is lit'le roight-of-way, and VOOM.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on June 23, 2017, 12:55:32 AM
Quote from: yakra on June 23, 2017, 12:13:46 AM
Quote from: Rothman on June 22, 2017, 11:42:55 PM
No.  That plan went the way of the dodo.  Even Rand McNally stopped putting the dashed line in for it.  That is when you know that it is deader than coffin-nail dead.
Look, major. Hif I'adn't nailed that 'ighway to Route 82... 'e woulda muscled up to them in'erchange ramps, bent'em apart wiv 'is lit'le roight-of-way, and VOOM.

The Obituary

http://www.theday.com/article/20161018/NWS01/161019218

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on June 23, 2017, 08:12:10 PM
http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-hartford-viaduct-upgrades-20170622-story.html?utm_campaign=trueAnthem:+Trending+Contentutm_content=594dab8204d30141d8c144a3utm_medium=trueAnthemutm_source=twitter

A story from The Hartford Courant, basically about the upkeep of the current I-84 viaduct in Hartford and how to maintain it until a replacement is ever built.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JJBers on June 23, 2017, 11:51:31 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on June 23, 2017, 08:12:10 PM
http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-hartford-viaduct-upgrades-20170622-story.html?utm_campaign=trueAnthem:+Trending+Contentutm_content=594dab8204d30141d8c144a3utm_medium=trueAnthemutm_source=twitter

A story from The Hartford Courant, basically about the upkeep of the current I-84 viaduct in Hartford and how to maintain it until a replacement is ever built.
I was just driving through there earlier this week, and I saw nothing happening...is this starting in 2018?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: yakra on June 24, 2017, 01:57:56 AM
It's not dead it's PINING
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: yakra on June 24, 2017, 02:03:19 AM
Maybe they should work on extending it north along the CT85 corridor, to... to Bolton.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on June 24, 2017, 09:25:45 AM
Quote from: JJBers on June 23, 2017, 11:51:31 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on June 23, 2017, 08:12:10 PM
http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-hartford-viaduct-upgrades-20170622-story.html?utm_campaign=trueAnthem:+Trending+Contentutm_content=594dab8204d30141d8c144a3utm_medium=trueAnthemutm_source=twitter

A story from The Hartford Courant, basically about the upkeep of the current I-84 viaduct in Hartford and how to maintain it until a replacement is ever built.
I was just driving through there earlier this week, and I saw nothing happening...is this starting in 2018?

No.  It's underway now, but with most of the work taking place underneath.  If you drive through eastbound at the moment, you at least see the narrower, slightly shifted lanes, and jersey barriers through the deconstruction-prevention zone.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on June 24, 2017, 10:47:06 AM
Quote from: yakra on June 24, 2017, 02:03:19 AM
Maybe they should work on extending it north along the CT85 corridor, to... to Bolton.
I was trying to catch the freeway to Notlob.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JJBers on June 24, 2017, 11:37:11 PM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on June 24, 2017, 09:25:45 AM
Quote from: JJBers on June 23, 2017, 11:51:31 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on June 23, 2017, 08:12:10 PM
http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-hartford-viaduct-upgrades-20170622-story.html?utm_campaign=trueAnthem:+Trending+Contentutm_content=594dab8204d30141d8c144a3utm_medium=trueAnthemutm_source=twitter

A story from The Hartford Courant, basically about the upkeep of the current I-84 viaduct in Hartford and how to maintain it until a replacement is ever built.
I was just driving through there earlier this week, and I saw nothing happening...is this starting in 2018?

No.  It's underway now, but with most of the work taking place underneath.  If you drive through eastbound at the moment, you at least see the narrower, slightly shifted lanes, and jersey barriers through the deconstruction-prevention zone.
Went through today, and yes...I did notice this time.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: pugnamedmax on June 25, 2017, 01:11:40 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on June 11, 2017, 01:02:56 PM
As for I-95, if I were in charge, I would've extended to current Groton-North Stonington sign project to the I-95/I-395 interchange and taken this opportunity to renumber exits.  There's already a jump in exit numbers there, so no big deal.  Then another contract from Branford to East Lyme to take care of signs/exit numbers there.  And not modify exits west of Branford.  In reality, we'll have to wait for a sign replacement project from Branford to (at least) Guilford before we see mile-based exits in the Branford-North Stonington stretch, as IIRC they want to replace numbers on a road all at once.

Completely agree with this plan. I have been thinking for years that I-95 should be renumbered to mile based exits only north of Exit 56 in Branford. This is the right exit to start because the exits past it begin becoming farther apart and the milepost 56 is right on an Exit 56 gore sign. If you renumber the whole thing, it will be alphabet soup and many one number changes south of here. That would just create problems IMO.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on June 25, 2017, 08:00:11 PM
Disagree.  Contrary to popular perception, there ARE some 4 mile gaps even west of New Haven.  IMO that's too far to fudge.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on June 25, 2017, 08:30:34 PM
Gotta go with vdeane on this one.  I actually looked at the CT Route Log for I-95 and went through what the numbers would be.  Yes, some of the heavy hitters in the sequential system are at the correct milepost (US 7, Milford Connector, US 1 Exit in Milford, I-91), but there are some necessary changes.  Exit 2 would become Exit 1 as it should be anyway. It would clean up some multi-numbered exit complexes by using 1 number and just adding suffixes: the confusing Exit 7-8 situation in Stamford would become 8A & 8B; the back to back interchanges at US 7 (14/15) would become 15A & 15B; and the CT 34 MLK Jr. Blvd/I-91 exits in New Haven (47/48) would become 48A & 48B.   The biggest discrepancies of up to 4 miles is on some of the exits through Fairfield.  Also, having a plain exit number and a suffixed exit number is not MUTCD compliant; the Exit 27/27A situation in Bridgeport would have to be corrected (Lafayette Blvd. would be 29A and CT 8/25 would be 29B).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on June 25, 2017, 10:20:27 PM
The Garden State Parkway has been renumbering exits by slight amounts - 140 and 140A became 140A and 140B for example. They just decided that travelers would have to live with a little confusion and get over it.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on June 26, 2017, 12:04:48 AM
Another truck rollover at Exit 27A tonight on I-95 in Bridgeport.  Hardly any signage about the right curve.  Other states use BYS for stuff like that but CT never does. It's like they only use a "generic" basic guideline from the MUTCD for signage.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on June 26, 2017, 06:59:34 AM
For those not from Connecticut, I believe that is the loop ramp that starts CT Routes 8 and 25. Agreed that better ramp signage is needed there.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JJBers on June 26, 2017, 09:34:58 PM
My dad really wants the exits to be re-done by mileage post...I think they should redo I-91 in that system sometime.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on June 27, 2017, 12:32:09 AM
I'm waiting for the sideshow when complaints come from Fairfield County if/when the state should propose renumbering the Merritt/Cross Parkway exits.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on June 27, 2017, 12:37:13 AM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on June 27, 2017, 12:32:09 AM
I'm waiting for the sideshow when complaints come from Fairfield County if/when the state should propose renumbering the Merritt/Cross Parkway exits.

Fairfield County: The only place where the next number after 30 is 27.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on June 27, 2017, 02:43:09 PM
I'm still amazed about the amount of talk about exit numbers. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: The Ghostbuster on June 27, 2017, 07:09:44 PM
I say less talk, more action on making the exits mileage-based. It's obvious some of the exit numbers on 95 will remain the same, since their sequential numbers are already close to mileage-based. Are there any other roads whose present exit number are close to what they would be if they were mileage-based?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on June 27, 2017, 07:42:07 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 27, 2017, 07:09:44 PMAre there any other roads whose present exit number are close to what they would be if they were mileage-based?
Exits 1 through 8 along I-84; especially if ConnDOT doesn't resort to using Exit 0 for its current Exit 1 (Saw Mill Road).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on June 27, 2017, 07:58:39 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 27, 2017, 07:42:07 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 27, 2017, 07:09:44 PMAre there any other roads whose present exit number are close to what they would be if they were mileage-based?
Exits 1 through 8 along I-84; especially if ConnDOT doesn't resort to using Exit 0 for its current Exit 1 (Saw Mill Road).
That would be a good place to fudge the numbers and just leave them as is; exit 8 is at mile 8.4 and none of the numbers would change by more than 1 (and a majority at the same number potentially with a suffix); the true mile-based system would be 1A, 1B/C, 4A, 4B, 5, 6, 8A, 8B (assume round to nearest mile and no exit 0).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on June 27, 2017, 08:02:34 PM
Quote from: vdeane on June 25, 2017, 08:00:11 PM
Disagree.  Contrary to popular perception, there ARE some 4 mile gaps even west of New Haven.  IMO that's too far to fudge.

The biggest gap on I-95 south of New Haven is between exits 18 (20 if mile-based) and 19 (23 if mile-based). Not quite 4 miles between exits although one of them has a sequential number that's 4 off from its theoretical mile-based number.

Then the Merritt Parkway has 5.5 miles between exits 42 and 44 (the "no exit zone"), and a couple other gaps (27-28, 31-33) that exceed 3 miles.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on June 27, 2017, 08:20:49 PM
I-691 is another one that is pretty close to its mileage.  Exits 1-2 for I-84 could become 0 A/B or 1 A/B depending on the whole Exit 0 thing (personally, I think the I-84 West exit shouldn't have a number since I-691 West mainlines into I-84 West a la I-384 does, and that one isn't numbered).  3 would become 2.  4 would stay as is.  5 and 6 would both become 6 (pair of partial interchanges on either side of Meriden Square Westfield Meriden.  7 and 8 would stay as is.  The I-91/CT 15 interchanges (9-11) would all most likely become 9A, 9B, and 9C.  I would continue the I-691 mileage for the 2 exits on CT 66 (12-Preston Ave and 13-West Main St); each would become 10 and 11, respectively (1 and 2 if ConnDOT resets it for CT 66 mileage).

In Danbury, I would just number Exit 1 as Exit 0 and Exit 2 (A-B) as Exit 1 (A-B), or just make it 1A, 1B(C).  3-8 would remain as is.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on June 27, 2017, 09:30:00 PM
In theory, but according to ConnDOT's mileage log, they have I-691 mileage backwards, with mileages increasing as you head west.  Doesn't matter right now, since there are no mileposts along I-691 (or along I-384 or I-291 for that matter). 

I'm not a fan of Exit 0... never seen one personally.  Just make I-84 East as Exit 1 and leave the number out of I-84 West, or if you have to, then Exit 1A and Exit 1B (though I still prefer the directional suffixes). 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on June 28, 2017, 01:11:11 AM
The only thing that bugged me on a older plan I saw: mile marker 0 through 1.99 would all be exit 1 (not 0 and 1, or 1 and 2). In CT, many freeways have lots of exits close to their west or southern termini -- so we'd have a lot of "Exit 1x":

CT 2: 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 1E
US 7: 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D
CT 8: 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D
I-91: 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 1E, 1F (and Willow St, MP 1.80, would have been 1G but is listed as 2A)
I-291: 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D

My 2 cents: Exit N should be assigned to interval of milepost [N-1, N)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: noelbotevera on June 28, 2017, 01:31:38 AM
I actually had a thread in Fictional Highways where I tried renumbering exits in New England...and boy was Connecticut a pain (mostly because of roads like CT 8 and I-95 that had exits really close together). I tried avoiding giving major junctions a suffix and then a minor street the next suffix (like in California).

Link (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1f5HyrVS6q7f2iGIDiBuRgdLIR23OtZgKrTYO5_kBbA4/edit) (note: if I write a direction next to an exit or road, that means it is for that specific direction)

Yeah, shameless self-promotion, but whatever. I probably need to refine this anyway.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JJBers on June 28, 2017, 12:21:56 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on June 28, 2017, 01:31:38 AM
I actually had a thread in Fictional Highways where I tried renumbering exits in New England...and boy was Connecticut a pain (mostly because of roads like CT 8 and I-95 that had exits really close together). I tried avoiding giving major junctions a suffix and then a minor street the next suffix (like in California).

Link (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1f5HyrVS6q7f2iGIDiBuRgdLIR23OtZgKrTYO5_kBbA4/edit) (note: if I write a direction next to an exit or road, that means it is for that specific direction)

Yeah, shameless self-promotion, but whatever. I probably need to refine this anyway.
Uhhh, the link doesn't allow the public to access.
Anyways, what about unsigned exits in Connecticut? Would they get a number now...
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on June 28, 2017, 04:10:09 PM
Quote from: JJBers on June 28, 2017, 12:21:56 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on June 28, 2017, 01:31:38 AM
I actually had a thread in Fictional Highways where I tried renumbering exits in New England...and boy was Connecticut a pain (mostly because of roads like CT 8 and I-95 that had exits really close together). I tried avoiding giving major junctions a suffix and then a minor street the next suffix (like in California).

Link (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1f5HyrVS6q7f2iGIDiBuRgdLIR23OtZgKrTYO5_kBbA4/edit) (note: if I write a direction next to an exit or road, that means it is for that specific direction)

Yeah, shameless self-promotion, but whatever. I probably need to refine this anyway.
Uhhh, the link doesn't allow the public to access.
Anyways, what about unsigned exits in Connecticut? Would they get a number now...

As stated before, CT 349 and CT 184 exit(s) are getting number(s).  That would leave only the US 6 Willimantic Bypass, CT 3, two sections of CT 17, and CT 20 as the only limited access highways without numbers.  Haven't heard any plans and most would come with sign replacement projects if they did.  If these were to get numbers:

US 6: CT 32 would be 90, and CT 195 would be 92

CT 3: I-91 would be 11 (11 A/B Southbound), Main St would be 13, and CT 2 would be 14 A/B

CT 17: Middletown Main St Ext. would be 21, CT 9 South would be 22, then in South Glastonbury, Hubbard St would be 35 and New London Turnpike would be 36

CT 20: Bradley 28A, Hamilton Rd South 28B, (Hamilton Rd North on SSR 401 28C), CT 75 would be 29, Old County Road 30, and I-91 31 A/B

Also, a couple of spot numbers could be added: 0 A/B on I-91 South for CT 34 MLK Blvd and I-95 North, 6 A/B on I-291 for I-84, 0 on I-384 West for 84/291, 0 A/B on CT 8/25 and CT 9 South for I-95, Exit 0 A/B on CT 40 for I-91, and 1 on SR 571 for CT 71.  I'm really not for adding numbers on the Berlin Turnpike because most intersections are signalized.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on June 28, 2017, 04:46:24 PM
Since we are again talking about what exits will become what....I really don't see the benefit of mileage based exit numbers unless you know the mile of the exit you're getting off at.

I recently drove up I-395 from I-95 to CT-101.  I haven't been up there since the numbers were changed.  Without looking at any GPS or anything, the mileage based numbers did nothing for me as I didn't know what mile, the CT-101 interchange was. So I had no idea how much I had left to go.
So, for sequential or mileage based, it doesn't matter to me.

I do think on roads with one or two exits, mileage based seems like a waste, such as CT-2A.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on June 28, 2017, 09:38:11 PM
You're problem wasn't that you didn't know the mile the exit is on.  The exit number tells you.  Your problem is that you did not know the exit number, so your problem would exist regardless of what numbering system is used, and is actually worse under sequential (where you need to know the mile marker specifically, not just either the mile or the exit number).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on June 28, 2017, 10:29:14 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on June 28, 2017, 04:10:09 PM
CT 20: Bradley 28A, Hamilton Rd South 28B, (Hamilton Rd North on SSR 401 28C), CT 75 would be 29, Old County Road 30, and I-91 31 A/B

So, for traffic headed to Bradley from I-91, they would encounter in sequence: Exit 28B (Hamilton Road South), Exit 28A (Bradley), Exit 28C (Hamilton Road North)?

I think that they probably could get away with leaving Hamilton Road North unnumbered.  I'm not even certain that interchange will survive the realignment of CT401 as part of Bradley's long-term construction plan.

PS, don't forget the short freeway segment of CT187/CT189, or CT598 (Whitehead highway).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on June 28, 2017, 10:38:59 PM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on June 28, 2017, 10:29:14 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on June 28, 2017, 04:10:09 PM
CT 20: Bradley 28A, Hamilton Rd South 28B, (Hamilton Rd North on SSR 401 28C), CT 75 would be 29, Old County Road 30, and I-91 31 A/B

So, for traffic headed to Bradley from I-91, they would encounter in sequence: Exit 28B (Hamilton Road South), Exit 28A (Bradley), Exit 28C (Hamilton Road North)?

I think that they probably could get away with leaving Hamilton Road North unnumbered.  I'm not even certain that interchange will survive the realignment of CT401 as part of Bradley's long-term construction plan.

PS, don't forget the short freeway segment of CT187/CT189, or CT598 (Whitehead highway).

I made Hamilton Rd North 28C because it can only be accessed inbound to the airport, where Bradley and Hamilton Rd South are full interchanges.  That's kind of why I put it in parentheses if it's even worth numbering.

I would ignore 187/189 (1 silly exit while the other ramps are mainline 187 and 189).  If that were numbered, then we'd have to number the CT 175 interchange on the Berlin Turnpike, as well at the CT 322 and US 6 ramps from CT 10.  I would number Whitehead west from I-91 although it bucks the trend (0 A/B for I-91, 1A for Columbus Blvd and 1B for Prospect St)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: noelbotevera on June 29, 2017, 03:20:29 AM
Quote from: JJBers on June 28, 2017, 12:21:56 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on June 28, 2017, 01:31:38 AM
I actually had a thread in Fictional Highways where I tried renumbering exits in New England...and boy was Connecticut a pain (mostly because of roads like CT 8 and I-95 that had exits really close together). I tried avoiding giving major junctions a suffix and then a minor street the next suffix (like in California).

Link (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1f5HyrVS6q7f2iGIDiBuRgdLIR23OtZgKrTYO5_kBbA4/edit) (note: if I write a direction next to an exit or road, that means it is for that specific direction)

Yeah, shameless self-promotion, but whatever. I probably need to refine this anyway.
Uhhh, the link doesn't allow the public to access.
Anyways, what about unsigned exits in Connecticut? Would they get a number now...
Fixed. I changed access to let people comment, but I could change it to allow editing for the sake of refining it.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on June 29, 2017, 12:20:38 PM
Quote from: vdeane on June 25, 2017, 08:00:11 PM
Disagree.  Contrary to popular perception, there ARE some 4 mile gaps even west of New Haven.  IMO that's too far to fudge.

There is precedent.  Check out how far mile-marker 2 is from the state line on I-40 in Tennessee.

If Connecticut is being forced to renumber the exists on I-95 west of New Haven, Tennessee ought to be forced to renumber the exits on I-40.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on June 29, 2017, 12:41:51 PM
The I-40 issue is due to Overton Park; it's actually I-240's numbers there, with 1F fudged to avoid confusion.  It wasn't fudged to avoid alphabet soup (in fact, it created more), it was done because the road was cancelled and rerouted after everything was numbered correctly.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JJBers on July 01, 2017, 03:52:00 AM
In other news, they're now curbing the new CT 31 alignment in Coventry, CT. The town also added sidewalks recently.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on July 01, 2017, 08:03:00 AM
The paving is nearly done on the Berlin Turnpike (US 5/CT 15) in Berlin and Newington. Much of the lane striping is set. There's a still some paving needed to be done on the southbound shoulder. This is mostly from the corner of CT Route 160 in Berlin up to the corner of CT Route 173 in Newington (corner with Arby's and Bob's Discount Furniture). Sewers were replaced in this same stretch first, before the milling and repaving.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on July 01, 2017, 01:54:06 PM
Quote from: JJBers on July 01, 2017, 03:52:00 AM
In other news, they're now curbing the new CT 31 alignment in Coventry, CT. The town also added sidewalks recently.

Now if only Google Maps would respond to my months long request and change the CR 31 designation north of US 44 to CT 31.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JJBers on July 01, 2017, 02:50:26 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on July 01, 2017, 01:54:06 PM
Quote from: JJBers on July 01, 2017, 03:52:00 AM
In other news, they're now curbing the new CT 31 alignment in Coventry, CT. The town also added sidewalks recently.

Now if only Google Maps would respond to my months long request and change the CR 31 designation north of US 44 to CT 31.
That's been bothering me for years now, and I figured out it's put as State Route 31, instead of Connecticut 31
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on July 01, 2017, 04:10:37 PM
Quote from: JJBers on July 01, 2017, 02:50:26 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on July 01, 2017, 01:54:06 PM
Quote from: JJBers on July 01, 2017, 03:52:00 AM
In other news, they're now curbing the new CT 31 alignment in Coventry, CT. The town also added sidewalks recently.

Now if only Google Maps would respond to my months long request and change the CR 31 designation north of US 44 to CT 31.
That's been bothering me for years now, and I figured out it's put as State Route 31, instead of Connecticut 31
Yes!! I was trying to clinch CT and came across the fact that 31 didn't end at 44... now I have to go back...
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on July 01, 2017, 06:23:22 PM
Quote from: Alps on July 01, 2017, 04:10:37 PM
Quote from: JJBers on July 01, 2017, 02:50:26 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on July 01, 2017, 01:54:06 PM
Quote from: JJBers on July 01, 2017, 03:52:00 AM
In other news, they're now curbing the new CT 31 alignment in Coventry, CT. The town also added sidewalks recently.

Now if only Google Maps would respond to my months long request and change the CR 31 designation north of US 44 to CT 31.
That's been bothering me for years now, and I figured out it's put as State Route 31, instead of Connecticut 31
Yes!! I was trying to clinch CT and came across the fact that 31 didn't end at 44... now I have to go back...

It's probably leftover from when Google Maps mistakenly extended MA 31 across the CT border for the 100 yards or so of Dresser Hill Rd to CT 197 in Thompson.   The real CT 31 starts at CT 74 in Tolland, crosses I-84 at Exit 67, becomes the interestingly named Bread and Milk St. in Coventry before briefly duplexing with US 44 and continuing south to CT 32.

Interesting fact:  CT 31 is one of 3 state routes (CT 67 and CT 72 being the others) that are logged differently in the CT state route log than the direction it is signed.  CT 31 and CT 67 are signed north-south but are logged east-west, while CT 72 is logged north-south but is signed east-west (except at CT 4 in Harwinton). 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JJBers on July 02, 2017, 12:34:46 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on July 01, 2017, 06:23:22 PM
Quote from: Alps on July 01, 2017, 04:10:37 PM
Quote from: JJBers on July 01, 2017, 02:50:26 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on July 01, 2017, 01:54:06 PM
Quote from: JJBers on July 01, 2017, 03:52:00 AM
In other news, they're now curbing the new CT 31 alignment in Coventry, CT. The town also added sidewalks recently.

Now if only Google Maps would respond to my months long request and change the CR 31 designation north of US 44 to CT 31.
That's been bothering me for years now, and I figured out it's put as State Route 31, instead of Connecticut 31
Yes!! I was trying to clinch CT and came across the fact that 31 didn't end at 44... now I have to go back...

It's probably leftover from when Google Maps mistakenly extended MA 31 across the CT border for the 100 yards or so of Dresser Hill Rd to CT 197 in Thompson.
I always wondered why they just don't do that, just make it MA 31 in Connecticut. (They've already done it with NY 120A).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on July 02, 2017, 01:24:39 PM
Quote from: JJBers on July 01, 2017, 03:52:00 AM
In other news, they're now curbing the new CT 31 alignment in Coventry, CT. The town also added sidewalks recently.

Wait, there's a new alignment? Where did it move?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JJBers on July 02, 2017, 01:37:23 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on July 02, 2017, 01:24:39 PM
Quote from: JJBers on July 01, 2017, 03:52:00 AM
In other news, they're now curbing the new CT 31 alignment in Coventry, CT. The town also added sidewalks recently.

Wait, there's a new alignment? Where did it move?
Slightly to the right, they're really just straightening a curve
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on July 02, 2017, 09:47:07 PM
Quote from: vdeane on June 29, 2017, 12:41:51 PM
The I-40 issue is due to Overton Park; it's actually I-240's numbers there, with 1F fudged to avoid confusion.  It wasn't fudged to avoid alphabet soup (in fact, it created more), it was done because the road was cancelled and rerouted after everything was numbered correctly.

I know.

The point I was trying to make was just that there is precedent for mile-based exit numbers not being precisely accurate with actual highway mileage.

There is about as much to be gained by renumbering the exits on I-95 west of New Haven as there is to be gained by renumbering the exits on I-40 in Tennessee.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: yakra on July 03, 2017, 01:30:12 AM
Which curve where?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JJBers on July 03, 2017, 01:39:28 AM
Quote from: yakra on July 03, 2017, 01:30:12 AM
Which curve where?
About 500 feet south of the CT 275 interchange
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on July 03, 2017, 01:07:53 PM
Construction on the Route 110/111 roundabout in Monroe starts on July 10 (link (http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?a=2135&Q=594348))

Quote
The project consists of the construction of a modern traffic roundabout to improve safety and congestion at the intersection of Routes 110 and 111 in Monroe, including reconstruction of Route 111 to reduce the grade of the road, construction of a cul-de-sac on Hurd Avenue, and installation of sidewalks connecting this intersection to the Monroe town center. Construction is scheduled to begin on Monday July 10, 2017 and run through October 9, 2018.

Public Informational Meeting slideshow (http://www.monroect.org/filestorage/467/4276/March_2015_Public_Info_Meeting_-_Monroe_Roundabout.pdf) (March 2015)

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on July 03, 2017, 01:25:35 PM
Also: 1st person drive simulation of 110/111 roundabout (http://www.rdvsystems.com/portfolio/roundabout-monroe-ct/)

(Not super compelling -- it's just a 3-way roundabout -- but some nice detail)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on July 03, 2017, 02:01:31 PM
I forgot to mention, I went to the I-84 Danbury widening public hearing.  The engineers know the left hand ramps suck and were really aware of how they need to get removed.
They did not know on rainy long weekends that I-84 WB backs up to Exit 11.  They were surprised when I told them that.  They knew it backed up on weekdays but not on certain weekends.  The same EB, they weren't aware of I-84 backing up from 2-8 on long holiday weekends.  They knew how the left ramps caused trouble and also knew how the US-7 WB on-ramp at Exit 7 also contributes they were thinking of making that a 2-lane on-ramp.

Another engineer I talked to, seemed to think if you are looking at a map it appears US-7 NB is a straight away from I-84 EB at 7 and therefore people continue straight on US-7 NB rather than continuing on I-84 EB because they think I-84 goes straight when actually you're exiting at Exit 7.  IDK if I believe that, it seemed to me he's from the "it looks good on paper but not in real life" type engineer.

Overall, they seemed really concerned about the left hand ramps, so hopefully that will be addressed.  But I have a feeling it won't because of funding.

I also talked about the I-84 Aetna Viaduct and from what I was told they will keep I-84 6-lanes up until the I-91 split.  I said since you're doing all this work why not think ahead and extend the 8-lane portion farther west?  They didn't agree.
 
http://www.i84hartford.com/  Look at the lowered alternative video.  If you look at the video it seems the 8-lane section will be shortened.  Currently the 8-lane section starts at Asylum St under the new proposal they would start at High St.  Not sure if that's a good move or not.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7691205,-72.6826115,435m/data=!3m1!1e3
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JJBers on July 04, 2017, 07:51:22 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on July 03, 2017, 02:01:31 PM
I forgot to mention, I went to the I-84 Danbury widening public hearing.  The engineers know the left hand ramps suck and were really aware of how they need to get removed.
They did not know on rainy long weekends that I-84 WB backs up to Exit 11.  They were surprised when I told them that.  They knew it backed up on weekdays but not on certain weekends.  The same EB, they weren't aware of I-84 backing up from 2-8 on long holiday weekends.  They knew how the left ramps caused trouble and also knew how the US-7 WB on-ramp at Exit 7 also contributes they were thinking of making that a 2-lane on-ramp.

Another engineer I talked to, seemed to think if you are looking at a map it appears US-7 NB is a straight away from I-84 EB at 7 and therefore people continue straight on US-7 NB rather than continuing on I-84 EB because they think I-84 goes straight when actually you're exiting at Exit 7.  IDK if I believe that, it seemed to me he's from the "it looks good on paper but not in real life" type engineer.

Overall, they seemed really concerned about the left hand ramps, so hopefully that will be addressed.  But I have a feeling it won't because of funding.

I also talked about the I-84 Aetna Viaduct and from what I was told they will keep I-84 6-lanes up until the I-91 split.  I said since you're doing all this work why not think ahead and extend the 8-lane portion farther west?  They didn't agree.
 
http://www.i84hartford.com/  Look at the lowered alternative video.  If you look at the video it seems the 8-lane section will be shortened.  Currently the 8-lane section starts at Asylum St under the new proposal they would start at High St.  Not sure if that's a good move or not.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7691205,-72.6826115,435m/data=!3m1!1e3
Burn the left hand exits...burn them
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: iBallasticwolf2 on July 04, 2017, 08:39:31 PM
Quote from: JJBers on July 04, 2017, 07:51:22 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on July 03, 2017, 02:01:31 PM
I forgot to mention, I went to the I-84 Danbury widening public hearing.  The engineers know the left hand ramps suck and were really aware of how they need to get removed.
They did not know on rainy long weekends that I-84 WB backs up to Exit 11.  They were surprised when I told them that.  They knew it backed up on weekdays but not on certain weekends.  The same EB, they weren't aware of I-84 backing up from 2-8 on long holiday weekends.  They knew how the left ramps caused trouble and also knew how the US-7 WB on-ramp at Exit 7 also contributes they were thinking of making that a 2-lane on-ramp.

Another engineer I talked to, seemed to think if you are looking at a map it appears US-7 NB is a straight away from I-84 EB at 7 and therefore people continue straight on US-7 NB rather than continuing on I-84 EB because they think I-84 goes straight when actually you're exiting at Exit 7.  IDK if I believe that, it seemed to me he's from the "it looks good on paper but not in real life" type engineer.

Overall, they seemed really concerned about the left hand ramps, so hopefully that will be addressed.  But I have a feeling it won't because of funding.

I also talked about the I-84 Aetna Viaduct and from what I was told they will keep I-84 6-lanes up until the I-91 split.  I said since you're doing all this work why not think ahead and extend the 8-lane portion farther west?  They didn't agree.
 
http://www.i84hartford.com/  Look at the lowered alternative video.  If you look at the video it seems the 8-lane section will be shortened.  Currently the 8-lane section starts at Asylum St under the new proposal they would start at High St.  Not sure if that's a good move or not.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7691205,-72.6826115,435m/data=!3m1!1e3
Burn the left hand exits...burn them
This reminds me of the Big Dig project on a lesser scale, because it's moving a massive viaduct underground/under-grade.  But it also has the comparison of the main focus of the project being moving the freeway underground as opposed to doing everything to improve traffic.  For example, the Sigourney Street interchange is a half-diamond interchange, much like it is currently.  Wouldn't something such as a half-SPUI be better for traffic movement?  The shortened 8 lane segment also raises questions about how well the new road would perform in rush hour traffic.  Otherwise, the removal of left-hand exits (which opens up space for neighborhood redevelopment, but it'll probably be condos), the future cap over I-84, and the new park areas as well as bike/transit accommodations will make a much better I-84 that improves land value and traffic flow.  Hopefully Connecticut is competent enough to fund this.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JJBers on July 04, 2017, 11:14:05 PM
Random sign photo of I-84 in Connecticut:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4254/35383789031_daf629de31_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/VUKaJ8)
CC 2.0 JJBers
Love that faded sign
(on a unrelated side note, I just noticed a good shot of a plane in the background)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on July 05, 2017, 10:06:05 AM
http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-connecticut-transportation-spending-20170613-story.html?utm_campaign=trueAnthem:+Trending+Contentutm_content=595cf0e43ed3f000072dbb78utm_medium=trueAnthemutm_source=twitter

I just saw this pop up on the Twitter feed of The Hartford Courant this morning. Hmmm...no mention of I-95 from Old Lyme to Waterford. Again! :(
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JJBers on July 05, 2017, 10:48:32 AM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on July 05, 2017, 10:06:05 AM
http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-connecticut-transportation-spending-20170613-story.html?utm_campaign=trueAnthem:+Trending+Contentutm_content=595cf0e43ed3f000072dbb78utm_medium=trueAnthemutm_source=twitter

I just saw this pop up on the Twitter feed of The Hartford Courant this morning. Hmmm...no mention of I-95 from Old Lyme to Waterford. Again! :(
They're fixing up I-95 in New London-Groton area? Why? (I hadn't read it all yet) Also hopefully the Hartford Line (Rail) still is funded, that seems like a cool idea.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on July 05, 2017, 11:38:28 AM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on July 05, 2017, 10:06:05 AM
http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-connecticut-transportation-spending-20170613-story.html?utm_campaign=trueAnthem:+Trending+Contentutm_content=595cf0e43ed3f000072dbb78utm_medium=trueAnthemutm_source=twitter

I just saw this pop up on the Twitter feed of The Hartford Courant this morning. Hmmm...no mention of I-95 from Old Lyme to Waterford. Again! :(

Now, this article mentions repairing The Mixmaster.  Not sure if that means reconstructing it, or if they plan to put a band aid on the Hoover Dam and just repair the bridges and put a fresh coat of paint on it.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on July 05, 2017, 12:22:32 PM
Today's the day of the advertising of the 2017 statewide sign support replacement project.  Sites in this year's version include Stamford, Norwalk, Vernon, Meriden, East Lyme, just to name a few.  A few interesting tidbits:  the Norwalk and Bridgeport signs being replaced show provisions for exit tabs.  The exit numbers on the plans reflect mileage.  For US 7 South, these are the exits for I-95 and South Norwalk, shown as Exits 1B-C-D, and for CT 8 NB approaching the CT 25 jct, this shows Exit 4.   If we go on the US 7 assumptions, then there will be no EXIT 0.  Thank god! 

Also some interesting notes for the Meriden signs, which are on I-691EB at Exits 10 & 11... or is it on CT 66EB?  Well, the Exit 10 sign will get I-691 signage, while the Exit 11 sign will get "BEGIN CT 66 EAST" signage.  And even more interesting, most likely for those leaving the casinos, control cities of "NY CITY" and "BOSTON" will be added to the I-395 SB and NB signs, respectively, as a gantry that's been missing for a while on CT 2A at Exit 5 (old Exit 1) is finally installed.

Link to the plans, which you can download in a ZIP file:
http://www.biznet.ct.gov/scp_search/BidDetail.aspx?CID=43707

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on July 05, 2017, 01:35:55 PM
So it looks like in the future CT will be numbering junctions with interstates at endpoints of highways.  I would look for future provisions for numbers at the south end of CT 9, CT 8/25, I-95 North on I-91, the east end of I-291, and for I-84 East/I-291 West at the west end of I-384. I'm still interested how I-691 and CT 66 will be numbered in the future: will CT 66 get its own exit numbers or be a continuation of I-691, and will I-691 be numbered per the state route log (west from I-91) or per cardinal direction (east from I-84)?  I do like the New York and Boston coming out of the casinos; now just replace Providence with Worcester as a control city on I-395 North and we're all set.

Also, putting an exit number on CT 8 for CT 25 North makes me wonder if ConnDOT will be eliminating the (unnecessary) CT 8/25 duplex and starting CT 25 Exit numbers based on mileage from the split rather than I-95.  One would think there wouldn't be the need for an exit number if it's a true split of 2 mainline routes.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on July 05, 2017, 02:23:22 PM
Only a single onramp has an I-395 control city of Providence, and that's coming from CT 2 EB.  I find it interesting that MassDOT is now using "New London CT" as the control city for I-395 from the Mass Pike.  There's no mention of New London anywhere on I-395... until you get to Exit 5.  Should New London be a control city on I-395, in place of Norwich?  Maybe.... maybe not.  Or at the very least, how bout some mileage signs?  "NORWICH ## / NEW LONDON ## / NY CITY ###".

Regarding 8/25, I thought that too, about removing the duplex.  I never understood why the two were signed that way.  It reminds me of those seemingly needless multiplexes that Maine has all over the place.

Regarding 66/691, they should renumber with MM 0 being at I-84 and continuing east, all the way to the end of the exp'y in Middlefield.  Resetting CT 66 exit numbers back to "1" for Preston Ave seems more confusing.  And do we even know where CT 66 mileage officially begins/ends?  The east end of the exp'y, heading west, has a I-691 sign on the overhead. 

While the new Exit 10 pullthrough will read "EAST I-691 TO 66", you'll still have one sign to the west that will read "66 EAST".  Wonder if that'll get replaced at some point in the not-too-distant future?  It is a bridge-mount after all, and we know ConnDOT is favoring away from those (except in Norwalk).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on July 05, 2017, 07:59:17 PM
Quote from: JJBers on July 05, 2017, 10:48:32 AM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on July 05, 2017, 10:06:05 AM
http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-connecticut-transportation-spending-20170613-story.html?utm_campaign=trueAnthem:+Trending+Contentutm_content=595cf0e43ed3f000072dbb78utm_medium=trueAnthemutm_source=twitter

I just saw this pop up on the Twitter feed of The Hartford Courant this morning. Hmmm...no mention of I-95 from Old Lyme to Waterford. Again! :(
They're fixing up I-95 in New London-Groton area? Why? (I hadn't read it all yet) Also hopefully the Hartford Line (Rail) still is funded, that seems like a cool idea.
AFIAK the final funding for the Hartford Line was secured 2-3 years ago.  They have yet to announce the operator, though.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on July 05, 2017, 10:42:52 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on July 05, 2017, 07:59:17 PM
Quote from: JJBers on July 05, 2017, 10:48:32 AM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on July 05, 2017, 10:06:05 AM
http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-connecticut-transportation-spending-20170613-story.html?utm_campaign=trueAnthem:+Trending+Contentutm_content=595cf0e43ed3f000072dbb78utm_medium=trueAnthemutm_source=twitter

I just saw this pop up on the Twitter feed of The Hartford Courant this morning. Hmmm...no mention of I-95 from Old Lyme to Waterford. Again! :(
They're fixing up I-95 in New London-Groton area? Why? (I hadn't read it all yet) Also hopefully the Hartford Line (Rail) still is funded, that seems like a cool idea.
AFIAK the final funding for the Hartford Line was secured 2-3 years ago.  They have yet to announce the operator, though.

They're already in the process of (re) double tracking the New Haven-Springfield corridor.  The operator announcement is coming soon
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on July 06, 2017, 03:04:38 AM
Regarding the 8/25 overlap, the Bridgeport segment of the freeway was originally planned as Route 25 in the 1950s. Route 8 came along later -- but now it's the longer, complete, more prominent freeway with the lower number. The 25 history might be the reason the duplex is signed as [25] [8] on I-95 guide signs. (And at the 25/8 split, CT 25 has 6 lanes, and CT 8 has 4.)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: The Broadcaster on July 06, 2017, 12:00:44 PM
Quote from: kurumi on July 06, 2017, 03:04:38 AM
Regarding the 8/25 overlap, the Bridgeport segment of the freeway was originally planned as Route 25 in the 1950s. Route 8 came along later -- but now it's the longer, complete, more prominent freeway with the lower number. The 25 history might be the reason the duplex is signed as [25] [8] on I-95 guide signs. (And at the 25/8 split, CT 25 has 6 lanes, and CT 8 has 4.)

When I was a dispatcher at Troop G, we always called everything south of the split as just "Route 25." If you said "Route 8," you were talking about the road north of the split. Every once in a while, I'd pick up a shift at Troop H, and they always referred to the Berlin Turnpike and the connector to the COB as "5 and 15."
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on July 06, 2017, 12:11:16 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on July 05, 2017, 10:42:52 PM
They're already in the process of (re) double tracking the New Haven-Springfield corridor.  The operator announcement is coming soon

Well, they're re-double-tracking the line south of Windsor.  For Windsor north, I forget whether they're still looking for funding, of if they just recently sourced some funding.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on July 06, 2017, 05:42:16 PM
Because of the existing siding which starts at Windsor, the double-track actually will extend north to the vicinity of the existing Windsor Locks station.  So you'd only have to double track from that point, north to the state line, minus the Conn River Bridge, which needs a good rehab to support two tracks again.  They're still contemplating moving the Windsor Locks station to the old station site just north of downtown on Rt 159.  Enfield (Thompsonville) needs a new station and the existing Windsor station would be located south of the grade crossing.  Those stations are not yet funded. 

8/25, it would appear that 25 is the dominant route, with the additional lanes, and the fact that the whole Rt 25 expressway section (from I-95 to the end) is signed as the Col. Henry Mucci Highway.  Portions of 25 are 4 lanes NB approaching the end of the exp'y, due to a "climbing lane".  Then in a mile or so, it drops from 4 lanes to a single lane.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on July 06, 2017, 10:15:02 PM
I suspect more traffic goes to CT 8 than CT 25, despite the lane configuration.  At least that's how it looked this afternoon.  Probably because CT 8 actually goes somewhere, unlike CT 25.

I believe the fourth lane has been restriped as a shoulder.  CT sure does love climbing lanes though.  There are "slow vehicle lanes" even in places that don't appear to warrant a climbing lane.

Quote from: kurumi on July 06, 2017, 03:04:38 AM
Regarding the 8/25 overlap, the Bridgeport segment of the freeway was originally planned as Route 25 in the 1950s. Route 8 came along later -- but now it's the longer, complete, more prominent freeway with the lower number. The 25 history might be the reason the duplex is signed as [25] [8] on I-95 guide signs. (And at the 25/8 split, CT 25 has 6 lanes, and CT 8 has 4.)
Wasn't CT 8 planned to extend to the Massachusetts Turnpike?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on July 06, 2017, 10:47:34 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 06, 2017, 10:15:02 PM
I suspect more traffic goes to CT 8 than CT 25, despite the lane configuration.  At least that's how it looked this afternoon.  Probably because CT 8 actually goes somewhere, unlike CT 25.

I believe the fourth lane has been restriped as a shoulder.  CT sure does love climbing lanes though.  There are "slow vehicle lanes" even in places that don't appear to warrant a climbing lane.

Quote from: kurumi on July 06, 2017, 03:04:38 AM
Regarding the 8/25 overlap, the Bridgeport segment of the freeway was originally planned as Route 25 in the 1950s. Route 8 came along later -- but now it's the longer, complete, more prominent freeway with the lower number. The 25 history might be the reason the duplex is signed as [25] [8] on I-95 guide signs. (And at the 25/8 split, CT 25 has 6 lanes, and CT 8 has 4.)
Wasn't CT 8 planned to extend to the Massachusetts Turnpike?

I've always referred to the Bridgeport stretch as Route 8 and forget that 25 exists south of the split.  It's a combination of Route 8 being almost 10 times as long north of the split, and that I would take Route 8 to go home from there. 

And yes, Route 8 was planned to extend to the Mass Pike, and its cancellation is the reason that there is a 30 mile gap in exits between Lee and Westfield.  NIMBY's north of the border and MassDOT refused to build its stretch, plus you have Colebrook River Lake and Otis Reservoir in the way.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on July 07, 2017, 12:15:30 AM
Quote from: vdeane on July 06, 2017, 10:15:02 PM
I suspect more traffic goes to CT 8 than CT 25, despite the lane configuration.  At least that's how it looked this afternoon.  Probably because CT 8 actually goes somewhere, unlike CT 25.

You're right. Before the split (2015 AADT):
Route 8/25: 89,200

After the split:
Route 8: 57,400; exceeds 80,000 at the Housatonic River and south of Route 73 in Waterbury
Route 25, 33,000; peaks at 44,000 north of the Merritt Parkway
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on July 07, 2017, 07:14:50 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on July 06, 2017, 10:47:34 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 06, 2017, 10:15:02 PM
I suspect more traffic goes to CT 8 than CT 25, despite the lane configuration.  At least that's how it looked this afternoon.  Probably because CT 8 actually goes somewhere, unlike CT 25.

I believe the fourth lane has been restriped as a shoulder.  CT sure does love climbing lanes though.  There are "slow vehicle lanes" even in places that don't appear to warrant a climbing lane.

Quote from: kurumi on July 06, 2017, 03:04:38 AM
Regarding the 8/25 overlap, the Bridgeport segment of the freeway was originally planned as Route 25 in the 1950s. Route 8 came along later -- but now it's the longer, complete, more prominent freeway with the lower number. The 25 history might be the reason the duplex is signed as [25] [8] on I-95 guide signs. (And at the 25/8 split, CT 25 has 6 lanes, and CT 8 has 4.)
Wasn't CT 8 planned to extend to the Massachusetts Turnpike?

I've always referred to the Bridgeport stretch as Route 8 and forget that 25 exists south of the split.  It's a combination of Route 8 being almost 10 times as long north of the split, and that I would take Route 8 to go home from there. 

And yes, Route 8 was planned to extend to the Mass Pike, and its cancellation is the reason that there is a 30 mile gap in exits between Lee and Westfield.  NIMBY's north of the border and MassDOT refused to build its stretch, plus you have Colebrook River Lake and Otis Reservoir in the way.
I'm not sure how serious those plans ever were. The main reason for the 30 mile gap is the lack of anything of significance between those points. The main voices looking for another exit are the handful of locals.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on July 07, 2017, 11:08:04 PM
What a CT/MA 8 expressway to the Mass Pike would do is fill a highwayless void through Litchfield County for those going to Albany and points north and west from west of Hartford and Fairfield County.  As it stands from where I live, to get to Albany on an all expressway route, I would have to backtrack 20 miles to Hartford and take I-91 to the Mass Pike.  The only other all expressway options would be heading west to the Taconic or to the Thruway, which also is quite far out of the way unless you live near the NY border in Fairfield County.  Otherwise, I'm forced to backroad it either by taking CT/MA 8 to US 20 to Lee to catch the Pike, or take CT 254 to CT 118 to US 202 to CT 63 to US 7 to MA 41 to MA 102 to NY 980D to NY 22 to catch the Berkshire Spur.  So more than a handful of locals would love to see an exit near the MA 8/US 20 junction to at least shave a few backroad miles off. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on July 07, 2017, 11:23:58 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on July 07, 2017, 11:08:04 PM
What a CT/MA 8 expressway to the Mass Pike would do is fill a highwayless void through Litchfield County for those going to Albany and points north and west from west of Hartford and Fairfield County.  As it stands from where I live, to get to Albany on an all expressway route, I would have to backtrack 20 miles to Hartford and take I-91 to the Mass Pike.  The only other all expressway options would be heading west to the Taconic or to the Thruway, which also is quite far out of the way unless you live near the NY border in Fairfield County.  Otherwise, I'm forced to backroad it either by taking CT/MA 8 to US 20 to Lee to catch the Pike, or take CT 254 to CT 118 to US 202 to CT 63 to US 7 to MA 41 to MA 102 to NY 980D to NY 22 to catch the Berkshire Spur.  So more than a handful of locals would love to see an exit near the MA 8/US 20 junction to at least shave a few backroad miles off. 
There are relatively few locals, and the alternatives aren't that bad. CT 8 doesn't have the traffic to justify an extension.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on July 08, 2017, 01:50:06 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on July 05, 2017, 02:23:22 PM
Only a single onramp has an I-395 control city of Providence, and that's coming from CT 2 EB.  I find it interesting that MassDOT is now using "New London CT" as the control city for I-395 from the Mass Pike.  There's no mention of New London anywhere on I-395... until you get to Exit 5.  Should New London be a control city on I-395, in place of Norwich?  Maybe.... maybe not.  Or at the very least, how bout some mileage signs?  "NORWICH ## / NEW LONDON ## / NY CITY ###".

Regarding 8/25, I thought that too, about removing the duplex.  I never understood why the two were signed that way.  It reminds me of those seemingly needless multiplexes that Maine has all over the place.

Regarding 66/691, they should renumber with MM 0 being at I-84 and continuing east, all the way to the end of the exp'y in Middlefield.  Resetting CT 66 exit numbers back to "1" for Preston Ave seems more confusing.  And do we even know where CT 66 mileage officially begins/ends?  The east end of the exp'y, heading west, has a I-691 sign on the overhead. 

While the new Exit 10 pullthrough will read "EAST I-691 TO 66", you'll still have one sign to the west that will read "66 EAST".  Wonder if that'll get replaced at some point in the not-too-distant future?  It is a bridge-mount after all, and we know ConnDOT is favoring away from those (except in Norwalk).


The signs on the new gantry on CT-2A and exit 5 were just put up two years ago with the I-395 sign project. The EB signs are the exact same.  Why not just use the older signs on the new gantry?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JJBers on July 08, 2017, 02:00:24 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on July 05, 2017, 02:23:22 PM
Only a single onramp has an I-395 control city of Providence, and that's coming from CT 2 EB.  I find it interesting that MassDOT is now using "New London CT" as the control city for I-395 from the Mass Pike.  There's no mention of New London anywhere on I-395... until you get to Exit 5.  Should New London be a control city on I-395, in place of Norwich?  Maybe.... maybe not.  Or at the very least, how bout some mileage signs?  "NORWICH ## / NEW LONDON ## / NY CITY ###".
Connecticut doesn't like interstate mileage signs.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on July 08, 2017, 09:33:01 AM
Quote from: JJBers on July 08, 2017, 02:00:24 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on July 05, 2017, 02:23:22 PM
Only a single onramp has an I-395 control city of Providence, and that's coming from CT 2 EB.  I find it interesting that MassDOT is now using "New London CT" as the control city for I-395 from the Mass Pike.  There's no mention of New London anywhere on I-395... until you get to Exit 5.  Should New London be a control city on I-395, in place of Norwich?  Maybe.... maybe not.  Or at the very least, how bout some mileage signs?  "NORWICH ## / NEW LONDON ## / NY CITY ###".
Connecticut doesn't like interstate mileage signs.

I can only think of 3 in the entire state, maybe a couple more, (and formerly a 4th): The 2 on CT 9 in Haddam, and the one on I-84 West in Union.  I also seem to remember one on I-91 North in Middletown in the past, and not sure if there's a couple on CT 8.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JJBers on July 08, 2017, 11:40:05 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on July 08, 2017, 09:33:01 AM
Quote from: JJBers on July 08, 2017, 02:00:24 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on July 05, 2017, 02:23:22 PM
Only a single onramp has an I-395 control city of Providence, and that's coming from CT 2 EB.  I find it interesting that MassDOT is now using "New London CT" as the control city for I-395 from the Mass Pike.  There's no mention of New London anywhere on I-395... until you get to Exit 5.  Should New London be a control city on I-395, in place of Norwich?  Maybe.... maybe not.  Or at the very least, how bout some mileage signs?  "NORWICH ## / NEW LONDON ## / NY CITY ###".
Connecticut doesn't like interstate mileage signs.

I can only think of 3 in the entire state, maybe a couple more, (and formerly a 4th): The 2 on CT 9 in Haddam, and the one on I-84 West in Union.  I also seem to remember one on I-91 North in Middletown in the past, and not sure if there's a couple on CT 8.
There's also one on I-384 just after US 6/44 leave.
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4211/35128410430_f9b67d03d8_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/VwbhyN)
CC 2.0 JJBers
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on July 08, 2017, 12:38:44 PM
On I-95:
NB in Greenwich (Stamford/Bridgeport)
NB in Stonington (North Stonington/Providence)
SB in Stonington (New London/New Haven)
SB in Groton (New Haven/Bridgeport)
SB in Westport (Stamford/NY City)

On CT 9:
NB in Haddam (Middletown/Hartford)
SB in Cromwell (Middletown/Old Saybrook)
SB in Haddam (Essex/Old Saybrook)

There's a couple on CT 2, don't think there's any on CT 8.  I too remember one on I-91 decades ago in Middletown, which had Miles and Km listed for IIRC, Meriden and New Haven.  It was after Exit 21, SB. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on July 08, 2017, 05:06:22 PM
Why can't Bridgeport be a control city on interstates? It's the biggest city in the state and the DOT already uses it on Route 8. There was once a BGS in Norwalk at one of the entrance ramps to I-95 NB that used Bridgeport, but that was replaced in the last signing contract about 10 years ago.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on July 08, 2017, 05:49:08 PM
Must be something with AASHTO because NYSDOT also uses New Haven as a control city for I-95, I-695, and I-278 in NYC and Westchester County.  Seems that only roads that end in Bridgeport (Route 25 being the other) can use Bridgeport as a control city. 

Seems that most DOT's in the northeast have moved to using only 1 control city on new signage. ConnDOT now only uses New London as a control city on I-95 north in New Haven and eliminated Providence as a second control city. Personally, I think most BGS's and exits on the highway itself should post 2 control cities at major interchanges when it warrants, even if the second control city is quite a distance away.  When I went to Indianapolis, Indiana DOT used Chicago, Cincinnati, Peoria, and even St. Louis as control cities on their interstates.  In New Haven, I-95 should post Bridgeport/NYC southbound and New London/Providence northbound, while I-91 should post Hartford/Springfield.  Some new examples would be Hartford as a second control city after Danbury on I-84 East for interchanges on the Taconic Parkway and I-684; Philadelphia as a second control city after Trenton on I-95 junctions in NYC; Cleveland as a second control city after Erie for I-90 junctions in the Buffalo area, and Toronto as a second control city after Niagara Falls for I-190 and I-290 junctions in the Buffalo area.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on July 08, 2017, 11:31:21 PM
In the Meriden area, you do have an I-91 North pullthrough which says "HARTFORD/SPRINGFIELD". On CT Route 9 South in Cromwell, the I-91 signs say "NORTH- HARTFORD/SPRINGFIELD" and "SOUTH- NEW HAVEN/NY CITY".
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JJBers on July 09, 2017, 01:56:09 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on July 08, 2017, 05:49:08 PM
Seems that most DOT's in the northeast have moved to using only 1 control city on new signage. ConnDOT now only uses New London as a control city on I-95 north in New Haven and eliminated Providence as a second control city. Personally, I think most BGS's and exits on the highway itself should post 2 control cities at major interchanges when it warrants, even if the second control city is quite a distance away.  When I went to Indianapolis, Indiana DOT used Chicago, Cincinnati, Peoria, and even St. Louis as control cities on their interstates.  In New Haven, I-95 should post Bridgeport/NYC southbound and New London/Providence northbound, while I-91 should post Hartford/Springfield.  Some new examples would be Hartford as a second control city after Danbury on I-84 East for interchanges on the Taconic Parkway and I-684; Philadelphia as a second control city after Trenton on I-95 junctions in NYC; Cleveland as a second control city after Erie for I-90 junctions in the Buffalo area, and Toronto as a second control city after Niagara Falls for I-190 and I-290 junctions in the Buffalo area.
Aren't I-384 and I-291 like this?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on July 09, 2017, 12:44:35 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on July 08, 2017, 11:31:21 PM
In the Meriden area, you do have an I-91 North pullthrough which says "HARTFORD/SPRINGFIELD". On CT Route 9 South in Cromwell, the I-91 signs say "NORTH- HARTFORD/SPRINGFIELD" and "SOUTH- NEW HAVEN/NY CITY".

While this is true, it seems as if signs are replaced, only one control city is being used.  The just-released spot sign replacement project has a couple signs being replaced on I-691 EB for Exit 11 which maintain the "Hartford/Springfield" usage, but a blanket replacement project for I-691 would probably replace them again.  Spot sign replacements seem to maintain the "status-quo", if all signs within an exit are not being replaced. 

And Bridgeport is still used as a control city for I-95 North on US 7 South in Norwalk.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JakeFromNewEngland on July 09, 2017, 02:56:23 PM
Bridgeport is also a control city on the Milford Connector for I-95 South. This became the control city after the sign replacement project in 2012(?) that added exit numbers to the connector. Before it used to be Bridgeport/N.Y. City going southbound.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on July 09, 2017, 05:51:57 PM
Quote from: JakeFromNewEngland on July 09, 2017, 02:56:23 PM
Bridgeport is also a control city on the Milford Connector for I-95 South. This became the control city after the sign replacement project in 2012(?) that added exit numbers to the connector. Before it used to be Bridgeport/N.Y. City going southbound.

Wouldn't be surprised if that is an exception because NYC is the control city for CT 15 South and all traffic using the connector is non-commercial and is coming from the area of CT 15. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on July 09, 2017, 11:16:12 PM
CT 9 has New Haven as the control city for US 5/CT 15 S.  At this point the duplex is still on the Berlin Turnpike.

This section of CT 9 didn't open until the early 90s, if that has any bearing.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: mariethefoxy on July 11, 2017, 02:44:45 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on July 06, 2017, 05:42:16 PM
8/25, it would appear that 25 is the dominant route, with the additional lanes, and the fact that the whole Rt 25 expressway section (from I-95 to the end) is signed as the Col. Henry Mucci Highway.  Portions of 25 are 4 lanes NB approaching the end of the exp'y, due to a "climbing lane".  Then in a mile or so, it drops from 4 lanes to a single lane.

One of my close friends is actually related to Col. Mucci. When I met her I was like hey, theres a highway in CT named after one of your relatives?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeCL on July 12, 2017, 09:24:12 PM
CT should do a study to fix that back of problem on that ramp.. always a 25 mile delay to exit 25A how in the world do you have 4 lanes flow into two around a sharp turn...
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on July 13, 2017, 09:07:26 PM
Quote from: MikeCL on July 12, 2017, 09:24:12 PM
CT should do a study to fix that back of problem on that ramp.. always a 25 mile delay to exit 25A how in the world do you have 4 lanes flow into two around a sharp turn...

Well, a lot of the traffic coming south on 25/8 is bound for downtown Bridgeport and gets of at exit 3 or 2 (where the fourth and third lanes end, respectively). Meanwhile the fourth lane is not necessary volumewise, it's simply a byproduct of the merge between 25 and 8. Note how five lanes are formed at said merge, and one of them ends at each of the next three southbound offramps. Someone thought this through. So, there is not by any means four lanes' worth of traffic going into the I-95 interchange. If there were it'd be a hell of a lot worse than it is.

As for the interchange itself, well, it's in the middle of a city, so you can't just build whatever. It would be possible to make it somewhat higher powered without being too disruptive (you could run the northbound offramp over the train tracks, and then make the northbound onramp a straighter flyover within the existing footprint). But, I could see this still raising objections due to making the interchange taller.

Also, this is Connecticut. Connecticut doesn't build big things, it's not culturally how they operate. Not that they have the money to, anyway.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeCL on July 13, 2017, 09:09:42 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on July 13, 2017, 09:07:26 PM
Quote from: MikeCL on July 12, 2017, 09:24:12 PM
CT should do a study to fix that back of problem on that ramp.. always a 25 mile delay to exit 25A how in the world do you have 4 lanes flow into two around a sharp turn...

Well, a lot of the traffic coming south on 25/8 is bound for downtown Bridgeport and gets of at exit 3 or 2 (where the fourth and third lanes end, respectively). Meanwhile the fourth lane is not necessary volumewise, it's simply a byproduct of the merge between 25 and 8. Note how five lanes are formed at said merge, and one of them ends at each of the next three southbound offramps. Someone thought this through. So, there is not by any means four lanes' worth of traffic going into the I-95 interchange. If there were it'd be a hell of a lot worse than it is.

As for the interchange itself, well, it's in the middle of a city, so you can't just build whatever. It would be possible to make it somewhat higher powered without being too disruptive (you could run the northbound offramp over the train tracks, and then make the northbound onramp a straighter flyover within the existing footprint). But, I could see this still raising objections due to making the interchange taller.

Also, this is Connecticut. Connecticut doesn't build big things, it's not culturally how they operate. Not that they have the money to, anyway.

Well I don't know how many millions they spent on making those merge lanes longer in Norwalk but in the end it's still ends up being the same issue.. I don't know if anything past 25A is backed up as bad as it is from the border to 25A
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: mariethefoxy on July 14, 2017, 12:48:06 AM
isnt it exit 27A for Mucci Highway (25/8) not 25A
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on July 14, 2017, 07:44:00 AM
Quote from: mariethefoxy on July 14, 2017, 12:48:06 AM
isnt it exit 27A for Mucci Highway (25/8) not 25A
taking exit 25A will cause you major delays
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JJBers on July 14, 2017, 11:24:32 AM
They're completely redoing the bridge over Tracy Rd. on I-395. They've closed I-395 down to one lane over the bridge.
Google Maps (https://goo.gl/maps/nvg6N8qyHrM2)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: roadman65 on July 14, 2017, 12:09:26 PM
I see an old trolley ROW where Old Trolley Road ends to the left of the said crossing.  Forgot that the NE had lots of trolley lines that went inter town in addition to intercity in the big population centers.

Edit:  The old trolley line is now an active freight line RR as it serves the businesses in the area including a Staples Warehouse on Tracy Road.  However, trolleys were once a means that got dumped here in suburban areas of the Northeast.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JJBers on July 14, 2017, 12:55:31 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 14, 2017, 12:09:26 PM
I see an old trolley ROW where Old Trolley Road ends to the left of the said crossing.  Forgot that the NE had lots of trolley lines that went inter town in addition to intercity in the big population centers.

Edit:  The old trolley line is now an active freight line RR as it serves the businesses in the area including a Staples Warehouse on Tracy Road.  However, trolleys were once a means that got dumped here in suburban areas of the Northeast.
It was the former line from Groton to Worcester, MA. The road was probably either former line, or a old service road, and a station was presumably nearby.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: roadman65 on July 14, 2017, 01:03:00 PM
Oh so it never was the trolley line itself.  Makes sense, but there are old trolley lines in NJ that later became commercial RR lines like in my home town in NJ.  The  former Bloodgood Branch of the defunct Lehigh Valley RR originally was a trolley that went from Clark to Linden that did this.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JJBers on July 14, 2017, 01:06:32 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 14, 2017, 01:03:00 PM
Oh so it never was the trolley line itself.  Makes sense, but there are old trolley lines in NJ that later became commercial RR lines like in my home town in NJ.  The  former Bloodgood Branch of the defunct Lehigh Valley RR originally was a trolley that went from Clark to Linden that did this.
That really never happened in Connecticut, most times trolley lines became either: Abandoned, Built over by other things, or because they're leasing other lines, they became freight only services. A couple became museum strips, namely the Connecticut Trolley Museum, literally about trolleys in Connecticut.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: sharkyfour on July 16, 2017, 04:00:20 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7724557,-72.5784933,3a,37.5y,69.62h,84.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spxgp5udgiKZAsZGnRKNtnw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Anyone know exactly what those signs are or how to decode them?  They were put up throughout the I-84/I-384/I-291/Buckland St Collector/Distributor a few years ago on every light pole and every couple hundred feet where there are no lights or they're in the median.  My best guess was that they're for helping locate 911 callers who probably don't know exactly what ramp they're on when they're in the C/D, but I wasn't sure if there's anything more than that.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JJBers on July 16, 2017, 04:30:16 PM
Quote from: sharkyfour on July 16, 2017, 04:00:20 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7724557,-72.5784933,3a,37.5y,69.62h,84.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spxgp5udgiKZAsZGnRKNtnw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Anyone know exactly what those signs are or how to decode them?  They were put up throughout the I-84/I-384/I-291/Buckland St Collector/Distributor a few years ago on every light pole and every couple hundred feet where there are no lights or they're in the median.  My best guess was that they're for helping locate 911 callers who probably don't know exactly what ramp they're on when they're in the C/D, but I wasn't sure if there's anything more than that.
Probably identification markers for ConnDOT.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on July 16, 2017, 05:13:17 PM
Quote from: JJBers on July 16, 2017, 04:30:16 PM
Quote from: sharkyfour on July 16, 2017, 04:00:20 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7724557,-72.5784933,3a,37.5y,69.62h,84.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spxgp5udgiKZAsZGnRKNtnw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Anyone know exactly what those signs are or how to decode them?  They were put up throughout the I-84/I-384/I-291/Buckland St Collector/Distributor a few years ago on every light pole and every couple hundred feet where there are no lights or they're in the median.  My best guess was that they're for helping locate 911 callers who probably don't know exactly what ramp they're on when they're in the C/D, but I wasn't sure if there's anything more than that.
Probably identification markers for ConnDOT.

They have to be reference markers, and it's specific to the whole Exit 59-62 complex.  Each ramp has a series of numbers beginning on the 100.  So one ramp will be marked M (for Manchester) 001, M 002...  and another will be M 301, M 302...  No specific order as to how each series was assigned that I'm aware of.   Probably makes it easier to report accidents and for tow trucks to locate stranded drivers. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on July 16, 2017, 09:43:24 PM
Probably put up by the city of Manchester. I've never seen those signs anywhere else in the state.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on July 17, 2017, 10:12:30 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on July 16, 2017, 05:13:17 PM
Quote from: JJBers on July 16, 2017, 04:30:16 PM
Quote from: sharkyfour on July 16, 2017, 04:00:20 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7724557,-72.5784933,3a,37.5y,69.62h,84.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spxgp5udgiKZAsZGnRKNtnw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Anyone know exactly what those signs are or how to decode them?  They were put up throughout the I-84/I-384/I-291/Buckland St Collector/Distributor a few years ago on every light pole and every couple hundred feet where there are no lights or they're in the median.  My best guess was that they're for helping locate 911 callers who probably don't know exactly what ramp they're on when they're in the C/D, but I wasn't sure if there's anything more than that.
Probably identification markers for ConnDOT.

They have to be reference markers, and it's specific to the whole Exit 59-62 complex.  Each ramp has a series of numbers beginning on the 100.  So one ramp will be marked M (for Manchester) 001, M 002...  and another will be M 301, M 302...  No specific order as to how each series was assigned that I'm aware of.   Probably makes it easier to report accidents and for tow trucks to locate stranded drivers.
It is my understanding that they have something to do with the proposal to re-configure the eastern portion of the C/D to better handle mall traffic.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on July 17, 2017, 06:58:02 PM
Got some shots of the new MLK Blvd overlay on I-95 Exit 47 (and I-91 Exit 1) in New Haven:

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4326/35856664431_9ea39423af_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/WCwM7g)DSC07969 (https://flic.kr/p/WCwM7g) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

A sign pointing the new way to Route 34...
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4327/35818372932_dc0f55d297_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Wz9wo1)DSC07977 (https://flic.kr/p/Wz9wo1) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

And the new signage on Route 8 from Thomaston to Winsted is up... but with an interesting oddity:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4302/35856637091_71402080c8_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/WCwCYT)DSC08083 (https://flic.kr/p/WCwCYT) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

CT 202 was on the contract plans as well!

Most (but not all) of the signs have been replaced from Thomaston to Winsted.  Especially southbound, some of the old signs/posts remain where they were dropped.  Lots of trimming still needs to be done around some signs.  And the exit crowns for Exit 38-NB still need to be re-aligned to the right (as per the contract plans).  There's a 1 mile advance that has not been replaced yet, southbound, for Exit 41, and can't be replaced yet since it's in the middle of the one-lane zone due to bridge replacement.  There's one northbound for the Motor Vehicle Dept in Torrington not yet replaced.  And a few around Exit 39-40-SB that have been replaced, but with the old signs still up.

So lots of updates today on my FLICKR page, all on the CT page, for the following: 
I-84, I-91, I-95, I-691, CT 8, CT 8/25, CT 9, CT 25


And one more oddity on the new signage on CT 8 in Torrington...

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4307/35856639211_469a53f0b8_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/WCwDBr)DSC08078 (https://flic.kr/p/WCwDBr) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on July 17, 2017, 07:34:51 PM
New BGSs are on CT-34 between CT-8 and CT-115.  A new gantry was installed just east of the CT-8 NB off-ramp on CT-34.  1-lane pull through for CT-115 and a 2-lane pull through for "34 East New Haven."  WB on the same gantry is a "CT-8 North Waterbury" and an upward right arrow.

There are also new supports for CT-34 West on the CT-8 overpass next to the button copy signs that are still there.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on July 17, 2017, 08:21:50 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on July 17, 2017, 06:58:02 PM

And the new signage on Route 8 from Thomaston to Winsted is up... but with an interesting oddity:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4302/35856637091_71402080c8_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/WCwCYT)DSC08083 (https://flic.kr/p/WCwCYT) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

CT 202 was on the contract plans as well!
I also think Downtown should be all caps.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on July 18, 2017, 05:55:32 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on July 17, 2017, 06:58:02 PM
Got some shots of the new MLK Blvd overlay on I-95 Exit 47 (and I-91 Exit 1) in New Haven:

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4326/35856664431_9ea39423af_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/WCwM7g)DSC07969 (https://flic.kr/p/WCwM7g) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

A sign pointing the new way to Route 34...
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4327/35818372932_dc0f55d297_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Wz9wo1)DSC07977 (https://flic.kr/p/Wz9wo1) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

And the new signage on Route 8 from Thomaston to Winsted is up... but with an interesting oddity:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4302/35856637091_71402080c8_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/WCwCYT)DSC08083 (https://flic.kr/p/WCwCYT) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

CT 202 was on the contract plans as well!

Most (but not all) of the signs have been replaced from Thomaston to Winsted.  Especially southbound, some of the old signs/posts remain where they were dropped.  Lots of trimming still needs to be done around some signs.  And the exit crowns for Exit 38-NB still need to be re-aligned to the right (as per the contract plans).  There's a 1 mile advance that has not been replaced yet, southbound, for Exit 41, and can't be replaced yet since it's in the middle of the one-lane zone due to bridge replacement.  There's one northbound for the Motor Vehicle Dept in Torrington not yet replaced.  And a few around Exit 39-40-SB that have been replaced, but with the old signs still up.

So lots of updates today on my FLICKR page, all on the CT page, for the following: 
I-84, I-91, I-95, I-691, CT 8, CT 8/25, CT 9, CT 25


And one more oddity on the new signage on CT 8 in Torrington...

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4307/35856639211_469a53f0b8_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/WCwDBr)DSC08078 (https://flic.kr/p/WCwDBr) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

That brings to mind two questions:

1.  Did ConnDOT officially truncate Route 34 back to Route 10, and turn over the section between the I-91/95 interchange and Route 10 to the City of New Haven?
2.  I thought the Route 8 sign replacement project included renumbering exits to be mile-based.  Has ConnDOT changed their mind ("pulled a Massachusetts") and decided to keep sequential numbering?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on July 18, 2017, 06:07:00 PM
1. I thought the same thing when I first saw someone else post that picture a few weeks ago.  Haven't heard as such, but it does make sense (and one side of CT 34 east of CT 10 is a SR anyway, so just make the other side a SR as well)

2.  ConnDOT is waiting till the entire highway is re-signed before renumbering the exits. 

What I want to know is if ConnDOT is going to fix that glaring error on the Torrington sign, or are we resigned to having it remain a la the CT 6 signs on I-84 in Farmington and West Hartford?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on July 18, 2017, 06:26:53 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on July 18, 2017, 06:07:00 PM
1. I thought the same thing when I first saw someone else post that picture a few weeks ago.  Haven't heard as such, but it does make sense (and one side of CT 34 east of CT 10 is a SR anyway, so just make the other side a SR as well)

2.  ConnDOT is waiting till the entire highway is re-signed before renumbering the exits. 

What I want to know is if ConnDOT is going to fix that glaring error on the Torrington sign, or are we resigned to having it remain a la the CT 6 signs on I-84 in Farmington and West Hartford?

I'd say add it to the punch list of items the contractor needs to fix before ConnDOT signs off on it.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on July 19, 2017, 09:17:38 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on July 17, 2017, 06:58:02 PMAnd the new signage on Route 8 from Thomaston to Winsted is up... but with an interesting oddity:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4302/35856637091_71402080c8_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/WCwCYT)DSC08083 (https://flic.kr/p/WCwCYT) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

CT 202 was on the contract plans as well!
So CT now joins MA, NY, PA & DE for states that have mistakenly signed US 202 as SR 202.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on July 19, 2017, 09:21:26 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 19, 2017, 09:17:38 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on July 17, 2017, 06:58:02 PMAnd the new signage on Route 8 from Thomaston to Winsted is up... but with an interesting oddity:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4302/35856637091_71402080c8_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/WCwCYT)DSC08083 (https://flic.kr/p/WCwCYT) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

CT 202 was on the contract plans as well!
So CT now joins MA, NY, PA & DE for states that have mistakenly signed US 202 as SR 202.
There is not a state that hasn't.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on July 19, 2017, 10:59:31 PM
Quote from: Alps on July 19, 2017, 09:21:26 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 19, 2017, 09:17:38 AM
So CT now joins MA, NY, PA & DE for states that have mistakenly signed US 202 as SR 202.
There is not a state that hasn't.

Sure there is. 42 of them, in fact. :P
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on July 19, 2017, 11:03:24 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on July 19, 2017, 10:59:31 PM
Quote from: Alps on July 19, 2017, 09:21:26 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 19, 2017, 09:17:38 AM
So CT now joins MA, NY, PA & DE for states that have mistakenly signed US 202 as SR 202.
There is not a state that hasn't.

Sure there is. 42 of them, in fact. :P
41. I'll be long dead in the cold, cold ground before I recognize Missourah.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on July 20, 2017, 08:26:09 AM
Who else besides Delaware has a state route 202? :)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on July 20, 2017, 09:02:01 AM
I was about to say that there aren't/weren't any erroneous NH 202 nor ME 202 signs out in the wild; but there's at least one site that shows one or two (the ME ones were temporary detour signs that are likely lone gone by now).

Scroll down for erroneous NH 202 sign on LGS (http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nh/us_202/)

Scroll down for erroneous ME 202 (temporary) detour trailblazer signs (http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/me/us_202/)

Not sure if either of the above-examples are still out there today.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on July 20, 2017, 11:45:05 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on July 20, 2017, 08:26:09 AM
Who else besides Delaware has a state route 202? :)
Technically all routes in NJ are state routes.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on July 21, 2017, 12:42:23 AM
Quote from: Alps on July 20, 2017, 11:45:05 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on July 20, 2017, 08:26:09 AM
Who else besides Delaware has a state route 202? :)
Technically all routes in NJ are state routes.

As are PA and NY
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on July 21, 2017, 08:08:33 AM
http://magic.lib.uconn.edu/mash_up/1970_aerial_index.html

I found an interesting aerial view of New Britain from 1970 at this site:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FCCfpLny.jpg&hash=30aea4fda8bd33c167cc060f3ae560c8ba7bdd02)

CT Route 72 (left edge of picture) was only finished to Corbin Avenue (CT Route 372). The only difference downtown at that time was the Harry Truman Overpass in its early stages of construction (top right, currently a part of CT Route 71). At the bottom right you'll see an open area where New Britain High School now stands. That opened in 1972. The big pond at the bottom center is Doer Pond, which is part of Martha Hart Park. That's by the corner of Corbin and Shuttle Meadow Avenues.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: dgolub on July 21, 2017, 08:38:55 AM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on July 20, 2017, 08:26:09 AM
Who else besides Delaware has a state route 202? :)

There are NY 202 and CT 202 sign goofs.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on July 21, 2017, 08:48:11 AM
Quote from: dgolub on July 21, 2017, 08:38:55 AM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on July 20, 2017, 08:26:09 AM
Who else besides Delaware has a state route 202? :)

There are NY 202 and CT 202 sign goofs.
Goofs, yes; but DE actually has a (State) Route 202 of its own (south of I-95) that's separate from US 202.  I.e. DE 202 shields along that particular stretch are not erroneous nor goofs.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on July 24, 2017, 03:39:19 PM
An operator has been chosen for the Hartford/New Haven rail line.  Service will start next April.

http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/Governor-to-Make-Announcement-About-Hartford-Commuter-Rail-Line-436326753.html
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JJBers on July 24, 2017, 04:21:38 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on July 24, 2017, 03:39:19 PM
An operator has been chosen for the Hartford/New Haven rail line.  Service will start next April.

http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/Governor-to-Make-Announcement-About-Hartford-Commuter-Rail-Line-436326753.html
While it's nice to have a commuter rail service in Central Connecticut, it's completely useless to me.
Also there's some roadwork being done on US 6 right before the CT 198 interchange in Chaplin.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: dgolub on July 24, 2017, 06:58:06 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on July 24, 2017, 03:39:19 PM
An operator has been chosen for the Hartford/New Haven rail line.  Service will start next April.

http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/Governor-to-Make-Announcement-About-Hartford-Commuter-Rail-Line-436326753.html

Sounds like it will be similar to Acela.  I wonder how much the tickets will cost.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on July 24, 2017, 07:24:12 PM
QuoteOfficials said Amtrak's existing service will not be altered by Hartford Line service and CTrail trains will operate together with Amtrak trains on the rail line to provide seamless Hartford Line service.

Now if we could eliminate the redundancy of having two different operators along the same line, or at least have unified ticketing between them, that'd be great.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on July 24, 2017, 11:38:12 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on July 24, 2017, 03:39:19 PM
An operator has been chosen for the Hartford/New Haven rail line.  Service will start next April.

http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/Governor-to-Make-Announcement-About-Hartford-Commuter-Rail-Line-436326753.html
I think it'll work better if they ditch the extra four planned stops. This is high speed rail after all. If I-91 ends up faster, no one will use the alternative.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JJBers on July 25, 2017, 12:55:19 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on July 24, 2017, 07:24:12 PM
QuoteOfficials said Amtrak's existing service will not be altered by Hartford Line service and CTrail trains will operate together with Amtrak trains on the rail line to provide seamless Hartford Line service.

Now if we could eliminate the redundancy of having two different operators along the same line, or at least have unified ticketing between them, that'd be great.
Say that to Metro-North or Shoreline East
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on July 25, 2017, 08:40:25 PM
Quote from: JJBers on July 25, 2017, 12:55:19 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on July 24, 2017, 07:24:12 PM
QuoteOfficials said Amtrak's existing service will not be altered by Hartford Line service and CTrail trains will operate together with Amtrak trains on the rail line to provide seamless Hartford Line service.

Now if we could eliminate the redundancy of having two different operators along the same line, or at least have unified ticketing between them, that'd be great.
Say that to Metro-North or Shoreline East
There's four Amtrak lines that operate along the tracks from the NYS border to New Haven: Acela, Northeast Regional (north and south branch), and the Vermonter.  These are all through trains, with the Vermonter and the  Regional trains preceding station being Bridgeport and the Acela Bridgeport.  It's not that bad, really.  I would like to see Amtrak discontinue the New Haven-Springfield shuttle though when CTRail service starts. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on July 25, 2017, 09:34:40 PM
We are getting beyond the "road" element of this site, but I'm a big rail nut so I'll run with it, and say this:

The 400-series "shuttles" are Amtrak's shortest routes in the country, at 62 mph.  The state of Connecticut adds financial support to help support this service.  While said trains only operate New Haven<->Springfield, they are reliant on their connections at New Haven.  For instance, the NB shuttle from New Haven doesn't leave New Haven if the train that connects to it is running late.  This enables passengers who come from points south of New Haven to connect to points on the Springfield Line.  While ConnDOT supports the shuttle service, it is "held back" by the rest of the Amtrak system in the Northeast. 

Following the startup of new Hartford Line commuter rail, Amtrak should discontinue its shuttles, or ConnDOT should stop supporting them.  Perhaps Amtrak could add a 4th thru train to Springfield (in addition to the two existing, plus the Vermonter), or, as some have suggested, keep the shuttles, reduce the stops, and extend them north of Springfield. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kefkafloyd on July 26, 2017, 06:10:33 PM
Eventually the shuttles and SPG terminating Regionals will be replaced with inland Regionals (thru trains to Boston) which will overall be a net improvement to Massachusetts Amtrak service once NHHS Commuter starts up.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on July 26, 2017, 07:00:17 PM
Quote from: kefkafloyd on July 26, 2017, 06:10:33 PM
Eventually the shuttles and SPG terminating Regionals will be replaced with inland Regionals (thru trains to Boston) which will overall be a net improvement to Massachusetts Amtrak service once NHHS Commuter starts up.
Hmmm, maybe we could get T commuter service extended to Springfield?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kefkafloyd on July 26, 2017, 07:31:56 PM
The odds of that are slim to none. While you could conceivably run a few Regionals along the single-track section from WOR to SPG (once it is improved), the rail would not be able to support that much traffic. Going from 16 to 20 trains isn't a big jump.

CSX would probably be pretty grumpy about that. Inland Regionals and track improvements are being floated only because of horse trading between CSX and the state for their West Springfield intermodal.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on July 27, 2017, 02:18:05 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on July 26, 2017, 07:00:17 PM
Quote from: kefkafloyd on July 26, 2017, 06:10:33 PM
Eventually the shuttles and SPG terminating Regionals will be replaced with inland Regionals (thru trains to Boston) which will overall be a net improvement to Massachusetts Amtrak service once NHHS Commuter starts up.
Hmmm, maybe we could get T commuter service extended to Springfield?

You'd see T service extended to Westerly first with Shore Line East extended to meet it.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JJBers on July 29, 2017, 02:04:24 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on July 27, 2017, 02:18:05 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on July 26, 2017, 07:00:17 PM
Quote from: kefkafloyd on July 26, 2017, 06:10:33 PM
Eventually the shuttles and SPG terminating Regionals will be replaced with inland Regionals (thru trains to Boston) which will overall be a net improvement to Massachusetts Amtrak service once NHHS Commuter starts up.
Hmmm, maybe we could get T commuter service extended to Springfield?

You'd see T service extended to Westerly first with Shore Line East extended to meet it.
That's a stretch there already...
Anyways, I've noticed on I-395, there's some exits with the old exit tab, and some don't.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on July 29, 2017, 03:14:37 PM
There's a handful of signs on I-395 that were not in the contract.  These include all blue logo signs for FOOD, LODGING, and GAS, plus signs for the "reservations" (casinos), and some of the signage for the Plainfield service plaza (which still says "REST AREA - GAS/FOOD" on some signs).  The reservation sign at Exit 9 still has a centered exit tab. 

There's also a sign that didn't get removed as part of the project... the blue exit services text sign for I-95 Exit 75 on I-395 South near MM 0.  Exit services were moved to the service bar at the bottom of the Exit 75 1 mile sign, but for some reason, the Exit 75 all-text services sign was not removed. 

It seems like every sign replacement has that one lone sign that was forgotten about.  CT 9 has the "Jct 91 1 1/2 miles" non-reflective button copy northbound near Exit 19.  I-84 West has a similar blue service sign near Exit 15. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JJBers on July 29, 2017, 09:29:07 PM
Quote from: JJBers on July 29, 2017, 02:04:24 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on July 27, 2017, 02:18:05 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on July 26, 2017, 07:00:17 PM
Quote from: kefkafloyd on July 26, 2017, 06:10:33 PM
Eventually the shuttles and SPG terminating Regionals will be replaced with inland Regionals (thru trains to Boston) which will overall be a net improvement to Massachusetts Amtrak service once NHHS Commuter starts up.
Hmmm, maybe we could get T commuter service extended to Springfield?

You'd see T service extended to Westerly first with Shore Line East extended to meet it.
That's a stretch there already...
Anyways, I've noticed on I-395, there's some exits with the old exit tab, and some don't.
Quote from: shadyjay on July 29, 2017, 03:14:37 PM
There's a handful of signs on I-395 that were not in the contract.  These include all blue logo signs for FOOD, LODGING, and GAS, plus signs for the "reservations" (casinos), and some of the signage for the Plainfield service plaza (which still says "REST AREA - GAS/FOOD" on some signs).  The reservation sign at Exit 9 still has a centered exit tab. 

There's also a sign that didn't get removed as part of the project... the blue exit services text sign for I-95 Exit 75 on I-395 South near MM 0.  Exit services were moved to the service bar at the bottom of the Exit 75 1 mile sign, but for some reason, the Exit 75 all-text services sign was not removed. 

It seems like every sign replacement has that one lone sign that was forgotten about.  CT 9 has the "Jct 91 1 1/2 miles" non-reflective button copy northbound near Exit 19.  I-84 West has a similar blue service sign near Exit 15.
Ahhh...I see now.
Also here's a random photo again:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4258/35514652715_c6ded12827_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/W7iSWx)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JJBers on July 30, 2017, 12:45:33 PM
Also, did this just become the 5th largest thread? I was checking the stats a few minutes ago, and it looks like it.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on July 31, 2017, 10:48:29 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on July 29, 2017, 03:14:37 PM
There's a handful of signs on I-395 that were not in the contract.  These include all blue logo signs for FOOD, LODGING, and GAS, plus signs for the "reservations" (casinos), and some of the signage for the Plainfield service plaza (which still says "REST AREA - GAS/FOOD" on some signs).  The reservation sign at Exit 9 still has a centered exit tab. 

There's also a sign that didn't get removed as part of the project... the blue exit services text sign for I-95 Exit 75 on I-395 South near MM 0.  Exit services were moved to the service bar at the bottom of the Exit 75 1 mile sign, but for some reason, the Exit 75 all-text services sign was not removed. 

It seems like every sign replacement has that one lone sign that was forgotten about.  CT 9 has the "Jct 91 1 1/2 miles" non-reflective button copy northbound near Exit 19.  I-84 West has a similar blue service sign near Exit 15. 

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4118/35747535796_8a9cb70804_c.jpg)

I'm this it may date to before the interchange with I-91 was completed.  It's a lighter green, it wasn't until the mid 1970's did they start using the dark forest green. (https://flic.kr/p/WsTsY5)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on July 31, 2017, 06:37:15 PM
That sign was definitely up back when the I-91/CT 9 interchange did not include "westward" movements.  Well, the movements were partially there, they just didn't lead anywhere. 

Wonder if the original shield on that sign was button copy as well.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: TravelingBethelite on July 31, 2017, 06:48:09 PM
Speaking of CT 202, I saw this in Brookfield today...  :)

(https://i.imgur.com/ISTqsui.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on July 31, 2017, 09:38:56 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on July 31, 2017, 06:37:15 PM
That sign was definitely up back when the I-91/CT 9 interchange did not include "westward" movements.  Well, the movements were partially there, they just didn't lead anywhere. 

Wonder if the original shield on that sign was button copy as well.

Some of the movements were.  My 8th grade Earth Science class actually had a field trip on the then under construction Route 9 extension.  Part of the East Berlin Formation lies within the I-91/CT 9 interchange.  It was fascinating to follow the striations in the bedrock that was blasted through during the construction, especially for the ramp from 91 North to 9 North.  As a roadgeek, I got to brag that I (almost) clinched that section of Route 9 2 months before it opened to the public (had to enter on a makeshift entry near Clark Dr. in East Berlin). 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on July 31, 2017, 10:06:45 PM
There's a CT 1 sign pointing the way to the Post Rd half way down the exit 56 S/B ramp. That's the only example of a U.S. 1 goof that I know of.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on August 01, 2017, 12:12:03 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on July 31, 2017, 10:48:29 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on July 29, 2017, 03:14:37 PM
There's a handful of signs on I-395 that were not in the contract.  These include all blue logo signs for FOOD, LODGING, and GAS, plus signs for the "reservations" (casinos), and some of the signage for the Plainfield service plaza (which still says "REST AREA - GAS/FOOD" on some signs).  The reservation sign at Exit 9 still has a centered exit tab. 

There's also a sign that didn't get removed as part of the project... the blue exit services text sign for I-95 Exit 75 on I-395 South near MM 0.  Exit services were moved to the service bar at the bottom of the Exit 75 1 mile sign, but for some reason, the Exit 75 all-text services sign was not removed. 

It seems like every sign replacement has that one lone sign that was forgotten about.  CT 9 has the "Jct 91 1 1/2 miles" non-reflective button copy northbound near Exit 19.  I-84 West has a similar blue service sign near Exit 15. 

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4118/35747535796_8a9cb70804_c.jpg)

I'm this it may date to before the interchange with I-91 was completed.  It's a lighter green, it wasn't until the mid 1970's did they start using the dark forest green.
(https://flic.kr/p/WsTsY5)
And of course it has the "Ugly 91" shield that makes an appearance near East Windsor/Windsor Locks. Same contractor also put up I-84 shields in East Hartford that look the same.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on August 02, 2017, 06:49:34 PM
Still waiting for the Merritt signing contract that was originally supposed to be let out in June.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 02, 2017, 07:07:03 PM
Rescheduled, now it's coming out September 6.

Also, coming out on August 23, CT 8 from Shelton to I-84 in Waterbury.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on August 07, 2017, 06:37:25 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on August 02, 2017, 07:07:03 PM


Also, coming out on August 23, CT 8 from Shelton to I-84 in Waterbury.

90% of the state's non-reflective button copy are within that stretch.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JJBers on August 07, 2017, 08:04:25 PM
I found a ancient sign on CT 11 near the CT 2 interchange in Colchester.
(https://i.imgur.com/QuofmLe.png)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 07, 2017, 09:58:51 PM
Quite a few of those brown button copy reflective signs have faded badly.  See some of the ones on Route 9, for example.  They date to the mid/late 1980s and should all be replaced.  Maybe by 2025.  By that time, they'll be nearly 40 years old.  Seems about right, by ConnDOT standards.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: doogie1303 on August 09, 2017, 07:33:17 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on July 29, 2017, 03:14:37 PM
There's a handful of signs on I-395 that were not in the contract.  These include all blue logo signs for FOOD, LODGING, and GAS, plus signs for the "reservations" (casinos), and some of the signage for the Plainfield service plaza (which still says "REST AREA - GAS/FOOD" on some signs).  The reservation sign at Exit 9 still has a centered exit tab. 

There's also a sign that didn't get removed as part of the project... the blue exit services text sign for I-95 Exit 75 on I-395 South near MM 0.  Exit services were moved to the service bar at the bottom of the Exit 75 1 mile sign, but for some reason, the Exit 75 all-text services sign was not removed. 

It seems like every sign replacement has that one lone sign that was forgotten about.  CT 9 has the "Jct 91 1 1/2 miles" non-reflective button copy northbound near Exit 19.  I-84 West has a similar blue service sign near Exit 15. 

I think the older signs that used to just say "FOOD PHONE GAS LODGING" were more cost effective for the DOTs, although the motorist had no clue what they were getting (a chain fast food restaurant or some back woods dive bar). Nowadays its like every establishment has it logo plastered all over the blue signs and every time one is opened or goes out of business, the DOT has to go out there and change it.

BTW do they even advertise PHONE anymore (either spelled out or the little blue phone sign)?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: relaxok on August 14, 2017, 01:38:41 AM
What's the latest news on mileage exit renumbering on I-84?  Is that still just a 'maybe someday' thing or is there an actual plan in place?

I'm going to be pretty depressed when that actually happens.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 14, 2017, 07:28:32 AM
Around 2000, CT finally made the switch to using symbols vs spelling out the services.  Thank god those blue logo signs aren't for every exit, and are rare on state highways.  I can see their use for more than 2 establishments.  Otherwise, it seems like a large waste of a sign. 

PHONE was still used in those early symbol sign installations but is no longer used, but still seen on older all-text signs. (Vermont completely phased out the PHONE symbol as it replaced its signs)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on August 14, 2017, 08:59:42 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on August 14, 2017, 07:28:32 AM
Around 2000, CT finally made the switch to using symbols vs spelling out the services.  Thank god those blue logo signs aren't for every exit, and are rare on state highways.  I can see their use for more than 2 establishments.  Otherwise, it seems like a large waste of a sign. 

PHONE was still used in those early symbol sign installations but is no longer used, but still seen on older all-text signs. (Vermont completely phased out the PHONE symbol as it replaced its signs)
I think it's better when they put a blue section along the bottom of a regular green guidance sign with those symbols. That format conveys more information on less signs.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 14, 2017, 09:56:07 PM
It's funny how years ago, the all-text FOOD-PHONE-GAS-LODGING was posted below (usually) the 1/2 mile advance guide sign.  Then the reflective button copy era moved the services to their own separate sign.  This was retained until around 2000 when the WCP, Merritt, and I-95 (Exits 60-82) got the blue "service bar" added back to either the bottom of the 1 or 1/2 mile advance signs.  Unfortunately, now the service bar is the primary color of the sign, so in most cases, it's green.  I-395 and CT 8 have the green bar and there's a case on I-395 of a brown bar as well.  The symbols are blue, however. 

Here's some examples:

This was the 1970s-era method of advertising exit services.  Note this sign was not originally like this, but was modified to save space in confined spaces of the I-84 Waterbury construction project:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4173/34309786456_33b2131876.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/UgQCbm)IMG_3127 (https://flic.kr/p/UgQCbm) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

The reflective button copy era separated the exit services from any guide sign, as in this example (which should have been removed as part of a signing project) on I-395 SB in Waterford:
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8410/30177987130_567ee13b86.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/MYJ5bW)IMG_2462 (https://flic.kr/p/MYJ5bW) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

Starting c 2000, the first use of symbols to denote services, and incorporated into a primary guide sign, as this one installed 2000 on I-95 SB in Old Saybrook:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4319/35149212474_b3123f856e.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Vy1UhJ)95SB-Exit66-1 (https://flic.kr/p/Vy1UhJ) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

The green service bar, on I-395 NB Exit 2 (sign installed c 2015):
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5670/21299356643_5121318783.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/ys9LEX)NB-Exit 02-3 (https://flic.kr/p/ys9LEX) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

The green service bar, on an overhead (the first in the state), on CT 8 SB Exit 39, installed Spring 2017:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4323/35947596256_cc30c3d1ac.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/WLyPYm)CT8SB-Exit40 (https://flic.kr/p/WLyPYm) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on August 14, 2017, 09:57:26 PM
Quote from: relaxok on August 14, 2017, 01:38:41 AM
What's the latest news on mileage exit renumbering on I-84?  Is that still just a 'maybe someday' thing or is there an actual plan in place?

I'm going to be pretty depressed when that actually happens.

I'm waiting for the sign replacement project to start between Exits 30 and 41.  Supposed to take place sometime in 2017., but I'm still seeing reflective button copy and sporadic mileposts.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 14, 2017, 10:07:09 PM
I'm sure a contractor has been selected for Exits 30-39A but it'll probably be until (at least) next year when we'll see actual progress.  Same goes for the I-95 Exits 86-93 project.  Maybe some regulatory sign replacement and such but as far as actual guide signs, anything requiring a poured foundation will probably take time.

Meanwhile, here in VT, our sign contracts take a matter of months, not years.  Granted, there's less signs and less exits, but a 40 mile section of I-91 is getting resigned, under a contract that started in May and will wrap up this fall.  It represents the last significant stretch of "older signage" in the state. 

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 23, 2017, 08:13:27 PM
Earlier today, the latest CT 8 resigning contract plans were released.  It encompasses signage from the Shelton/Derby Line (Commodore Hull Bridge) up to the vicinity of the I-84 interchange in Waterbury.  Some interesting guide sign changes, including overlays on signs not yet replaced or those recently replaced, a further reduction of overhead supports and complete replacement of those remaining which haven't been replaced yet, enhanced mile markers, and such.  Continuing the practice of recent signing contracts, the service bars continue to be green, ATTRACTIONS signs are included (only one, however - not many attractions in the Naugatuck Valley apparently), and the use of NEXT # EXITS is replaced with EXITS ##-## for town line signs.  Even if there's just a single exit in the town, it still gets an "EXIT #" in between the town name and TOWN LINE.  Just another sign that will need to be modified when CT 8 gets mile-based exits.

The continued phasing-out of a street name and a town name is evident in this project.  "34/MAIN ST/DERBY" is becoming "34/DERBY/NEW HAVEN", but yet, a mile up the road, "PERSHING DRIVE/ANSONIA" will remain, as will "SOUTH MAIN ST/WATERBURY".  In Naugatuck, "NORTH MAIN ST" is now overlayed with just "NAUGATUCK". 

One more contract to go after this one (Bridgeport to Shelton) and all of CT 8 will be ready for mile-based exits.  That contract I believe is to be released later this year or early next year.   It will be interesting to see if that contract will have the new numbers shown in the plans. 

Just a couple weeks to go before the next sign contract gets released, for the replacement of Merritt Parkway signage.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on August 23, 2017, 09:31:36 PM
I assume the Pershing Drive/Ansonia and South Main St/Waterbury signs are ok because 1.  There's no route number involved, and 2. The exits are in another town (Derby and Naugatuck respectively).  The fact that they are replacing the "Next x Exits" with "Exits x-x" is laying the groundwork for mileage based conversion.  The I-84 Exit 30-39A sign project still has "Next x Exits" in the plan.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: bob7374 on August 23, 2017, 11:09:39 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on August 23, 2017, 08:13:27 PM
Earlier today, the latest CT 8 resigning contract plans were released.  It encompasses signage from the Shelton/Derby Line (Commodore Hull Bridge) up to the vicinity of the I-84 interchange in Waterbury.  Some interesting guide sign changes, including overlays on signs not yet replaced or those recently replaced, a further reduction of overhead supports and complete replacement of those remaining which haven't been replaced yet, enhanced mile markers, and such.  Continuing the practice of recent signing contracts, the service bars continue to be green, ATTRACTIONS signs are included (only one, however - not many attractions in the Naugatuck Valley apparently), and the use of NEXT # EXITS is replaced with EXITS ##-## for town line signs.  Even if there's just a single exit in the town, it still gets an "EXIT #" in between the town name and TOWN LINE.  Just another sign that will need to be modified when CT 8 gets mile-based exits.

The continued phasing-out of a street name and a town name is evident in this project.  "34/MAIN ST/DERBY" is becoming "34/DERBY/NEW HAVEN", but yet, a mile up the road, "PERSHING DRIVE/ANSONIA" will remain, as will "SOUTH MAIN ST/WATERBURY".  In Naugatuck, "NORTH MAIN ST" is now overlayed with just "NAUGATUCK". 

One more contract to go after this one (Bridgeport to Shelton) and all of CT 8 will be ready for mile-based exits.  That contract I believe is to be released later this year or early next year.   It will be interesting to see if that contract will have the new numbers shown in the plans. 

Just a couple weeks to go before the next sign contract gets released, for the replacement of Merritt Parkway signage.
According to the CT DOT advertising schedule, the last CT 8 contract is to be advertised on June 6, 2018. Any guesses as to which route will be renumbered first, I-295 in RI or CT 8?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: roadman on August 24, 2017, 03:10:05 PM
Quote from: doogie1303 on August 09, 2017, 07:33:17 PM
I think the older signs that used to just say "FOOD PHONE GAS LODGING" were more cost effective for the DOTs, although the motorist had no clue what they were getting (a chain fast food restaurant or some back woods dive bar). Nowadays its like every establishment has it logo plastered all over the blue signs and every time one is opened or goes out of business, the DOT has to go out there and change it.

Unlike the older generic signs, which were 100% paid for by the state DOT, in most states LOGO service signs are paid for by the businesses, either through directly contracting with a sign fabricator (example - MassDOT) or by paying the state a fee for fabrication and installation (example - PennDOT).  Several states also charge an annual fee for business to keep their LOGOs on the panels once the signs are installed.  The good thing is that it's actually a profit center for state DOTs.  The bad thing is that it may encourage some states to overpopulate their roadways with signs in order to get the additional fees.

The various aspects of LOGO service signs been discussed before in several other threads, most recently

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=20347.0

Quote
BTW do they even advertise PHONE anymore (either spelled out or the little blue phone sign)?

As MUTCD and most state's policies for services signs require that a phone be available at the facility**, the need to state PHONE on the signs themselves is now redundant.  The PHONE symbol sign is typically used to identify locations such as rest or parking areas where a public phone normally would not be available.

** Although the term 'phone' implies public pay phone to most people, Massachusetts and some other states consider wired landline phones such as front desk phones in hotels or phones at cashier stations in restaurants, that - while not public pay phones - are accessible to the public in an emergency as meeting the phone requirement.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on August 24, 2017, 06:38:02 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on August 23, 2017, 08:13:27 PM
Earlier today, the latest CT 8 resigning contract plans were released.  It encompasses signage from the Shelton/Derby Line (Commodore Hull Bridge) up to the vicinity of the I-84 interchange in Waterbury.  Some interesting guide sign changes, including overlays on signs not yet replaced or those recently replaced, a further reduction of overhead supports and complete replacement of those remaining which haven't been replaced yet, enhanced mile markers, and such.  Continuing the practice of recent signing contracts, the service bars continue to be green, ATTRACTIONS signs are included (only one, however - not many attractions in the Naugatuck Valley apparently), and the use of NEXT # EXITS is replaced with EXITS ##-## for town line signs.  Even if there's just a single exit in the town, it still gets an "EXIT #" in between the town name and TOWN LINE.  Just another sign that will need to be modified when CT 8 gets mile-based exits.

The continued phasing-out of a street name and a town name is evident in this project.  "34/MAIN ST/DERBY" is becoming "34/DERBY/NEW HAVEN", but yet, a mile up the road, "PERSHING DRIVE/ANSONIA" will remain, as will "SOUTH MAIN ST/WATERBURY".  In Naugatuck, "NORTH MAIN ST" is now overlayed with just "NAUGATUCK". 

One more contract to go after this one (Bridgeport to Shelton) and all of CT 8 will be ready for mile-based exits.  That contract I believe is to be released later this year or early next year.   It will be interesting to see if that contract will have the new numbers shown in the plans. 

Just a couple weeks to go before the next sign contract gets released, for the replacement of Merritt Parkway signage.

SB at Exit 25, it will add on "TO CT-63" in addition to Cross St.  Which is interesting b/c people going SB do not use Cross St to get to CT-63.  Northbound they do but the NB signs don't change in the plans.  Its still just CROSS ST.  makes no sense to me.

PS...new signage on CT-34  @ CT-8 with new BGS signs pointing to the lanes on CT-34. 

And for those going east on CT-34 towards New Haven, heading into the intersection with the CT-8 NB off-ramp is two-thru lanes with "guide dots."  Before, if you were in the left lane you had an option to continue on CT-34 or get into the just beginning left turn lane for CT-115.  Now, they have restriped it where the left thru lane goes into the left turn lane for CT-115 only.  Forcing drivers now have to change lanes to stay in the left lane for CT-34.  I don't get it.  Why the change?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on August 24, 2017, 09:17:14 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on August 23, 2017, 11:09:39 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on August 23, 2017, 08:13:27 PM
Earlier today, the latest CT 8 resigning contract plans were released.  It encompasses signage from the Shelton/Derby Line (Commodore Hull Bridge) up to the vicinity of the I-84 interchange in Waterbury.  Some interesting guide sign changes, including overlays on signs not yet replaced or those recently replaced, a further reduction of overhead supports and complete replacement of those remaining which haven't been replaced yet, enhanced mile markers, and such.  Continuing the practice of recent signing contracts, the service bars continue to be green, ATTRACTIONS signs are included (only one, however - not many attractions in the Naugatuck Valley apparently), and the use of NEXT # EXITS is replaced with EXITS ##-## for town line signs.  Even if there's just a single exit in the town, it still gets an "EXIT #" in between the town name and TOWN LINE.  Just another sign that will need to be modified when CT 8 gets mile-based exits.

The continued phasing-out of a street name and a town name is evident in this project.  "34/MAIN ST/DERBY" is becoming "34/DERBY/NEW HAVEN", but yet, a mile up the road, "PERSHING DRIVE/ANSONIA" will remain, as will "SOUTH MAIN ST/WATERBURY".  In Naugatuck, "NORTH MAIN ST" is now overlayed with just "NAUGATUCK". 

One more contract to go after this one (Bridgeport to Shelton) and all of CT 8 will be ready for mile-based exits.  That contract I believe is to be released later this year or early next year.   It will be interesting to see if that contract will have the new numbers shown in the plans. 

Just a couple weeks to go before the next sign contract gets released, for the replacement of Merritt Parkway signage.
According to the CT DOT advertising schedule, the last CT 8 contract is to be advertised on June 6, 2018. Any guesses as to which route will be renumbered first, I-295 in RI or CT 8?
I-295 was renumbered first. :D
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fri%2Fi-295%2Fn7b.jpg&hash=d9bcd9ab226c1ed3e0213cadae692283ed5bb822)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on August 25, 2017, 05:35:28 PM
Didn't get a pic because I was driving, but there's some new APL signage for CT 9 North + South on CT 72 East that were replaced as part of a recent paving project.  This is in addition to a couple of signs that were on the Curtis St. bridge that were lowered to ground posts.  No other signs were replaced; just a mix of 2000 era signage with a couple of reflective button copy signs.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 25, 2017, 05:40:35 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on August 25, 2017, 05:35:28 PM
Didn't get a pic because I was driving, but there's some new APL signage for CT 9 North + South on CT 72 East that were replaced as part of a recent paving project.  This is in addition to a couple of signs that were on the Curtis St. bridge that were lowered to ground posts.  No other signs were replaced; just a mix of 2000 era signage with a couple of reflective button copy signs.

Those APL's were installed as part of the state's spot overhead sign replacement project.  The 2017 version will add an APL on CT 9 SB for Chestnut St, probably to be installed sometime in 2018 or shortly after.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on August 26, 2017, 06:21:58 PM
Back to the CT-8 project....some button copy signs will remain in Naugatuck and Shelton, but overlays will be installed over the signs.  Not sure why that is being done. Maybe new signs will come when they rehab the bridges?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 27, 2017, 04:12:36 PM
For Shelton, next year's CT 8 sign replacement project will cover I-95 up to Shelton, so most likely this will include the remainder of the Exit 14 signs.  There's an error in the Derby-Waterbury plans which show an overlay of "Derby/New Haven" being placed over the Exit 14 sign.  Hopefully they catch that before the signs get made.  If it's going to be an overlay, it should say either "Howe Ave" or "Shelton", as Howe Ave is in Shelton, so the street name/town is no longer allowed. 

Meanwhile, there's a sign to be replaced northbound for Exit 14, which retains "Howe Ave/Shelton", under the 2017 version of the state's random sign support replacement project.  Generally, signs in projects such as those retain the "status-quo" as far as the wording on the sign, but if the signs through there are going to be replaced anyway, with most likely different wording, then they hopefully will issue an addendum or a contract modification in order to have the signs all match up. 

In Naugatuck, the overlay of "NAUGATUCK" over "NORTH MAIN ST" for Exit 27 makes sense on the northbound "exit now" sign, since that sign (and Exit 28 1/2 mile) was previously replaced.  As for the Exit 27 sign, that's still button copy - perhaps the whole gantry will get replaced in another project.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: yakra on August 28, 2017, 06:41:08 PM
Route 34:
Connecticut does not ever include town-maintained roads on the numbered state system, correct?

If that's the case, dig this:
TOWN ROAD LIST
LISTING OF LOCALLY MAINTAINED ROADS BY TOWN
AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2016
http://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/documents/dpolicy/policymaps/ref/townroadlist.pdf
Check out the New Haven listings, starting at Page 556. Both "LEGION AV-RT 34" (curious name, though...) and "NORTH FRONTAGE RD" are included.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on August 28, 2017, 07:21:24 PM
Just looked at my town.  There are a couple of roads that have sections that are part of a state route, but the mileage shown is for the section that is not a state route.  However, the town is responsible for snow removal on most of the numbered routes in my town except for the sections that pass through highway interchange zones. 

As for CT 34 in New Haven, maybe this is a clue that CT 34 (and SR 706) have indeed been truncated to CT 10/eliminated. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on August 28, 2017, 11:47:10 PM
Quote from: yakra on August 28, 2017, 06:41:08 PM
Connecticut does not ever include town-maintained roads on the numbered state system, correct?

What never? Well, hardly ever.

There are two known segments of locally-maintained state highway in Connecticut: 136 from S. Main St to Washington St in Norwalk, and 83 from Hartford Rd to US 44 in Manchester.


Legion Ave in New Haven being locally maintained is new - it definitely was state maintained in the past. I concur with the assessment that this indicates a truncation of CT 34 is in progress. Note as well how mention of CT 34 has been deliberately removed from signs for exit 47 on I-95. Also, when the removal of the Oak Street connector was a mere study, one thing that was discussed was how through traffic to I-95 from CT 34 should use CT 10 instead of going through downtown.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 30, 2017, 10:04:18 PM
The Merritt Parkway resigning contract is out, a week early. 

After checking the plans, it looks like the guide signs being replaced will be the same style as what's there now, but will be extruded like other guide signs elsewhere, since many of the existing sheet signs (which were installed in 2000) have failed.  The integrated full-width exit tab will remain, as will the "jagged-edge" border.  The font looks like the traditional font, not the font that's presently used on guide signage on the Merritt.  Exits 39 & 40 in both directions will get new signage... this is the last remnants of button copy along the Merritt mainline.  The project stops at Exit 54/Milford Parkway and will not replace the button copy signage at Exit 55, nor will it replace the overheads/button copy on the connecting ramp from Merritt SB to CT 8 NB/SB. 

Other than that, it looks like all guide signs within the project limits (NY state line to Exit 54) will be replaced, EXCEPT signs for the service plazas.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on August 31, 2017, 06:28:21 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on August 30, 2017, 10:04:18 PM
The Merritt Parkway resigning contract is out, a week early. 

After checking the plans, it looks like the guide signs being replaced will be the same style as what's there now, but will be extruded like other guide signs elsewhere, since many of the existing sheet signs (which were installed in 2000) have failed.  The integrated full-width exit tab will remain, as will the "jagged-edge" border.  The font looks like the traditional font, not the font that's presently used on guide signage on the Merritt.  Exits 39 & 40 in both directions will get new signage... this is the last remnants of button copy along the Merritt mainline.  The project stops at Exit 54/Milford Parkway and will not replace the button copy signage at Exit 55, nor will it replace the overheads/button copy on the connecting ramp from Merritt SB to CT 8 NB/SB. 

Other than that, it looks like all guide signs within the project limits (NY state line to Exit 54) will be replaced, EXCEPT signs for the service plazas.

Highway gothic font will be used.  Thank god.  I hate the font that they currently use.  The current reflectivity is awful, it looks sheet white when the headlights hit it and the ones on the Sikorsky Bridge are shiny. 

The recent signage with the awful font for the service plazas will not be changed.  I find that odd since they will not be consistent after the project is done.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: tckma on September 06, 2017, 11:15:04 AM
A road trip up to CT this weekend had me seeing brand new signs on CT-8, particularly north of I-84.  I'm wondering why, when CT has already started transitioning to milepost-based exit numbers on I-395, they decided to keep the existing exit numbers when the new signs were made?  Seems like a big waste of taxpayer dollars, as the signs (or at least the exit tabs and gore signs) will need to be replaced prematurely.

Also, some of the old signage is gone along I-84.

Traveled I-691 for the first time as well.  What is up with this awful font?  This isn't the only place I saw it, either.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5540404,-72.842335,3a,32.1y,283.71h,100.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7ZMfuNLB-Gp1UizRdjrybA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656


Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on September 06, 2017, 11:46:06 AM
Quote from: tckma on September 06, 2017, 11:15:04 AM
A road trip up to CT this weekend had me seeing brand new signs on CT-8, particularly north of I-84.  I'm wondering why, when CT has already started transitioning to milepost-based exit numbers on I-395, they decided to keep the existing exit numbers when the new signs were made?  Seems like a big waste of taxpayer dollars, as the signs (or at least the exit tabs and gore signs) will need to be replaced prematurely.

I agree.  It would've been the perfect time to convert at least the northern half of Route 8 to mile-based exits (ie - from Waterbury, northward).  But ConnDOT's going to wait until all signs along the route are replaced before going to mile-based.  They've divided Route 8 into three projects:  Thomaston-Winsted (completed), Derby-Waterbury (currently up for bids), and Bridgeport-Shelton (due for bid next spring).  So it's possible the Bridgeport-Shelton project will include mile-based exits not just for the signs within that territory, but for the rest of Route 8.  But yup, I agree, seems like a waste.  The least they could've done was put overlays with the existing numbers over the new numbers on the new signs. 

QuoteTraveled I-691 for the first time as well.  What is up with this awful font?  This isn't the only place I saw it, either.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5540404,-72.842335,3a,32.1y,283.71h,100.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7ZMfuNLB-Gp1UizRdjrybA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Yup, that's bad.  There's many bad ones for I-691 around Meriden, some being reassurance shields, some on approach roads, etc.  This one, though, on the Exit 4 pullthrough, was a replacement for the original.  ConnDOT has replaced a lot of shields on its overheads over the years, and many of them now include the state name.  So I'm guessing some of them were standalone shields that used to be mounted on the ground, that were just slapped up on the BGS.  Sometimes they are much smaller than the shields they replaced (I-84 in East Hartford) and sometimes they have whacky fonts.  And sometimes, the shields replaced badly-faded button copy shields (as on I-91). 



[/quote]
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on September 06, 2017, 12:21:29 PM
Quote from: tckma on September 06, 2017, 11:15:04 AM
Traveled I-691 for the first time as well.  What is up with this awful font?  This isn't the only place I saw it, either.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5540404,-72.842335,3a,32.1y,283.71h,100.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7ZMfuNLB-Gp1UizRdjrybA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Very familiar with that area.  When I was a young kid, the highway was still CT 66 and used to end at that exit. 

That font reminds me of the font that New Brunswick uses for interstate highway shields.

https://goo.gl/maps/g2wiZ96okvN2
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JJBers on September 06, 2017, 03:38:45 PM
Quote from: tckma on September 06, 2017, 11:15:04 AM
Traveled I-691 for the first time as well.  What is up with this awful font?  This isn't the only place I saw it, either.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5540404,-72.842335,3a,32.1y,283.71h,100.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7ZMfuNLB-Gp1UizRdjrybA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
That looks like someone made that in Word.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: southshore720 on September 06, 2017, 04:33:55 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on August 30, 2017, 10:04:18 PM
The Merritt Parkway resigning contract is out, a week early. 

After checking the plans, it looks like the guide signs being replaced will be the same style as what's there now, but will be extruded like other guide signs elsewhere, since many of the existing sheet signs (which were installed in 2000) have failed.  The integrated full-width exit tab will remain, as will the "jagged-edge" border.  The font looks like the traditional font, not the font that's presently used on guide signage on the Merritt.  Exits 39 & 40 in both directions will get new signage... this is the last remnants of button copy along the Merritt mainline.  The project stops at Exit 54/Milford Parkway and will not replace the button copy signage at Exit 55, nor will it replace the overheads/button copy on the connecting ramp from Merritt SB to CT 8 NB/SB. 

Other than that, it looks like all guide signs within the project limits (NY state line to Exit 54) will be replaced, EXCEPT signs for the service plazas.
Do you have a link to these plans?  Are they available for public view?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on September 06, 2017, 05:14:44 PM
http://www.biznet.ct.gov/scp_search/BidDetail.aspx?CID=44127

I usually go straight for the "CONTRACT PLANS" which show a map of the roadway with all the signs to be replaced.  For more details, see the "CONTRACT SPECIAL PROVISIONS" which is actually the final specs for the project.  Both files are PDFs.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on September 06, 2017, 10:36:36 PM
Quote from: tckma on September 06, 2017, 11:15:04 AM
Traveled I-691 for the first time as well.  What is up with this awful font?  This isn't the only place I saw it, either.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5540404,-72.842335,3a,32.1y,283.71h,100.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7ZMfuNLB-Gp1UizRdjrybA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
That is 80's ConnDOT poop font.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on September 07, 2017, 08:36:32 AM
Quote from: tckma on September 06, 2017, 11:15:04 AMTraveled I-691 for the first time as well.  What is up with this awful font?  This isn't the only place I saw it, either.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5540404,-72.842335,3a,32.1y,283.71h,100.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7ZMfuNLB-Gp1UizRdjrybA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
I believe there are still one or two Helvetica-font I-384 shields still out there.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: SectorZ on September 07, 2017, 10:12:47 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 07, 2017, 08:36:32 AM
Quote from: tckma on September 06, 2017, 11:15:04 AMTraveled I-691 for the first time as well.  What is up with this awful font?  This isn't the only place I saw it, either.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5540404,-72.842335,3a,32.1y,283.71h,100.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7ZMfuNLB-Gp1UizRdjrybA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
I believe there are still one or two Helvetica-font I-384 shields still out there.

On I-84 E/B on the approach to 384 there are a couple.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JJBers on September 07, 2017, 01:54:29 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 07, 2017, 08:36:32 AM
Quote from: tckma on September 06, 2017, 11:15:04 AMTraveled I-691 for the first time as well.  What is up with this awful font?  This isn't the only place I saw it, either.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5540404,-72.842335,3a,32.1y,283.71h,100.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7ZMfuNLB-Gp1UizRdjrybA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
I believe there are still one or two Helvetica-font I-384 shields still out there.
Here you go
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4262/35334057246_b4221ae2ee_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/VQmhcy)
Connecticut (https://flic.kr/p/VQmhcy) by JJBers (https://www.flickr.com/photos/jjbers/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: J N Winkler on September 14, 2017, 10:49:07 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on August 31, 2017, 06:28:21 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on August 30, 2017, 10:04:18 PM
The Merritt Parkway resigning contract is out, a week early. 

After checking the plans, it looks like the guide signs being replaced will be the same style as what's there now, but will be extruded like other guide signs elsewhere, since many of the existing sheet signs (which were installed in 2000) have failed.  The integrated full-width exit tab will remain, as will the "jagged-edge" border.  The font looks like the traditional font, not the font that's presently used on guide signage on the Merritt.  Exits 39 & 40 in both directions will get new signage... this is the last remnants of button copy along the Merritt mainline.  The project stops at Exit 54/Milford Parkway and will not replace the button copy signage at Exit 55, nor will it replace the overheads/button copy on the connecting ramp from Merritt SB to CT 8 NB/SB. 

Other than that, it looks like all guide signs within the project limits (NY state line to Exit 54) will be replaced, EXCEPT signs for the service plazas.

Highway gothic font will be used.  Thank god.  I hate the font that they currently use.  The current reflectivity is awful, it looks sheet white when the headlights hit it and the ones on the Sikorsky Bridge are shiny. 

The recent signage with the awful font for the service plazas will not be changed.  I find that odd since they will not be consistent after the project is done.

I am currently going through the Merritt Parkway signing plans and it looks like there are over 300 sheets to extract, though with a lot of repetitions, most of which consist of two versions of the "No Commercial Vehicles" prohibitory sign, one with that legend in FHWA Series C and the other in FHWA Series D.

I believe this is a rare example of a plans set where the sign panel detail sheets use the FHWA alphabet series but are nevertheless not pattern-accurate.  Most of the guide sign detail sheets have callouts that say "Use Stone Semi-Bold" or similar, so I suspect FHWA Series E, Series E Modified, etc. are being used to dummy out legend that will later be fabricated using Stone Semi-Bold.  I frankly wish they would just use the FHWA series, but we will have to wait and see what is used when the signs are actually manufactured.

As an aside, the legend "Merrit Parkway" in the parkway shield design is incorrect--should be two t's, not one.

Sign panel details are also provided for a number of standard (non-designable) warning and regulatory signs, some of which are similar to but do not quite match the details provided in FHWA's Standard Highway Signs book.  It looks like they are extracted from a ConnDOT state-level clone of SHS.  (In due course I plan to hunt for it online, but do not harbor strong expectations of finding it.  There are plenty of states--Nebraska and Missouri being just two that come to mind--that have such design references but do not put them online.)

A link for downloading the plans and specifications has already been provided upthread, but for future reference, the ConnDOT project number is 173-472.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on September 17, 2017, 08:06:27 PM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on June 28, 2017, 10:29:14 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on June 28, 2017, 04:10:09 PM
CT 20: Bradley 28A, Hamilton Rd South 28B, (Hamilton Rd North on SSR 401 28C), CT 75 would be 29, Old County Road 30, and I-91 31 A/B

So, for traffic headed to Bradley from I-91, they would encounter in sequence: Exit 28B (Hamilton Road South), Exit 28A (Bradley), Exit 28C (Hamilton Road North)?

I think that they probably could get away with leaving Hamilton Road North unnumbered.  I'm not even certain that interchange will survive the realignment of CT401 as part of Bradley's long-term construction plan.

Well, the Hamilton Road North exit is indeed no more.

The construction to realign CT 401 has begun. (http://www.bradleyairport.com/construction/).

It's only been in the past few weeks that it's become obvious that the work being done is more than simple drainage work.  Just finally remembered to look it up and confirm my suspicions that the exit is gone for good.

I suspect that "Hamilton Road North" itself won't last much longer.  However, if ConnDOT is true to form, "Hamilton Road South" will remain labeled as such in perpetuity.  (It's really just "Hamilton Road".)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on September 18, 2017, 04:13:17 PM
Saw the first signs that the sign replacement project on I-84 from Exits 30-39A may be under way soon.  Saw a yellow taped off area with what looks like a new slab of concrete for new support posts next to the BGS's at the eastbound entrances for Exits 31 and 32.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on September 18, 2017, 06:13:40 PM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on September 17, 2017, 08:06:27 PM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on June 28, 2017, 10:29:14 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on June 28, 2017, 04:10:09 PM
CT 20: Bradley 28A, Hamilton Rd South 28B, (Hamilton Rd North on SSR 401 28C), CT 75 would be 29, Old County Road 30, and I-91 31 A/B

So, for traffic headed to Bradley from I-91, they would encounter in sequence: Exit 28B (Hamilton Road South), Exit 28A (Bradley), Exit 28C (Hamilton Road North)?

I think that they probably could get away with leaving Hamilton Road North unnumbered.  I'm not even certain that interchange will survive the realignment of CT401 as part of Bradley's long-term construction plan.

Well, the Hamilton Road North exit is indeed no more.

The construction to realign CT 401 has begun. (http://www.bradleyairport.com/construction/).

It's only been in the past few weeks that it's become obvious that the work being done is more than simple drainage work.  Just finally remembered to look it up and confirm my suspicions that the exit is gone for good.

I suspect that "Hamilton Road North" itself won't last much longer.  However, if ConnDOT is true to form, "Hamilton Road South" will remain labeled as such in perpetuity.  (It's really just "Hamilton Road".)

Hmm... interesting.  First I'm hearing of this.  Is there a "final layout" plan or such available out there?  Not much on the CAA/Bradley site.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on September 18, 2017, 11:11:31 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on September 18, 2017, 06:13:40 PMHmm... interesting.  First I'm hearing of this.  Is there a "final layout" plan or such available out there?  Not much on the CAA/Bradley site.

The CAA is, annoyingly, a "need to know" kind of organization.  The local planespotters' opinion of the agency is best left unspoken.

That being said, there are a very few images of interest in the Environmental Assessment (http://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/documents/denviro/2bradley_ea_eie_woappendices.pdf) done for the future Terminal B.  Figure ES-2 shows the realigned CT401 and CT403.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on September 19, 2017, 12:31:14 AM
Looks like bidding starts for sign replacement on I-84 from Exits 40-56 next April.

Bidding for an add-a-lane project (!) on I-84 in West Hartford starts next July.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on September 19, 2017, 01:16:26 AM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on September 18, 2017, 11:11:31 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on September 18, 2017, 06:13:40 PMHmm... interesting.  First I'm hearing of this.  Is there a "final layout" plan or such available out there?  Not much on the CAA/Bradley site.

The CAA is, annoyingly, a "need to know" kind of organization.  The local planespotters' opinion of the agency is best left unspoken.

That being said, there are a very few images of interest in the Environmental Assessment (http://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/documents/denviro/2bradley_ea_eie_woappendices.pdf) done for the future Terminal B.  Figure ES-2 shows the realigned CT401 and CT403.

From the EA:
Quote
Two landside roadway configuration alternatives were evaluated using design simulations for traffic leaving or recirculating the Terminal B area. A flyover ramp alternative, which includes grade separation ramps and structures for all movements, was initially considered in the schematic design. An at-grade alternative was developed and analyzed to determine the feasibility of a lower-cost alternative. The at-grade intersection alternative was found to be more cost-effective and was selected for Design Development as part of the preferred alternative.

The drawings may not be to scale, but there doesn't look like a lot of room to merge and weave between the two levels of SSR 403 meeting and the SSR 401 intersection.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on September 19, 2017, 09:00:49 AM
Quote from: kurumi on September 19, 2017, 01:16:26 AMThe drawings may not be to scale, but there doesn't look like a lot of room to merge and weave between the two levels of SSR 403 meeting and the SSR 401 intersection.

Just eyeballing it, it looks like the post-construction road widths may be slightly exaggerated, but otherwise the drawing seems to scale.

If I had to venture a guess, they'll  take a page from the prior arrangement:  Before the Murphy Terminal was demolished, traffic lights were used to control the flow of traffic where the arrivals, departures, and international arrivals roadways came together.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kefkafloyd on September 19, 2017, 02:04:37 PM
There's been changes to the configuration. This is more what the CT 20 / Schoephoester Road / Terminal roadways will look like (even though the ramps are still a little thicker than what will actually happen).

(https://i.imgur.com/8pynAiX.jpg)

RIP that overpass for Hamilton Road, which used to be a taxiway way back in the day.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on September 21, 2017, 12:46:00 AM
Congressman Larson (District 1) is still trying to push his Big Dig project for Hartford. :ded:

http://www.courant.com/business/dan-haar/hc-pol-haar-larson-tunnel-project-bocce-shuster-20170915-story.html (http://www.courant.com/business/dan-haar/hc-pol-haar-larson-tunnel-project-bocce-shuster-20170915-story.html)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on September 21, 2017, 07:32:58 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on September 21, 2017, 12:46:00 AM
Congressman Larson (District 1) is still trying to push his Big Dig project for Hartford. :ded:

http://www.courant.com/business/dan-haar/hc-pol-haar-larson-tunnel-project-bocce-shuster-20170915-story.html (http://www.courant.com/business/dan-haar/hc-pol-haar-larson-tunnel-project-bocce-shuster-20170915-story.html)

Love the cloverleaf that appears when you open that link.  That'll solve the traffic problem ;-)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on September 21, 2017, 01:28:03 PM
Several interchange concepts for exits 46, 47, 48 on the Lowered Highway Alternative for I-84 in Hartford: http://i84hartford.com/analysis

Also, if you expand the "Historical Studies" section of http://i84hartford.com/documentlibrary there are a bunch of broken links to otherwise interesting docs from 1945 thru 1970. I've emailed them about it.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on September 21, 2017, 04:04:32 PM
Quote from: kurumi on September 21, 2017, 01:28:03 PM
Several interchange concepts for exits 46, 47, 48 on the Lowered Highway Alternative for I-84 in Hartford: http://i84hartford.com/analysis

Also, if you expand the "Historical Studies" section of http://i84hartford.com/documentlibrary there are a bunch of broken links to otherwise interesting docs from 1945 thru 1970. I've emailed them about it.

I commented and explained they should not shorten the legnth of the 4-lane each way section.  I previous map suggested they would.  I said they needed the extra legnth for I-91 traffic to have extra elbow room.

I chose the flyover option of course!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: The Ghostbuster on September 21, 2017, 04:25:55 PM
I highly doubt there will be a "Big Dig" of Interstate 84 in Hartford. I mean, if the state can't complete CT 11 nor connect Interstate 384 with the US 6 freeway around Willimantic, how the hell are they going to convert Interstate 84 into a tunnel?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Beeper1 on September 21, 2017, 05:16:35 PM
They won't.    They'll study the hell out of it over and over but never fund construction of anything substantial until we have a repeat of the Mianus Bridge disaster on the viaduct in downtown Hartford. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on September 21, 2017, 11:41:01 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 21, 2017, 04:25:55 PM
I highly doubt there will be a "Big Dig" of Interstate 84 in Hartford. I mean, if the state can't complete CT 11 nor connect Interstate 384 with the US 6 freeway around Willimantic, how the hell are they going to convert Interstate 84 into a tunnel?
You have to remember, though, that there's this project AND a potential second project involving the replacement Bulkley Bridge, which IMO should be converted into a tunnel.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on September 26, 2017, 11:32:02 AM
The I-84 Hartford project site has fixed their historical document links at http://www.i84hartford.com/documentlibrary. In the 1949 document, Robert Moses weighs in on the alignment of what would later become I-84.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on September 26, 2017, 01:37:08 PM
Quote from: kurumi on September 26, 2017, 11:32:02 AM
The I-84 Hartford project site has fixed their historical document links at http://www.i84hartford.com/documentlibrary. In the 1949 document, Robert Moses weighs in on the alignment of what would later become I-84.
I've read the 1970 joint study. Some very cool urban renewal project ideas in there.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on September 27, 2017, 04:29:57 PM
http://7-15norwalk.com/documents/Route_7-15_Norwalk_Newsletter_Fall2017.pdf

Merritt and CT-15 project newsletter
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on September 27, 2017, 10:44:21 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on September 27, 2017, 04:29:57 PM
http://7-15norwalk.com/documents/Route_7-15_Norwalk_Newsletter_Fall2017.pdf

Merritt and CT-15 project newsletter

Traffic signals on the 7 "freeway". Motorists are gonna love that. (Sorry for the spoiler)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on September 27, 2017, 11:16:58 PM
Quote from: kurumi on September 27, 2017, 10:44:21 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on September 27, 2017, 04:29:57 PM
http://7-15norwalk.com/documents/Route_7-15_Norwalk_Newsletter_Fall2017.pdf

Merritt and CT-15 project newsletter

Traffic signals on the 7 "freeway". Motorists are gonna love that. (Sorry for the spoiler)

Just send them the ones that they remove from Route 9 in Middletown :)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: southshore720 on September 28, 2017, 05:12:34 PM
Quote from: kurumi on September 27, 2017, 10:44:21 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on September 27, 2017, 04:29:57 PM
http://7-15norwalk.com/documents/Route_7-15_Norwalk_Newsletter_Fall2017.pdf

Merritt and CT-15 project newsletter

Traffic signals on the 7 "freeway". Motorists are gonna love that. (Sorry for the spoiler)
Flush Alternative 26 down the toilet!  AWFUL!  The incomplete US 7, CT 25, CT 11, and I-384 will forever rub me the wrong way!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on September 28, 2017, 06:34:52 PM
Quote from: kurumi on September 27, 2017, 10:44:21 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on September 27, 2017, 04:29:57 PM
http://7-15norwalk.com/documents/Route_7-15_Norwalk_Newsletter_Fall2017.pdf

Merritt and CT-15 project newsletter

Traffic signals on the 7 "freeway". Motorists are gonna love that. (Sorry for the spoiler)

Fully approved of by the NIMBYs in Wilton and Ridgefield, I'm sure. You know, the folks to whom the US 7 freeway is a loaded gun pointed at their communities, and any attempts to make improvements to it are the state cocking the hammer.

I attended a public meeting about this interchange in 2008, back when they were aiming for the "modified cloverleaf" design that's now no longer under consideration since they've realized it's poor from a safety perspective.

One of the folks who came to the meeting suggested that the interchange be modified so that the freeway ended at the Merritt, and that the existing freeway up to Grist Mill Rd be converted into a local back entrance to Merrit 7 corporate park only, in order to firmly ensure that the freeway is never extended any further north.

This is the type of attitude this project is up against, and is why I would not be shocked if that alternative 26 is what ends up happening. Of course, I still think the most likely outcome of this is that nothing happens.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on September 29, 2017, 02:55:45 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on September 28, 2017, 06:34:52 PM
Quote from: kurumi on September 27, 2017, 10:44:21 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on September 27, 2017, 04:29:57 PM
http://7-15norwalk.com/documents/Route_7-15_Norwalk_Newsletter_Fall2017.pdf

Merritt and CT-15 project newsletter

Traffic signals on the 7 "freeway". Motorists are gonna love that. (Sorry for the spoiler)

Fully approved of by the NIMBYs in Wilton and Ridgefield, I'm sure. You know, the folks to whom the US 7 freeway is a loaded gun pointed at their communities, and any attempts to make improvements to it are the state cocking the hammer.

I attended a public meeting about this interchange in 2008, back when they were aiming for the "modified cloverleaf" design that's now no longer under consideration since they've realized it's poor from a safety perspective.

One of the folks who came to the meeting suggested that the interchange be modified so that the freeway ended at the Merritt, and that the existing freeway up to Grist Mill Rd be converted into a local back entrance to Merrit 7 corporate park only, in order to firmly ensure that the freeway is never extended any further north.

This is the type of attitude this project is up against, and is why I would not be shocked if that alternative 26 is what ends up happening. Of course, I still think the most likely outcome of this is that nothing happens.

Wonderfully said!  It's amazing how they think anything being done is a precursor to the expressway (Which should be built)
I thought the same that the traffic light idea might actually get through b/c of the nonsense...the cloverleaf was all set to be pushed through BY THE DOT of all people.  They even had a slideshow saying how great cloverleafs were.

This project is a poster child of NIMBYism and CT the land of steady habits.  You could almost frame it.  TX or FL must laugh at us.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on September 29, 2017, 03:15:22 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on September 29, 2017, 02:55:45 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on September 28, 2017, 06:34:52 PM
Quote from: kurumi on September 27, 2017, 10:44:21 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on September 27, 2017, 04:29:57 PM
http://7-15norwalk.com/documents/Route_7-15_Norwalk_Newsletter_Fall2017.pdf

Merritt and CT-15 project newsletter

Traffic signals on the 7 "freeway". Motorists are gonna love that. (Sorry for the spoiler)

Fully approved of by the NIMBYs in Wilton and Ridgefield, I'm sure. You know, the folks to whom the US 7 freeway is a loaded gun pointed at their communities, and any attempts to make improvements to it are the state cocking the hammer.

I attended a public meeting about this interchange in 2008, back when they were aiming for the "modified cloverleaf" design that's now no longer under consideration since they've realized it's poor from a safety perspective.

One of the folks who came to the meeting suggested that the interchange be modified so that the freeway ended at the Merritt, and that the existing freeway up to Grist Mill Rd be converted into a local back entrance to Merrit 7 corporate park only, in order to firmly ensure that the freeway is never extended any further north.

This is the type of attitude this project is up against, and is why I would not be shocked if that alternative 26 is what ends up happening. Of course, I still think the most likely outcome of this is that nothing happens.

Wonderfully said!  It's amazing how they think anything being done is a precursor to the expressway (Which should be built)
I thought the same that the traffic light idea might actually get through b/c of the nonsense...the cloverleaf was all set to be pushed through BY THE DOT of all people.  They even had a slideshow saying how great cloverleafs were.

This project is a poster child of NIMBYism and CT the land of steady habits.  You could almost frame it.  TX or FL must laugh at us.
Too be fair, though, out state does have a history of poor air quality and we have seen highway construction transform the character of our cities.  I would say, at least compromise on the expressway build; bypass commercial sections but still have at-grade intersections.  It would be the same premise as the CT 72 bypass.  Keep in mind, you'd also be dealing with utility relocation and railroad relocation and possible diversion of the Norwalk River.  You have to at least appease the NIMBYs because their concerns about character of the community, noise pollution, and environmental impact are justifiable, as long as they are dictated by facts and not by emotions.  TX and FL have the advantage of having lots of unused land with considerable space between residential areas, so it's understandably easier to build there.  In New England, you're battling topography, utilities, thickly settled areas, forests, state parks etc.  More obstacles.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: SectorZ on September 29, 2017, 04:24:53 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on September 29, 2017, 03:15:22 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on September 29, 2017, 02:55:45 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on September 28, 2017, 06:34:52 PM
Quote from: kurumi on September 27, 2017, 10:44:21 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on September 27, 2017, 04:29:57 PM
http://7-15norwalk.com/documents/Route_7-15_Norwalk_Newsletter_Fall2017.pdf

Merritt and CT-15 project newsletter

Traffic signals on the 7 "freeway". Motorists are gonna love that. (Sorry for the spoiler)

Fully approved of by the NIMBYs in Wilton and Ridgefield, I'm sure. You know, the folks to whom the US 7 freeway is a loaded gun pointed at their communities, and any attempts to make improvements to it are the state cocking the hammer.

I attended a public meeting about this interchange in 2008, back when they were aiming for the "modified cloverleaf" design that's now no longer under consideration since they've realized it's poor from a safety perspective.

One of the folks who came to the meeting suggested that the interchange be modified so that the freeway ended at the Merritt, and that the existing freeway up to Grist Mill Rd be converted into a local back entrance to Merrit 7 corporate park only, in order to firmly ensure that the freeway is never extended any further north.

This is the type of attitude this project is up against, and is why I would not be shocked if that alternative 26 is what ends up happening. Of course, I still think the most likely outcome of this is that nothing happens.

Wonderfully said!  It's amazing how they think anything being done is a precursor to the expressway (Which should be built)
I thought the same that the traffic light idea might actually get through b/c of the nonsense...the cloverleaf was all set to be pushed through BY THE DOT of all people.  They even had a slideshow saying how great cloverleafs were.

This project is a poster child of NIMBYism and CT the land of steady habits.  You could almost frame it.  TX or FL must laugh at us.
Too be fair, though, out state does have a history of poor air quality and we have seen highway construction transform the character of our cities.  I would say, at least compromise on the expressway build; bypass commercial sections but still have at-grade intersections.  It would be the same premise as the CT 72 bypass.  Keep in mind, you'd also be dealing with utility relocation and railroad relocation and possible diversion of the Norwalk River.  You have to at least appease the NIMBYs because their concerns about character of the community, noise pollution, and environmental impact are justifiable, as long as they are dictated by facts and not by emotions.  TX and FL have the advantage of having lots of unused land with considerable space between residential areas, so it's understandably easier to build there.  In New England, you're battling topography, utilities, thickly settled areas, forests, state parks etc.  More obstacles.

Doesn't forcing all that high-speed traffic to constantly jostle between 0 and 60 MPH screw up air quality much worse than that traffic just constantly streaming thru at 60?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JJBers on September 29, 2017, 04:31:55 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on September 29, 2017, 04:24:53 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on September 29, 2017, 03:15:22 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on September 29, 2017, 02:55:45 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on September 28, 2017, 06:34:52 PM
Quote from: kurumi on September 27, 2017, 10:44:21 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on September 27, 2017, 04:29:57 PM
http://7-15norwalk.com/documents/Route_7-15_Norwalk_Newsletter_Fall2017.pdf

Merritt and CT-15 project newsletter

Traffic signals on the 7 "freeway". Motorists are gonna love that. (Sorry for the spoiler)

Fully approved of by the NIMBYs in Wilton and Ridgefield, I'm sure. You know, the folks to whom the US 7 freeway is a loaded gun pointed at their communities, and any attempts to make improvements to it are the state cocking the hammer.

I attended a public meeting about this interchange in 2008, back when they were aiming for the "modified cloverleaf" design that's now no longer under consideration since they've realized it's poor from a safety perspective.

One of the folks who came to the meeting suggested that the interchange be modified so that the freeway ended at the Merritt, and that the existing freeway up to Grist Mill Rd be converted into a local back entrance to Merrit 7 corporate park only, in order to firmly ensure that the freeway is never extended any further north.

This is the type of attitude this project is up against, and is why I would not be shocked if that alternative 26 is what ends up happening. Of course, I still think the most likely outcome of this is that nothing happens.

Wonderfully said!  It's amazing how they think anything being done is a precursor to the expressway (Which should be built)
I thought the same that the traffic light idea might actually get through b/c of the nonsense...the cloverleaf was all set to be pushed through BY THE DOT of all people.  They even had a slideshow saying how great cloverleafs were.

This project is a poster child of NIMBYism and CT the land of steady habits.  You could almost frame it.  TX or FL must laugh at us.
Too be fair, though, out state does have a history of poor air quality and we have seen highway construction transform the character of our cities.  I would say, at least compromise on the expressway build; bypass commercial sections but still have at-grade intersections.  It would be the same premise as the CT 72 bypass.  Keep in mind, you'd also be dealing with utility relocation and railroad relocation and possible diversion of the Norwalk River.  You have to at least appease the NIMBYs because their concerns about character of the community, noise pollution, and environmental impact are justifiable, as long as they are dictated by facts and not by emotions.  TX and FL have the advantage of having lots of unused land with considerable space between residential areas, so it's understandably easier to build there.  In New England, you're battling topography, utilities, thickly settled areas, forests, state parks etc.  More obstacles.

Doesn't forcing all that high-speed traffic to constantly jostle between 0 and 60 MPH screw up air quality much worse than that traffic just constantly streaming thru at 60?
They'll probably drop the speed limit to like 45 mph or something like that too.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on October 04, 2017, 08:03:22 PM
This sign got a new CT-8 shield but why? It's going to be replaced next year anyway.

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4467/37201880656_d1c7d42800_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/YFpn2s)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on October 25, 2017, 04:54:08 PM
The I-84 sign replacement project between Exit 30 and 39A is underway.  Some of the posts for signage have been put up, and a couple of the BGS entrance signs have been replaced at Exit 32.  Saw some of the signs to be hung being stored in the ghost ramp area from Woodford Ave to I-84 East as you round the curve just past the CT 72 West split.  Looks like the state route shields don't have as pronounced a black outline as the new signs on I-395 and CT 8. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on October 25, 2017, 07:05:53 PM
Good to hear there's progress.  And I was never a fan of the thick black outline around the state route shields on BGSs.  It's fine on reassurance shields, better than the Mass-style with the thin outline that got introduced in the mid 80s on CT 9, especially. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on October 26, 2017, 12:13:11 AM
Just noticed that in the I-91 Wikipedia article, someone changed the exit numbers for CT and VT to mileage based numbers.  Interesting. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_91
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on October 26, 2017, 08:39:28 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on October 26, 2017, 12:13:11 AM
Just noticed that in the I-91 Wikipedia article, someone changed the exit numbers for CT and VT to mileage based numbers.  Interesting. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_91
Must've been short-lived/changed back.  I clicked on the link and only saw sequential exit numbers for CT & VT.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on October 26, 2017, 11:13:17 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on October 26, 2017, 12:13:11 AM
Just noticed that in the I-91 Wikipedia article, someone changed the exit numbers for CT and VT to mileage based numbers.  Interesting. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_91
People get ideas. Usually poor ones.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: yakra on October 26, 2017, 12:39:34 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Interstate_91&oldid=806534279
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on October 26, 2017, 02:24:12 PM
Quote from: Alps on October 26, 2017, 11:13:17 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on October 26, 2017, 12:13:11 AM
Just noticed that in the I-91 Wikipedia article, someone changed the exit numbers for CT and VT to mileage based numbers.  Interesting. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_91
People get ideas. Usually poor ones.

They did a lousy job anyway.  They didn't use the A/B convention for 2 exits on the same milepost (they used 19 for East Main St and 19A for CT 15), plus they still used directional suffixes (27 N/S and 55 E/W for CT 9 and CT 190 exits, respectively).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on October 26, 2017, 04:05:42 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 26, 2017, 08:39:28 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on October 26, 2017, 12:13:11 AM
Just noticed that in the I-91 Wikipedia article, someone changed the exit numbers for CT and VT to mileage based numbers.  Interesting. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_91
Must've been short-lived/changed back.  I clicked on the link and only saw sequential exit numbers for CT & VT.

I couldn't sleep, and it annoyed me.

The person who made that change to the I-91 page played with several other pages.  Some of his handiwork is still live:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_Route_3
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_195_(Rhode_Island%E2%80%93Massachusetts)

Given that the individual went hog-wild renumbering exits in New England, I presume that the new numbers on those pages are, shall we say, asipirational.  However, those roads aren't local to me, and I haven't been paying attention to their status.

If you want your 15 minutes of Wiki-fame....

(*sigh* Thanks to insomnia, I also caught that the demise of the SSR401/Hamilton Road North interchange needed to be logged in Wikipedia, and that amazingly no one had noted on the relevant  pages that the Windsor/Windsor Locks town line is the centerline of the Bradley Connector.)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: bob7374 on October 26, 2017, 06:12:01 PM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on October 26, 2017, 04:05:42 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 26, 2017, 08:39:28 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on October 26, 2017, 12:13:11 AM
Just noticed that in the I-91 Wikipedia article, someone changed the exit numbers for CT and VT to mileage based numbers.  Interesting. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_91
Must've been short-lived/changed back.  I clicked on the link and only saw sequential exit numbers for CT & VT.

I couldn't sleep, and it annoyed me.

The person who made that change to the I-91 page played with several other pages.  Some of his handiwork is still live:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_Route_3
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_195_(Rhode_Island%E2%80%93Massachusetts)

Given that the individual went hog-wild renumbering exits in New England, I presume that the new numbers on those pages are, shall we say, asipirational.  However, those roads aren't local to me, and I haven't been paying attention to their status.

If you want your 15 minutes of Wiki-fame....
The I-195 in MA and MA 3 numbers are those of that individual. Many do not match up against the proposed MassDOT numbers from the postponed exit renumbering project plans that could have been accessed by the link at the bottom of the page.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: SectorZ on October 26, 2017, 06:49:09 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on October 26, 2017, 06:12:01 PM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on October 26, 2017, 04:05:42 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 26, 2017, 08:39:28 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on October 26, 2017, 12:13:11 AM
Just noticed that in the I-91 Wikipedia article, someone changed the exit numbers for CT and VT to mileage based numbers.  Interesting. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_91
Must've been short-lived/changed back.  I clicked on the link and only saw sequential exit numbers for CT & VT.

I couldn't sleep, and it annoyed me.

The person who made that change to the I-91 page played with several other pages.  Some of his handiwork is still live:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_Route_3
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_195_(Rhode_Island%E2%80%93Massachusetts)

Given that the individual went hog-wild renumbering exits in New England, I presume that the new numbers on those pages are, shall we say, asipirational.  However, those roads aren't local to me, and I haven't been paying attention to their status.

If you want your 15 minutes of Wiki-fame....
The I-195 in MA and MA 3 numbers are those of that individual. Many do not match up against the proposed MassDOT numbers from the postponed exit renumbering project plans that could have been accessed by the link at the bottom of the page.

Surprised no one caught this. The wikipedia account is 'fredddie', and the user notes they are from Des Moines.

Just like the aaroads account holder with the same name, https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=1262

One of us (Gooba-gobble)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on October 26, 2017, 08:47:20 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on October 26, 2017, 06:49:09 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on October 26, 2017, 06:12:01 PM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on October 26, 2017, 04:05:42 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 26, 2017, 08:39:28 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on October 26, 2017, 12:13:11 AM
Just noticed that in the I-91 Wikipedia article, someone changed the exit numbers for CT and VT to mileage based numbers.  Interesting. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_91
Must've been short-lived/changed back.  I clicked on the link and only saw sequential exit numbers for CT & VT.

I couldn't sleep, and it annoyed me.

The person who made that change to the I-91 page played with several other pages.  Some of his handiwork is still live:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_Route_3
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_195_(Rhode_Island%E2%80%93Massachusetts)

Given that the individual went hog-wild renumbering exits in New England, I presume that the new numbers on those pages are, shall we say, asipirational.  However, those roads aren't local to me, and I haven't been paying attention to their status.

If you want your 15 minutes of Wiki-fame....
The I-195 in MA and MA 3 numbers are those of that individual. Many do not match up against the proposed MassDOT numbers from the postponed exit renumbering project plans that could have been accessed by the link at the bottom of the page.

Surprised no one caught this. The wikipedia account is 'fredddie', and the user notes they are from Des Moines.

Just like the aaroads account holder with the same name, https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=1262

One of us (Gooba-gobble)

He also did the Mass Pike, but stopped at 495 :hmmm:
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on October 28, 2017, 06:02:59 PM
Hate to double post, but your tax dollars paid the salary of the genius at ConnDOT who did this:

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4499/37286140544_6e36771f05_z.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on October 28, 2017, 09:36:45 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on October 28, 2017, 06:02:59 PM
Hate to double post, but your tax dollars paid the salary of the genius at ConnDOT who did this:

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4499/37286140544_6e36771f05_z.jpg)
Elaborate on your definition of genius.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on October 28, 2017, 09:57:51 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on October 28, 2017, 06:02:59 PM
Hate to double post, but your tax dollars paid the salary of the genius at ConnDOT who did this:

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4499/37286140544_6e36771f05_z.jpg)
That's correct to use a ground-mounted sign for the one-mile advance.  The pull-through sign should be on a mast arm.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on October 28, 2017, 10:06:40 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on October 28, 2017, 09:57:51 PM
That's correct to use a ground-mounted sign for the one-mile advance.  The pull-through sign should be on a mast arm.

Sure, it's aesthetically pleasing and well-executed, but that's not the problem.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: DrSmith on October 28, 2017, 10:40:08 PM
Not sure for which exit this is posted, but Queen St is Exit 32, West St is Exit 31. Either the tab or panel is wrong depending on the location
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on October 28, 2017, 10:42:06 PM
Quote from: DrSmith on October 28, 2017, 10:40:08 PM
Not sure for which exit this is posted, but Queen St is Exit 32, West St is Exit 31. Either the tab or panel is wrong depending on the location

It was eastbound between Exits 31 and 32, so the exit number is wrong.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on October 29, 2017, 08:47:47 AM
Oops! It IS wrong! Exit 31 is for CT 229, the exit which leads into Bristol (i.e. ESPN and Lake Compounce). Also, does the sign look a bit crooked, or is it at the angle they took this pic at?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on October 29, 2017, 12:47:11 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on October 29, 2017, 08:47:47 AM
Oops! It IS wrong! Exit 31 is for CT 229, the exit which leads into Bristol (i.e. ESPN and Lake Compounce). Also, does the sign look a bit crooked, or is it at the angle they took this pic at?

probably a combination.  There is an upslope as you move away from the road, plus it was taken from a moving vehicle. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on October 29, 2017, 06:51:46 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on October 28, 2017, 06:02:59 PM
Hate to double post, but your tax dollars paid the salary of the genius at ConnDOT who did this:

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4499/37286140544_6e36771f05_z.jpg)

yes! I saw that today. I was going to write to them and see what they say.

Also, you noticed the replacement signs aren't really near their replacements?  They are a few hundred feet away.

Shouldn't Lake Compounce be on the ATTRACTIONS sign and not on it's own?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on October 29, 2017, 07:51:03 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on October 29, 2017, 06:51:46 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on October 28, 2017, 06:02:59 PM
Hate to double post, but your tax dollars paid the salary of the genius at ConnDOT who did this:

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4499/37286140544_6e36771f05_z.jpg)

yes! I saw that today. I was going to write to them and see what they say.

Also, you noticed the replacement signs aren't really near their replacements?  They are a few hundred feet away.

Shouldn't Lake Compounce be on the ATTRACTIONS sign and not on it's own?

I did notice the distance between old and new in the design plans.  I can understand the distance for the transition from overhead to ground mount, but not sure of the difference between ground mounts (maybe for the installation of the 2/10 mileposts that are also part of the project?)

Lake Compounce is an exceptional regional destination in comparison to what is on the sign (Carousel Museum, Watch Museum, etc.), but there was one glaring omission as an attraction: the ESPN Visitor Center.  It's what many travelers know Bristol for.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on October 29, 2017, 08:10:32 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on October 29, 2017, 07:51:03 PM
Lake Compounce is an exceptional regional destination in comparison to what is on the sign (Carousel Museum, Watch Museum, etc.), but there was one glaring omission as an attraction: the ESPN Visitor Center.  It's what many travelers know Bristol for.

That's got to be the reason why Mystic Aquarium/Mystic Seaport are on their own separate signs as well as part of the sign replacement from Groton to RI.  Northbound, there's an advance before Exit 89 and one before Exit 90.  Southbound, there's just one advance.  Much more prominent than getting stuck on a blue ATTRACTIONS sign, considering they were important enough to be the destinations on the primary guide signs themselves! 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeCL on October 31, 2017, 10:17:48 PM
I haven't been here in awhile but on 95-S in Darien it looks like they are installing some type of mast for electronic signage? Maybe they are going to replace that old Daktronics sign from the Old Kings Hwy bridge they are replacing? It's the one with the fluorescent dots.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on October 31, 2017, 10:43:01 PM
http://www.courant.com/real-estate/property-line/hc-biz-hartford-transportation-center-relocation-20171030-story.html#nws=true

An article from The Hartford Courant about relocating Union Station, Hartford's train and bus terminal, with future reconstruction of I-84.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on November 04, 2017, 02:56:57 PM
I-84 signing contract:

The Exit 31/32 tab has been corrected.

However, an aux sign on the right side of the highway for the left exit 39 EB has a "Left Exit" tab but is right aligned on the sign. Ugh.

Also, why are the Exit 34 EB signs going to be 3/4 mile and 1/4 mile instead of the current standard 1 MILE and 1/2 Mile advance BGS?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Pete from Boston on November 05, 2017, 03:22:15 PM
A small nitpick:

VMS on Connecticut Turnpike the other day showed time and distance to the Milford Parkway.  Do locals use this name?  It isn't signed as such, and I would never have known it if I were not part of this secret society.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Pete from Boston on November 05, 2017, 03:23:27 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on October 31, 2017, 10:43:01 PM
http://www.courant.com/real-estate/property-line/hc-biz-hartford-transportation-center-relocation-20171030-story.html#nws=true

An article from The Hartford Courant about relocating Union Station, Hartford's train and bus terminal, with future reconstruction of I-84.

I skimmed it for comment about the fate of a 128-year-old landmark structure.  I'm assuming it would be repurposed...? 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on November 05, 2017, 08:15:41 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 05, 2017, 03:22:15 PM
A small nitpick:

VMS on Connecticut Turnpike the other day showed time and distance to the Milford Parkway.  Do locals use this name?  It isn't signed as such, and I would never have known it if I were not part of this secret society.

In the double secret skull and bones society, we refer to it as Route 796.

I've heard it referred to as the Milford Connector on a couple of local traffic reports.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on November 06, 2017, 08:18:32 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on November 05, 2017, 08:15:41 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 05, 2017, 03:22:15 PM
A small nitpick:

VMS on Connecticut Turnpike the other day showed time and distance to the Milford Parkway.  Do locals use this name?  It isn't signed as such, and I would never have known it if I were not part of this secret society.

In the double secret skull and bones society, we refer to it as Route 796.

I've heard it referred to as the Milford Connector on a couple of local traffic reports.
They should sign it as I-795.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on November 06, 2017, 08:42:22 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on November 06, 2017, 08:18:32 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on November 05, 2017, 08:15:41 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 05, 2017, 03:22:15 PM
A small nitpick:

VMS on Connecticut Turnpike the other day showed time and distance to the Milford Parkway.  Do locals use this name?  It isn't signed as such, and I would never have known it if I were not part of this secret society.

In the double secret skull and bones society, we refer to it as Route 796.

I've heard it referred to as the Milford Connector on a couple of local traffic reports.
They should sign it as I-795.
Except it's a parkway.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Pete from Boston on November 06, 2017, 08:56:59 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on November 06, 2017, 08:18:32 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on November 05, 2017, 08:15:41 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 05, 2017, 03:22:15 PM
A small nitpick:

VMS on Connecticut Turnpike the other day showed time and distance to the Milford Parkway.  Do locals use this name?  It isn't signed as such, and I would never have known it if I were not part of this secret society.

In the double secret skull and bones society, we refer to it as Route 796.

I've heard it referred to as the Milford Connector on a couple of local traffic reports.
They should sign it as I-795.

Aside from the fact that it's not up to Interstate standards, I'm not in favor of signing more one-mile Interstates.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on November 06, 2017, 09:11:56 PM
Quote from: Alps on November 06, 2017, 08:42:22 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on November 06, 2017, 08:18:32 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on November 05, 2017, 08:15:41 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 05, 2017, 03:22:15 PM
A small nitpick:

VMS on Connecticut Turnpike the other day showed time and distance to the Milford Parkway.  Do locals use this name?  It isn't signed as such, and I would never have known it if I were not part of this secret society.

In the double secret skull and bones society, we refer to it as Route 796.

I've heard it referred to as the Milford Connector on a couple of local traffic reports.
They should sign it as I-795.
Except it's a parkway.
I know. T'was a tongue-in-cheek post.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on November 06, 2017, 10:13:12 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on November 06, 2017, 09:11:56 PM
I know. T'was a tongue-in-cheek post.

If we're going to sign the darned thing, let's call it I-238.  The one out on the west coast is kinda lonely, and needs a sibling.  :D
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on November 07, 2017, 12:37:46 AM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on November 06, 2017, 10:13:12 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on November 06, 2017, 09:11:56 PM
I know. T'was a tongue-in-cheek post.

If we're going to sign the darned thing, let's call it I-238.  The one out on the west coast is kinda lonely, and needs a sibling.  :D
I-138. Just to make people wonder where I-38 is.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: southshore720 on November 07, 2017, 11:42:41 AM
I used to live in Milford, CT and if you called it "The Connector," most people knew you were referring to the Milford Pkwy.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on November 07, 2017, 07:30:54 PM
It could use a promotion to a signed state route.  Route 238 is available, although in my proposed CT route renumbering, I had it as Route 115 (an offshoot of 15; current 115 became part of a revived CT 65 incorporating some pre-expressway routings of CT 8)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on November 07, 2017, 11:47:43 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on November 07, 2017, 07:30:54 PM
It could use a promotion to a signed state route.  Route 238 is available, although in my proposed CT route renumbering, I had it as Route 115 (an offshoot of 15; current 115 became part of a revived CT 65 incorporating some pre-expressway routings of CT 8)
Why? There are other unsigned routes that are more important to navigation. This is just "To 1/95" and "To 15". It doesn't serve any other function.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: dgolub on November 08, 2017, 08:38:31 AM
Quote from: Alps on November 07, 2017, 11:47:43 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on November 07, 2017, 07:30:54 PM
It could use a promotion to a signed state route.  Route 238 is available, although in my proposed CT route renumbering, I had it as Route 115 (an offshoot of 15; current 115 became part of a revived CT 65 incorporating some pre-expressway routings of CT 8)
Why? There are other unsigned routes that are more important to navigation. This is just "To 1/95" and "To 15". It doesn't serve any other function.

Yeah, agreed.  Many of the unsigned routes in Connecticut function like county routes would in New York or New Jersey.  We'd benefit more from signing those than from signing the Milford Parkway.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on November 08, 2017, 08:45:03 AM
In Maine, the Falmouth Spur (connecting the turnpike with US 1 and I-95, now I-295) was originally part of I-95, but when I-95 and I-295 were rerouted/extended, it became an unsigned route.  It has the secret designation of I-495 but it is not publically signed.  Mainly because, it connects the turnpike (now I-95) to I-295 (old I-95) and US 1.

Same thing for the Milford Parkway.  Its primarily a connector.  You take it to either get to CT 15 or to get to I-95/US 1, and functions perfectly fine, without having a public route number.  It, in my opinion, didn't deserve to get exit numbers, either!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: dgolub on November 08, 2017, 05:45:43 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on November 08, 2017, 08:45:03 AM
Same thing for the Milford Parkway.  Its primarily a connector.  You take it to either get to CT 15 or to get to I-95/US 1, and functions perfectly fine, without having a public route number.  It, in my opinion, didn't deserve to get exit numbers, either!

The exit numbers are cool for roadgeeks, but they're probably confusing for everyone else.  Most people probably think of the Milford Parkway as just a long ramp, not a highway in its own right.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on November 10, 2017, 07:43:32 PM
One of CT's oldest BGS's is no more.  Farewell to the old non-reflective BGS for Exit 31 WB on I-84 in Southington.  It lived a good life.  Here is it's replacement:

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4526/38265492966_30c960f960_b.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on November 10, 2017, 11:13:04 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on November 10, 2017, 07:43:32 PM
One of CT's oldest BGS's is no more.  Farewell to the old non-reflective BGS for Exit 31 WB on I-84 in Southington.  It lived a good life.  Here is it's replacement:

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4526/38265492966_30c960f960_b.jpg)
What's going on with that exit tab? Is that the old one?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: briantroutman on November 10, 2017, 11:25:29 PM
^ Would not appear to be. The old one was center aligned with large radii on the border corners and no border between the tab and the guide sign.

https://goo.gl/maps/tcCuSnSjXzR2
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on November 11, 2017, 01:13:46 AM
Quote from: briantroutman on November 10, 2017, 11:25:29 PM
^ Would not appear to be. The old one was center aligned with large radii on the border corners and no border between the tab and the guide sign.

https://goo.gl/maps/tcCuSnSjXzR2
I didn't think so, but what a weird error for a new sign. White on black? White on brown?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on November 11, 2017, 04:27:16 PM
From the contractor that brought you two Exit 31s, comes this!

:-D
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: southshore720 on November 12, 2017, 03:58:16 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on November 10, 2017, 07:43:32 PM
One of CT's oldest BGS's is no more.  Farewell to the old non-reflective BGS for Exit 31 WB on I-84 in Southington.  It lived a good life.  Here is it's replacement:

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4526/38265492966_30c960f960_b.jpg)

Hideous!  How hard can it be to match a correct exit tab?  Isn't there someone responsible for quality control on these projects?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on November 12, 2017, 05:28:22 PM
Quote from: southshore720 on November 12, 2017, 03:58:16 PMHideous!  How hard can it be to match a correct exit tab?  Isn't there someone responsible for quality control on these projects?

Does ConnDOT really have the budget for quality control anymore?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: roadman on November 12, 2017, 08:36:58 PM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on November 12, 2017, 05:28:22 PM
Quote from: southshore720 on November 12, 2017, 03:58:16 PMHideous!  How hard can it be to match a correct exit tab?  Isn't there someone responsible for quality control on these projects?

Does ConnDOT really have the budget for quality control anymore?
This was probably a case of the sign installer saying "It's the only EXIT 31 tab we have on the truck.  It'll do for now."  Of course, if ConnDOT wasn't so anal about insisting that HCR and other supplemental signs having separate exit tabs, this sort of thing wouldn't happen in the first place.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on November 13, 2017, 08:16:09 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on November 10, 2017, 07:43:32 PM
One of CT's oldest BGS's is no more.  Farewell to the old non-reflective BGS for Exit 31 WB on I-84 in Southington.  It lived a good life.
Quote from: briantroutman on November 10, 2017, 11:25:29 PMThe old one was center aligned with large radii on the border corners and no border between the tab and the guide sign.
https://goo.gl/maps/tcCuSnSjXzR2
JP, believe it or not, that old Exit 31 BGS (shown in Brian's GSV post) is actually reflective.  Age just caused it to lose most of it.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on November 13, 2017, 08:53:00 AM
With this current sign project on I-84 ongoing, the last of the old non-button copy signs in the state are I-84 Exits 57-64 (and one old Exit 54-55 sign WB).  The oldest Phase III reflective background button copy dates to the mid/late 1980s on I-91 north of Exit 44 and on CT 2 & 9. 

CT 9 may hold the record for the longest stretch of roadway in the state without any new signs on it... from I-95 to Exit 20/I-91, that's 30 miles of every single primary guide sign being the one that was installed in the 1980s.  At some point during the 1990s, the text was changed on the Exit 3 sign to non-button copy, only when the destinations were altered.  Also, two overhead signs for Exit 11 were relocated from overhead to ground supports, but keeping the original sign).  Throughout sections of CT 2 and on I-91 north of Exit 42, some spot signs have been replaced over the years. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on November 13, 2017, 02:38:55 PM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on November 12, 2017, 05:28:22 PM
Quote from: southshore720 on November 12, 2017, 03:58:16 PMHideous!  How hard can it be to match a correct exit tab?  Isn't there someone responsible for quality control on these projects?

Does ConnDOT really have the budget for quality control anymore?
Just look at their hack paving job on 91 South between Exits 27 and 26.  Or the ORIGINAL 1980S PAVEMENT WITH REFLECTOR BUMPS on I-84E in Vernon that continues to rot away.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on November 13, 2017, 03:16:14 PM
you still have these:

The first one is the last remaining non-reflective button copy sign on the I-84 mainline. Days are numbered.
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4390/36332830431_fa2d0d99a8_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/XmBfET)

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4386/36713972596_ac837a1210_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/XWhGXw)

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4384/36591160012_4454ede08a_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/XKrg4b)



Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on November 13, 2017, 04:29:46 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on November 13, 2017, 03:16:14 PM...the last remaining non-reflective button copy sign on the I-84 mainline. Days are numbered.
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4390/36332830431_fa2d0d99a8_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/XmBfET)
And it's a lot more worn since that pic was taken.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on November 13, 2017, 04:42:56 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 13, 2017, 04:29:46 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on November 13, 2017, 03:16:14 PM...the last remaining non-reflective button copy sign on the I-84 mainline. Days are numbered.
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4390/36332830431_fa2d0d99a8_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/XmBfET)
And it's a lot more worn since that pic was taken.

For being 40 years old, it still reflects very well at night except for the shield. Will the new signs hold up as well in 40 years?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on November 13, 2017, 09:48:16 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on November 13, 2017, 03:16:14 PM
Nice ramp signs! I'll have to pop off Exit 21 this weekend.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on November 15, 2017, 02:16:16 PM
Quote from: Alps on November 13, 2017, 09:48:16 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on November 13, 2017, 03:16:14 PM
Nice ramp signs! I'll have to pop off Exit 21 this weekend.

They've been forgotten, me thinks they could eventually be last remaining non-reflective button copy signs in the state in a few years.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on November 15, 2017, 05:48:45 PM
Them, and the Jct 91 1 1/2 miles sign just past Exit 19 on CT 9NB (no sign replacement for that part of CT 9 in the near future), and then there's this one...

https://www.flickr.com/photos/98731835@N05/38245343656/in/datetaken/

which I have no idea which exit its near on I-95, but I know it's escaped death twice.   
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on November 15, 2017, 06:27:05 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on November 15, 2017, 05:48:45 PM
Them, and the Jct 91 1 1/2 miles sign just past Exit 19 on CT 9NB (no sign replacement for that part of CT 9 in the near future), and then there's this one...

https://www.flickr.com/photos/98731835@N05/38245343656/in/datetaken/

which I have no idea which exit its near on I-95, but I know it's escaped death twice.   

It's inside the loop for the 8/25 connector on local streets.  I snapped it last week.  I'm guessing it dates to early 70s when the 8/25 connector opened?  Just think when it was put up there were still original tpke blue signage around. This has escaped the recent signing contract...so maybe this one will be the last remaining NRBC sign.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on November 15, 2017, 07:14:54 PM
Actually, I've seen random photos here-n-there of what must've been the first generation signage when the 8-25 connector was built and it very well is NRBC.  Since that time, it was replaced with Phase III (RBC), then the most recent incarnation in the mid 00s or so.  I don't know the exact replacement schedule of the original turnpike signage west of New Haven, but the last of such signage was removed in the 1992-93 time frame between Exits 53 & 59.  It's possible that original turnpike signage existed both east and west of Bridgeport and then everything got replaced, Greenwich to New Haven, c mid 1980s.
Title: Connecticut News
Post by: Pete from Boston on November 15, 2017, 11:45:31 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on November 15, 2017, 07:14:54 PM
Actually, I've seen random photos here-n-there of what must've been the first generation signage when the 8-25 connector was built and it very well is NRBC.  Since that time, it was replaced with Phase III (RBC), then the most recent incarnation in the mid 00s or so.  I don't know the exact replacement schedule of the original turnpike signage west of New Haven, but the last of such signage was removed in the 1992-93 time frame between Exits 53 & 59.  It's possible that original turnpike signage existed both east and west of Bridgeport and then everything got replaced, Greenwich to New Haven, c mid 1980s.

In at least the late 1980s there were blue signs at Honeyspot Rd in Stratford (Exit 31) and Schoolhouse Rd/Bic Drive in Milford (Exit 35).  Possibly Surf Ave in Stratford, as well. There might have been more between Stratford and Orange. It's hard to remember.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on November 16, 2017, 05:49:20 PM
There was a NEW YORK or SOUTH TURNPIKE (I forget the actual text) sign on US-1 SB at Exit 39 up until 2001 at least. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on November 25, 2017, 04:05:58 PM
Driving back north from CT to VT on I-91 on Friday morning, I noticed temporary signs on CT 15 North at the Brainard Road exit.  The temporary signs, which are visible from I-91NB at Exits 27/28, mimic what would be on permanent overheads:  5/15 NORTH/84 EAST LEFT LANES / 91 NB 84 WB RIGHT LANES.  However, it doesn't appear there's a 5 or 15 shield.  At a quick glance, it looked like words within a shield. 

Anyone wishing to check it out and get a pic, here's the approximate location on CT 15:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7350824,-72.6633285,3a,47y,14.59h,82.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5uK1_r9Liwy5pKMtjytS-w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

It may be the temporary signs are replacing those that are mounted on the Airport Road overpass in the distance. 

Again, I only saw this from driving overhead on 91NB in a spot that is perpetually known for 1-mile backups due to the ramp at Exit 29.  I was in the far left lane on 91 to avoid the congestion in the other two lanes so the sign went by quick.  But it looked like text inside a shield, not a route number.  Could it say "CHARTER OAK BRIDGE"?  I guess anything is possible, with a temporary sign!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on November 25, 2017, 07:48:47 PM
I want to say CT stopped using button copy in 1997 or so. CT-15 signage near Hamden dates to that time and was demountable.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on November 26, 2017, 12:21:14 PM
The WCP got a blanket-wide sign replacement in 2001/2002, with the Merritt Parkway happening about a year later.  Most signs were non-reflective button copy (Phase I) except Whitney Ave (Exit 61) which was reflective button copy.  It's original NRBC having been replaced in the early 90s.  Exits 60 and 64 were both already Phase IV, due to spot projects, but got some mods as part of the blanket project.  So about 1997 sounds right for Exit 60 (Hamden/CT 10).  That must've been the same time signs were replaced east of Vernon on I-84 and south of Cromwell on I-91. 

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on November 26, 2017, 12:29:41 PM
The differences I can think of is that the CT 9 extension to I-84 in 1992 and the completion of I-291 to I-84 in Manchester in 1994 received reflective button copy signage, while the I-84/CT 72 reconstruction project in Plainville/New Britain completed in 2002 received Phase IV signage.  So somewhere in the 1994-2000 window CT moved away from reflective button copy.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on November 26, 2017, 02:09:26 PM
In 2000, signs were replaced on I-95 from Madison to Waterford and they were Phase IV.  At that point, I-84 from Vernon to Mass. and I-91 from New Haven to Middletown had already been Phase IV and had some years on them.  This was also the first generation of Phase IV, as the service symbols/service bar had not yet been introduced in the state.  We were still dealing with "food/phone/gas/ lodging" being spelled out on a separate sign.  So I'd guess its closer to 1996 when the switch from III to IV occurred.

I-95 from Madison to Waterford was the first road to have the blue service bar, in 2000.  It was also the first road to get aligned exit tabs from Greenwich to Fairfield, in 2009.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on November 27, 2017, 11:24:53 AM
Quote from: roadman on November 12, 2017, 08:36:58 PM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on November 12, 2017, 05:28:22 PM
Quote from: southshore720 on November 12, 2017, 03:58:16 PMHideous!  How hard can it be to match a correct exit tab?  Isn't there someone responsible for quality control on these projects?

Does ConnDOT really have the budget for quality control anymore?
This was probably a case of the sign installer saying "It's the only EXIT 31 tab we have on the truck.  It'll do for now."  Of course, if ConnDOT wasn't so anal about insisting that HCR and other supplemental signs having separate exit tabs, this sort of thing wouldn't happen in the first place.
Thankgiving weekend observation: there are now supplemental brown signs listing Exit 31 for Lake Compounce Amusement Park (the oldest in the US).  Long overdue IMHO.  In the many years (27 & counting) I've driven the length of I-84 in CT; I've never seen any signage for Lake Compounce.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on November 27, 2017, 02:05:55 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 27, 2017, 11:24:53 AM
Quote from: roadman on November 12, 2017, 08:36:58 PM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on November 12, 2017, 05:28:22 PM
Quote from: southshore720 on November 12, 2017, 03:58:16 PMHideous!  How hard can it be to match a correct exit tab?  Isn't there someone responsible for quality control on these projects?

Does ConnDOT really have the budget for quality control anymore?
This was probably a case of the sign installer saying "It's the only EXIT 31 tab we have on the truck.  It'll do for now."  Of course, if ConnDOT wasn't so anal about insisting that HCR and other supplemental signs having separate exit tabs, this sort of thing wouldn't happen in the first place.
Thankgiving weekend observation: there are now supplemental brown signs listing Exit 31 for Lake Compounce Amusement Park (the oldest in the US).  Long overdue IMHO.  In the many years (27 & counting) I've driven the length of I-84 in CT; I've never seen any signage for Lake Compounce.

The last set of signs had a brown sign that just said AMUSEMENT PARK (seasonal) with no specific reference to Lake Compounce.  It was installed much later (circa 2000) , along with the Little League Complex signage. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on November 27, 2017, 07:15:32 PM
The button copy signs on CT 15 (WCH)  from Exit 91 to the Berlin Turnpike likely date to the reconstruction of the Charter Oak Bridge in 1991.

All of I-291's button copy is original to the highway's completion to I-84 in 1993/4.  There may have been button copy on old CT 291 before the extension but I'm not sure.

All of I-384's button copy is likely from its re-numbering from I-84 in 1983/4.

The Founder's Bridge renovation and flyover ramp realignment were completed in 1999/2000 and all the signage in the vicinity of the projects was updated to standard reflective signage.

Reflective signage on I-84 from Exit 66 eastward, with a few recent spot replacements, was installed (I'm guessing) in 1997/8.  I am not sure of the vintage of the signage from Exit 65 to Exit 57.  It's non-reflective and likely dates to the "Great Reconstruction" from 1977-1983.  It's the same as the original signs on CT 25, which opened in the early 80s.
But that doesn't explain the signage for Exit 61 (I-291).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on November 28, 2017, 02:38:21 PM
Exit 61 signage must've been kept "in storage".  There's no other explanation why there'd be that phase of signage installed 10 years later.  Then again, Exit 57-WB received the same type of signage, and that must've been installed about the time the new Charter Oak Bridge opened, when CT 15 became the primary 84WB->91SB connection.

Pre-I-291, there wasn't much for signage on CT 291.  I do remember a sign saying "5 / John Fitch Blvd" on CT 291 EB but don't recall whether it was button copy or not.  It may have just been a sheet aluminum sign. 

All other dates seem about right.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Pete from Boston on December 07, 2017, 01:49:58 PM
Was I the only one that heard about the CVS-Aetna merger and thought, "Those fatcats aren't going to stand for crawling along old US 6 between RI and Hartford!"

With public policy more heavily controlled by corporate interests than ever, let's get some leverage going!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Beeper1 on December 07, 2017, 04:29:26 PM
CVS is headquartered in Woonsocket, so they'll just use 84/90/146 to get between. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on December 07, 2017, 04:36:54 PM
Update on the I-84 Exit 30-39A re-signing project: seems all new ground mounted signage has been installed, but none of the overhead signage has been replaced nor has any scheduled for removal been removed.  Also, none of the mile markers have been installed.

Also, saw those new temporary LGS's on CT 15 north near the I-91 junction yesterday.  One says "15 North to 84 East/East Hartford Boston/Keep Left" . The other says "91 North/Hartford Springfield/Keep Right.  They're right by the Airport Rd overpass
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on December 18, 2017, 07:39:07 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on December 07, 2017, 04:36:54 PM
Update on the I-84 Exit 30-39A re-signing project: seems all new ground mounted signage has been installed, but none of the overhead signage has been replaced nor has any scheduled for removal been removed.  Also, none of the mile markers have been installed.

Also, saw those new temporary LGS's on CT 15 north near the I-91 junction yesterday.  One says "15 North to 84 East/East Hartford Boston/Keep Left" . The other says "91 North/Hartford Springfield/Keep Right.  They're right by the Airport Rd overpass

There's new overhead signage for Exit 29 WB.  Is that the same project or a different one?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on December 18, 2017, 07:42:29 PM
The Mixmaster I-84/CT-8 interchange rehab went out to bid.
http://www.biznet.ct.gov/scp_search/BidResults.aspx?groupid=64

Lost of detours scheduled and new signage when all is said and done.

I've written the DOT several times to put back the aux lane between Exits 21-22 on I-84 EB  and nothing.  Looking at the plans it looks like it won't be put back afterwards.
The aux lane was there for decades but was taken out a few years ago.  Now it causes a slow down because there isn't enough room for cars to merge from CT-8 to the I-84 EB mainline in time.


https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5516961,-73.0451304,166m/data=!3m1!1e3
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on December 18, 2017, 08:35:00 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on December 18, 2017, 07:39:07 PM
There's new overhead signage for Exit 29 WB.  Is that the same project or a different one?

Same project.  EB covers Exits 30-39A signage, but WB covers Exit 40-29. 


In related sign news, the list of the 2018 statewide overhead support replacements is out...
http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?A=2135&Q=599604

It includes existing overhead signs mounted on bridges, as well as truss and "angled support" gantries.  A couple will replace some older signs on I-84 WB in East Hartford, though the "status quo" will probably remain, until a blanket project comes in and replaces the signs again.  So we may see "Charter Oak Br / NY City" on brand new signs, only to get replaced yet again down the road.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on December 18, 2017, 08:58:34 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on December 18, 2017, 08:35:00 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on December 18, 2017, 07:39:07 PM
There's new overhead signage for Exit 29 WB.  Is that the same project or a different one?

Same project.  EB covers Exits 30-39A signage, but WB covers Exit 40-29. 


In related sign news, the list of the 2018 statewide overhead support replacements is out...
http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?A=2135&Q=599604

It includes existing overhead signs mounted on bridges, as well as truss and "angled support" gantries.  A couple will replace some older signs on I-84 WB in East Hartford, though the "status quo" will probably remain, until a blanket project comes in and replaces the signs again.  So we may see "Charter Oak Br / NY City" on brand new signs, only to get replaced yet again down the road.

The I-84 EB at Exit 58 is a new structure.  Unless they mean the "keep right" sign just a few feet before it?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on December 19, 2017, 02:55:17 AM
I stumbled across the State Highway Mileage doc at ConnDOT. It's not a highway log, but rolls up various stats per district and town. "State mileage" includes US and Interstate routes.

Link: http://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/documents/dpolicy/publicroad/statehighwaymileage2016.pdf

Here are some of the leading cities and towns in various categories:
* highest total centerline miles: Colchester, 43.58. I'm sure that was your guess too. But all those routes add up.
* highest total miles of ramps and connectors: Manchester, 30.56. This makes sense given the I-84/384/291 complex, though I didn't think there were 30 miles of these. (But see below.)
* highest total miles of roads, highways and ramps: also Manchester, 60.81.
* highest mileage, 4-lane undivided (or wider): Hamden, 8.99
* one-way roads: New London, 4.11
* highest mileage, 10-lane divided: East Hartford, 1.53, no surprise
* highest mileage, 8-lane divided: Rocky Hill, 3.92.

On second look, why doesn't Windsor (6+ miles of 8-lane I-91) beat Rocky Hill for 8-lane mileage? Answer: ConnDOT must be counting HOV lanes (which are separate from general-purpose lanes) as "ramps and connectors". Windsor has several miles of 6-lane I-91 concurrent with the HOV "connectors." That's why Windsor, East Hartford and Manchester have more than any other city -- they have the HOV lanes. (This is also why the 12-lane section of I-84, really 10+2 HOV, is listed as 10.)

Top city without HOV lanes for turning ramps and connectors: Trumbull, 14.66 miles. (Mainly the 15/8 and 15/25 interchanges.)

You are now all subscribed to Connecticut Facts :-)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on December 19, 2017, 08:52:47 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on December 18, 2017, 08:58:34 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on December 18, 2017, 08:35:00 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on December 18, 2017, 07:39:07 PM
There's new overhead signage for Exit 29 WB.  Is that the same project or a different one?

Same project.  EB covers Exits 30-39A signage, but WB covers Exit 40-29. 


In related sign news, the list of the 2018 statewide overhead support replacements is out...
http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?A=2135&Q=599604

It includes existing overhead signs mounted on bridges, as well as truss and "angled support" gantries.  A couple will replace some older signs on I-84 WB in East Hartford, though the "status quo" will probably remain, until a blanket project comes in and replaces the signs again.  So we may see "Charter Oak Br / NY City" on brand new signs, only to get replaced yet again down the road.

The I-84 EB at Exit 58 is a new structure.  Unless they mean the "keep right" sign just a few feet before it?

My guess is they mean I-84 WB at Exit 58.  Signs there are currently mounted on a bridge and there's like 5 of them on that bridge.  Maybe they'll get rid of all but the "exit now" Exit 58 sign, and place that one on a 4-chord side cantilever.  Or maybe it'll be one large 4-chord truss or monotube bridge.


The other error... "I-91 SB 1 Mile before Exit 22 N & 22 S to Rte. 8 North & South".  Obviously, they mean Rte. 9, since I-91 and CT 8 don't intersect.  Let's hope the signs themselves are proofreaded better than their PRs!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on December 19, 2017, 09:46:14 AM
I would imagine any future sign replacement projects would omit Burnside Avenue from Exit 58 signage, since MUTCD discourages the use of 3 different streets on a BGS.  I never liked Burnside Avenue on that signage anyway; it was a late addition, does not include any US 44 reference, and getting to Burnside Ave involves having to cut over on Hillside St. or Scotland Rd from Roberts St.  That, and a secondary BGS for Exit 60 has 44 West/Burnside Ave anyway.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on December 19, 2017, 11:46:37 AM
The final EB signage for Exit 58 EB was replaced a couple years ago with a 4-chord side cantilever and retained the Burnside Ave lettering.  These spot replacements seem to keep the status quo wording on signage and await a general re-signing before changing the wording/destinations.

A similar case is on I-95 SB at Exit 87, where the old truss gantry was replaced with a monotube bridge.  The "Clarence B. Sharp Highway" wording was retained, but that relatively new sign is currently being replaced again with new wording of "Groton City" and removing the "NORTH" from "TO US 1".  It seems redundant, yes, but it eliminates confusion amongst motorists, seeing different destinations/routes on each sign.  In theory, they could've held off on the replacement of the gantry until the current sign contract was ready to go, or attached the old signs to the new gantry, but I digress.  I'm not sure what constitutes the replacement of a particular gantry - most likely it was structurally deficient in some way. 

Then again, I look at this gantry and wonder how it has held on as long as it has:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.106555,-73.4182758,3a,30.3y,116.41h,89.15t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFbvKeKqGjAliU9Ahm2P-qQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Or this one, which retains a sign light (without a sign) on the NB lanes:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.1103253,-73.4019549,3a,75y,222.17h,79.68t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1szZ13A2tRzEKBrv_qg1HZgA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on December 19, 2017, 02:14:16 PM
Actually just drove 84 EB through that area today.  One of the LGS's for Exit 40 has been replaced with a full size sign. There is a new style LEFT exit ground mount sign for Exit 43, and a new LEFT Exit sign right at the Governor St EB ramp.  All of the new ground mounted signage is in for the Southington-Farmington project, but the old pole signage has yet to be removed, and gantry and bridge signage has yet to be changed over east of the Exit 29-30 area.  I did see a truck with a green strip sign for an overpass ID in mixed case rather than all caps.  I'll have to check the overpasses when i pass through there next time.

UPDATE:  Just drove 84 West from Manchester to Plainville.  Saw some newer looking aligned tab BGS's for Exit 57 No LEFT signage, but the shields on two of the three signs were phase IV that mimicked the oversized Manchester signage, while one had smaller shields, and the I-91 shield was even a state shield.  Exit 55-54 Westbound signage is Phase IV early 2000's vintage signage.  There is a newer tube gantry in downtown Hartford just past Exit 48, and some newer signage between Exit 44 & 43 with LEFT signage for Exit 42.  Would've taken pics but traffic was heavy and I was driving.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on December 19, 2017, 03:47:04 PM
Anybody notice the BGS RR signs? They have an Amtrack and CTRail logo panels.  I noticed them on CT-9 and I-91 in spots.  Must be related to a rail project.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on December 19, 2017, 05:35:33 PM
It's for the new CT Rail commuter trains on the New Haven/Springfield line that start up next year.  Here's one on CT 9 South for Exit 23.

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4552/38708350901_c53423493f.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on December 19, 2017, 07:45:46 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on December 19, 2017, 02:14:16 PM
UPDATE:  Just drove 84 West from Manchester to Plainville.  Saw some newer looking aligned tab BGS's for Exit 57 No LEFT signage, but the shields on two of the three signs were phase IV that mimicked the oversized Manchester signage, while one had smaller shields, and the I-91 shield was even a state shield.  Exit 55-54 Westbound signage is Phase IV early 2000's vintage signage.  There is a newer tube gantry in downtown Hartford just past Exit 48, and some newer signage between Exit 44 & 43 with LEFT signage for Exit 42.  Would've taken pics but traffic was heavy and I was driving.

The exit tabs for Exit 57 have been aligned since those signs were installed, probably in the late 1980s or early 90s.  Originally, Exits 57-64 all had oversized shields, but they have been replaced over the years with much smaller shields, some of them being state-named interstate shields.  As far as the tube gantry past Exit 48 and the newer signage in West Hartford, those were replaced as part of spot overhead support projects in the past several years.  Same goes for some signage for Exits 37 and 38.  The Exits 29-39A project will cover the signage that didn't get replaced.  Existing signage for Exit 37 (Finnemann Rd) eastbound will not get replaced, as it was replaced when the new curved pipes were installed. 

Nice to see the new railroad station signs being installed.  Haven't seen them installed on I-91 yet.  Wallingford has been left out of any on-highway railroad station signage, while North Haven has had signage even though it lost service in the 1980s (and will eventually get it back, but not in the first round of CTRail service).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on December 20, 2017, 06:08:42 PM
I see CT is getting new signage ready for converting to mileage based exits on I-84.  This exit gore sign was just installed on I-84 East at Exit 34.  Notice the extra wide sign, and the extra space between the 34 and the arrow.  This would stand to be future Exit 49B. 

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4590/27403454319_b2e4c2c40e.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on December 21, 2017, 07:59:36 PM
Crooked Street in Plainvile, I-84 EB only. The westbound off ramps were removed when the new Exit 2 from CT Route 72 West (a short distance west of this) opened in 2001 or 2002.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on December 21, 2017, 10:29:01 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on December 21, 2017, 07:59:36 PM
Crooked Street in Plainvile, I-84 EB only. The westbound off ramps were removed when the new Exit 2 from CT Route 72 West (a short distance west of this) opened in 2001 or 2002.
All in the name of correcting mall traffic, BTW.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on December 21, 2017, 11:49:09 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on December 21, 2017, 10:29:01 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on December 21, 2017, 07:59:36 PM
Crooked Street in Plainvile, I-84 EB only. The westbound off ramps were removed when the new Exit 2 from CT Route 72 West (a short distance west of this) opened in 2001 or 2002.
All in the name of correcting mall traffic, BTW.

The eastbound entrance to I-84 (and CT 72) from Crooked St was long overdue, though.  Until the CT 72 expressway west of I-84 opened in 1980, traffic could enter I-84 East from between the bridges on Woodford Ave (an area that is now often used by the DOT as a storage area).  Between 1980 and 2002, all traffic from the east side of Plainville that wanted to get on 84 East had to double back on CT 372 west to Hooker St, and get on 72 East to 84 East.

One exit that no one would miss if it were eliminated is the Slater Rd. exit.  There used to be a shopping area with a Bradlees that later became a Walmart, and then a banking operations facility.  Now, there's just a residential area. Stanley Black & Decker could be served by the Fienemann Rd exit, or the Corbin Ave exit off of CT 72
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on December 26, 2017, 08:00:49 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on December 20, 2017, 06:08:42 PM
I see CT is getting new signage ready for converting to mileage based exits on I-84.  This exit gore sign was just installed on I-84 East at Exit 34.  Notice the extra wide sign, and the extra space between the 34 and the arrow.  This would stand to be future Exit 49B. 

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4590/27403454319_b2e4c2c40e.jpg)
That looks like a sign goof. Just like all the overpass street name signs which are now ground mounted in that area but instead of using a normal font they have a compressed font with title casing where the capital letters are disproportionately big. Seems like a lot of the signs in that stretch from exit 31-34 are screwed up. Just drove it during the holiday weekend and noticed what seemed like a lot of sign manufacturing errors.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on December 26, 2017, 09:04:57 PM
Not only sign manufacturing errors, but sign construction errors
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4499/37286140544_6e36771f05_n.jpg)

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4526/38265492966_30c960f960_n.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on December 27, 2017, 02:32:24 PM
[slightly more] Banked curves coming to the Merritt Parkway in Greenwich:

http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?a=2135&Q=599890

Quote
The Connecticut Department of Transportation's (Department) Office of Engineering is developing plans to provide superelevation and roadway friction improvements to four curves on Route 15 in Greenwich. The purpose of the project is to decrease the number of crashes occurring within these stretches of roadway.

The project involves superelevation improvements through bituminous concrete wedging and the application of High Friction Surface Treatment (HFST) riding course aimed at decreasing the number of crashes occurring through the four curves.  Such work may require the resetting of Merritt Parkway guiderail, curbing and/or concrete median barrier.

Though the Parkway's design is quite old (and had some critics at its opening in 1938-1940), its curves have been banked since its opening. However, the design speed was about 30-45 mph (see link below). One curve at North Street in Greenwich, named "Deadman's Curve", was regraded in 1950. That year, state highway commissioner G. Albert Hill remarked that the curve was the "only major engineering defect exposed by 12 years of operation on the highway."

https://memory.loc.gov/master/pnp/habshaer/ct/ct0400/ct0484/data/ct0484data.pdf
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on December 27, 2017, 02:49:24 PM
I also noticed the I84 EB Exit signs will no longer be 1 MILE and 1/2 MILE signs will be replaced with 3/4 MILE signs instead.  Another aux sign will go in place of either the 1 MILE or 1/2 MILE sign.  I forget which.

Isn't it better to have 1MILE and1/2 MILE when you can?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on December 27, 2017, 06:23:32 PM
I saved a pdf of the sign specs for the I-84 signing project. This is what I found.

Exit 27: 1 1/2 mi WB only. Rest was part of I-84 widening project in Waterbury/Cheshire.
Exits 29 (WB), 30-32, 37, and 39: 1 and 1/2 mile signage.
Exit 33: 1 and 1/2 EB,  1 and 1/2 (both 72 and 372 exit) WB, but the 1/2 mi sign omits the mileage.  1 1/2 mi. sign eliminated
Exit 34 (EB):  3/4 and 1/4 mi..  New signage says just "Crooked St." and omits "Plainville" 
Exit 35: EB has 1, 1/2, and 1/4 mile signage, WB has 1 and 1/2 mi. 
Exit 36: EB has 1/2 and 1/4 mi. signage, WB has 1 and 1/2 mi signage.  1 1/2 mi sign WB is being eliminated. 
Exit 38 (WB): 1, 1/2, and 1/4 mi signage
Exit 39A: 1 1/2, 3/4, and 1/4 mi.  Only EB signage is being replaced.  WB signage will be replaced as part of another project.
Exit 40: EB 1 mi. LGS replaced with BGS.  Rest replaced as part of another project.

NOTE: The JCT 72/ 2 mi. signage is also being eliminated.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on December 31, 2017, 06:45:49 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on December 27, 2017, 06:23:32 PM
I saved a pdf of the sign specs for the I-84 signing project. This is what I found.

Exit 34 (EB):  3/4 and 1/4 mi..  New signage says just "Crooked St." and omits "Plainville" 

Right it used to be 1 MI and 1/2 MI but now they have an aux sign in place of the 1 MI sign.  I always thought the MUTCD stated use 1 MI and 1/2 MI when you can...and there you definitely are able to.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on December 31, 2017, 09:48:30 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on December 31, 2017, 06:45:49 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on December 27, 2017, 06:23:32 PM
I saved a pdf of the sign specs for the I-84 signing project. This is what I found.

Exit 34 (EB):  3/4 and 1/4 mi..  New signage says just "Crooked St." and omits "Plainville" 

Right it used to be 1 MI and 1/2 MI but now they have an aux sign in place of the 1 MI sign.  I always thought the MUTCD stated use 1 MI and 1/2 MI when you can...and there you definitely are able to.

Either they just got lazy and wanted to combine the signs for 33 & 34, or it could be in anticipation of I-84's conversion to mileage based exits when 33 EB becomes 49A and 34 becomes 49B (the new gore sign for 34 looks like they left an extra space between the "4" and the arrow for a letter).   The exits are about 1/4 mi. apart, with the Exit 33 ramp at MP 48.98, and the Exit 34 ramp at MP 49.26 (the Crooked St. overpass is at MP 49.41).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on January 01, 2018, 02:54:00 PM
I drove I-95 in CT from Stamford to I-395.  Only button copy left is X55-59 and around CT-9 and the 1993 widening.  Oh and an "Exit 32 exit now" button copy sign.

I did notice with the x26-44 signing project they left a lot of those crappy 80s gantries and the new signs don't even fit right on them. 

Quite a few BGS signs for the Exit 43 "NO TRUCKS" ramp which is unsual b/c CT seems to be stuck in the past with "regulatory or warning" extruded aluminum signing.  Meaning they don't do it as often as they should.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on January 01, 2018, 05:23:02 PM
The Exit 2-24 project left a lot of the old gantries as well.  And some of them are really old.  There's some old trusses and cantilevers in there that most likely date back to the building of the US 7 expressway in Norwalk.  And of course, a whole slew of the color-coded angled supports in fluorescent green (and in Bridgeport, basic grey). 

Recent signing projects however seem to be replacing most gantries.  CT 8 from Thomaston to Winsted got all new gantries last year.  I-95 from Groton to North Stonington is getting all new gantries as well (plus all Exit 88 signs are going overhead). 

BTW, any progress yet on the I-95 Groton-North Stonington signing project?  Its contract was released about the same time as the I-84 project, so I'd assume there would start to be some progress by now.  My Christmas trip to CT was limited in "recreational driving" so I didn't get a chance to check it out - most likely in the spring.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: zzyzx on January 02, 2018, 01:21:29 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on January 01, 2018, 05:23:02 PM

BTW, any progress yet on the I-95 Groton-North Stonington signing project?  Its contract was released about the same time as the I-84 project, so I'd assume there would start to be some progress by now.  My Christmas trip to CT was limited in "recreational driving" so I didn't get a chance to check it out - most likely in the spring.

The Clarence Sharp Highway (Route 349) now has exit numbers, but no new signage yet.  I noticed new exit gore signs for Exits 86 & 88, which are slightly wider but don't seem large enough for when I-95 converts to milage based exits in that area for 3 digit exit #s.  There are new ground mounted sign supports for exits 91-92, but no new signage either.  By spring, I assume any remaining button copy in SE CT will be phased out, except for the original signs on the Gold Star Bridge.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on January 02, 2018, 09:09:25 AM
The 3 digit exits on I-95 would begin with current exit 89 (future exit 100), so 88 (future 97) not being wide enough won't be an issue.  The only thing is that 86 northbound would be 95B (85 being 95A), so that could be a problem (SB 86 would be plain 95)

The exit for route 12 on route 184 also is supposed to get a number (1).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on January 02, 2018, 10:02:37 AM
SB Gold Star Bridge is getting new signs as part of current rehab project, due to be completed this fall.   Northbound will most likely get new signs as well as part of its rehab, starting either this year or in 2019. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: zzyzx on January 02, 2018, 02:34:29 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on January 02, 2018, 09:09:25 AM

The exit for route 12 on route 184 also is supposed to get a number (1).

I forgot to mention that Route 184 has exit numbers too, also without new overhead signage.  There are also new retroreflective traffic signals at the end of the divided highway, which I've seen a lot more of in this part of the state.  (not a fan of span wire, but at least ConnDOT is finally moving into the 21st century).

Speaking of Gold Star Bridge signage,  I was browsing the website for the construction project (http://www.i95goldstar.com/northbound_project.html) and came across this image, from when the NB bridge was widened in 1974.  It's the same sign that exists presently, which will be replaced soon.  Any other BGS in the state that have lasted this long?

(https://i.imgur.com/sNEKVBZ.png)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on January 02, 2018, 02:42:52 PM
I would say the ones in East Hartford and Manchester on I-84 between exits 57-63, a couple of signs in Waterbury on I-84 that will be replaced in the widening project, and one that was just replaced in Southington on I-84 West for Exit 31, are all from that era.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: SectorZ on January 02, 2018, 04:56:12 PM
Quote from: zzyzx on January 02, 2018, 02:34:29 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on January 02, 2018, 09:09:25 AM

The exit for route 12 on route 184 also is supposed to get a number (1).

I forgot to mention that Route 184 has exit numbers too, also without new overhead signage.  There are also new retroreflective traffic signals at the end of the divided highway, which I've seen a lot more of in this part of the state.  (not a fan of span wire, but at least ConnDOT is finally moving into the 21st century).

Speaking of Gold Star Bridge signage,  I was browsing the website for the construction project (http://www.i95goldstar.com/northbound_project.html) and came across this image, from when the NB bridge was widened in 1974.  It's the same sign that exists presently, which will be replaced soon.  Any other BGS in the state that have lasted this long?

(https://i.imgur.com/sNEKVBZ.png)

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3635177,-72.0996936,3a,75y,84.75h,106.47t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sH67cepbKJVG5RHFenlS-OQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Am I missing something? Doesn't look the same to me. Same layout yes, but not the same signs, given the current have the empty shield layout.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Magical Trevor on January 02, 2018, 06:17:58 PM
The center sign appears untouched, and on the exits only the shields and "TO" appear to have been replaced. The lowest line on the Exit 85 assembly was ugly then (and seemed to be fixed with a more proper yellow bar until I guess it was determined to not really be one mile?) and is differently ugly now. It's a shame the lights are gone.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on January 02, 2018, 07:58:04 PM
Quote from: Magical Trevor on January 02, 2018, 06:17:58 PM
The center sign appears untouched, and on the exits only the shields and "TO" appear to have been replaced. The lowest line on the Exit 85 assembly was ugly then (and seemed to be fixed with a more proper yellow bar until I guess it was determined to not really be one mile?) and is differently ugly now. It's a shame the lights are gone.

The signs in the pic are non-reflective background button copy and the signs on GSV are reflective button copy put up in the 1980s.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on January 02, 2018, 10:06:19 PM
https://connecticuthistory.org/connecticut-turnpike-opens-today-in-history-january-2/

The original Connecticut Turnpike opened on this day in 1958.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: wytout on January 02, 2018, 11:02:11 PM
None of the three signs are the same. Old photo is phase II non Reflective. All the signage on that gantry on google maps now is phase III retroreflective button copy. Note that the phase II center sign has finishing strips on each side, the present sign does not and the border goes right to the left and right edges of the extruded  panels.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on January 03, 2018, 03:10:52 PM
Quote from: wytout on January 02, 2018, 11:02:11 PM
None of the three signs are the same. Old photo is phase II non Reflective. All the signage on that gantry on google maps now is phase III retroreflective button copy. Note that the phase II center sign has finishing strips on each side, the present sign does not and the border goes right to the left and right edges of the extruded  panels.

I'm still amazed and how short lived some of the non-reflective button copy signs were.  These were up for only 10 years or so.  Judging by reflective button copy sign dates (on the back) and known openings of other highways, I've gathered some of the non-reflective ones were only up for about 5-10 years.  CT-8 comes to mind.  A section in Beacon Falls opened up around 1980 and the reflective signs NB say 1989 on them. So the original NB signs were only up for about 9 years.

(SB still has them, as seen in this pic, but not for long)

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4256/35712068371_9fc27bee08_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/WpKFJK)


The same with the NRBC signs on CT-40.  If it opened up in 1976, the signage was replaced in 1990 or so. All that good non-reflective signage wasn't even up for 20 years.  This one has escaped the rath:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4392/36470804875_b17bee91fb_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/XyNpEB)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on January 03, 2018, 06:00:20 PM
Quote from: zzyzx on January 02, 2018, 02:34:29 PM
I forgot to mention that Route 184 has exit numbers too, also without new overhead signage.  There are also new retroreflective traffic signals at the end of the divided highway, which I've seen a lot more of in this part of the state.  (not a fan of span wire, but at least ConnDOT is finally moving into the 21st century).

Speaking of Gold Star Bridge signage,  I was browsing the website for the construction project (http://www.i95goldstar.com/northbound_project.html) and came across this image, from when the NB bridge was widened in 1974.  It's the same sign that exists presently, which will be replaced soon.  Any other BGS in the state that have lasted this long?

(https://i.imgur.com/sNEKVBZ.png)

Cool shot.  I almost forgot that Bridge Street was used back then.  The signs put up in the mid/late 1980s which still exist today say "Thames Street".  Here's a shot I got last summer:
(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2888/34265698996_ef6828c9d2_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/UcWEvJ)95NB-GoldStar-1 (https://flic.kr/p/UcWEvJ) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

I believe the 1 mile sign may have fallen off, vs being removed on purpose due to incorrect mileage.  The same gantry has been in place the whole time - you can still see some of the wiring for the lights (the loop of wire on the right post in each picture.  The signs on the Exit 85 offramp, which splits into ramps for Thames St and US 1/Downtown Groton is being changed as part of the current I-95 resigning contract.  "Thames Street" will become "Groton Waterfront".  I'd venture to guess that when the signs on the bridge itself are replaced, they'll say "US 1 North/Downtown Groton/Groton Waterfront".  Not to be confused with Exit 87, which will become "Groton City". 

As far as what the SB signs on the bridge will say, this is from the contract plans, with no more pullthroughs:

(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8503/29816950481_cbd883ed54_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/MqPEz8)Gold Star Bridge SB Signing Plans (https://flic.kr/p/MqPEz8) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: tckma on January 05, 2018, 02:23:43 PM
Interesting.  So at some point between 1974 and today, Connecticut replaced BGSs that had white shields with BGSs that have less visible, outline button copy shields?  Don't get me wrong, I love and will miss the outilne button copy shields, but it's clear why they are being phased out.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on January 05, 2018, 02:30:34 PM
The first of what I call "Phase III" signage (button copy, reflective backgrounds, outline US/state shields) was installed at some point during the mid 1980s.  I remember a news story about the signs, being a partnership with the company 3-M.  The signs on I-395 and on I-95 west of New Haven were installed in the 1985 timeframe.  CT 2 and CT 9 got theres in the late 1980s.  The state became blanketed with Phase III by 1990, with only I-84 east of East Hartford and I-95 from Madison east to New London escaping the cut.  I-95 in Branford and Guilford held onto its original turnpike signage (all text, blue) until the early 90s when it became Phase III as well.  On routes like CT 2, CT 8, and CT 9, they held onto their original signage for only about 10-15 years.  Current signage on those routes is now over 30 years old, with no plans to replace signs on CT 2 or 9 in the near future.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on January 05, 2018, 11:36:58 PM
The funny thing is the outline shield were a step backwards.  Vermont was using that style on their BGS's in 1960, and other than California, whose shield have green backgrounds anyway, it suggests that CT's shields should as well, but they don't.  I'm a fan of the older signage, and the new signage being installed.  Take a ride on route 2 west late at night coming back from the casino, and half the signage is illegible because the reflectors have lost their reflectivity.  I do remember seeing them on I-95 in 1985 coming back from NYC with my parents, and was wondering if they forgot to finish painting the shields. 
The most ridiculous signage has to be the route 15 shields on the HOV lane signs on I-84 West by the I-384 interchange.  The 15 looks like it's part of the sign.  From alpsroads.net:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fct%2Fi-84%2Fwhov_1.jpg&hash=a530e54fe47669c73ce5cc5ee7225fbf02efb149)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on January 06, 2018, 05:32:05 PM
Close inspection of the 15 shield reveals its a shield just slapped on.  The only problem is that type of shield should be on a sign with a green background.  Other shields on HOV signs in CT have a black border around them and are integrated into the sign itself.  This particular sign was installed in the early 2000s when this "ramp" (actually, just a painted break in the HOV/main lane divider) was created.  It dumps into the left lane of mainline westbound traffic in 1 mile, but is still 1 1/2 miles away from the actual exit from the 84 mainline. 

During the 2000s era, a lot of shields were slapped onto signs to replace those that were faded or worn out.  That's why some have the state name... they were meant to be reassurance shields, but got slapped onto a BGS instead.  There's a couple small ones about 1 1/2 miles west of this particular location.  There's also some on I-91, mostly southbound, that replaced worn-out button copy I-shields.  And on parts of I-95 in SE CT, there are button copy I-shields with the state name that was put on when the sign was created.  There's one or two on the 15SB ramp to 91SB a few miles west of this spot as well.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: tckma on January 09, 2018, 09:59:46 AM
Yeah, that white-background CT-15 HOV sign always reminds me of this recently-installed (within the past three years) atrocity on the "inner loop" (clockwise portion) of the Capital Beltway (I-495) in Tyson's Corner, VA:

https://goo.gl/maps/VVjM8MqjG2M2

If you look closely, that's a standard VA-123 shield slapped on a BWS.  It's tough to make out, especially at night.  They should have put a black outline around the shield.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: storm2k on January 09, 2018, 11:30:57 AM
Quote from: tckma on January 09, 2018, 09:59:46 AM
Yeah, that white-background CT-15 HOV sign always reminds me of this recently-installed (within the past three years) atrocity on the "inner loop" (clockwise portion) of the Capital Beltway (I-495) in Tyson's Corner, VA:

https://goo.gl/maps/VVjM8MqjG2M2

If you look closely, that's a standard VA-123 shield slapped on a BWS.  It's tough to make out, especially at night.  They should have put a black outline around the shield.

Something something NJDOT putting the black background on shields on overhead signs is a good idea something something.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on January 09, 2018, 07:29:31 PM
Quote from: storm2k on January 09, 2018, 11:30:57 AM
Quote from: tckma on January 09, 2018, 09:59:46 AM
Yeah, that white-background CT-15 HOV sign always reminds me of this recently-installed (within the past three years) atrocity on the "inner loop" (clockwise portion) of the Capital Beltway (I-495) in Tyson's Corner, VA:

https://goo.gl/maps/VVjM8MqjG2M2

If you look closely, that's a standard VA-123 shield slapped on a BWS.  It's tough to make out, especially at night.  They should have put a black outline around the shield.

Something something NJDOT putting the black background on shields on overhead signs is a good idea something something.
Something something requiring a black outline around a shield is not the same as a square.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Roadsguy on January 10, 2018, 11:02:32 AM
Quote from: Alps on January 09, 2018, 07:29:31 PM
Quote from: storm2k on January 09, 2018, 11:30:57 AM
Quote from: tckma on January 09, 2018, 09:59:46 AM
Yeah, that white-background CT-15 HOV sign always reminds me of this recently-installed (within the past three years) atrocity on the "inner loop" (clockwise portion) of the Capital Beltway (I-495) in Tyson's Corner, VA:

https://goo.gl/maps/VVjM8MqjG2M2

If you look closely, that's a standard VA-123 shield slapped on a BWS.  It's tough to make out, especially at night.  They should have put a black outline around the shield.

Something something NJDOT putting the black background on shields on overhead signs is a good idea something something.
Something something requiring a black outline around a shield is not the same as a square.

Having a white outline around a white shield on a white sign is at least supposed to be standard practice, not even some state-specific design quirk like NJ's black squares.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on January 10, 2018, 02:20:37 PM
http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-pol-malloy-transportation-projects-cancelled-20180110-story.html

Governor Dannell P. Malloy is putting off many of the state's transportation projects. Terrific! :(
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on January 10, 2018, 04:15:42 PM
Did you actually read the article?  Its says that should the General Assembly not be able to reach a compromise on appropriating more funds.  He lacks any direct authority to just halt work like that.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on January 10, 2018, 09:07:23 PM
Yes, I read it. Raising the bus fares another 25 cents would really suck! CT Transit and CT Fastrak one way between New Britain and Hartford is $1.75 now.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: wytout on January 10, 2018, 09:11:10 PM
Speaking of transportation projects, I notice that district 1  has started blanketing the beginning and end of limited access highways' guardrails with a red and green delineator, a la MAssachussetts. I first noticed these in district 2 a couple years back. Looks like their going to catch on statewide. And in conndot plow jockey fashion, several of them have already been twisted and bent around tolland from the last storm.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: ixnay on January 11, 2018, 07:57:29 AM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on January 02, 2018, 10:06:19 PM
https://connecticuthistory.org/connecticut-turnpike-opens-today-in-history-january-2/

The original Connecticut Turnpike opened on this day in 1958.

I think of this as the Ryan Seacrest or Johnny Gilbert sign.  It was still standing in 1980 (at least the one at the NY/CT line was) when my mom, stepdad, stepgrandmom and I went to Nova Scotia to visit relatives.  When was it taken down?  And was there one at the RI end as well?

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fct%2Fi-95%2Fthis.jpg&hash=0c94c057a8f28ccbbc7f5d16e98144907f193d4a)

ixnay
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PatTheSplasher on January 12, 2018, 08:52:52 PM
Quote from: ixnay on January 11, 2018, 07:57:29 AM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on January 02, 2018, 10:06:19 PM
https://connecticuthistory.org/connecticut-turnpike-opens-today-in-history-january-2/

The original Connecticut Turnpike opened on this day in 1958.

I think of this as the Ryan Seacrest or Johnny Gilbert sign.  It was still standing in 1980 (at least the one at the NY/CT line was) when my mom, stepdad, stepgrandmom and I went to Nova Scotia to visit relatives.  When was it taken down?  And was there one at the RI end as well?

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fct%2Fi-95%2Fthis.jpg&hash=0c94c057a8f28ccbbc7f5d16e98144907f193d4a)

ixnay

A "Last Exit Before Toll" sign could help...
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Beeper1 on January 12, 2018, 09:29:42 PM
Quote from: ixnay on January 11, 2018, 07:57:29 AM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on January 02, 2018, 10:06:19 PM
https://connecticuthistory.org/connecticut-turnpike-opens-today-in-history-january-2/

The original Connecticut Turnpike opened on this day in 1958.

I think of this as the Ryan Seacrest or Johnny Gilbert sign.  It was still standing in 1980 (at least the one at the NY/CT line was) when my mom, stepdad, stepgrandmom and I went to Nova Scotia to visit relatives.  When was it taken down?  And was there one at the RI end as well?

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fct%2Fi-95%2Fthis.jpg&hash=0c94c057a8f28ccbbc7f5d16e98144907f193d4a)

ixnay

There was an identical sign at the RI end of the turnpike.  I remember seeing a photo of it someplace online, but I can't remember where.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: dgolub on January 13, 2018, 09:06:37 AM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on January 10, 2018, 09:07:23 PM
Yes, I read it. Raising the bus fares another 25 cents would really suck! CT Transit and CT Fastrak one way between New Britain and Hartford is $1.75 now.

Come down to NYC.  Our bus fare is $2.75.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on January 13, 2018, 09:20:26 AM
I'm aware of it! RIPTA in Rhode Island doesn't even have free transfers, as far as I know! Our CT Transit day passes are $3.50. They're $5 on the METRO bus in the Portland, ME area.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: relaxok on January 19, 2018, 01:54:58 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on January 03, 2018, 03:10:52 PM
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4256/35712068371_9fc27bee08_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/WpKFJK)

That sure is a good-looking sign.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: yakra on January 19, 2018, 02:03:42 AM
What is the answer to the ultimate question of life, Connecticut, and everything?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on January 22, 2018, 10:04:26 PM
Quote from: wytout on January 10, 2018, 09:11:10 PM
Speaking of transportation projects, I notice that district 1  has started blanketing the beginning and end of limited access highways' guardrails with a red and green delineator, a la MAssachussetts. I first noticed these in district 2 a couple years back. Looks like their going to catch on statewide. And in conndot plow jockey fashion, several of them have already been twisted and bent around tolland from the last storm.
What's the point of those?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on January 22, 2018, 10:29:11 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on January 22, 2018, 10:04:26 PM
Quote from: wytout on January 10, 2018, 09:11:10 PM
Speaking of transportation projects, I notice that district 1  has started blanketing the beginning and end of limited access highways' guardrails with a red and green delineator, a la MAssachussetts. I first noticed these in district 2 a couple years back. Looks like their going to catch on statewide. And in conndot plow jockey fashion, several of them have already been twisted and bent around tolland from the last storm.
What's the point of those?
Snow plows to lift their blades and then reset. Because if blades down across a bridge, snow gets thrown over the side and dumped onto what may be passing traffic underneath. Could be fatal.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: roadman on January 23, 2018, 11:32:58 AM
Quote from: yakra on January 19, 2018, 02:03:42 AM
What is the answer to the ultimate question of life, Connecticut, and everything?
The program to find that out, including conversion to mile-based exit numbers, will take seven and a half million years to complete.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on January 23, 2018, 12:53:48 PM
Quote from: roadman on January 23, 2018, 11:32:58 AM
Quote from: yakra on January 19, 2018, 02:03:42 AM
What is the answer to the ultimate question of life, Connecticut, and everything?
The program to find that out, including conversion to mile-based exit numbers, will take seven and a half million years to complete.

And Route 11 still wouldn't be completed yet.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on January 25, 2018, 11:29:35 AM
I don't know if it's a town issue or not, but streetlights were being replaced this morning on the Berlin Turnpike (US 5/CT 15) in Berlin. The assemblies are smaller with 2 sets of LED bulbs. They're all marked with "82 LED" or whatever that means.

(https://i.imgur.com/ZeOx17a.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Marc_in_CT on January 25, 2018, 03:59:08 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on January 25, 2018, 11:29:35 AM
I don't know if it's a town issue or not, but streetlights were being replaced this morning on the Berlin Turnpike (US 5/CT 15) in Berlin. The assemblies are smaller with 2 sets of LED bulbs. They're all marked with "82 LED" or whatever that means.

That's the wattage.
On the older fixtures you had to do some math - a blue tag with a '25' meant mercury vapor, 250 watts. A yellow tag with a '15' would be high pressure sodium, 150 watts. With LED's they put the actual wattage I believe.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on January 26, 2018, 02:17:43 AM
Fascinating slideshow of the history of highways in Meriden.  Some great pics of I-691 and I-91 in their construction phases.

http://www.myrecordjournal.com/News/Meriden/Meriden-News/MerHighways-RJ-012618.html#gallery-16
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Rothman on January 26, 2018, 09:12:40 AM
Wasn't I-691 a state route that was later designated I-691?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on January 26, 2018, 10:21:00 AM
One road in that area was once called US Route 6A. The former CVS at the Westfield Shoppingtown (mall) in Meriden used to put that in their address on their receipts.

As for the new LED street lights I mentioned...the sticker on them reads "LED 92", not 82.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on January 26, 2018, 08:05:12 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 26, 2018, 09:12:40 AM
Wasn't I-691 a state route that was later designated I-691?
It was CT 66 until the mid-80s.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Rothman on January 26, 2018, 11:41:56 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on January 26, 2018, 08:05:12 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 26, 2018, 09:12:40 AM
Wasn't I-691 a state route that was later designated I-691?
It was CT 66 until the mid-80s.
Good.  Glad I wasn't suffering from some sort of dementia.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on January 27, 2018, 04:52:49 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on January 26, 2018, 10:21:00 AM
One road in that area was once called US Route 6A. The former CVS at the Westfield Shoppingtown (mall) in Meriden used to put that in their address on their receipts.

As for the new LED street lights I mentioned...the sticker on them reads "LED 92", not 82.

I remember those receipts too.  US 6A was the number for CT 66 until 1968.  Funny thing is Meriden Square opened in 1971, so it was already inaccurate by the time it opened.  30 years later, most  locals still refer to the stretch of 322 through Southington and Cheshire as Route 66.  Still have a liquor store and a deli that reference it.   
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on January 29, 2018, 04:35:35 PM
and I believe an original I-691 shield
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1587/26059688291_6fa0134453_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/FGNHqx)

So Exit 1-4 signage isn't button copy on I-691. Was that ever button copy?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on January 29, 2018, 06:14:46 PM
I-691 Exits 1-4 was never button copy.

At first, the CT 66 expressway was extended from present Exit 4 west to Exit 3.  A pullthrough at Exit 4 said "To 10 SOUTH - CHESHIRE".  Signs for Exit 4 used to read " 66 / SOUTHINGTON".  I don't believe the initial Exit 4-to-3 extension was signed as CT 66, as that was still using today's CT 322 at the time.

When the extension to I-84 was completed, CT 66 from Meriden westward to Exit 4 was designated I-691.  I remember the sign posted just before Exit 11 WB that read "NOTICE / 66 IS NOW 691".   Signage on that stretch from Exit 4 to I-84 is essentially unaltered since its installation in the 1980s.  Exceptions:  the Exit 4 1/2 mile WB sign was originally an overhead gantry.  In the 2000s, it was moved to the ground, and a "service bar" added.  It was one of the first green service bars installed, which are now (unfortunately) the standard.  Blue looks better.  Also, some shields on the I-84 advance signage have been replaced, as they've faded.  Even the road surface between Exits 3 and 4 is original...concrete, and has held up quite well!

There's a pic in that Record Journal photo log that shows the I-84/I-691 interchange under construction.  I remember passing through there during its construction, heading to the Naugatuck Valley Mall and thought the "Y" bridge supports were cool. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on January 29, 2018, 07:27:41 PM
I remember when the extension of the 66 expressway opened somewhere around 1986.  The BGS for the 691 West entrance at Exit 4 also used to say TO 10 South CHESHIRE.  I also remember a NOTICE sign near the 1/2 mile westbound advance sign that was put up when 691 was completed that said 66 is now 322.  I also seem to remember Exit 4 was unsigned until the extension opened (haven't figured out if it received temporary SR status like the section of CT 9 between 72 and 175 did).   For a short period just before the 3-4 stretch opened, traffic entering eastbound at Exit 4 was actually diverted down the exit ramp, then had to make a sharp right turn to enter the highway.  Historical photos show that a supermarket (Sal's Market) used to sit on the land on the 691 ROW just west of the 322 overpass.  It moved down the hill near the CT 120 junction once the feds bought the land, and closed maybe 10-15 years ago after the owner passed away.   
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on January 29, 2018, 08:10:59 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on January 29, 2018, 07:27:41 PM
I remember when the extension of the 66 expressway opened somewhere around 1986.  The BGS for the 691 West entrance at Exit 4 also used to say TO 10 South CHESHIRE.  I also remember a NOTICE sign near the 1/2 mile westbound advance sign that was put up when 691 was completed that said 66 is now 322.  I also seem to remember Exit 4 was unsigned until the extension opened (haven't figured out if it received temporary SR status like the section of CT 9 between 72 and 175 did).   For a short period just before the 3-4 stretch opened, traffic entering eastbound at Exit 4 was actually diverted down the exit ramp, then had to make a sharp right turn to enter the highway.  Historical photos show that a supermarket (Sal's Market) used to sit on the land on the 691 ROW just west of the 322 overpass.  It moved down the hill near the CT 120 junction once the feds bought the land, and closed maybe 10-15 years ago after the owner passed away.   

Were the "TO 10 Cheshire" signs extruded panels?  I was 10 then and didn't pay much attention to it.  I find it unique the Exit 1-4 signage was never button copy since that was the middle of the button copy craze, unless the plans were developed in the early 80s when CT used demountable copy.

Btw, the I-691/I-84 interchange is what I call a "grammatically correct" interchange.  lol It's high speed, non looping, right hand entrances/exits.  CT doesn't have many of those.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Beeper1 on January 29, 2018, 10:47:50 PM
There used to be 66 is now 322 signs on I-84 as well, approaching Exit 28.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on January 29, 2018, 11:20:48 PM
Quote from: Beeper1 on January 29, 2018, 10:47:50 PM
There used to be 66 is now 322 signs on I-84 as well, approaching Exit 28.
Does this mean that there used to be "US 6 is now CT 66" signs in Windham?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on January 29, 2018, 11:24:51 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on January 29, 2018, 11:20:48 PM
Quote from: Beeper1 on January 29, 2018, 10:47:50 PM
There used to be 66 is now 322 signs on I-84 as well, approaching Exit 28.
Does this mean that there used to be "US 6 is now CT 66" signs in Windham?
Does this mean there used to be "74 was then 44 but is now 74" signs...
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on January 30, 2018, 08:48:00 AM
New Britain never had a "Route 71A used to meet Route 71 downtown...now ends at Buell Street" sign.

It starts at CT Route 71 in Berlin. A portion of it is the Chamberlain Highway. Buell Street is actually closer to the Berlin town line than downtown. There is no END sign. Years ago, it ran up the length of Arch Street, which made sense. Go one block east on Chestnut Street and you come to the corner with the Harry Truman Overpass. That carries CT Route 71. Made perfect sense that it would connect.

(https://i.imgur.com/J6RiIWL.jpg)

RED - CT Route 71A now. Ends at Buell Street in south end with black marker. No END sign.
BLUE - North up Kensington Road to Arch Street and then east on Chestnut Street one block. There used to be one last reassurance shield on Arch Street just before Winthrop.
GREEN - CT Route 71. Not signed at this map level.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on February 01, 2018, 11:41:23 AM
ConnDOT is proposing additional lanes for a short stretch of I-84 in West Hartford: http://www.ct.gov/dot/ical/eventDetail_page.asp?date_ID=C8CFCFC7CE83CDCAC9

Summary:
* additional westbound thru lane from Exit 43 (SR 501, Park Road) to Exit 39A (CT 9). The plan is to expand into the median and not use additional ROW
* additional eastbound auxiliary lane from Exit 40 (CT 71) to Exit 41 (semi-unsigned CT 173)

I-84 is mainly 6 lanes in the area. The eastbound work looks "easy" -- the one EB bridge is already wide enough, accommodating the merge lane from the Exit 40 onramp. The westbound work looks like a few I-84 overpasses will need widening.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: roadman on February 01, 2018, 03:00:34 PM
Quote from: Alps on January 22, 2018, 10:29:11 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on January 22, 2018, 10:04:26 PM
Quote from: wytout on January 10, 2018, 09:11:10 PM
Speaking of transportation projects, I notice that district 1  has started blanketing the beginning and end of limited access highways' guardrails with a red and green delineator, a la MAssachussetts. I first noticed these in district 2 a couple years back. Looks like their going to catch on statewide. And in conndot plow jockey fashion, several of them have already been twisted and bent around tolland from the last storm.
What's the point of those?
Snow plows to lift their blades and then reset. Because if blades down across a bridge, snow gets thrown over the side and dumped onto what may be passing traffic underneath. Could be fatal.
You appear to be confusing the 'PLOWS USE CAUTION' signs they now provide in MA at the beginning of bridges with the smaller guardrail 'beginning(red)/end(green)' delineation markers MA (and now CT) use to denote the start and end of all guardrail runs.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on February 01, 2018, 05:20:45 PM
Quote from: kurumi on February 01, 2018, 11:41:23 AM
ConnDOT is proposing additional lanes for a short stretch of I-84 in West Hartford: http://www.ct.gov/dot/ical/eventDetail_page.asp?date_ID=C8CFCFC7CE83CDCAC9

Summary:
* additional westbound thru lane from Exit 43 (SR 501, Park Road) to Exit 39A (CT 9). The plan is to expand into the median and not use additional ROW
* additional eastbound auxiliary lane from Exit 40 (CT 71) to Exit 41 (semi-unsigned CT 173)

I-84 is mainly 6 lanes in the area. The eastbound work looks "easy" -- the one EB bridge is already wide enough, accommodating the merge lane from the Exit 40 onramp. The westbound work looks like a few I-84 overpasses will need widening.
Can they PLEASE do the same thing between Exits 62 and 63 in both directions?  Those merges are always congested by mall traffic cheaters.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on February 03, 2018, 08:58:00 AM
http://www.yankeeinstitute.org/2018/02/no-connecticut-cant-install-border-tolls-heres-why/

Saw this little write-up about why tolls can't just come back here. A proposal map shows where AET gantries could be on CT Route 15 (Merritt and Wilbur Cross Parkways).

http://www.courant.com/politics/hc-pol-toll-congestion-pricing-20180202-story.html

This story from The Hartford Courant also shows the same proposed toll map that the first link does.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on February 03, 2018, 05:34:05 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on February 03, 2018, 08:58:00 AM
http://www.yankeeinstitute.org/2018/02/no-connecticut-cant-install-border-tolls-heres-why/

Saw this little write-up about why tolls can't just come back here. A proposal map shows where AET gantries could be on CT Route 15 (Merritt and Wilbur Cross Parkways).

http://www.courant.com/politics/hc-pol-toll-congestion-pricing-20180202-story.html

This story from The Hartford Courant also shows the same proposed toll map that the first link does.

Just wait until the Merritt Parkway Conservancy sees plans for AET gantries.  Think the US 7 interchange is taking forever to be built out?  Just wait!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on February 03, 2018, 05:37:30 PM
(Snooty voice:) "Ahem! Biff and Muffy do not want unsightly metal toll readers on our scenic and beautiful motorway! Besides, our ascots could get caught in one of those contraptions! Time to take the Beemer to the golf course!"  :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on February 05, 2018, 10:31:45 AM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on February 03, 2018, 08:58:00 AMSaw this little write-up about why tolls can't just come back here.
Such basically confirms, with more detailed reasons, what I've been saying all along.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on February 05, 2018, 11:14:51 AM
Why does every highway in the state need to have tolls?  Why not change the HOV lanes on I-84 and I-91 into a pair of tolled, reversible lanes?  Tolling every highway is overkill.  The only highway that I could see getting a barrier toll system is CT 2 and that's only because it isn't over-congested.

What about just going back to tolling bridges?  Put them on the Bissell Bridge, Charter Oak Bridge, the Q Bridge, the Gold Star Bridge?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on February 05, 2018, 11:24:44 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on February 05, 2018, 11:14:51 AM
Why does every highway in the state need to have tolls?  Why not change the HOV lanes on I-84 and I-91 into a pair of tolled, reversible lanes?  Tolling every highway is overkill.  The only highway that I could see getting a barrier toll system is CT 2 and that's only because it isn't over-congested.

What about just going back to tolling bridges?  Put them on the Bissell Bridge, Charter Oak Bridge, the Q Bridge, the Gold Star Bridge?
Again, blanket tolling of exiting Interstates (including ones on bridges; both the Gold Star & Q Bridges are part of I-95) violates current federal law.  See the web-linked article that Kevin_224 posted for the reasons.

While CT can place tolls on state or US highways without permission from the feds, the main issue with that is if there's a parallel toll-free Interstate nearby; guess which road is going to get more local & through traffic?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: cl94 on February 05, 2018, 02:18:36 PM
Eh, there are exceptions. See I-65 in Louisville. The Kennedy Bridge was untolled from its opening in 1963 until 2016. I still have no idea how the feds allowed that. Maybe because the new bridge for NB traffic was tolled?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: SidS1045 on February 05, 2018, 02:52:47 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on February 03, 2018, 05:37:30 PM
(Snooty voice:) "Ahem! Biff and Muffy do not want unsightly metal toll readers on our scenic and beautiful motorway! Besides, our ascots could get caught in one of those contraptions! Time to take the Beemer to the golf course!"  :rolleyes:

That snooty voice should be one's best impression of Thurston Howell III.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on February 05, 2018, 03:29:13 PM
Quote from: cl94 on February 05, 2018, 02:18:36 PM
Eh, there are exceptions. See I-65 in Louisville. The Kennedy Bridge was untolled from its opening in 1963 until 2016. I still have no idea how the feds allowed that. Maybe because the new bridge for NB traffic was tolled?
That's likely the case.  However, CT isn't KY; they're not planning on building any new bridges under this proposed plan that I'm aware of.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on February 05, 2018, 03:53:18 PM
Anybody notice the new signing contract on I-84 between Exits 29-39 that some of the extruded aluminum signs are very close to the road.  I can see trucks that pull over on the shoulder clipping them.

Also an Exit 39 (left exit) BGS on I-84 east has a left exit tab that is alligned to the RIGHT.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on February 05, 2018, 09:30:47 PM
Of course, a certain Facebook group couldn't resist making comments about the state's toll saga either!  :D

(https://i.imgur.com/A88GgI5.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on February 06, 2018, 01:19:03 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 05, 2018, 11:24:44 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on February 05, 2018, 11:14:51 AM
Why does every highway in the state need to have tolls?  Why not change the HOV lanes on I-84 and I-91 into a pair of tolled, reversible lanes?  Tolling every highway is overkill.  The only highway that I could see getting a barrier toll system is CT 2 and that's only because it isn't over-congested.

What about just going back to tolling bridges?  Put them on the Bissell Bridge, Charter Oak Bridge, the Q Bridge, the Gold Star Bridge?
Again, blanket tolling of exiting Interstates (including ones on bridges; both the Gold Star & Q Bridges are part of I-95) violates current federal law.  See the web-linked article that Kevin_224 posted for the reasons.

While CT can place tolls on state or US highways without permission from the feds, the main issue with that is if there's a parallel toll-free Interstate nearby; guess which road is going to get more local & through traffic?
The Bissell and Charter Oak had tolls before they were refurbished.  Hell, Charter Oak carries a state highway and a US highway so there's no issue there. That's why I'm saying they should only use barrier tolling on CT 2.  It's just a state highway and it serves an.important corridor for the state (Hartford to Norwich/New London).

Why is MD allowed to use congestion tolling on Interstate HOV lanes but CT can't?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on February 06, 2018, 09:12:01 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on February 06, 2018, 01:19:03 AM
The Bissell and Charter Oak had tolls before they were refurbished.  Hell, Charter Oak carries a state highway and a US highway so there's no issue there. That's why I'm saying they should only use barrier tolling on CT 2.  It's just a state highway and it serves an important corridor for the state (Hartford to Norwich/New London).
As I stated in my previous post (#2602) while CT can place tolls on state highways (including bridges) without federal permission; however, if there's a nearby Interstate, guess which route is going to receive the majority of the traffic?

Quote from: RobbieL2415 on February 06, 2018, 01:19:03 AMWhy is MD allowed to use congestion tolling on Interstate HOV lanes but CT can't?
If you're referring to I-95 in MD; those lanes in are actually EXPRESS TOLL lanes, not HOV and such were newly constructed.  The outer/local lanes of I-95 don't have tolls.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on February 06, 2018, 12:54:49 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on February 06, 2018, 01:19:03 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 05, 2018, 11:24:44 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on February 05, 2018, 11:14:51 AM
Why does every highway in the state need to have tolls?  Why not change the HOV lanes on I-84 and I-91 into a pair of tolled, reversible lanes?  Tolling every highway is overkill.  The only highway that I could see getting a barrier toll system is CT 2 and that's only because it isn't over-congested.

What about just going back to tolling bridges?  Put them on the Bissell Bridge, Charter Oak Bridge, the Q Bridge, the Gold Star Bridge?
Again, blanket tolling of exiting Interstates (including ones on bridges; both the Gold Star & Q Bridges are part of I-95) violates current federal law.  See the web-linked article that Kevin_224 posted for the reasons.

While CT can place tolls on state or US highways without permission from the feds, the main issue with that is if there's a parallel toll-free Interstate nearby; guess which road is going to get more local & through traffic?
The Bissell and Charter Oak had tolls before they were refurbished.  Hell, Charter Oak carries a state highway and a US highway so there's no issue there. That's why I'm saying they should only use barrier tolling on CT 2.  It's just a state highway and it serves an.important corridor for the state (Hartford to Norwich/New London).

1. While the Charter Oak Bridge portion is not an interstate, it is, in essence, a glorified exit ramp from I-84 West to I-91 South, and from I-91 North to I-84 East.  Pretty sneaky if they do it as would exploit a major loophole by not officially being on an interstate, but still collecting 90% of its revenue from interstate traffic. I wouldn't put it past Danny Boy to do it, as he never met a tax or revenue stream collected from the people that he didn't like.

2.  Route 2 is a major route from the north to the 2 casinos.  I call it AC Expressway North.  Put tolls on Routes 2, 8, and 9, and you'll have people taking the back roads to get to the beach.  The town of Durham will become gridlock with the cars being taken off Route 9 and taking Route 17 to 79 to get to Hammonasset.  Put them on 95 and the Parkway, and more people will be taking my less traveled alternative of 84 to 684 to get to NYC.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Conn. Roads on February 06, 2018, 10:56:16 PM
Connecticut has overextended its spending. This is just a grasp at any potential source of income. The best plan is to vote the bums out, and get in a fiscally responsible government in power.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on February 07, 2018, 12:27:39 AM
Quote from: Conn. Roads on February 06, 2018, 10:56:16 PM
Connecticut has overextended its spending. This is just a grasp at any potential source of income. The best plan is to vote the bums out, and get in a fiscally responsible government in power.
The problem is that their roads budget is drained to other sources, so they are constrained with how they can raise road money. The solution is to cut off the earmarks and require all gas tax revenue to go back into roads. (Coming from a state that does just that.)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on February 07, 2018, 10:01:31 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on February 06, 2018, 12:54:49 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on February 06, 2018, 01:19:03 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 05, 2018, 11:24:44 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on February 05, 2018, 11:14:51 AM
Why does every highway in the state need to have tolls?  Why not change the HOV lanes on I-84 and I-91 into a pair of tolled, reversible lanes?  Tolling every highway is overkill.  The only highway that I could see getting a barrier toll system is CT 2 and that's only because it isn't over-congested.

What about just going back to tolling bridges?  Put them on the Bissell Bridge, Charter Oak Bridge, the Q Bridge, the Gold Star Bridge?
Again, blanket tolling of exiting Interstates (including ones on bridges; both the Gold Star & Q Bridges are part of I-95) violates current federal law.  See the web-linked article that Kevin_224 posted for the reasons.

While CT can place tolls on state or US highways without permission from the feds, the main issue with that is if there's a parallel toll-free Interstate nearby; guess which road is going to get more local & through traffic?
The Bissell and Charter Oak had tolls before they were refurbished.  Hell, Charter Oak carries a state highway and a US highway so there's no issue there. That's why I'm saying they should only use barrier tolling on CT 2.  It's just a state highway and it serves an.important corridor for the state (Hartford to Norwich/New London).

1. While the Charter Oak Bridge portion is not an interstate, it is, in essence, a glorified exit ramp from I-84 West to I-91 South, and from I-91 North to I-84 East.  Pretty sneaky if they do it as would exploit a major loophole by not officially being on an interstate, but still collecting 90% of its revenue from interstate traffic. I wouldn't put it past Danny Boy to do it, as he never met a tax or revenue stream collected from the people that he didn't like.

2.  Route 2 is a major route from the north to the 2 casinos.  I call it AC Expressway North.  Put tolls on Routes 2, 8, and 9, and you'll have people taking the back roads to get to the beach.  The town of Durham will become gridlock with the cars being taken off Route 9 and taking Route 17 to 79 to get to Hammonasset.  Put them on 95 and the Parkway, and more people will be taking my less traveled alternative of 84 to 684 to get to NYC.
But with number 2 you'd be putting a load on the I-684/I-84/NY 22 interchange, and it's already extremely busy there during the week.  And are people really going to use the back roads of Middlesex County to get to the beach? That's just gonna take way too much time and any route you choose will take you far away from the corridor.  Route 9 can technically be bypassed with CT 154 and CT 99, however.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on February 07, 2018, 10:43:50 PM
Quote from: Conn. Roads on February 06, 2018, 10:56:16 PM
Connecticut has overextended its spending. This is just a grasp at any potential source of income. The best plan is to vote the bums out, and get in a fiscally responsible government in power.

Thing is: a fiscally responsible government is unlikely to remain in power.

Connecticut's choices are some combination of entering a taxation death-spiral, reneging on pension obligations and other long-term promises, or cutting every other expenditure back to near non-existence (forcing towns to have to face analogous decisions).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on February 22, 2018, 06:59:57 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on February 05, 2018, 03:53:18 PM
Anybody notice the new signing contract on I-84 between Exits 29-39 that some of the extruded aluminum signs are very close to the road.  I can see trucks that pull over on the shoulder clipping them.

Also an Exit 39 (left exit) BGS on I-84 east has a left exit tab that is alligned to the RIGHT.

Also noticed a WHITE "WEST" banner over an I-84 shield on I-84 west just past CT-4.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on February 22, 2018, 08:56:34 PM
https://lintvwtnh.files.wordpress.com/2018/02/20180222-ctdot-i95-strategies-to-reduce-congestion.pdf

The circle continues....big plans, then oh yeah no money, lets cut the project down, more no money....we can only do an aux lane between exit 1 and 2.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on February 22, 2018, 09:53:38 PM
Quote from: cl94 on February 05, 2018, 02:18:36 PM
Eh, there are exceptions. See I-65 in Louisville. The Kennedy Bridge was untolled from its opening in 1963 until 2016. I still have no idea how the feds allowed that. Maybe because the new bridge for NB traffic was tolled?

Following the statutory trail here, the Federal Aid Highway act of 1956 says the following:
QuoteSEC. 113. TOLL ROADS, BRIDGES, AND TUNNELS.
(a) APPROVAL AS PART OF INTERSTATE SYSTEM.
Upon a finding by the Secretary of Commerce that  such  action  will promote the development of  an integrated  Interstate  System, the Secretary is authorized to  approve as part of  the Interstate  System any toll road, bridge, or tunnel, now or hereafter constructed which meets the standards adopted for  the improvement of projects  located on  the Interstate System, whenever such toll road, bridge, or tunnel is located on a route heretofore or hereafter designated as a part of the Interstate System: Provided That no Federal-aid  highway  funds  shall be expended for the construction, reconstruction, or improvement of any such toll road except to the extent hereafter permitted by law: Provided further That no Federal-aid highway funds shall be expended for the construction, reconstruction, or improvement of any such toll  bridge or tunnel except to the extent now or hereafter permitted by law.
(emphasis mine)

So essentially, you cannot toll any interstates that federal-aid highway funds were used to construct or reconstruct, but there's a caveat that this doesn't apply in cases where another law explicitly permits it.

Here is what 23 USC 129 currently says, and has said since ISTEA was passed in 1991:
Quote(a) Basic Program.–
(1)Authorization for federal participation.–Subject to the provisions of this section, Federal participation shall be permitted on the same basis and in the same manner as construction of toll-free highways is permitted under this chapter in the–
(A) initial construction of a toll highway, bridge, or tunnel or approach to the highway, bridge, or tunnel;
(B) initial construction of 1 or more lanes or other improvements that increase capacity of a highway, bridge, or tunnel (other than a highway on the Interstate System) and conversion of that highway, bridge, or tunnel to a tolled facility, if the number of toll-free lanes, excluding auxiliary lanes, after the construction is not less than the number of toll-free lanes, excluding auxiliary lanes, before the construction;
(C) initial construction of 1 or more lanes or other improvements that increase the capacity of a highway, bridge, or tunnel on the Interstate System and conversion of that highway, bridge, or tunnel to a tolled facility, if the number of toll-free non-HOV lanes, excluding auxiliary lanes, after such construction is not less than the number of toll-free non-HOV lanes, excluding auxiliary lanes, before such construction;
(D) reconstruction, resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation, or replacement of a toll highway, bridge, or tunnel or approach to the highway, bridge, or tunnel;
(E) reconstruction or replacement of a toll-free bridge or tunnel and conversion of the bridge or tunnel to a toll facility;
(F) reconstruction of a toll-free Federal-aid highway (other than a highway on the Interstate System) and conversion of the highway to a toll facility;
(G) reconstruction, restoration, or rehabilitation of a highway on the Interstate System if the number of toll-free non-HOV lanes, excluding auxiliary lanes, after reconstruction, restoration, or rehabilitation is not less than the number of toll-free non-HOV lanes, excluding auxiliary lanes, before reconstruction, restoration, or rehabilitation;
(H) conversion of a high occupancy vehicle lane on a highway, bridge, or tunnel to a toll facility; and
(I) preliminary studies to determine the feasibility of a toll facility for which Federal participation is authorized under this paragraph.
(emphasis mine again)

So the prohibition on tolling interstates does not apply to any new bridges on the interstate system (which the NB Kennedy Bridge most certainly is). It also, per item E, is fair game to convert free bridges and tunnels into tolled bridges and tunnels upon rehabbing or rebuilding them.

Item E is very important, actually, because it's worth noting that the statute does not define any minimum bridge size for this to apply to, and there is plenty of precedent that even a small overpass is a bridge (bridge inspection requirements apply to them, for example). This creates a substantial loophole - if Connecticut were so inclined, they could place a toll at any interstate overpass that needed rehab or replacement and use the toll funds to pay for said rehab or replacement.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: cl94 on February 23, 2018, 01:41:06 PM
And that's the loophole ConnDOT can exploit.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on February 23, 2018, 07:06:43 PM
If the Trump infrastructure bill goes through, they won't need a loophole.  And the plan appears to be for every mile of interstate in the state.
http://www.yankeeinstitute.org/2018/02/will-connecticut-be-the-most-heavily-tolled-state-in-the-nation/
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: zzyzx on February 23, 2018, 11:02:19 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on February 22, 2018, 08:56:34 PM
https://lintvwtnh.files.wordpress.com/2018/02/20180222-ctdot-i95-strategies-to-reduce-congestion.pdf

The circle continues....big plans, then oh yeah no money, lets cut the project down, more no money....we can only do an aux lane between exit 1 and 2.

After reading through the document, I can say this accurately represents the impression I got from ConnDOT when I attended the planning meeting back in April for the Exit 74 interchange redesign. With limited transportation funds, their main focus seems to be on rebuilding overpasses to accommodate an auxiliary lane between exits, and maybe adding a lane on the most congested sections rather than doing a full scale widening. I think the only reason why they were looking to redesign Exit 74 was because they were supposed to build a Costco near there..but those plans got scrapped. The plan here mentions "Exit 70 to Exit 74 widening" but doesn't include the Exit 74 interchange. At the very least, I-95 needs 3 lanes + 1 auxiliary lane in each direction through Eastern CT but now that seems unlikely to happen in my lifetime.

I moved from the area last year to Austin, TX and while Austin has its own traffic congestion issues, at least there are auxiliary lanes here so people don't have to make last second merges onto the highway.

If/when CT decides to install tolls, I can tell you now that express toll lanes will create even more problems based on what I see along MoPac (Loop 1) in Austin. It's 1 lane in each direction with a narrow shoulder, and there were a few instances where people were passing on the shoulder (http://www.kvue.com/article/news/local/seen-someone-attempt-to-pass-cars-in-one-lane-express-on-mopac-call-9-1-1-apd-says/269-518370522) and even driving across the flexible delineators when traffic backs up on the non-tolled portion. So during rush hour, people in the express lane slow down anticipating a last second cut in. Drivers get impatient here when cars travel slower than 70-80 in the express lane, and city buses, which are allowed to travel on the express lanes, only travel 55-60. When there's an accident, they just close the express lane because there's no room for cars to maneuver. Now imagine the typical drivers in the northeast and multiply the traffic scenarios/accidents by 10. I bet someone driving their minivan at 60mph is going to get rear-ended by some driver traveling 90mph (one driver here was caught going 105, and didn't even receive a speeding ticket (http://cbsaustin.com/news/local/toll-camera-catches-driver-going-105-mph-in-mopac-express-lane)).

BTW...the image they used for the "I-95 West" section on page 2, doesn't even look like it was taken in CT. The gantry doesn't look like anything CT uses.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on February 25, 2018, 03:15:43 PM
Quote from: vdeane on February 23, 2018, 07:06:43 PMIf the Trump infrastructure bill goes through, they won't need a loophole.
Such would be dependent upon what the actual contents of the bill are.  I don't believe anyone knows of such just yet. 
Quote from: vdeane on February 23, 2018, 07:06:43 PMAnd the plan appears to be for every mile of interstate in the state.
http://www.yankeeinstitute.org/2018/02/will-connecticut-be-the-most-heavily-tolled-state-in-the-nation/
While the article mentions the federal prohibition of instituting border tolls; the proposal completely ignores the current Federal prohibition of blanket placing of tolls along existing free Interstates without any major expansion (i.e. additional lanes).  I.e., such is dead on arrival unless the federal rules change beforehand.

Whether the federal prohibition either gets partially relaxed or completely thrown out is not yet known.  Current rumors of the proposed federal plan point to either a 25-cent-a-gallon hike in the federal gas tax and/or tax on miles driven.  Such wouldn't necessarily involve a complete rewrite of the Interstate Highway Act or policies.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on February 25, 2018, 04:16:35 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on February 22, 2018, 06:59:57 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on February 05, 2018, 03:53:18 PM
Anybody notice the new signing contract on I-84 between Exits 29-39 that some of the extruded aluminum signs are very close to the road.  I can see trucks that pull over on the shoulder clipping them.

Also an Exit 39 (left exit) BGS on I-84 east has a left exit tab that is alligned to the RIGHT.

Also noticed a WHITE "WEST" banner over an I-84 shield on I-84 west just past CT-4.

Saw it yesterday just west of the Fienemann Rd exit.  Wanted to take a picture but it was raining to beat the band.  Not quite as egregious as when they put the wrong exit number signs up for CT 10 (they've also since replaced that brown exit tab for Exit 31 WB).  As far as the sign replacement project, seems all the ground mounts are in, and existing old signage has been removed up to exit 32.  There is now no reflective button copy signage left on I-84 from the NY border to Exit 39.   
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on February 25, 2018, 10:33:20 PM
How about building a toll road under a public-private partnership?  Have it run 10-15 miles north parallel to I-95.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Rothman on February 25, 2018, 10:59:59 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on February 25, 2018, 10:33:20 PM
How about building a toll road under a public-private partnership?  Have it run 10-15 miles north parallel to I-95.
Re-toll the Merritt and Wilbur Cross?  No.


Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on February 26, 2018, 01:24:07 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 25, 2018, 10:59:59 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on February 25, 2018, 10:33:20 PM
How about building a toll road under a public-private partnership?  Have it run 10-15 miles north parallel to I-95.
Re-toll the Merritt and Wilbur Cross?  No.
I believe RobbieL2415 was referring to building a new road; not re-tolling existing roadways.  The Merritt & Wilbur Cross Parkways prohibit trucks and are situated closer (2-4 miles) from I-95 from New Haven southward.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Beeper1 on February 26, 2018, 04:39:02 PM
A new road in Fairfield County?    HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA! 
That place is the capitol of NIMBY-Land. Hell, some there even want to UN-DO the last major road project that was completed there (US 7 near the Merritt interchange).

The fact that the Brookfield Bypass was built is nothing short of a miracle.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on February 26, 2018, 05:22:52 PM
Quote from: Beeper1 on February 26, 2018, 04:39:02 PM
A new road in Fairfield County?    HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA! 
That place is the capitol of NIMBY-Land. Hell, some there even want to UN-DO the last major road project that was completed there (US 7 near the Merritt interchange).

The fact that the Brookfield Bypass was built is nothing short of a miracle.


True that! Although if Brookfield was in Wilton it wouldn't have been built.

Although as I mentioned above CT goes in circles.....2005, let's complete the US-7/Meritt interchange...ok sure, oh wait we can't b/c of NIMBYs, lets pick this plan instead...ok, oops e can't b/c of funding.  2016, CT DOT finally got around to moving it forward again.  Oh look funding again and it's been suspended indefinitely.  CT can't get their act together.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on February 26, 2018, 06:01:29 PM
There once was a proposal for the Route 34 Expressway that was just that.  Was supposed to connect to a Route 35 Expressway that would have extended into Westchester County.  Found this on Steve Anderson's NYC Roads page (scroll down for the details)

http://www.nycroads.com/roads/CT-34/
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on February 26, 2018, 06:06:18 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on February 25, 2018, 04:16:35 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on February 22, 2018, 06:59:57 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on February 05, 2018, 03:53:18 PM
Anybody notice the new signing contract on I-84 between Exits 29-39 that some of the extruded aluminum signs are very close to the road.  I can see trucks that pull over on the shoulder clipping them.

Also an Exit 39 (left exit) BGS on I-84 east has a left exit tab that is alligned to the RIGHT.

Also noticed a WHITE "WEST" banner over an I-84 shield on I-84 west just past CT-4.

Saw it yesterday just west of the Fienemann Rd exit.  Wanted to take a picture but it was raining to beat the band.  Not quite as egregious as when they put the wrong exit number signs up for CT 10 (they've also since replaced that brown exit tab for Exit 31 WB).  As far as the sign replacement project, seems all the ground mounts are in, and existing old signage has been removed up to exit 32.  There is now no reflective button copy signage left on I-84 from the NY border to Exit 39.   

I'm guessing this is it, from the ConnDOT traffic cameras:

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4653/38695608540_4bfe02d650.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/21Xp7hu)404318--1 (https://flic.kr/p/21Xp7hu) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

That's just about as good as the "CT" Route 6 shields they put up east of Farmington along I-84 a few years back. 

Looking to shoot all the new signage, but that won't be till my next trip down there, which will be most likely late April.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on February 26, 2018, 06:49:30 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on February 26, 2018, 06:06:18 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on February 25, 2018, 04:16:35 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on February 22, 2018, 06:59:57 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on February 05, 2018, 03:53:18 PM
Anybody notice the new signing contract on I-84 between Exits 29-39 that some of the extruded aluminum signs are very close to the road.  I can see trucks that pull over on the shoulder clipping them.

Also an Exit 39 (left exit) BGS on I-84 east has a left exit tab that is alligned to the RIGHT.

Also noticed a WHITE "WEST" banner over an I-84 shield on I-84 west just past CT-4.

Saw it yesterday just west of the Fienemann Rd exit.  Wanted to take a picture but it was raining to beat the band.  Not quite as egregious as when they put the wrong exit number signs up for CT 10 (they've also since replaced that brown exit tab for Exit 31 WB).  As far as the sign replacement project, seems all the ground mounts are in, and existing old signage has been removed up to exit 32.  There is now no reflective button copy signage left on I-84 from the NY border to Exit 39.   

I'm guessing this is it, from the ConnDOT traffic cameras:

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4653/38695608540_4bfe02d650.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/21Xp7hu)404318--1 (https://flic.kr/p/21Xp7hu) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

That's just about as good as the "CT" Route 6 shields they put up east of Farmington along I-84 a few years back. 

Looking to shoot all the new signage, but that won't be till my next trip down there, which will be most likely late April.

I just expected better considering it's 2018.  lol I noticed the CT-4 (SR-508) signs weren't in the contract. I wonder when they will be replaced.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on February 26, 2018, 08:58:14 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on February 26, 2018, 06:49:30 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on February 26, 2018, 06:06:18 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on February 25, 2018, 04:16:35 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on February 22, 2018, 06:59:57 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on February 05, 2018, 03:53:18 PM
Anybody notice the new signing contract on I-84 between Exits 29-39 that some of the extruded aluminum signs are very close to the road.  I can see trucks that pull over on the shoulder clipping them.

Also an Exit 39 (left exit) BGS on I-84 east has a left exit tab that is alligned to the RIGHT.

Also noticed a WHITE "WEST" banner over an I-84 shield on I-84 west just past CT-4.

Saw it yesterday just west of the Fienemann Rd exit.  Wanted to take a picture but it was raining to beat the band.  Not quite as egregious as when they put the wrong exit number signs up for CT 10 (they've also since replaced that brown exit tab for Exit 31 WB).  As far as the sign replacement project, seems all the ground mounts are in, and existing old signage has been removed up to exit 32.  There is now no reflective button copy signage left on I-84 from the NY border to Exit 39.   

That's just about as good as the "CT" Route 6 shields they put up east of Farmington along I-84 a few years back. 

Looking to shoot all the new signage, but that won't be till my next trip down there, which will be most likely late April.

I just expected better considering it's 2018.  lol I noticed the CT-4 (SR-508) signs weren't in the contract. I wonder when they will be replaced.

Some spot signage replacement has taken place on SR 508.  The overhead signage hasn't been replaced, but the signage just before the traffic light has been replaced.  Here's a pic:

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4585/38320536091_1df77c2885_z.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Rothman on February 27, 2018, 08:09:17 AM
Quote from: Beeper1 on February 26, 2018, 04:39:02 PM
A new road in Fairfield County?    HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA! 
That place is the capitol of NIMBY-Land. Hell, some there even want to UN-DO the last major road project that was completed there (US 7 near the Merritt interchange).

The fact that the Brookfield Bypass was built is nothing short of a miracle.
This is why I commented the way I did.  Building a whole new freeway in that area is infeasible on so many levels.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on February 27, 2018, 11:36:44 PM
Quote from: Beeper1 on February 26, 2018, 04:39:02 PM
A new road in Fairfield County?    HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA! 
That place is the capitol of NIMBY-Land. Hell, some there even want to UN-DO the last major road project that was completed there (US 7 near the Merritt interchange).

The fact that the Brookfield Bypass was built is nothing short of a miracle.
Those people continue to pay the price for their activism.  They are all hypocrites.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on February 27, 2018, 11:39:48 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 27, 2018, 08:09:17 AM
Quote from: Beeper1 on February 26, 2018, 04:39:02 PM
A new road in Fairfield County?    HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA! 
That place is the capitol of NIMBY-Land. Hell, some there even want to UN-DO the last major road project that was completed there (US 7 near the Merritt interchange).

The fact that the Brookfield Bypass was built is nothing short of a miracle.
This is why I commented the way I did.  Building a whole new freeway in that area is infeasible on so many levels.
One thing or the other will have to happen.  You can't get rid of traffic overnight.  I mean do these NIMBYs have any sort of realistic solution proposed?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on February 28, 2018, 01:06:03 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on February 27, 2018, 11:39:48 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 27, 2018, 08:09:17 AM
Quote from: Beeper1 on February 26, 2018, 04:39:02 PM
A new road in Fairfield County?    HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA! 
That place is the capitol of NIMBY-Land. Hell, some there even want to UN-DO the last major road project that was completed there (US 7 near the Merritt interchange).

The fact that the Brookfield Bypass was built is nothing short of a miracle.
This is why I commented the way I did.  Building a whole new freeway in that area is infeasible on so many levels.
One thing or the other will have to happen.  You can't get rid of traffic overnight.  I mean do these NIMBYs have any sort of realistic solution proposed?

Oh yes.
* go drive someplace else
* enforce traffic rules, people are speeding too much, if people just drove the speed limit I-95 would be LOS A
* keep your city problems within city limits
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on February 28, 2018, 04:32:29 PM
Quote from: kurumi on February 28, 2018, 01:06:03 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on February 27, 2018, 11:39:48 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 27, 2018, 08:09:17 AM
Quote from: Beeper1 on February 26, 2018, 04:39:02 PM
A new road in Fairfield County?    HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA! 
That place is the capitol of NIMBY-Land. Hell, some there even want to UN-DO the last major road project that was completed there (US 7 near the Merritt interchange).

The fact that the Brookfield Bypass was built is nothing short of a miracle.
This is why I commented the way I did.  Building a whole new freeway in that area is infeasible on so many levels.
One thing or the other will have to happen.  You can't get rid of traffic overnight.  I mean do these NIMBYs have any sort of realistic solution proposed?

Oh yes.
* go drive someplace else
* enforce traffic rules, people are speeding too much, if people just drove the speed limit I-95 would be LOS A
* keep your city problems within city limits
Number 1 doesn't help when we rely on cars so much for basic transportation.  A better solution would be more public transportation.  Number two I'm not so sure has an effect on congestion.  In fact wouldn't slow drivers be more of a problem?  I don't know how to respond to number 3.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on February 28, 2018, 08:38:40 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on February 28, 2018, 04:32:29 PMNumber 1 doesn't help when we rely on cars so much for basic transportation.  A better solution would be more public transportation.

But more public transportation makes it too easy for undesirable people from out of town to come into your space.  The sole exception is rail service, express, between your station and Grand Central.  Or so Fairfield County NIMBY thinking goes.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: AMLNet49 on March 01, 2018, 11:26:11 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on February 28, 2018, 04:32:29 PM
Quote from: kurumi on February 28, 2018, 01:06:03 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on February 27, 2018, 11:39:48 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 27, 2018, 08:09:17 AM
Quote from: Beeper1 on February 26, 2018, 04:39:02 PM
A new road in Fairfield County?    HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA! 
That place is the capitol of NIMBY-Land. Hell, some there even want to UN-DO the last major road project that was completed there (US 7 near the Merritt interchange).

The fact that the Brookfield Bypass was built is nothing short of a miracle.
This is why I commented the way I did.  Building a whole new freeway in that area is infeasible on so many levels.
One thing or the other will have to happen.  You can't get rid of traffic overnight.  I mean do these NIMBYs have any sort of realistic solution proposed?

Oh yes.
* go drive someplace else
* enforce traffic rules, people are speeding too much, if people just drove the speed limit I-95 would be LOS A
* keep your city problems within city limits
Number 1 doesn't help when we rely on cars so much for basic transportation.  A better solution would be more public transportation.  Number two I'm not so sure has an effect on congestion.  In fact wouldn't slow drivers be more of a problem?  I don't know how to respond to number 3.
You're thinking of this too analytically and logically.

These people basically want to pretend they're living in another, exclusive, gated part of NYC itself.

No proposal short of banning non-residents from driving within town limits and building a HyperLink to Manhattan will satisfy them
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on March 01, 2018, 06:14:47 PM
Didn't get a pic of it, but our I-84 white West error sign has a new sibling about 2 miles later on the New Britain/Plainville town line on the 72 overpass. Installed some new signage on 84 westbound through Plainville today, and it was among them.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on March 01, 2018, 11:08:25 PM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on February 28, 2018, 08:38:40 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on February 28, 2018, 04:32:29 PMNumber 1 doesn't help when we rely on cars so much for basic transportation.  A better solution would be more public transportation.

But more public transportation makes it too easy for undesirable people from out of town to come into your space.  The sole exception is rail service, express, between your station and Grand Central.  Or so Fairfield County NIMBY thinking goes.
This is why we need to re-instate county governments.  There are seven other counties besides Fairfield, they are not the center of the universe.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on March 01, 2018, 11:20:12 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 01, 2018, 11:08:25 PM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on February 28, 2018, 08:38:40 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on February 28, 2018, 04:32:29 PMNumber 1 doesn't help when we rely on cars so much for basic transportation.  A better solution would be more public transportation.

But more public transportation makes it too easy for undesirable people from out of town to come into your space.  The sole exception is rail service, express, between your station and Grand Central.  Or so Fairfield County NIMBY thinking goes.
This is why we need to re-instate county governments.  There are seven other counties besides Fairfield, they are not the center of the universe.
That is an utter nonsequitur.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on March 02, 2018, 12:23:57 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 01, 2018, 11:08:25 PM
This is why we need to re-instate county governments.  There are seven other counties besides Fairfield, they are not the center of the universe.

Transportation matters that get the NIMBYs going are already handled at the COG level (http://www.ct.gov/opm/lib/opm/igp/org/cogs/rcogs.png) rather than the town level, and that doesn't help.   (If the state were to abolish town government, it's more likely that COGs would be used for local government, rather than bringing back the counties.)

If all planning were done at the state level, there's a chance the NIMBYs could be overcome...but considering how many state officials rely on Fairfield County patrons to finance their campaigns....
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on March 02, 2018, 01:01:42 PM
So they abolished counties only to create an entirely new entity that is just like a county.  Yeah, that makes sense.</sarcasm>
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on March 02, 2018, 01:21:09 PM
Quote from: vdeane on March 02, 2018, 01:01:42 PM
So they abolished counties only to create an entirely new entity that is just like a county.  Yeah, that makes sense.</sarcasm>

Today, those entities are just regional planning organizations, lacking the authority of a conventional county.  They have the advantage of having their boundaries defined by modern interests, rather than historical cartography.  E.g. -- Tolland County is a bit redundant; Hartland is more of a Litchfield town than a Hartford County entity; Naugatuck Valley is a discrete region; and the rich folks in Fairfield County really want nothing to do with Bridgeport.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on March 02, 2018, 01:34:56 PM
Sounds like they're just MPOs and/or RTPOs then, so what's with the fancy name making them look like they're some county-replacement?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on March 02, 2018, 01:39:37 PM
Quote from: vdeane on March 02, 2018, 01:34:56 PM
Sounds like they're just MPOs and/or RTPOs then, so what's with the fancy name making them look like they're some county-replacement?

It's New England.  Things are different here (and the towns have to appear to reign supreme).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: wytout on March 03, 2018, 11:45:55 AM
Isn't it about time to put the Merritt parkway conservancy and nimbyism below safety on the priority list and cut some goddam trees down? Every single windy day in recent years results in at least one death from a fallen tree. There is no excuse for trees being able to fall on a high speed controlled access highway at this day in age. Another one got it in the nor'easter yesterday.

http://www.wfsb.com/story/37634809/police-identify-victim-killed-by-fallen-tree-on-route-15-in-stamford
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on March 03, 2018, 04:01:12 PM
I was able to get decent shots of the 2 I-84 West signage with the erroneous white directional plate.  The first is the one just west of Exit 37, the second is the one on the CT 72 overpass just west of Exit 35.

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4671/40599106011_805015f4fd_n.jpg)

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4701/39888172004_245c5f199e_n.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: SectorZ on March 03, 2018, 06:10:54 PM
Quote from: wytout on March 03, 2018, 11:45:55 AM
Isn't it about time to put the Merritt parkway conservancy and nimbyism below safety on the priority list and cut some goddam trees down? Every single windy day in recent years results in at least one death from a fallen tree. There is no excuse for trees being able to fall on a high speed controlled access highway at this day in age. Another one got it in the nor'easter yesterday.

http://www.wfsb.com/story/37634809/police-identify-victim-killed-by-fallen-tree-on-route-15-in-stamford

Perhaps they should make the Merritt parkway conservancy a defendant in a wrongful death suit and we'll see how long this shit continues. Their open and obvious blocking of resolving the dangerous trees is well documented.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on March 03, 2018, 06:42:38 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on March 03, 2018, 06:10:54 PM
Quote from: wytout on March 03, 2018, 11:45:55 AM
Isn't it about time to put the Merritt parkway conservancy and nimbyism below safety on the priority list and cut some goddam trees down? Every single windy day in recent years results in at least one death from a fallen tree. There is no excuse for trees being able to fall on a high speed controlled access highway at this day in age. Another one got it in the nor'easter yesterday.

http://www.wfsb.com/story/37634809/police-identify-victim-killed-by-fallen-tree-on-route-15-in-stamford

Perhaps they should make the Merritt parkway conservancy a defendant in a wrongful death suit and we'll see how long this shit continues. Their open and obvious blocking of resolving the dangerous trees is well documented.

I believe the Conservancy is a State agency, which means you'd need permission from Superior Court to sue them. :pan:
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on March 03, 2018, 07:40:48 PM
In other, more positive, news....

The latest plan to get rid of the traffic lights on Route 9 in Middletown:
http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?A=2135&Q=601040

Who knows if this latest "fix" will get off the drawing board, given the state's current fiscal state.  I like this plan a lot better than the previous one, which involved elevating CT 9 SB twice, in between passing over a railroad bridge, closing access to Hartford Ave (Exit 16) from 9NB, and retaining access to Washington St (Exit 15) from 9NB, but with a rotary.  This latest plan eliminates all access between CT 9 and Washington Street (except the Washington St to 9SB ramp) and constructs a new NB offramp flying over SB traffic just south of the railroad bridge to Portland, emptying onto Rapallo Ave.  At Hartford Ave, 9SB would fly over the Hartford Ave to 9NB ramp and the present 9SB to Hartford Ave ramp would be maintained. 

There's some images and better descriptions on ConnDOT's Route 9 Middletown Projects page:
http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?a=4109&q=582016
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on March 05, 2018, 04:55:28 PM
New foundations going up on CT-8 SB in Seymour near the Exit 22 1/2 mile sign. The signing project has started.

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4539/37513839024_7cbd460c5e_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Z9Yeo1)

and

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4256/35712068371_9fc27bee08_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/WpKFJK)

are now endagnered.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on March 06, 2018, 10:10:05 PM
They were out a couple nights ago inspecting sign supports on I-84 EB at the Forbes Street overpass in East Hartford.  Me thinks they're getting ready to replace the BGSs there.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on March 20, 2018, 02:36:56 AM
There are now a total of 4 erroneous I-84 shields with the white West directional plate.  In addition to the ones pictured above, there is now one west of Exit 33 and another west of Exit 32. Gotta love how this state can't get anything right, it seems.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on March 21, 2018, 01:17:19 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on March 20, 2018, 02:36:56 AM
There are now a total of 4 erroneous I-84 shields with the white West directional plate.  In addition to the ones pictured above, there is now one west of Exit 33 and another west of Exit 32. Gotta love how this state can't get anything right, it seems.

A lot of errors in this project. The LEFT Exit 39A UCONN Health aux sign really bugs me with a right aligned exit tab. Plus they removed an Exit 34 1 Mile or 1/2 Mile sign in favor of an aux sign eastbound.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on March 21, 2018, 07:46:00 PM
Sometimes it's a contractor error, sometimes its an error that was in the plans issued by ConnDOT.  In this case, the Exit 39-UCONN Health sign shows up as a right-aligned exit tab in the contract plans, with no "LEFT".  The I-84 shields don't delineate color in the plans, so I can't tell whose at fault there.  The earlier-in-the-project exit tab issues (Exits 31,32) look to be a contractor error, as the plans show the correct exit tabs for each sign.

This reminds me of the CT 8 Thomaston to Winsted signing project, where the contract plans showed a square shield for US 202 and that's what was installed.  It's been almost a year since I've traveled that segment, so I'm not sure if it was changed to a US shield, or not. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on March 22, 2018, 10:25:46 AM
There's also an error on the SB BGS for CT 20 on I-91.  Should be a green pull-through tab on the left-exiting lane instead of a yellow Exit Only one.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on March 23, 2018, 09:39:53 AM
http://fox61.com/2018/03/22/proposal-to-add-tolls-in-connecticut-clears-its-first-hurdle/

A story on the toll saga for the state, from WTIC-TV (FOX) channel 61 of Hartford. Of course they use a now-dated (and no longer standing) toll plaza photo from the Massachusetts Turnpike (I-90). Open road tolling is never mentioned.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: SectorZ on March 23, 2018, 12:43:46 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on March 23, 2018, 09:39:53 AM
http://fox61.com/2018/03/22/proposal-to-add-tolls-in-connecticut-clears-its-first-hurdle/

A story on the toll saga for the state, from WTIC-TV (FOX) channel 61 of Hartford. Of course they use a now-dated (and no longer standing) toll plaza photo from the Massachusetts Turnpike (I-90). Open road tolling is never mentioned.

Can't understand why a state with such high taxes can't fund these items. Imagine if they actually built out what they intended? They'd need a $1/gallon gas tax to pay for it.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on March 23, 2018, 03:39:26 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on March 23, 2018, 12:43:46 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on March 23, 2018, 09:39:53 AM
http://fox61.com/2018/03/22/proposal-to-add-tolls-in-connecticut-clears-its-first-hurdle/

A story on the toll saga for the state, from WTIC-TV (FOX) channel 61 of Hartford.

Can't understand why a state with such high taxes can't fund these items. Imagine if they actually built out what they intended? They'd need a $1/gallon gas tax to pay for it.
At present, their gas tax goes to a general fund; not a highway or transportation-specific fund.  IMHO, that needs to be addressed/fixed first before anything else.

Quote from: Fox61.comHARTFORD --  The transportation committee Thursday voted for the first step towards adding tolls to Interstates 95, 91, and 84.
This has been mentioned multiple times before in this thread and is worth repeating again: current federal law prohibits the blanket implementation of tolls along existing free Interstates.  In short, the state can approve this 'til the cows come home; but federal approval will still need to be required.  I guess the transportation committee in CT forgot that the Interstate Highway System is a federal system.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: seicer on March 23, 2018, 03:59:21 PM
How would open road tolling work on I-95? There are so many exits. Would there just be mainline "gates" and some consolidation of exits?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on March 23, 2018, 08:31:26 PM
Well, you can put up a zillion gantries.  Or work it however the barrier tolls worked.

In any case, all CT needs to do is pass this, put up gantries, and wait for Congress to allow tolling, which is likely given Trump's infrastructure bill and the current political climate.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on March 24, 2018, 09:56:36 AM
Not very often something makes my day on the road, but it seems ConnDOT has FINALLY raised the speed limit to 65 on I-84 in Southington.  Saw new 65 MPH signs from Exit 31-33.  It's now 55 through the CT 72 interchange and I saw 65 signs between Exits 36 and 37.  Day=made

(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/798/40945049742_34b2a2bced_n.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on March 24, 2018, 02:03:04 PM
CT's tolled roads prior to the 1985 had the barriers along the mainline corridors; not at the interchanges.
Now that implementation of AET has expanded to other existing toll facilities (the Tappan Zee Bridge and the Mass Pike being two examples from neighboring states); I don't see ConnDOT deviating from such (if approved by the feds).  Placing tolls along the mainline makes more logical sense and is more cost effective.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on March 24, 2018, 02:09:13 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on March 24, 2018, 09:56:36 AM
Not very often something makes my day on the road, but it seems ConnDOT has FINALLY raised the speed limit to 65 on I-84 in Southington.  Saw new 65 MPH signs from Exit 31-33.  It's now 55 through the CT 72 interchange and I saw 65 signs between Exits 36 and 37.  Day=made

(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/798/40945049742_34b2a2bced_n.jpg)
I think it's going to be 65 all the way up to Farmington. New stakes have been driven in at the width for limit signs.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on March 24, 2018, 03:55:28 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 24, 2018, 02:03:04 PM
CT's tolled roads prior to the 1985 had the barriers along the mainline corridors; not at the interchanges.
Now that implementation of AET has expanded to other existing toll facilities (the Tappan Zee Bridge and the Mass Pike being two examples from neighboring states); I don't see ConnDOT deviating from such (if approved by the feds).  Placing tolls along the mainline makes more logical sense and is more cost effective.
Personally I like the toll setup on the Everett Turnpike. No barriers, tolls collected at the exit/entrance ramps.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on March 24, 2018, 04:48:31 PM
Just took a ride, and it starts eastbound just before Exit 30.  They've done up to the Farmington line, but haven't started WB.  Wouldn't be surprised if it's eventually extended to 691 or the Waterbury city line once the widening in Waterbury is completed.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on March 24, 2018, 05:27:06 PM
Wow - can't believe ConnDOT raised it!  Honestly, I was shocked when the section through Southington didn't go to 65 back in '98, considering some of the sections that did go to 65 (I-691 through Meriden, CT 9 through New Britain).  Now just waiting for the eastern leg of the 'turnpike to go to 65 (SSR 695).

Let's just hope this isn't another contractor error.  The contract plan PDF I have show 55 mph signs.   Maybe an addendum was issued.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on March 24, 2018, 09:26:40 PM
65 was approved on 10/25/17 for two stretches: Waterbury/Cheshire TL to just before the 72 interchange, and Slater Rd to Route 9.  Page 130-131 of this PDF shows it. 

http://dot.si.ct.gov/dotsi/lib/dotsi/statetrafficcommission/postedspeeds.pdf

No such luck for SR 695,  CT 25 north of the 8/25 split, US 7 on the Brookfield bypass, or CT 8 between the split and Naugatuck.

One thing I find fascinating: the speed limit on the I-684 Greenwich jog is 55, but is 65 on either side in NY. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on March 25, 2018, 08:53:42 AM
I-84 in Waterbury is more of a straightening of the overall road, rather than a widening. At least they're getting rid of the bottleneck with the last bridge westbound before you'd see the mall on the right.

Walking under CT Route 9 on Webster Square Road in Berlin most days...I noticed that it's 65 MPH northbound there. Considering the curve you get after that before passing under Christian Lane (Exit 23 SB-off NB-on).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on March 25, 2018, 05:31:14 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 24, 2018, 03:55:28 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 24, 2018, 02:03:04 PM
CT's tolled roads prior to the 1985 had the barriers along the mainline corridors; not at the interchanges.
Now that implementation of AET has expanded to other existing toll facilities (the Tappan Zee Bridge and the Mass Pike being two examples from neighboring states); I don't see ConnDOT deviating from such (if approved by the feds).  Placing tolls along the mainline makes more logical sense and is more cost effective.
Personally I like the toll setup on the Everett Turnpike. No barriers, tolls collected at the exit/entrance ramps.
There are two toll barriers/plazas along the mainline corridor: one at Hooksett (within Exit 11 off I-93), the other at Bedford (within Exit 13 off the unnumbered portion of the Everett Turnpike).

Unlike the highways in CT, the interchanges along all three of NH's tollways are fewer and more spread out.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: roadman on March 26, 2018, 10:09:26 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 24, 2018, 02:03:04 PM
CT's tolled roads prior to the 1985 had the barriers along the mainline corridors; not at the interchanges.
Now that implementation of AET has expanded to other existing toll facilities (the Tappan Zee Bridge and the Mass Pike being two examples from neighboring states); I don't see ConnDOT deviating from such (if approved by the feds).  Placing tolls along the mainline makes more logical sense and is more cost effective.
Until people demand that gantries not be placed at certain locations so they can travel between local interchanges without being charged a toll.  This is currently the case on sections of the MassPike in the Springfield and Worcester areas.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on March 26, 2018, 10:59:30 AM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on March 25, 2018, 08:53:42 AM
Walking under CT Route 9 on Webster Square Road in Berlin most days...I noticed that it's 65 MPH northbound there. Considering the curve you get after that before passing under Christian Lane (Exit 23 SB-off NB-on).

There is an advisory speed limit (yellow) of 55 mph on CT 9 SB 1 mile before Christian Lane when it passes over the "Willow Brook Connector" (NB Exit 24 offramp) and curves to meet the original CT 72 expressway alignment.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on March 26, 2018, 12:43:37 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on March 26, 2018, 10:59:30 AM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on March 25, 2018, 08:53:42 AM
Walking under CT Route 9 on Webster Square Road in Berlin most days...I noticed that it's 65 MPH northbound there. Considering the curve you get after that before passing under Christian Lane (Exit 23 SB-off NB-on).

There is an advisory speed limit (yellow) of 55 mph on CT 9 SB 1 mile before Christian Lane when it passes over the "Willow Brook Connector" (NB Exit 24 offramp) and curves to meet the original CT 72 expressway alignment.
Which basically means its unenforceable except under the basic speed law.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on March 28, 2018, 11:35:49 PM
New diagrammatic 1mi BGS for CT 15 N, Exit 89 is up, replacing the pull-through signs.  Drove it a few hours ago.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on March 29, 2018, 10:06:01 AM
Which road were you on? The only Exit 89 instances in the state are on CT Route 15 or I-95.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: odditude on March 29, 2018, 01:36:17 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on March 29, 2018, 10:06:01 AM
Which road were you on?
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 28, 2018, 11:35:49 PM
CT 15 N, Exit 89
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on March 29, 2018, 03:20:39 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 28, 2018, 11:35:49 PM
New diagrammatic 1mi BGS for CT 15 N, Exit 89 is up, replacing the pull-through signs.  Drove it a few hours ago.

Is that from a spot improvement signing contract?  I guess I missed that one.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on March 29, 2018, 05:33:09 PM
Is this at the site of the one with the temporary signs?  Perhaps its installation was part of the Airport Rd bridge rehab?  That's more like a 1/2 mile advance.  Otherwise, I did not see it on any of the recent (past couple years) of spot-sign replacement projects.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on March 29, 2018, 10:30:14 PM
And this is why nothing ever gets built in CT.  Here come the NIMBY's.
https://www.middletownpress.com/middletown/article/DOT-scraps-latest-plan-for-traffic-light-removal-12792064.php
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Beeper1 on March 29, 2018, 11:05:16 PM
This result was a matter of when, not if.   

I love how the complaints include "it will make it harder for people to get to Main Street" and also "it will put too much traffic onto Main Street".

This is another CT project will have these little designs pop up every decade or so, only to crumble under any public resistance to change a status quo (even though those same people always complain about the status quo, too).  Those lights will continue to be there until at least a decade after Route 11 is completed.   
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on March 29, 2018, 11:17:00 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on March 29, 2018, 10:30:14 PM
And this is why nothing ever gets built in CT.  Here come the NIMBY's.
https://www.middletownpress.com/middletown/article/DOT-scraps-latest-plan-for-traffic-light-removal-12792064.php

Here's what I say, and its far-fetched, I know, but...

...re-route CT 9.  Build two new river crossings and have it loop around the center of Portland.  Old CT 9 is boulevarded and becomes an extended CT 99.  It also bypasses what is arguably an unsafe stretch of roadway.  New bypass could be build to Interstate standards or close to it.  This would cost more but it would send through traffic away from the city.  State could use eminent domain to acquire ROW form private land owners.  Only other roadblock would be federal EIS.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on March 30, 2018, 12:18:47 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 29, 2018, 11:17:00 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on March 29, 2018, 10:30:14 PM
And this is why nothing ever gets built in CT.  Here come the NIMBY's.
https://www.middletownpress.com/middletown/article/DOT-scraps-latest-plan-for-traffic-light-removal-12792064.php

Here's what I say, and its far-fetched, I know, but...

...re-route CT 9.  Build two new river crossings and have it loop around the center of Portland.  Old CT 9 is boulevarded and becomes an extended CT 99.  It also bypasses what is arguably an unsafe stretch of roadway.  New bypass could be build to Interstate standards or close to it.  This would cost more but it would send through traffic away from the city.  State could use eminent domain to acquire ROW form private land owners.  Only other roadblock would be federal EIS.
They'd complain that you're taking traffic away from their town. Middletown is just always going to complain until the state stops listening and does what they need to.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: yakra on March 30, 2018, 04:17:25 AM
Have Paul LePage build a wicked big viaduct, guy.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: AMLNet49 on March 30, 2018, 05:15:40 AM
Quote from: Alps on March 30, 2018, 12:18:47 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 29, 2018, 11:17:00 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on March 29, 2018, 10:30:14 PM
And this is why nothing ever gets built in CT.  Here come the NIMBY's.
https://www.middletownpress.com/middletown/article/DOT-scraps-latest-plan-for-traffic-light-removal-12792064.php

Here's what I say, and its far-fetched, I know, but...

...re-route CT 9.  Build two new river crossings and have it loop around the center of Portland.  Old CT 9 is boulevarded and becomes an extended CT 99.  It also bypasses what is arguably an unsafe stretch of roadway.  New bypass could be build to Interstate standards or close to it.  This would cost more but it would send through traffic away from the city.  State could use eminent domain to acquire ROW form private land owners.  Only other roadblock would be federal EIS.
They'd complain that you're taking traffic away from their town. Middletown is just always going to complain until the state stops listening and does what they need to.
And like anyone who doesn't want to lose an inborn advantage they have a right to complain. However the government also has the ability to pick winners and losers
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on March 30, 2018, 05:51:36 PM
Quote from: Alps on March 30, 2018, 12:18:47 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 29, 2018, 11:17:00 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on March 29, 2018, 10:30:14 PM
And this is why nothing ever gets built in CT.  Here come the NIMBY's.
https://www.middletownpress.com/middletown/article/DOT-scraps-latest-plan-for-traffic-light-removal-12792064.php

Here's what I say, and its far-fetched, I know, but...

...re-route CT 9.  Build two new river crossings and have it loop around the center of Portland.  Old CT 9 is boulevarded and becomes an extended CT 99.  It also bypasses what is arguably an unsafe stretch of roadway.  New bypass could be build to Interstate standards or close to it.  This would cost more but it would send through traffic away from the city.  State could use eminent domain to acquire ROW form private land owners.  Only other roadblock would be federal EIS.
They'd complain that you're taking traffic away from their town. Middletown is just always going to complain until the state stops listening and does what they need to.
Traffic would still have the option to get downtown.  Arguably the best traffic-calming measure would be to bypass the freeway and boulevard the existing.  This gives you actual access to the riverfront and eliminates the grade separation from neighborhoods.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on March 30, 2018, 08:02:23 PM
Quote from: Beeper1 on March 29, 2018, 11:05:16 PM
This is another CT project will have these little designs pop up every decade or so, only to crumble under any public resistance to change a status quo (even though those same people always complain about the status quo, too).

A moment from a Simpsons episode comes to mind where an old lady complains that she wants all of her groceries in one bag but doesn't want that bag to be heavy.

That's basically what's going on here. "Get rid of those traffic lights!" "No wait don't do it that way it blocks the river" "No wait not that way either it negatively impacts this historic district" "No not like that it places disproportionate burden on a minority community" and on and on it goes because while no one likes the lights, every feasible means of eliminating them will inconvenience someone in some way.

Ultimately though, this problem is begotten as well by funding issues. If the money were actually there to put shovels in the ground, there would be more urgency on the state's part to make it work even if they needed to tell a few complainers "sorry, you drew the short straw here". But since the state doesn't have the money to actually build anything anyway, they're more than happy to let the cycle of paralysis by analysis continue so it can look like they're at least trying to do something. Making a decision about what to build would require figuring out how to pay to build it, or having to admit that the money to do so isn't there.


Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on March 30, 2018, 08:08:56 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on March 30, 2018, 08:02:23 PM
Quote from: Beeper1 on March 29, 2018, 11:05:16 PM
This is another CT project will have these little designs pop up every decade or so, only to crumble under any public resistance to change a status quo (even though those same people always complain about the status quo, too).

A moment from a Simpsons episode comes to mind where an old lady complains that she wants all of her groceries in one bag but doesn't want that bag to be heavy.

That's basically what's going on here. "Get rid of those traffic lights!" "No wait don't do it that way it blocks the river" "No wait not that way either it negatively impacts this historic district" "No not like that it places disproportionate burden on a minority community" and on and on it goes because while no one likes the lights, every feasible means of eliminating them will inconvenience someone in some way.

Ultimately though, this problem is begotten as well by funding issues. If the money were actually there to put shovels in the ground, there would be more urgency on the state's part to make it work even if they needed to tell a few complainers "sorry, you drew the short straw here". But since the state doesn't have the money to actually build anything anyway, they're more than happy to let the cycle of paralysis by analysis continue so it can look like they're at least trying to do something. Making a decision about what to build would require figuring out how to pay to build it, or having to admit that the money to do so isn't there.
My understanding is that they don't like the stoplights but don't like the options provided to remove them.  In other words, they'll just put up with shitty congestion to save a few trees.  Even though less congestion means less pollution.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: mroad860 on March 31, 2018, 10:49:53 PM
Yup, those lights in Middletown are going to stay there until the already rusty poles come down. The recently shot down proposal was reasonable. People in CT just love to complain no matter what, it's partly why its slowly sinking. I would have just let the complainers throw a fit for a few years and just fix the road already!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on April 01, 2018, 07:58:40 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on March 29, 2018, 10:30:14 PM
And this is why nothing ever gets built in CT.  Here come the NIMBY's.
https://www.middletownpress.com/middletown/article/DOT-scraps-latest-plan-for-traffic-light-removal-12792064.php

The DOT needs to say what the NYDOT said to a NIMBY group in the Bronx about the teardown of the Sheridan.  "We have gone above and beyond"....to satisfy these people and have had a lot of public hearings etc....(I paraphrase at the end) but it was great how the DOT actually put them in their place.  NOT CT, they want to satisfy the PC and the minority of the people.

The second reason nothing ever gets done...let's just say everybody agrees on a design, THEN the state says we have no money and can't do it.  Then it's back to square one and the vicious cycle starts all over again.

PS:
Although I don't see why the NB ramps couldn't have been from the right (out) side and put the carriage way in the middle.  It'll take the same amount of land. Just reverse.  the ramp curves wouldn't be as sharp and you wouldn't have left exits/entrances that CT still can't let go of. 

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on April 01, 2018, 10:53:12 PM
Other things I wonder about here:

1- The Connecticut River
2- The proximity of the Arrigoni Bridge over the river into Portland, carrying CT Routes 17 and 66
3- You'd still have the unsigned Miller Street intersection southbound before the bridge
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on April 02, 2018, 05:10:20 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on April 01, 2018, 10:53:12 PM
Other things I wonder about here:

1- The Connecticut River
2- The proximity of the Arrigoni Bridge over the river into Portland, carrying CT Routes 17 and 66
3- You'd still have the unsigned Miller Street intersection southbound before the bridge
These would be non-issues if you just built a bypass east of downtown.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on April 04, 2018, 11:05:55 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on March 29, 2018, 03:20:39 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 28, 2018, 11:35:49 PM
New diagrammatic 1mi BGS for CT 15 N, Exit 89 is up, replacing the pull-through signs.  Drove it a few hours ago.

Is that from a spot improvement signing contract?  I guess I missed that one.

As Bill Engvall would say, here's your sign:

(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/819/26358753317_ce9cd92ccd_n.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on April 04, 2018, 11:07:22 AM
Shady Jake got a shot of the sign, and I'll compare it with the pic I got of the older sign:

Take April 2018, by Shady Jake:
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/819/26358753317_ce9cd92ccd.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Gaev36)New Route 15 North diagram sign (https://flic.kr/p/Gaev36) by Shady Jake (https://www.flickr.com/photos/153133234@N05/), on Flickr

Taken 2016, by myself:
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8339/28977159501_ec2461c96b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/L9BvYi)15NB-Exit89-1 (https://flic.kr/p/L9BvYi) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

It's quite obvious the signs have been simplified greatly.  No longer any mention of US 5 or CT 2.  US 5 has had an on-again-off-again relationship with CT 15 signs in this area of Hartford, ever since the 1980s.  No longer any mention to stay on CT 15 to reach East Hartford.  The "Hartford" destination was kind of redundant on the Exit 89 sign, since you're already in Hartford, but you do take I-91 North to get to downtown.  Usually when signs get replaced as part of spot projects, the "status-quo" is kept, as far as destinations, routes, control points, etc.  This one simplified the signage greatly, even eliminating the "TO"s. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Beeper1 on April 04, 2018, 05:22:34 PM
Honestly, at this point on the route, it would have made more sense to sign US-5 then it does to sign CT-15.  CT-15 just peters out into 84 less than a mile after the bridge, while US-5 is a legitimate route up to towns on the east side of the river.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on April 04, 2018, 06:21:01 PM
Quote from: Beeper1 on April 04, 2018, 05:22:34 PM
Honestly, at this point on the route, it would have made more sense to sign US-5 then it does to sign CT-15.  CT-15 just peters out into 84 less than a mile after the bridge, while US-5 is a legitimate route up to towns on the east side of the river.
Maybe we get a ground-mounted sign later that says "US 5 Downtown East Hartford Keep Left"? Also have to consider that this isn't pre-Interstate anymore. Most traffic occurs on the Wilbur Cross Highway is during peak rush hour.  They don't need to know what they already know.  Personally I wish they would better sign alternative routes from I-91 across the CT River because everyone seems to want to just use Exit 29 when they could also use Exit 25N.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on April 05, 2018, 12:19:42 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 04, 2018, 06:21:01 PM
Quote from: Beeper1 on April 04, 2018, 05:22:34 PM
Honestly, at this point on the route, it would have made more sense to sign US-5 then it does to sign CT-15.  CT-15 just peters out into 84 less than a mile after the bridge, while US-5 is a legitimate route up to towns on the east side of the river.
Maybe we get a ground-mounted sign later that says "US 5 Downtown East Hartford Keep Left"? Also have to consider that this isn't pre-Interstate anymore. Most traffic occurs on the Wilbur Cross Highway is during peak rush hour.  They don't need to know what they already know.  Personally I wish they would better sign alternative routes from I-91 across the CT River because everyone seems to want to just use Exit 29 when they could also use Exit 25N.

1. CT 15 to I-84 makes sense because most traffic is going to continue on to I-84, plus most people (including ConnDOT) refer to the highway as Route 15 anyway.  To get to the other towns US 5 serves east of the river (South/East Windsor), most will take I-91 and either cross the river on I-291 or the Dexter Coffin on I-91 to get to US 5.  I like that Hartford was eliminated as a control city for 91 North, seeing you've already crossed the city line.  You could push to add Waterbury as a second control city with the I-84 mention.   Seems that MUTCD is pushing larger, longer distance cities at major junctions. 


2. There used to be those Route A signs for the Putnam Bridge.  Also mentions of it on an LGS just past the entrance from CT 99.  What is really needed are those Alternate 84 and 91 signs you see on and near I-691 and CT 9.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on April 05, 2018, 03:09:30 PM
Just saw later this year new signing contracts will be advertised for I-84 Exits 40-56 and CT-9 Exits 25-31 and CT-72 Exits 1-9.

PS, I also noticed some new signage on CT-72 for Exit 1 with the current I-84 signing contract.  There's an Exit 2 sign, attractions sign for Exit 2 and a "Robertson Airport Exit 1" aux sign.

Any idea when CT will replace their rest area signage?

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4368/36591159692_af2fb1fcbe_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/XKrfXE)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on April 05, 2018, 03:36:51 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on April 05, 2018, 03:09:30 PM
Any idea when CT will replace their rest area signage?

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4368/36591159692_af2fb1fcbe_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/XKrfXE)
As long as the buildings of their rest areas/welcome centers are on banker's hours; probably never.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on April 05, 2018, 06:06:56 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 05, 2018, 03:36:51 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on April 05, 2018, 03:09:30 PM
Any idea when CT will replace their rest area signage?

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4368/36591159692_af2fb1fcbe_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/XKrfXE)
As long as the buildings of their rest areas/welcome centers are on banker's hours; probably never.
This sign. I need to find this sign.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on April 05, 2018, 06:55:10 PM
It's near Exit 29 in Southington, CT.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on April 09, 2018, 06:08:47 PM
What with the "low bridge" VMS messages on I-91 and CT 15? Are they lowering a bridge to rehab it?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on April 09, 2018, 09:21:58 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 09, 2018, 06:08:47 PM
What with the "low bridge" VMS messages on I-91 and CT 15? Are they lowering a bridge to rehab it?
They're rehabbing the Ridge Rd bridge over Route 15.  It's already advertised as a low clearance bridge; it's lower by a couple of inches as they rehab it.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on April 09, 2018, 09:48:06 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on April 09, 2018, 09:21:58 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 09, 2018, 06:08:47 PM
What with the "low bridge" VMS messages on I-91 and CT 15? Are they lowering a bridge to rehab it?
They're rehabbing the Ridge Rd bridge over Route 15.  It's already advertised as a low clearance bridge; it's lower by a couple of inches as they rehab it.
It's actually Airport Road.  Just looked at it on the GIS Project map.
QuoteRehab of Br. #00481. Remove existing bituminous, patch deck, construct link-slabs, intall membrane and bituminous overlay. Replace bearings. Repair and spot paint steel. Patch substructure

Also found out that bidding starts next July on a resurfacing project on CT 2 in East Hartford that includes the removal of Exit 5B EB and the Cambridge St. on-ramp.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on April 10, 2018, 11:27:54 AM
No online cite for this (saw it in a hardcopy of the Glastonbury Citizen), but the 2 bridges serving the CT 17 SB to New London Turnpike EB ramp in Glastonbury are nearing end-of-life (built c. 1952). In place of rehabilitating or replacing those bridges, ConnDOT is considering revising the interchange to a 4-ramp parclo and removing the direct ramp altogether.

The result would be a lot less interesting, and probably introduce yet another traffic light, but would free up some land and probably be safer.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on April 10, 2018, 03:24:10 PM
Quote from: kurumi on April 10, 2018, 11:27:54 AM
No online cite for this (saw it in a hardcopy of the Glastonbury Citizen), but the 2 bridges serving the CT 17 SB to New London Turnpike EB ramp in Glastonbury are nearing end-of-life (built c. 1952). In place of rehabilitating or replacing those bridges, ConnDOT is considering revising the interchange to a 4-ramp parclo and removing the direct ramp altogether.

The result would be a lot less interesting, and probably introduce yet another traffic light, but would free up some land and probably be safer.

That's what I don't get, since the CT DOT is hard up for money, instead of doing projects that can increase capacity, they do these projects that aren't really needed. I see nothing wrong with the CT-17 to New London Tpke interchange.  It's not perfect but I think dollars could be better spent elsewhere such as on turn-lanes for the many intersections in CT that have none.

As for Route 2 Exit 5B:
https://www.easthartfordct.gov/sites/easthartfordct/files/uploads/2017-05-11_public20hearing20notice20to20businesses20and20residents202822920-20tg.pdf



PS, I drove side streets of the Exit 44-45 combo on I-95 in West Haven.  Contrary to what they say, it now takes longer to get through the exit and interchange now that the free flow movements are gone.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on April 10, 2018, 04:01:21 PM
Route 2 Exit 5B is an exit that certainly can be eliminated.  Many of the same areas can be served just as easily by Exits 5A and 5C, which both serve Main St.  Head left from the 5B exit ramp, and you're in a residential area. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on April 11, 2018, 02:00:44 PM
Quote from: kurumi on April 10, 2018, 11:27:54 AM
No online cite for this (saw it in a hardcopy of the Glastonbury Citizen), but the 2 bridges serving the CT 17 SB to New London Turnpike EB ramp in Glastonbury are nearing end-of-life (built c. 1952). In place of rehabilitating or replacing those bridges, ConnDOT is considering revising the interchange to a 4-ramp parclo and removing the direct ramp altogether.

The result would be a lot less interesting, and probably introduce yet another traffic light, but would free up some land and probably be safer.
The current setup also really doesn't look necessary in the slightest. It's almost as if this was an interim configuration while they were extending CT 2, and then left it in place after that. With one EB lane on either side for New London Tpk., why do you need five EB approach lanes on two separate approaches? So a diamond/folded-diamond setup appears to work just fine by inspection.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on April 11, 2018, 03:03:30 PM
Quote from: Alps on April 11, 2018, 02:00:44 PM
Quote from: kurumi on April 10, 2018, 11:27:54 AM
No online cite for this (saw it in a hardcopy of the Glastonbury Citizen), but the 2 bridges serving the CT 17 SB to New London Turnpike EB ramp in Glastonbury are nearing end-of-life (built c. 1952). In place of rehabilitating or replacing those bridges, ConnDOT is considering revising the interchange to a 4-ramp parclo and removing the direct ramp altogether.

The result would be a lot less interesting, and probably introduce yet another traffic light, but would free up some land and probably be safer.
The current setup also really doesn't look necessary in the slightest. It's almost as if this was an interim configuration while they were extending CT 2, and then left it in place after that. With one EB lane on either side for New London Tpk., why do you need five EB approach lanes on two separate approaches? So a diamond/folded-diamond setup appears to work just fine by inspection.
It was probably the original end of the freeway alignment.  New London Tpke was old CT 2 before the bypass was completed.  Similar to how MA 25 ended at MA 28/US 6 before being completed in the late 80's.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on April 11, 2018, 05:13:49 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 11, 2018, 03:03:30 PM
It was probably the original end of the freeway alignment.  New London Tpke was old CT 2 before the bypass was completed.  Similar to how MA 25 ended at MA 28/US 6 before being completed in the late 80's.

That's exactly what it was. 

Kurumi's got more here:
http://kurumi.com/roads/ct/ehglast.html

And here, which shows CT 2 transitioning from the "East Hartford-Glastonbury Exp'y" to "New London Turnpike" at said interchange:
http://kurumi.com/roads/ct/pics/usgs-ehg.jpg

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on April 13, 2018, 10:59:45 PM
I posted this in another thread.....look at the handwritten NORTH!

(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/822/39633354100_98aff8d73d_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/23ogino)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on April 13, 2018, 11:39:58 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on April 13, 2018, 10:59:45 PM
I posted this in another thread.....look at the handwritten NORTH!

(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/822/39633354100_98aff8d73d_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/23ogino)
No part of me believes that is real.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on April 14, 2018, 09:35:04 AM
Looks like it's from I-84 East in Waterbury, in the area of the Brass Mill Center Mall, by the construction zone. I can't speak for the sign itself though!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: AMLNet49 on April 14, 2018, 12:18:46 PM
Nice
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on April 17, 2018, 02:25:16 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on March 24, 2018, 09:56:36 AM
Not very often something makes my day on the road, but it seems ConnDOT has FINALLY raised the speed limit to 65 on I-84 in Southington.  Saw new 65 MPH signs from Exit 31-33.  It's now 55 through the CT 72 interchange and I saw 65 signs between Exits 36 and 37.  Day=made

(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/798/40945049742_34b2a2bced_n.jpg)
I forgot to mention this but as of this past Easter weekend; only the eastbound stretch of I-84 has a posted 65 mph limit from about Exit 26 to Exit 36 (excluding the CT 72 concurrency where it's still 55).  Upon my return trip on Monday April 2; the westbound stretch was still posted at 55.

It's seems kind of odd that only one direction got the increase (there were no construction/work zones in the westbound direction).  I'm assuming that the westbound stretch has since received the speed limit increase.  Can anyone confirm?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on April 17, 2018, 04:03:50 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 17, 2018, 02:25:16 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on March 24, 2018, 09:56:36 AM
Not very often something makes my day on the road, but it seems ConnDOT has FINALLY raised the speed limit to 65 on I-84 in Southington.  Saw new 65 MPH signs from Exit 31-33.  It's now 55 through the CT 72 interchange and I saw 65 signs between Exits 36 and 37.  Day=made

(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/798/40945049742_34b2a2bced_n.jpg)
I forgot to mention this but as of this past Easter weekend; only the eastbound stretch of I-84 has a posted 65 mph limit from about Exit 26 to Exit 36 (excluding the CT 72 concurrency where it's still 55).  Upon my return trip on Monday April 2; the westbound stretch was still posted at 55.

It's seems kind of odd that only one direction got the increase (there were no construction/work zones in the westbound direction).  I'm assuming that the westbound stretch has since received the speed limit increase.  Can anyone confirm?

I can confirm that Westbound signage changes are done from Exits 39A-31 as of about a week ago.   And it will be both sides.

http://www.rep-am.com/news/news-local/2018/03/30/i-84-speed-limit-change-creates-uniform-65-mph-from-waterbury-to-plainville/

Looks like SR 508 is part of the project despite not being listed.  Most of the ground mount signage is new, but like the rest of the project, overhead signage has not been swapped out/taken down.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on April 17, 2018, 05:04:32 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 17, 2018, 02:25:16 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on March 24, 2018, 09:56:36 AM
Not very often something makes my day on the road, but it seems ConnDOT has FINALLY raised the speed limit to 65 on I-84 in Southington.  Saw new 65 MPH signs from Exit 31-33.  It's now 55 through the CT 72 interchange and I saw 65 signs between Exits 36 and 37.  Day=made

(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/798/40945049742_34b2a2bced_n.jpg)
I forgot to mention this but as of this past Easter weekend; only the eastbound stretch of I-84 has a posted 65 mph limit from about Exit 26 to Exit 36 (excluding the CT 72 concurrency where it's still 55).  Upon my return trip on Monday April 2; the westbound stretch was still posted at 55.

It's seems kind of odd that only one direction got the increase (there were no construction/work zones in the westbound direction).  I'm assuming that the westbound stretch has since received the speed limit increase.  Can anyone confirm?
They are legally both 65 now.  Speed limit registry comfirms it.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on April 24, 2018, 02:01:01 PM
Drove westbound on I-84 through the Plainville-Southington portion of the resigning project.  Every reassurance shield I saw had a white "WEST" banner.  Here's one in Southington:

(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/947/40963703214_5151fea66c_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/25pPFP5)DSC09681 (https://flic.kr/p/25pPFP5) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

And the speed limit 65 signs start right at Exit 39A, westbound.  The last one I saw was right around Exit 29.  Speed limit signs to the west of there to Waterbury all were 55 MPH.  And there was no "REDUCE SPEED AHEAD" sign when it dropped from 65 to 55.  The only such sign observed was near Exit 25A, approaching the construction zone.

Old sign on a new gantry (but for how much longer?)...
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/959/41673178621_84029bd839_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/26uvW8F)DSC09700 (https://flic.kr/p/26uvW8F) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

Complete album here:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/albums/72157667598103346/with/41673178621/
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on April 27, 2018, 02:32:28 PM
Geezer Marie, people on Reddit are so uptight about the toll debate.  As if they have a better solution.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on April 27, 2018, 02:47:33 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 27, 2018, 02:32:28 PM
Geezer Marie, people on Reddit are so uptight about the toll debate.  As if they have a better solution.

I can think of many.  I just won't present them here.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on April 27, 2018, 11:19:35 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on April 27, 2018, 02:47:33 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 27, 2018, 02:32:28 PM
Geezer Marie, people on Reddit are so uptight about the toll debate.  As if they have a better solution.

I can think of many.  I just won't present them here.
I'm admittedly heartless on the issue.  Don't want to pay a toll?  You don't have to use that road.  Go use a US route.  I really don't care for people patronizing, making it a "woe is me" sort of thing.  Get over it and live your life.  That's all I'm going to say before I go off the deep end.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on April 28, 2018, 12:07:07 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 27, 2018, 11:19:35 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on April 27, 2018, 02:47:33 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 27, 2018, 02:32:28 PM
Geezer Marie, people on Reddit are so uptight about the toll debate.  As if they have a better solution.

I can think of many.  I just won't present them here.
I'm admittedly heartless on the issue.  Don't want to pay a toll?  You don't have to use that road.  Go use a US route.  I really don't care for people patronizing, making it a "woe is me" sort of thing.  Get over it and live your life.  That's all I'm going to say before I go off the deep end.

Since the door is open a crack, I will present the arguments against tolls. 

First, adding tolls to an existing non-tolled facility means a loss in federal highway funding.  It would be ok if it were a new road, or a newly constructed HOT lane, but tolls are being proposed for almost every limited access highway in the state, none of which are currently tolled.  I-95, CT 15, and other toll bridges lost their "grandfathered in" status when tolls were eliminated in the 1980's.

Second, the cost to implement tolls is expansive.  In addition to the cost of installation, you're creating more government and spending more to run it when the state is already in a gigantic deficit.

Third, tolls are a form of triple taxation to citizens.  The money that CT citizens would pay in tolls has already been taxed as income at both the federal and state level.  Figuring an average $60,000 after tax salary and tolls amounting to about $2000 a year, that would mean a 3.3% pay cut.  In addition, CT already has one of the highest gas taxes in the country.  And even more income would need to be spent when the cost of tolls are added to the price of goods being shipped in trucks using CT roadways (someone has to absorb the increased shipping costs, and it won't be the retailer).

Fourth, CT has a major problem as to where money allocated to transportation goes.  It does not go to a dedicated fund, but rather the general fund, where it gets pooled in with funding for other often controversial projects and programs.  Because CT has spent more in other areas, transportation is dangerously underfunded and infrastructure has suffered.  Rather than make adjustments and cuts to unnecessary spending (DOT administrative costs are 5 times the national average), many in power would rather put the burden on the citizens and maintain the status quo.

I won't go any further or offer any opinion, lest I get the dreaded purple font from a mod, but these are the arguments against tolls in CT.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: southshore720 on April 29, 2018, 02:18:25 PM
Some progress to report on the I-95 Signage Replacement project between Exits 85-93.  Many new BGSs have been erected Southbound and are identical to the signs used on I-395.  Most of the new signage appears between Exits 93-88 at the moment, including a very large, impressive Welcome to CT sign.  Northbound, no new signage yet, but most of the sign supports are in place.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on April 29, 2018, 02:34:35 PM
Quote from: southshore720 on April 29, 2018, 02:18:25 PM
Some progress to report on the I-95 Signage Replacement project between Exits 85-93.  Many new BGSs have been erected Southbound and are identical to the signs used on I-395.  Most of the new signage appears between Exits 93-88 at the moment, including a very large, impressive Welcome to CT sign.  Northbound, no new signage yet, but most of the sign supports are in place.

Do the state shields have black borders on them?  If so, that seems to be a District 2 and District 4 thing.  The new ones on I-84 (mostly) in District 1 do not, but the CT 8 ones in Litchfield County and I-395 do. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: southshore720 on April 30, 2018, 01:47:50 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on April 29, 2018, 02:34:35 PM
Quote from: southshore720 on April 29, 2018, 02:18:25 PM
Some progress to report on the I-95 Signage Replacement project between Exits 85-93.  Many new BGSs have been erected Southbound and are identical to the signs used on I-395.  Most of the new signage appears between Exits 93-88 at the moment, including a very large, impressive Welcome to CT sign.  Northbound, no new signage yet, but most of the sign supports are in place.

Do the state shields have black borders on them?  If so, that seems to be a District 2 and District 4 thing.  The new ones on I-84 (mostly) in District 1 do not, but the CT 8 ones in Litchfield County and I-395 do.
Yes, the shields do have the black borders!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on April 30, 2018, 09:49:33 AM
Something seems slightly off with the CT Route 372 shield here. It's at the New Britain/Berlin town line, as Corbin Avenue of New Britain ends and splits off to the right to start Farmington Avenue of Berlin.

(https://i.imgur.com/c4Vdrqn.jpg)

These signs recently replaced a VERY ancient big green sign pointing to staying left to head towards CT Route 9 South. The sign was so old that you could see the sun fade for what was "TO CT 72 EAST".
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on April 30, 2018, 10:28:33 AM
I've noticed that as I drove by there.  The CT 372 shield looks like it's up to MA/ME specs.  Usually don't see those kind of oversized shields anywhere in CT.  Interesting fact: the sign is actually inaccurate.  In the CT Highway Log, the sign for CT 372 East is pointing to SR 918.  To follow CT 372 East to the letter of the law, you need to keep left, turn right on CT 71A for a brief overlap, then turn left onto Farmington Ave.  Also, until 1979 or so when the expressway through downtown New Britain was completed, Corbin Ave was part of CT 72 proper and bore left to follow what is now SR 571, so the "TO" in the 72 East wasn't even needed. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on April 30, 2018, 11:54:53 AM
So that tiny piece of road to the right has an SR number? Interesting! As for heading that way, I figure they do it that way since there's enough traffic in that vicinity already!

I believe the Willow Brook Connector was opened around 1961. The parts which veers north as today's CT Route 9 was opened a year later to Exit 25 - Ellis Street in New Britain.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on April 30, 2018, 01:10:49 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on April 30, 2018, 11:54:53 AM
So that tiny piece of road to the right has an SR number? Interesting! As for heading that way, I figure they do it that way since there's enough traffic in that vicinity already!

I believe the Willow Brook Connector was opened around 1961. The parts which veers north as today's CT Route 9 was opened a year later to Exit 25 - Ellis Street in New Britain.

It does. All 0.16 mi of it.  From 1978-90, CT 372 used the connector and ended at then CT 72.  Signs for Exit 24 (which was unnumbered prior to CT 9) used to say "372 TO 71"; the TO was just moved ahead of 372. Farmington Ave was an SR until 372 was rerouted off the connector.

From a story relayed to me by my mom, the portion of CT 72 from I-84 to at least Corbin Ave was opened by 1970.  She was living in New Britain at the time, and got a ticket from NBPD on Christmas Eve while borrowing my grandmother's car for having a taillight out.  I also heard from someone else that the highway had a temporary ending just beyond the Corbin Ave exit at West Main St because he used to open up his 76 Porsche on that stretch.  The portion from West Main to Ellis St (now a combo of CT 72 and CT 9) opened around 1978.  I'm a little too young to remember the expressway not being completed through New Britain, but I'm old enough to remember the portion of CT 9 north of Exit 28 being a highway to nowhere, and CT 72 on the CT 9 section from Exit 28 to where it downgraded to a 2 lane road just east of the Berlin Turnpike (now part of CT 372).  All exits were unnumbered until CT 9 arrived, and current CT 72 received exit numbers around the time of the reconstruction of the I-84/CT 72/CT 372 interchanges in Plainville around 2000.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on April 30, 2018, 10:18:22 PM
Some dates from newspapers and other sources:
Willow Brook Connector (now mostly SR 571) opened Nov. 1, 1962
Newer CT 72 (now part of CT 9) from 571 to Ellis St: Aug. 14, 1969
From I-84 to Corbin Ave: Feb. 2, 1970
CT 72 complete through New Britain: Nov. 22, 1978

From 1978 to 1989 or '90 there was a CT 372 freeway, along present-day 571 from 71A to 72.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on April 30, 2018, 10:58:47 PM
Sometimes, I try to note the year stamped into the bridges. CT Route 372 over the Berlin Turnpike (US 5/CT 15) in Berlin says 1989...but that's when the bridge was reconstructed. I think it was the carriageway for the old CT Route 72 West at one time.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on April 30, 2018, 11:29:42 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on April 30, 2018, 10:58:47 PM
Sometimes, I try to note the year stamped into the bridges. CT Route 372 over the Berlin Turnpike (US 5/CT 15) in Berlin says 1989...but that's when the bridge was reconstructed. I think it was the carriageway for the old CT Route 72 West at one time.

It was until CT 9 was extended.  Instead of dipping down to meet SR 572, CT 72 stayed at the same level and bent slightly left to meet the current CT 9 carriageway just before the Webster Square Rd. underpass.  The northbound ramps for Exit 22 used to hairpin around and follow the path that North Frontage Rd. follows and end at SR 572.  The portion of North Frontage between the current CT 9 ramps and Webster Square Rd was new construction.  The only way to access either direction of the Berlin Turnpike from 72 East was current Exit 22.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on April 30, 2018, 11:43:33 PM
The CT 72/Berlin Turnpike interchange before 1989-90:
(https://i.imgur.com/9MVgE1d.jpg)

CT Route 72, as it looked by late 1973. I-84 Exit 35 is at the top right. View is roughly WSW:
(https://i.imgur.com/K5N5Mqg.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on May 01, 2018, 08:09:43 PM
Question concerning Exit 44 on I-91.  Noticed that prior to 1992 it was configured with direct ramps to US 5.  Why did they get rid of it and put a regular at-grade intersection?  Seems counter-intuitive.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on May 01, 2018, 10:26:24 PM
Re I-91 exit 44 (trumpet to US 5, East Windsor): Older aerial photos (example, 1986 (http://magic.lib.uconn.edu/magic_3/raster/37800/aerial/1986/flight_line_49/adimg_37800_00_49ct3440_1986_s6_CTDEP_1_p.pdf)) show a channelized intersection there, with the ramp access acting as a mainline. Still an at-grade intersection.

I'm guessing additional traffic, development, and safety issues (bicycles and walking, etc.) led to the more conventional intersection.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on May 01, 2018, 10:36:31 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on May 01, 2018, 08:09:43 PM
Question concerning Exit 44 on I-91.  Noticed that prior to 1992 it was configured with direct ramps to US 5.  Why did they get rid of it and put a regular at-grade intersection?  Seems counter-intuitive.

Exit 44 was another case of an exit ramp designed to be the start of a freeway.  When constructed, it was designed to be the original northern terminus of the proposed I-284, which was eventually truncated to end at I-291 in South Windsor, then cancelled altogether.  Once it was cancelled, the  interchange was aligned to meet US 5 at grade.  Also, the partial (NB Exit, SB Entrance) Exit 43 for Main St in Warehouse Point, was closed permanently as part of the same project.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on May 01, 2018, 10:45:11 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on May 01, 2018, 10:36:31 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on May 01, 2018, 08:09:43 PM
Question concerning Exit 44 on I-91.  Noticed that prior to 1992 it was configured with direct ramps to US 5.  Why did they get rid of it and put a regular at-grade intersection?  Seems counter-intuitive.

Exit 44 was another case of an exit ramp designed to be the start of a freeway.  When constructed, it was designed to be the original northern terminus of the proposed I-284, which was eventually truncated to end at I-291 in South Windsor, then cancelled altogether.  Once it was cancelled, the  interchange was aligned to meet US 5 at grade.  Also, the partial (NB Exit, SB Entrance) Exit 43 for Main St in Warehouse Point, was closed permanently as part of the same project.
Right but it just seems like it didn't need to be done.  That intersection is always clogged during rush hour.  Was it worse before  it was an intersection?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on May 01, 2018, 11:09:48 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on May 01, 2018, 10:45:11 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on May 01, 2018, 10:36:31 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on May 01, 2018, 08:09:43 PM
Question concerning Exit 44 on I-91.  Noticed that prior to 1992 it was configured with direct ramps to US 5.  Why did they get rid of it and put a regular at-grade intersection?  Seems counter-intuitive.

Exit 44 was another case of an exit ramp designed to be the start of a freeway.  When constructed, it was designed to be the original northern terminus of the proposed I-284, which was eventually truncated to end at I-291 in South Windsor, then cancelled altogether.  Once it was cancelled, the  interchange was aligned to meet US 5 at grade.  Also, the partial (NB Exit, SB Entrance) Exit 43 for Main St in Warehouse Point, was closed permanently as part of the same project.
Right but it just seems like it didn't need to be done.  That intersection is always clogged during rush hour.  Was it worse before  it was an intersection?

Looking at the pic in the link that Kurumi posted, it looks like it was more for safety purposes.  In doing so, it eliminated the left exit from 5 North to the interchange, and it eliminated a potential merge issue as exit traffic merged with thru traffic on 5 South on an overpass over the entrance ramp.  Also, the original exit ramp did not provide access to 5 North (NB traffic would have to use Exit 43, and SB traffic would have to use Exit 45), and the access from 5 south looks like it was a very short, sharp curve.  Furthermore, traffic from Newberry Rd, which leads into an industrial area, had no access to the ramp, so the redesign serves truck traffic better. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Beeper1 on May 01, 2018, 11:17:19 PM
This also explains why the all the BGS for Exit 44 only list 5 south, even though it now serves both directions of US 5 (and actually has more lanes at the stop light dedicated for turns onto 5 north and onto 5 south.

Sadly, rather then update them, new northbound BGS for this exit continue to only show 5 south.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on May 02, 2018, 12:04:56 AM
Quote from: Beeper1 on May 01, 2018, 11:17:19 PM
This also explains why the all the BGS for Exit 44 only list 5 south, even though it now serves both directions of US 5 (and actually has more lanes at the stop light dedicated for turns onto 5 north and onto 5 south.

Sadly, rather then update them, new northbound BGS for this exit continue to only show 5 south.

I'm assuming the last I-91 signing project pre-dated the exit reconstruction.  Looking at GSV: as of September of 2017, it looks like the reflective button copy signage is still present for Exit 44 (did see a spot replacement for the NB at-exit BGS for Exit 45, which may have been part of the enhanced milepost project), and if any spot changes have been done since then, they were done in-kind without any regard to exit reconstruction or MUTCD compliance (in this case, although semi-inaccurate, it is compliant).  Hopefully, as part of a future I-91 signage update project, the "South" after US 5 will disappear (and "South Windsor" will be added to SB signage).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on May 02, 2018, 05:03:57 PM
Apologize for the double post, but it looks like tolls are dead in CT for this legislative session.

https://patch.com/connecticut/greenwich/fate-tolls-ct-grows-clearer
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on May 02, 2018, 06:00:20 PM
^^Good.  Approving such in an election year would've been political suicide.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MattCollopy on May 03, 2018, 09:13:01 AM
Is there any meetups coming soon in the northern ct area?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jon daly on May 03, 2018, 08:09:49 PM
Quote from: southshore720 on April 29, 2018, 02:18:25 PM
Some progress to report on the I-95 Signage Replacement project between Exits 85-93.  Many new BGSs have been erected Southbound and are identical to the signs used on I-395.  Most of the new signage appears between Exits 93-88 at the moment, including a very large, impressive Welcome to CT sign.  Northbound, no new signage yet, but most of the sign supports are in place.

I live right off of Exit 90 these days and have noticed this on my evening commute from Riverside, RI. Tonight I saw a few new mile markers on the RI line, even ones 0.2 miles apart. All well and good, but aren't they renumbering the exits on I-95 soon?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on May 03, 2018, 09:57:33 PM
Quote from: jon daly on May 03, 2018, 08:09:49 PM
Quote from: southshore720 on April 29, 2018, 02:18:25 PM
Some progress to report on the I-95 Signage Replacement project between Exits 85-93.  Many new BGSs have been erected Southbound and are identical to the signs used on I-395.  Most of the new signage appears between Exits 93-88 at the moment, including a very large, impressive Welcome to CT sign.  Northbound, no new signage yet, but most of the sign supports are in place.

I live right off of Exit 90 these days and have noticed this on my evening commute from Riverside, RI. Tonight I saw a few new mile markers on the RI line, even ones 0.2 miles apart. All well and good, but aren't they renumbering the exits on I-95 soon?

As we've discussed before, it could make sense to renumber them east of I-395 to the RI border since there's a 5 number gap in each direction anyway (76 to 81 NB, 80 to 75 SB).  Jumping from 76 (I-395) to 90 (Cross Rd) northbound and from 89 (Oil Mill Rd) to 75 (US 1) southbound wouldn't be that difficult.  However, ConnDOT is only doing it by full highway, so all signage projects on I-95 from Greenwich to North Stonington would have to be complete.  There are still some portions of I-95 between East Haven and East Lyme that haven't been updated yet, most notably the Branford/Guilford area and around the CT 9 interchange and Baldwin Bridge.  CT 349 and CT 184 (all 1) exits, which are unnumbered, will receive mileage-based numbers as part of this project.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jon daly on May 04, 2018, 06:27:28 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on May 03, 2018, 09:57:33 PM
Quote from: jon daly on May 03, 2018, 08:09:49 PM
Quote from: southshore720 on April 29, 2018, 02:18:25 PM
Some progress to report on the I-95 Signage Replacement project between Exits 85-93.  Many new BGSs have been erected Southbound and are identical to the signs used on I-395.  Most of the new signage appears between Exits 93-88 at the moment, including a very large, impressive Welcome to CT sign.  Northbound, no new signage yet, but most of the sign supports are in place.

I live right off of Exit 90 these days and have noticed this on my evening commute from Riverside, RI. Tonight I saw a few new mile markers on the RI line, even ones 0.2 miles apart. All well and good, but aren't they renumbering the exits on I-95 soon?

As we've discussed before, it could make sense to renumber them east of I-395 to the RI border since there's a 5 number gap in each direction anyway (76 to 81 NB, 80 to 75 SB).  Jumping from 76 (I-395) to 90 (Cross Rd) northbound and from 89 (Oil Mill Rd) to 75 (US 1) southbound wouldn't be that difficult.  However, ConnDOT is only doing it by full highway, so all signage projects on I-95 from Greenwich to North Stonington would have to be complete.  There are still some portions of I-95 between East Haven and East Lyme that haven't been updated yet, most notably the Branford/Guilford area and around the CT 9 interchange and Baldwin Bridge.  CT 349 and CT 184 (all 1) exits, which are unnumbered, will receive mileage-based numbers as part of this project.

Is 349 aka the Clarence B Sharp Highway? I've noticed new signs near there encouraging use of that exit for the Groton-New London airport.

As an aside, I chuckle when I see signs for Downtown Groton. The Long Hill Road-Poquonnock Road section of US-1 is nothing but a series of suburban style commerce.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on May 04, 2018, 06:56:13 PM
Yes, CT 349 is the Clarence B Sharp Highway.  It's not much of a highway, though.  It's basically an extended exit ramp with an extra exit NB to US 1/CT 12 which becomes a 4 lane arterial that serves UConn-Avery Point, Shennecossett Golf Club, and the Groton Elks Lodge before curving around the peninsula and leading into Groton City and ending near EB.  I still would think CT 117 would be easier to get to the airport from 95 South, and US 1 (Long Hill Rd) from 95 North.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jon daly on May 05, 2018, 05:18:29 PM
Thanks. I do like the new signs that I've seen from an aesthetic/readability standpoint.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on May 08, 2018, 10:13:49 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 02, 2018, 06:00:20 PM
^^Good.  Approving such in an election year would've been political suicide.

The Democrats in the General Assembly know full and well that passing toll legislation in an election year would almost certainly mean the end of their 30+ year reign over state government. What political party hacks will (or will not do) to stay in office.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on May 10, 2018, 07:19:37 PM
The coin Dan Malloy uses to scratch a lottery ticket:
(https://i.imgur.com/kccBYHP.jpg)

"1 FARE"...from mainline toll plaza A to B...or the whole length from Greenwich to Killingly?  :hmmm:
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Rothman on May 10, 2018, 08:41:51 PM
Holy cow, that is really cool.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on May 10, 2018, 09:12:51 PM
I didn't bother taking a picture of the other side, since it's basically the grapevine logo from the state flag. I know the last Connecticut toll was on the Charter Oak Bridge, which went away in 1989. Is there an exact date for when the last toll was removed from the Turnpike, regardless of I-95, I-395 and the connector to US Route 6 and RI?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on May 10, 2018, 09:47:52 PM
The tokens pop up on EBAY quite frequently.  Each was worth one fare at one barrier only.  All barriers had the same fare, which IIRC was 35 cents.  I believe the turnpike lost its barriers in 1985, from end-to-end.  At the time, they were in Greenwich, Norwalk, Stratford, West Haven, Branford, Madison, Montville, and Plainfield.    There was also a toll barrier at the Baldwin Bridge, but that was removed about the time the CT 9 expressway opened, c 1970. 

I was real young when the tolls were removed, but I do remember frequent trips to New Haven, stopping at the tolls in Branford and Madison, in the early 80s.  By that time, the original turnpike signage was still in place from Exits 51-59, much of which would survive another 10 years before replacement around 1992.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jon daly on May 11, 2018, 06:28:28 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on May 10, 2018, 09:47:52 PM
The tokens pop up on EBAY quite frequently.  Each was worth one fare at one barrier only.  All barriers had the same fare, which IIRC was 35 cents.  I believe the turnpike lost its barriers in 1985, from end-to-end.  At the time, they were in Greenwich, Norwalk, Stratford, West Haven, Branford, Madison, Montville, and Plainfield.    There was also a toll barrier at the Baldwin Bridge, but that was removed about the time the CT 9 expressway opened, c 1970. 

I was real young when the tolls were removed, but I do remember frequent trips to New Haven, stopping at the tolls in Branford and Madison, in the early 80s.  By that time, the original turnpike signage was still in place from Exits 51-59, much of which would survive another 10 years before replacement around 1992.

IIRC a tractor trailer crashing into a tollbooth led to the removal of tolls.

As an aside, I was born in '68 and recall that my dad had a way to avoid the Charter Oak Bridge. There was a really sharp ramp off of the Founders Bridge on to I-91.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Marc_in_CT on May 11, 2018, 10:26:41 AM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on May 10, 2018, 09:12:51 PM
I didn't bother taking a picture of the other side, since it's basically the grapevine logo from the state flag. I know the last Connecticut toll was on the Charter Oak Bridge, which went away in 1989. Is there an exact date for when the last toll was removed from the Turnpike, regardless of I-95, I-395 and the connector to US Route 6 and RI?

I don't have the exact date, but I can help narrow it down. I was working on a week-long high school journalism project and I, along with 1 fellow student, covered the toll removal story as it was happening. Our project ran from Oct 7-11 1985, and our final article indicates that the last toll was collected on "Wednesday night at 11pm". I don't know why we omitted the date! My guess is it was either Wed 10/2/85 or 10/9/85. IIRC our visit to the Madison toll station was almost immediately after toll collection ceased, and things were pretty chaotic. We were able to speak briefly with the Toll Superintendent.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: roadman on May 11, 2018, 10:55:19 AM
Quote from: jon daly on May 11, 2018, 06:28:28 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on May 10, 2018, 09:47:52 PM
The tokens pop up on EBAY quite frequently.  Each was worth one fare at one barrier only.  All barriers had the same fare, which IIRC was 35 cents.  I believe the turnpike lost its barriers in 1985, from end-to-end.  At the time, they were in Greenwich, Norwalk, Stratford, West Haven, Branford, Madison, Montville, and Plainfield.    There was also a toll barrier at the Baldwin Bridge, but that was removed about the time the CT 9 expressway opened, c 1970. 

I was real young when the tolls were removed, but I do remember frequent trips to New Haven, stopping at the tolls in Branford and Madison, in the early 80s.  By that time, the original turnpike signage was still in place from Exits 51-59, much of which would survive another 10 years before replacement around 1992.

IIRC a tractor trailer crashing into a tollbooth led to the removal of tolls.

Not quite.  While there was pressure put on the state to eliminate tolls after the Stratford crash, it was actually the collapse of the Mianus River bridge in 1983 that resulted in the end of tolls.  This is because Federal funds were used to repair the bridge, and the Feds made toll plaza removal a condition of receiving the funds.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: BamaZeus on May 11, 2018, 11:05:09 AM
I still have a turnpike token somewhere in a box at home.  I think it was a leftover from my dad when the tolls were removed.  He used to buy the roll of tokens at the tollbooth, like you would get a roll of quarters at the bank.  But, the tokens didn't show up until the 80's.  I remember my dad would always insist on getting a receipt at every booth (when he didn't shunpike), so he could claim it on his taxes.

My aunt had just crossed the Mianus River Bridge a few hours before its collapse. It took her a long time to cross it again after the repairs.  She would always take the parkway into the city instead.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jon daly on May 11, 2018, 11:16:50 AM
Quote from: roadman on May 11, 2018, 10:55:19 AM

Not quite.  While there was pressure put on the state to eliminate tolls after the Stratford crash, it was actually the collapse of the Mianus River bridge in 1983 that resulted in the end of tolls.  This is because Federal funds were used to repair the bridge, and the Feds made toll plaza removal a condition of receiving the funds.

I recall the bridge collapse. It was huge news when I was 15. I had no idea that that's what prompted the toll removal.

Thanks
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: roadman on May 11, 2018, 12:46:28 PM
Quote from: jon daly on May 11, 2018, 11:16:50 AM
Quote from: roadman on May 11, 2018, 10:55:19 AM

Not quite.  While there was pressure put on the state to eliminate tolls after the Stratford crash, it was actually the collapse of the Mianus River bridge in 1983 that resulted in the end of tolls.  This is because Federal funds were used to repair the bridge, and the Feds made toll plaza removal a condition of receiving the funds.

I recall the bridge collapse. It was huge news when I was 15. I had no idea that that's what prompted the toll removal.

Thanks
No problem.  Most people associate the removal of tolls with the Stratford crash.  For obvious reasons, that reasoning played better in the media (and with the politicians) than "Well, the Feds made us do it because they paid us to repair a bridge we should have been maintaining better in the first place" does.

Personal note:  A friend of mine crossed the NB Mianus River span about fifteen minutes before the collapse.  To this day, the story still gives him goosebumps thinking about it.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on May 11, 2018, 01:08:12 PM
Quote from: roadman on May 11, 2018, 12:46:28 PM
No problem.  Most people associate the removal of tolls with the Stratford crash.  For obvious reasons, that reasoning played better in the media (and with the politicians) than "Well, the Feds made us do it because they paid us to repair a bridge we should have been maintaining better in the first place" does.

Personal note:  A friend of mine crossed the NB Mianus River span about fifteen minutes before the collapse.  To this day, the story still gives him goosebumps thinking about it.
It also allows them to claim that tolls are fine now that everything would be AET.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jon daly on May 11, 2018, 03:45:17 PM
Quote from: roadman on May 11, 2018, 12:46:28 PM
Quote from: jon daly on May 11, 2018, 11:16:50 AM
Quote from: roadman on May 11, 2018, 10:55:19 AM

Not quite.  While there was pressure put on the state to eliminate tolls after the Stratford crash, it was actually the collapse of the Mianus River bridge in 1983 that resulted in the end of tolls.  This is because Federal funds were used to repair the bridge, and the Feds made toll plaza removal a condition of receiving the funds.

I recall the bridge collapse. It was huge news when I was 15. I had no idea that that's what prompted the toll removal.

Thanks
No problem.  Most people associate the removal of tolls with the Stratford crash.  For obvious reasons, that reasoning played better in the media (and with the politicians) than "Well, the Feds made us do it because they paid us to repair a bridge we should have been maintaining better in the first place" does.

Personal note:  A friend of mine crossed the NB Mianus River span about fifteen minutes before the collapse.  To this day, the story still gives him goosebumps thinking about it.

That was one of two disasters I recall on that stretch of I-95; the other being a tanker that exploded in Bridgeport in '04. I recall riding by that area soon after. I think we had to hit city streets to get around the damaged portion of the highway; but it was @ 5 AM and my friend was driving.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Rothman on May 12, 2018, 12:29:50 AM
I remember the I-95 bridge collapse as well.  I remember my father was shocked that, as people came to realize the bridge was out, one couple started running around waving their hands in the air to try to get people to stop.  He thought they would have been run over.

I didn't realize it was still tolled at the time.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on May 12, 2018, 04:23:05 AM
I remember the day of the Mianus River bridge collapse as well.  I had just finished first grade and had just got over the chicken pox.  I slept over my cousin's house the night before and remember waking up and hearing it all over the news.  There were tolls on 95 at the time, but the collapse had nothing to do with removals; the Stratford truck crash led to it.  Tolls did remain after the removal from I-95 and the parkways: the Putnam, Bissell, and Charter Oak Bridges had them.  The Putnam told were removed with the slight extension of CT 3 to meet the CT 2 expressway directly, which I think happened around 1987.  The Bissell and Charter Oak tolls were removed when construction on the current Charter Oak bridge began around 1988.  ThevMohegan-Pequot bridge was tolled until 1980, which was 12 years before the bridge saw a major increase in traffic from the casinos.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on May 12, 2018, 02:55:19 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on May 12, 2018, 04:23:05 AM
You might want to reread Roadman's post in Replies #2756 & 2759.  While the Stratford truck crash truck crash may have lead to the removal of tolls on CT's other tolled facilities (Merritt Parkway, Charter Oak Bridge, etc.); the use of Federal dollars to replace the collapsed Mianus River Bridge along the CT Turnpike (I-95) was indeed the official reason the tolls were ultimately taken down from the CT Turnpike first.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on May 12, 2018, 09:48:10 PM
The reinforcement of these pillars in the I-84/CT Route 72 interchange looks like it was added on afterwards. They're roughly on the New Britain/Plainville town line:

I-84 West to CT Route 72 East...
(https://i.imgur.com/p5L5zZB.jpg)

I-84 West before the CT Route 72 West merge...
(https://i.imgur.com/102mj9P.jpg)

Lastly, I saw this meme at the Connecticuck Memes Facebook group page. Although the CT Routes 1,5 6 and 7 part is inaccurate, I LOVE the rest of it!  :-D
(https://i.imgur.com/4lab5tL.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on May 13, 2018, 04:13:14 PM
Connecticut's roads are not bad at all for pot holes. New York is far, far worse. I don't know if it's a maintenance issue or a different kind of pavement they use that doesn't hold up as well, but it's noticeable the minute you cross the state line or if you drive a road that straddles the border like 120A.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on May 13, 2018, 04:15:22 PM
I like how that poster used the old school CT route markers though! 😛
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on May 14, 2018, 05:29:18 PM
r/Connecticut just wants another reason to complain about the state. The roads are not "crumbling" as they say.  Consider that I-84 and I-91 have been significant improved since the 80s, that the Q Bridge project was completed ahead of schedule (IIRC), and the improvements are being made to the Waterbury section of I-84.  I honestly don't get where the whole "crumbling" idea comes from.  CONNDOT doesn't neglect state roads last I checked.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on May 14, 2018, 06:42:46 PM
States like MA or even NY use yellow/warning extruded aluminum signage for tight ramps or curves on limited access highways. CT doesn't do anything except the basic standard advance exit signage. Anyone wonder why?

I-95 NB EXIT 27A could use some with the horrible graded loop ramp to CT-8.  There's only a small advisory speed ramp sign with a loop arrow behind a light pole leading up to it.

Is it the land of steady habits syndrome striking again?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on May 14, 2018, 08:25:34 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on May 14, 2018, 06:42:46 PM
States like MA or even NY use yellow/warning extruded aluminum signage for tight ramps or curves on limited access highways. CT doesn't do anything except the basic standard advance exit signage. Anyone wonder why?

I-95 NB EXIT 27A could use some with the horrible graded loop ramp to CT-8.  There's only a small advisory speed ramp sign with a loop arrow behind a light pole leading up to it.

Is it the land of steady habits syndrome striking again?
They use chevrons.  Exit 71 on I-84 E has double chevrons and an advance rollover warning sign with FYBs that illuminate when a vehicle approaches the ramp.  In West Hartford their used on the Park Road Curve.  CT does use loop warning signs sporadically, the Queen St. exit eastbound has one,  I-91 Exit 24 has them also.  If they're meeting MUTCD specs, that's good enough for me. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on May 17, 2018, 03:47:15 AM
The Queen St ones are brand new, as they were added with the current sign replacement project.  Another Land of Stready Habits sign that is going to continue are the larger "Speed Limit Ahead xx MPH"  signs I have yet to see in any state.  One was added eastbound on 84 just before the 55 zone through the 72 interchange that indicates 55 MPH.  While there is the traditional MUTCD diamond with the 55, I guess these signs will continue.

Update: I see some of the metal for the new overhead the rvs  of the Exit 30-39A signage in the storage area in the middle of the Plainville curve where the old Woodford Ave ramp to 84 East was.

And speaking of Waterbury, this just happened:

http://fox61.com/2018/05/13/lanes-shifting-on-i-84-in-waterbury-on-sunday/
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jon daly on May 17, 2018, 06:31:46 AM
Quote from: connroadgeek on May 13, 2018, 04:13:14 PM
Connecticut's roads are not bad at all for pot holes. New York is far, far worse. I don't know if it's a maintenance issue or a different kind of pavement they use that doesn't hold up as well, but it's noticeable the minute you cross the state line or if you drive a road that straddles the border like 120A.

Commuting to Rhode Island, I notice that their overpasses over I-95 look less rusty than the ones in SE Connecticut. But IANAE and I wonder if the difference is more cosmetic than structural. I think that Rhody has a company contracted to paint those whenever weather permits. I see equipment often between the north and southbound lanes in Warwick.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on May 19, 2018, 06:47:47 PM
http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-news-mixmaster-contract-awarded-20180410-story.html

An article from The Hartford Courant about plans for the I-84/CT Route 8 interchange in Waterbury.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on May 19, 2018, 11:48:10 PM
Now that the budget crisis has been averted for now, one has to wonder if the projects that were put on-hold indefinitely will see the light of day.  I-91 NB Exit 29 was one of those projects.  And what will be the fate of the non-commercial rest areas? 

One part of the crisis relief was to initiate a series of fare hikes and service cuts to existing commuter rail, but (for now) none of that will take effect 1-July. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on May 21, 2018, 09:25:33 PM
Couldn't help but notice this big 3M trailer outside of the Connecticut DOT Headquarters in Newington today! Hmmm!  :hmmm:

(https://i.imgur.com/70omCD2.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on May 21, 2018, 10:11:53 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on May 21, 2018, 09:25:33 PM
Couldn't help but notice this big 3M trailer outside of the Connecticut DOT Headquarters in Newington today! Hmmm!  :hmmm:

To save money, in light of the transition to mileage-based exit numbers, all sequentially numbered exit tabs will be on giant post-its.

(https://i.imgur.com/cXzV7kq.png)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on May 21, 2018, 10:17:46 PM
Ha ha!! It looked like it was an exhibition of some sorts. Some office workers were walking back to the building from that as I was walking by on the Berlin Turnpike southbound...on the other side.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on May 21, 2018, 11:49:21 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on May 21, 2018, 10:17:46 PM
Ha ha!! It looked like it was an exhibition of some sorts. Some office workers were walking back to the building from that as I was walking by on the Berlin Turnpike southbound...on the other side.
"This is what we use now instead of demountable copy." "I don't trust it"
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on May 25, 2018, 09:35:33 PM
http://www.courant.com/community/middletown/hc-news-middletown-route-9-miller-bridge-20180504-story.html

An interesting story about Miller and Bridge Streets in the far north end of Middletown. They are largely cut off due to a train crossing, with busy (and quite dangerous) CT Route 9 their only legal way in and out from these two streets. You see these two streets from CT Route 9 South on the right, partially under the Arrigoni Bridge.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on May 28, 2018, 01:12:09 PM
Just drove I-95 from Old Saybrook out to the RI state line to check on the progress of the sign replacement project from Exits 86-93.  New ground-mount BGS to report, mostly from Exits 89-93.  New speed limits and reassurance shields (using the smaller numerals, no state name, and proper color on the directionals).  Only mile marker replacements are SB.  Limited work on new foundations for the overheads.  No new primary BGSs for Exit 88 yet (those are going overhead).

A few pics here, more on my FLICKR page...

(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1738/40604474210_524c6c6498_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/24S5xxy)DSC09896 (https://flic.kr/p/24S5xxy) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1725/42412673471_aaf75e7abe_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/27BS3bT)DSC09912 (https://flic.kr/p/27BS3bT) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1745/40604473080_3fb2b502fb_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/24S5xd5)DSC09923 (https://flic.kr/p/24S5xd5) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1738/41689311324_5413979a9c_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/26vWBPJ)DSC09935 (https://flic.kr/p/26vWBPJ) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr


And the rest...
https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/albums/72157659006078550/with/41689311324/
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: roadman on May 30, 2018, 02:43:32 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on May 21, 2018, 10:17:46 PM
Ha ha!! It looked like it was an exhibition of some sorts. Some office workers were walking back to the building from that as I was walking by on the Berlin Turnpike southbound...on the other side.
That's exactly what it is.  They've been making the rounds of the New England states for the past couple of weeks.  They usually set up at the nearest 3M building - such as when they were in Methuen, MA.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on May 31, 2018, 08:15:21 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on April 30, 2018, 09:49:33 AM
Something seems slightly off with the CT Route 372 shield here. It's at the New Britain/Berlin town line, as Corbin Avenue of New Britain ends and splits off to the right to start Farmington Avenue of Berlin.

(https://i.imgur.com/c4Vdrqn.jpg)

These signs recently replaced a VERY ancient big green sign pointing to staying left to head towards CT Route 9 South. The sign was so old that you could see the sun fade for what was "TO CT 72 EAST".

Was that old sign reflective button copy?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on May 31, 2018, 10:27:18 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on April 30, 2018, 09:49:33 AM
Something seems slightly off with the CT Route 372 shield here. It's at the New Britain/Berlin town line, as Corbin Avenue of New Britain ends and splits off to the right to start Farmington Avenue of Berlin.

(https://i.imgur.com/c4Vdrqn.jpg)

These signs recently replaced a VERY ancient big green sign pointing to staying left to head towards CT Route 9 South. The sign was so old that you could see the sun fade for what was "TO CT 72 EAST".

The Route 372 sign looks like a Massachusetts-style route sign.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JJBers on June 01, 2018, 01:53:31 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on May 28, 2018, 01:12:09 PM
Just drove I-95 from Old Saybrook out to the RI state line to check on the progress of the sign replacement project from Exits 86-93.  New ground-mount BGS to report, mostly from Exits 89-93.  New speed limits and reassurance shields (using the smaller numerals, no state name, and proper color on the directionals).  Only mile marker replacements are SB.  Limited work on new foundations for the overheads.  No new primary BGSs for Exit 88 yet (those are going overhead).

A few pics here, more on my FLICKR page...

(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1738/40604474210_524c6c6498_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/24S5xxy)DSC09896 (https://flic.kr/p/24S5xxy) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1725/42412673471_aaf75e7abe_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/27BS3bT)DSC09912 (https://flic.kr/p/27BS3bT) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1745/40604473080_3fb2b502fb_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/24S5xd5)DSC09923 (https://flic.kr/p/24S5xd5) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1738/41689311324_5413979a9c_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/26vWBPJ)DSC09935 (https://flic.kr/p/26vWBPJ) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr


And the rest...
https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/albums/72157659006078550/with/41689311324/
I just went through that area on April 18 and it hadn't been replaced. That was quick.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on June 01, 2018, 09:12:08 PM
I saw "Exit 89" and "Allyn St"...almost thought it was CT Route 15 in Hartford! OK, that's a stretch, but...

All of those signs were in place when I went through there southbound the evening of Wednesday, May 23rd.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on June 11, 2018, 11:01:09 PM
So just browsed the upcoming projects scheduled for advertising on the ConnDOT web site, and a couple "postponed" projects are back on the roster...

2018/09/19
Relocation and reconfigure Interchange 29, I-91 Northbound, Hartford

2019/01/19
Operational lanes, Interstate 84, West Hartford

Sign projects include I-84 Exits 40-56, CT 8 - I-95 to Shelton, CT 9 Exit 25-I-84 incl CT 72, and CT 9 Exits 18-24 incl SSR 571 & CT 15.

Also, a couple of railroad station projects back on the list:  Clinton upgrades (SLE) and Merritt 7 (MN/Danbury). 

Nice to see all of these projects back on the roster, especially I-91 NB Exit 29.  IIRC, the plan was to convert it to a left-hand exit with an easier grade.  Hopefully an exit only lane and perhaps an "option" lane, meaning an APL would be applicable.  Guess we'll find out come September.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on June 12, 2018, 02:24:56 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on June 11, 2018, 11:01:09 PM
So just browsed the upcoming projects scheduled for advertising on the ConnDOT web site, and a couple "postponed" projects are back on the roster...

2018/09/19
Relocation and reconfigure Interchange 29, I-91 Northbound, Hartford

2019/01/19
Operational lanes, Interstate 84, West Hartford

Sign projects include I-84 Exits 40-56, CT 8 - I-95 to Shelton, CT 9 Exit 25-I-84 incl CT 72, and CT 9 Exits 18-24 incl SSR 571 & CT 15.

Also, a couple of railroad station projects back on the list:  Clinton upgrades (SLE) and Merritt 7 (MN/Danbury). 

Nice to see all of these projects back on the roster, especially I-91 NB Exit 29.  IIRC, the plan was to convert it to a left-hand exit with an easier grade.  Hopefully an exit only lane and perhaps an "option" lane, meaning an APL would be applicable.  Guess we'll find out come September.

I still say CT "the land of steady habits" just still can't let go of left exits. I still don't see why they can't just keep it a right exit and move I-91 mainline over to the left more and you'll have room for a longer right hand exit.

The same with CT-9 in Middletown....CT-9 NB will have left exit and entrances if the new plan comes to fruition.  Keep the exits on the right.  The mainline is on the right to make room for the left exits and entrances so just reverse it to have the mainline closer to the SB lanes and have the exits on the right.

as with the signing projects will CT-15 lose any BGS signs with the new project around CT-9.  It seems CT likes to skimp out on BGSs when they can.  Examples include the Corbin Ave/Farmington Ave BGS in Berlin is now a pair of shields and the old "Hospital Exit 35" BGS (BBS) sign on I-84 WB is now a large blue sign.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on June 17, 2018, 07:30:06 AM
http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-hartford-line-opens-20180615-story.html

The CT Rail project opened on Saturday between New Haven and Springfield, MA. I posted it here, since it's directly connected with ConnDOT. It will be posted in one other section at this forum, too.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on June 17, 2018, 09:24:02 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on June 12, 2018, 02:24:56 PMI still say CT "the land of steady habits" just still can't let go of left exits. I still don't see why they can't just keep it a right exit and move I-91 mainline over to the left more and you'll have room for a longer right hand exit.

Keep in mind that they're threading the needle of I-91 and Route 15 through space that has a rail line backed by commercial properties on the west, and a hazmat entombment site backed by commercial/industrial properties on the east.  They also need to address the weave for northbound traffic on the Charter Oak Bridge -- traffic from I-91 needs to stay left to continue on to I-84, while a significant share of the of the traffic from Route 15 seeks to exit onto Route 2.

If you impose the requirement for right-hand exits and entrances only, you either get a lot more expense, or you have to start asking which other goal gets sacrificed.

And if you consider the possibility of I-84 being shut down through Hartford for a time when the Aetna Viaduct comes up for replacement...the Charter Oak Bridge becomes very important as a likely detour route, making the goals they are hoping to accomplish that much more critical.

If this were a project to build new roads through mostly open space, I'd expect them to do it per standards, with only right-hand entrances and exits.  But it's not, so we're left with looking for the least-bad alternatives.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on June 17, 2018, 02:18:42 PM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on June 17, 2018, 09:24:02 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on June 12, 2018, 02:24:56 PMI still say CT "the land of steady habits" just still can't let go of left exits. I still don't see why they can't just keep it a right exit and move I-91 mainline over to the left more and you'll have room for a longer right hand exit.

Keep in mind that they're threading the needle of I-91 and Route 15 through space that has a rail line backed by commercial properties on the west, and a hazmat entombment site backed by commercial/industrial properties on the east.  They also need to address the weave for northbound traffic on the Charter Oak Bridge -- traffic from I-91 needs to stay left to continue on to I-84, while a significant share of the of the traffic from Route 15 seeks to exit onto Route 2.

If you impose the requirement for right-hand exits and entrances only, you either get a lot more expense, or you have to start asking which other goal gets sacrificed.

And if you consider the possibility of I-84 being shut down through Hartford for a time when the Aetna Viaduct comes up for replacement...the Charter Oak Bridge becomes very important as a likely detour route, making the goals they are hoping to accomplish that much more critical.

If this were a project to build new roads through mostly open space, I'd expect them to do it per standards, with only right-hand entrances and exits.  But it's not, so we're left with looking for the least-bad alternatives.
Why is the crossover between I-91 and CT 15 necessary? Why couldn't they just do four carriageways (I-91 on the outer carriageways, CT 15 on the inner). It appears as though that design would have saved space.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on June 17, 2018, 08:38:03 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on June 17, 2018, 02:18:42 PM
Why is the crossover between I-91 and CT 15 necessary? Why couldn't they just do four carriageways (I-91 on the outer carriageways, CT 15 on the inner). It appears as though that design would have saved space.

The 4-carriageway arrangement is essentially what exists today at the I-91/Route 15 interchange (Exit 29/86).

If you were reacting to the weave...that was a reference to traffic patterns on the Charter Oak Bridge.

Today, northbound traffic on Route 15 travels the two (thru) left lanes on the bridge, while traffic entering from I-91 is placed into the right lane.  At the north end of the bridge, the right lane is exit-only for Exit 90 for Route 2.

Bridge traffic that entered from I-91 is mostly headed towards eastbound I-84.  Those vehicles must change lanes to the left while crossing the bridge to stay on Route 15.

Bridge traffic that is through from Route 15 includes a moderate volume of traffic headed towards eastbound Route 2.  Once on the bridge, they have to shift right to get to the exit lane, while dodging semis that are trying to shift left, and which are moving slowly due to the heavy traffic and the steep grade to get up to the bridge.

Thus we have a weave.

Part of the Exit 29 project would reverse the situation on the bridge, with bridge traffic from I-91 being placed into the thru lanes, while bridge traffic from Route 15 are placed into a new lane, and the exit-only lane for Exit 90 (Route 2).  There would still be a little weaving, but nothing like exists today.

Adding an additional carriageway/building a parallel span would presumably permit the situation to be improved further...but presumably the cost would be prohibitive.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on June 18, 2018, 07:20:06 PM
Noticed a widening project on I-95 at the old CT-34 left exit 47 in New Haven which I never noticed before.  According to Historic Aerials...in 1966, there were only 3-thru lanes past the CT-34 left exit NB.  In 2004, before the interchange reconfiguration, there were 4-thru lanes and the exit 47 left exit deceleration lane was extended across Canal Dock Rd. In 1966, you had to cross Canal Dock Rd then get into a short decel lane to the exit. The 4th thru lane was extended NB to I-91 at some point.

In 1966, the bridges over Canal Dock Rd were closer together in 1966 than 2004. 

it also looks like the ramp from I-91 to I-95 SB was also originally two-lanes. By 2004, it was striped as just one.

https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on June 19, 2018, 01:25:22 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on June 18, 2018, 07:20:06 PM
Noticed a widening project on I-95 at the old CT-34 left exit 47 in New Haven which I never noticed before.  According to Historic Aerials...in 1966, there were only 3-thru lanes past the CT-34 left exit NB.  In 2004, before the interchange reconfiguration, there were 4-thru lanes and the exit 47 left exit deceleration lane was extended across Canal Dock Rd. In 1966, you had to cross Canal Dock Rd then get into a short decel lane to the exit. The 4th thru lane was extended NB to I-91 at some point.

In 1966, the bridges over Canal Dock Rd were closer together in 1966 than 2004. 

it also looks like the ramp from I-91 to I-95 SB was also originally two-lanes. By 2004, it was striped as just one.

https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer

That's some good detective work.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: ipeters61 on June 19, 2018, 08:49:56 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on May 28, 2018, 01:12:09 PM
A few pics here, more on my FLICKR page...
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1745/40604473080_3fb2b502fb_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/24S5xd5)DSC09923 (https://flic.kr/p/24S5xd5) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr
So glad to see my home state getting a real welcome sign for once.  I always found the original "Connecticut Welcomes You" signs to be way too boring.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on June 19, 2018, 03:49:24 PM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on June 17, 2018, 08:38:03 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on June 17, 2018, 02:18:42 PM
Why is the crossover between I-91 and CT 15 necessary? Why couldn't they just do four carriageways (I-91 on the outer carriageways, CT 15 on the inner). It appears as though that design would have saved space.

The 4-carriageway arrangement is essentially what exists today at the I-91/Route 15 interchange (Exit 29/86).

If you were reacting to the weave...that was a reference to traffic patterns on the Charter Oak Bridge.

Today, northbound traffic on Route 15 travels the two (thru) left lanes on the bridge, while traffic entering from I-91 is placed into the right lane.  At the north end of the bridge, the right lane is exit-only for Exit 90 for Route 2.

Bridge traffic that entered from I-91 is mostly headed towards eastbound I-84.  Those vehicles must change lanes to the left while crossing the bridge to stay on Route 15.

Bridge traffic that is through from Route 15 includes a moderate volume of traffic headed towards eastbound Route 2.  Once on the bridge, they have to shift right to get to the exit lane, while dodging semis that are trying to shift left, and which are moving slowly due to the heavy traffic and the steep grade to get up to the bridge.

Thus we have a weave.

Part of the Exit 29 project would reverse the situation on the bridge, with bridge traffic from I-91 being placed into the thru lanes, while bridge traffic from Route 15 are placed into a new lane, and the exit-only lane for Exit 90 (Route 2).  There would still be a little weaving, but nothing like exists today.

Adding an additional carriageway/building a parallel span would presumably permit the situation to be improved further...but presumably the cost would be prohibitive.
But why couldn't they just sink CT 15 in between I-91 all the way down to the water treatment plant, instead of having CT 15 to the east of I-91?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on June 20, 2018, 06:54:55 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on June 19, 2018, 03:49:24 PM
But why couldn't they just sink CT 15 in between I-91 all the way down to the water treatment plant, instead of having CT 15 to the east of I-91?

I'm not certain if this is the actual reason, but I'm going to guess that the combination of expense and the need to keep traffic flowing through the interchanges while keeping all of the roads and the interchanges open probably play a role.

If they were building from scratch and land acquisition weren't an issue, there's  probably no question that ConnDOT would have designed the interchanges differently given knowledge that the original beltway plans would never come to fruition.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: dvferyance on June 23, 2018, 06:26:37 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on May 02, 2018, 05:03:57 PM
Apologize for the double post, but it looks like tolls are dead in CT for this legislative session.

https://patch.com/connecticut/greenwich/fate-tolls-ct-grows-clearer
Don't be fooled they are coming. Just not right now. I am sure the bill will be back in 2019. The state is broke the tolls are coming back the only question is when.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on June 24, 2018, 03:37:38 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on June 23, 2018, 06:26:37 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on May 02, 2018, 05:03:57 PM
Apologize for the double post, but it looks like tolls are dead in CT for this legislative session.

https://patch.com/connecticut/greenwich/fate-tolls-ct-grows-clearer (https://patch.com/connecticut/greenwich/fate-tolls-ct-grows-clearer)
Don't be fooled they are coming. Just not right now. I am sure the bill will be back in 2019. The state is broke the tolls are coming back the only question is when.

It's all based on the outcome of the 2018 elections.  Right now the Legislature is 79-72 Democrats while the State Senate is 18-18 (Democrat Lieutenant Gov breaks ties).  If Lamont aka Malloy 2.0 is elected, it's a foregone conclusion unless the house is flipped for the first time in many years.


Removed unnecessary politics
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: dvferyance on June 24, 2018, 10:52:10 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on June 24, 2018, 03:37:38 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on June 23, 2018, 06:26:37 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on May 02, 2018, 05:03:57 PM
Apologize for the double post, but it looks like tolls are dead in CT for this legislative session.

https://patch.com/connecticut/greenwich/fate-tolls-ct-grows-clearer (https://patch.com/connecticut/greenwich/fate-tolls-ct-grows-clearer)
Don't be fooled they are coming. Just not right now. I am sure the bill will be back in 2019. The state is broke the tolls are coming back the only question is when.

It's all based on the outcome of the 2018 elections.  Right now the Legislature is 79-72 Democrats while the State Senate is 18-18 (Democrat Lieutenant Gov breaks ties).  If Lamont aka Malloy 2.0 is elected, it's a foregone conclusion unless the house is flipped for the first time in many years.
I hate to get too political here but all I keep hearing is this year there is a blue wave coming. Also factor Connecticut is one of the bluest states in the nation. I find it interesting though the law makers put it on hold until after the election are they really afraid of losing? I don't see any other solution at this point. It feels kind of odd I-95 having service plazas not being a toll road. Bringing the tolls back would make sense. Sure the 1983 tragedy was very unfortunate but it's like saying we will never build any more skyscrapers becasue of 911.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on June 25, 2018, 10:09:19 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on June 24, 2018, 10:52:10 AMIt feels kind of odd I-95 having service plazas not being a toll road. Bringing the tolls back would make sense. Sure the 1983 tragedy was very unfortunate but it's like saying we will never build any more skyscrapers becasue of 911.
Two things:

1.  I-95 in CT isn't the only free highway that has service plazas: other examples include I-95/MA 128 in Newton & Lexington, MA 128 in Beverly and MA 24 Bridgewater/Raynham.

2.  Which CT Turnpike tragedy are you referring to... the Mianus River Bridge collapse or the toll plaza crash (both occurred circa 1983)?  It was the former (federal funding to repair the collapsed bridge) that triggered the removal of the tolls along the Turnpike; such was a condition to receive federal funds.  The latter (toll plaza crash/pile-up) triggered the removal of tolls along CT's other tolled facilities.

As previously stated further back on this thread; that 1983 bridge collapse effectively debunked the notion (at least in CT) that tolled roads = better conditioned roads.  The notion then as it is now is that if a toll road agency couldn't be trusted to properly manage/use toll revenue then; why would they be trusted with such now?

As far as revenue is concerned: change how the gas tax revenue is allocated first (i.e. place revenue in a transportation/highway fund rather than a vague general fund) and see what happens.  Such would be a good-faith effort to restore some trust in government officials.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on June 25, 2018, 03:38:30 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 25, 2018, 10:09:19 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on June 24, 2018, 10:52:10 AM
As previously stated further back on this thread; that 1983 bridge collapse effectively debunked the notion (at least in CT) that tolled roads = better conditioned roads.  The notion then as it is now is that if a toll road agency couldn't be trusted to properly manage/use toll revenue then; why would they be trusted with such now?


The big problem with the way tolls were collected on the Connecticut Turnpike is that unlike in neighboring states that established (through legislation or constitutional amendments) a quasi-public agency to use the toll revenues collected to pay off a road's debt and maintain the road, Connecticut assigned owner/operator responsibility of the Turnpike to the Connecticut Highway Department (later the Connecticut Department of Transportation), which also had oversight of all of Connecticut's non-tolled roads.  Add to this problem, toll revenues collected from the Connecticut Turnpike went to the state's General Fund, meaning that toll money was used to pay for non-highway expenditures, let alone Turnpike expenses.  The Special Transportation Fund that currently exists was established during the administration of William O'Neill only after the collapse of the Mianus River Bridge in 1983. 

The only way tolls will work in Connecticut is if the voters pass the transportation "lock-box" amendment to the state constitution, so that money remains dedicated to transportation investment and sustainment, and not subject to being raided by the State Legislature to pay for non-transportation expenditures and pet projects.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on June 25, 2018, 05:45:48 PM
Merrit/WC Parkways also have service plazas and no tolls. MA 24 has one service plaza just north of the I-495 interchange.  You could also count ye olde Shenandoah rest stop on the TSP.  The Sloatsburg Plaza on the NYS Thruway can technically be accessed without paying a toll but you would still have to pay one to exit the freeway proper.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: AMLNet49 on June 25, 2018, 06:12:36 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on June 25, 2018, 05:45:48 PM
Merrit/WC Parkways also have service plazas and no tolls. MA 24 has one service plaza just north of the I-495 interchange.  You could also count ye olde Shenandoah rest stop on the TSP.  The Sloatsburg Plaza on the NYS Thruway can technically be accessed without paying a toll but you would still have to pay one to exit the freeway proper.

Actually many free highways in Mass have at least one service plaza including I-95/128, MA-24, MA-2 (sort of, it's really just a gas station), MA-3, US-6, and Standalone MA-128. I may be missing some as well.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on June 25, 2018, 06:42:09 PM
Perhaps the notion of "toll road=better maintained roads" is referred to most states which have toll roads/bridges are operated as an agency separate from the state DOT.  NY has the Thruway Authority, the Bridge Authority;  Maine has the Maine Turnpike Authority;  even RI has the "Turnpike & Bridge Authority".  CT has never had any of that... just the highway department (now DOT).  So money just went into a giant pot at DOT (or worse, the general fund) to be spent on what seemed fit at the time. 

If Connecticut had a "Turnpike Authority" or something similar, perhaps the money could be kept for just upkeep of that road in particular.  Perhaps the bridges would have been better maintained (avoiding a Mianus disaster).  Perhaps the turnpike would be widened east of New Haven out to (at least) East Lyme.

Or, perhaps not. 

A resumption of tolls in CT would most likely just put the $$$ into the general fund.  Maybe that's why they want tolls not just on I-95. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on June 25, 2018, 07:20:38 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on June 25, 2018, 06:42:09 PM
Perhaps the notion of "toll road=better maintained roads" is referred to most states which have toll roads/bridges are operated as an agency separate from the state DOT.  NY has the Thruway Authority, the Bridge Authority;  Maine has the Maine Turnpike Authority;  even RI has the "Turnpike & Bridge Authority".  CT has never had any of that... just the highway department (now DOT).  So money just went into a giant pot at DOT (or worse, the general fund) to be spent on what seemed fit at the time. 

If Connecticut had a "Turnpike Authority" or something similar, perhaps the money could be kept for just upkeep of that road in particular.  Perhaps the bridges would have been better maintained (avoiding a Mianus disaster).  Perhaps the turnpike would be widened east of New Haven out to (at least) East Lyme.

Or, perhaps not. 

A resumption of tolls in CT would most likely just put the $$$ into the general fund.  Maybe that's why they want tolls not just on I-95.
The Greater Hartford Bridge Authority maintained and tolled the Putnam, Charter Oak and Bissell Bridges for some time.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on June 25, 2018, 11:03:54 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on June 25, 2018, 06:42:09 PM
Perhaps the notion of "toll road=better maintained roads" is referred to most states which have toll roads/bridges are operated as an agency separate from the state DOT.  NY has the Thruway Authority, the Bridge Authority;  Maine has the Maine Turnpike Authority;  even RI has the "Turnpike & Bridge Authority".  CT has never had any of that... just the highway department (now DOT).  So money just went into a giant pot at DOT (or worse, the general fund) to be spent on what seemed fit at the time. 

If Connecticut had a "Turnpike Authority" or something similar, perhaps the money could be kept for just upkeep of that road in particular.  Perhaps the bridges would have been better maintained (avoiding a Mianus disaster).  Perhaps the turnpike would be widened east of New Haven out to (at least) East Lyme.

Or, perhaps not. 

A resumption of tolls in CT would most likely just put the $$$ into the general fund.  Maybe that's why they want tolls not just on I-95.

I can remember on multiple occasions the Connecticut General Assembly raided the Special Transportation Fund to balance massive deficits in the General Fund, thanks to unchecked and unsustainable cost growth in the state's pension, health care, and welfare programs. It's now estimated that Connecticut has more than $50 billion (with a B) just in unfunded pension liabilities. Yet year after year they raise taxes or impose new taxes, and it seems like the deficits get bigger and bigger. Still, the pols in Conmecticut won't tell anyone where the money's going. It was called Corrupticut then, and it called Corrupticut now.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on June 26, 2018, 03:54:53 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on June 24, 2018, 10:52:10 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on June 24, 2018, 03:37:38 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on June 23, 2018, 06:26:37 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on May 02, 2018, 05:03:57 PM
Apologize for the double post, but it looks like tolls are dead in CT for this legislative session.

https://patch.com/connecticut/greenwich/fate-tolls-ct-grows-clearer (https://patch.com/connecticut/greenwich/fate-tolls-ct-grows-clearer)
Don't be fooled they are coming. Just not right now. I am sure the bill will be back in 2019. The state is broke the tolls are coming back the only question is when.

It's all based on the outcome of the 2018 elections.  Right now the Legislature is 79-72 Democrats while the State Senate is 18-18 (Democrat Lieutenant Gov breaks ties).  If Lamont aka Malloy 2.0 is elected, it's a foregone conclusion unless the house is flipped for the first time in many years.
I hate to get too political here but all I keep hearing is this year there is a blue wave coming. Also factor Connecticut is one of the bluest states in the nation. I find it interesting though the law makers put it on hold until after the election are they really afraid of losing? I don't see any other solution at this point. It feels kind of odd I-95 having service plazas not being a toll road. Bringing the tolls back would make sense. Sure the 1983 tragedy was very unfortunate but it's like saying we will never build any more skyscrapers becasue of 911.

While there is (depending on which media outlet you listen to) talk of  a blue wave (which some dingbats that shall remain nameless are helping it fall on its own sword), there is sentiment here for a Red Revolt outside the big cities.  Personally, I can't stand Malloy and Murphy, not just politically, but they both come across as pompous and full of themselves.  And with the tax burden in this state reaching beyond managable levels, people are jumping ship and moving, which means less revenue and having to raise taxes even higher on those that remain.  For people that commute, tolls are an added tax on income that has already been taxed at the federal and state level.  For someone who makes $60k a year ($45k after taxes and deductions) and commutes to a job, an extra $2000 in tolls is almost a 4% pay cut on after tax income.  Not to mention gas taxes are among the highest in the country.  Three words: CUT FRIVOLOUS SPENDING

Switching gears to a more positive note, I did notice the piers going up for the new overhead signage (including a corrected FARMINGTON sign I saw in the Plainville storage area) near the I-84/CT 72 area.

UPDATE: 2 new overhead signs on single gantries for the EB Slater Rd left exit that will replace the BGS's mounted on the 84W/72E and North Mountain Rd overpasses left are now up.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Rothman on June 26, 2018, 07:56:41 AM
A Red revolt.  Commies in Connecticut. :D
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on June 26, 2018, 08:52:27 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on June 25, 2018, 06:42:09 PM
Perhaps the notion of "toll road=better maintained roads" is referred to most states which have toll roads/bridges are operated as an agency separate from the state DOT.  NY has the Thruway Authority, the Bridge Authority;  Maine has the Maine Turnpike Authority;  even RI has the "Turnpike & Bridge Authority".  CT has never had any of that... just the highway department (now DOT).  So money just went into a giant pot at DOT (or worse, the general fund) to be spent on what seemed fit at the time. 

If Connecticut had a "Turnpike Authority" or something similar, perhaps the money could be kept for just upkeep of that road in particular.  Perhaps the bridges would have been better maintained (avoiding a Mianus disaster).  Perhaps the turnpike would be widened east of New Haven out to (at least) East Lyme.

Or, perhaps not.
The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission (PTC) blows that particular theory right out the window.  Even before Act 44 became law, the PA Turnpike had a long-standing reputation of being one of the most expensive toll roads in the country but in the worst overall condition.

Edit due to additional info. provided by Roadman in a subsequent post:
The 2006 I-90/Big Dig Connector Tunnel ceiling tile collapse angered then-Gov. Romney enough to fire then-Turnpike Authority Chairman Matt Amorello & call for the consolidation of the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority (that controlled the Turnpike & harbor tunnels) with then-MassHighway agency; though the merger of the two agencies into the current MassDOT wouldn't occur until the Patrick Administration... mainly due to pressure from the local media (mainly talk-show host & Boston Herald columnist Howie Carr who advocated the abolition of the Turnpike Authority (& its tolls) since the 1980s).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: ipeters61 on June 26, 2018, 08:51:58 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 26, 2018, 08:52:27 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on June 25, 2018, 06:42:09 PM
Perhaps the notion of "toll road=better maintained roads" is referred to most states which have toll roads/bridges are operated as an agency separate from the state DOT.  NY has the Thruway Authority, the Bridge Authority;  Maine has the Maine Turnpike Authority;  even RI has the "Turnpike & Bridge Authority".  CT has never had any of that... just the highway department (now DOT).  So money just went into a giant pot at DOT (or worse, the general fund) to be spent on what seemed fit at the time. 

If Connecticut had a "Turnpike Authority" or something similar, perhaps the money could be kept for just upkeep of that road in particular.  Perhaps the bridges would have been better maintained (avoiding a Mianus disaster).  Perhaps the turnpike would be widened east of New Haven out to (at least) East Lyme.

Or, perhaps not.
The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission (PTC) blows that particular theory right out the window.  Even before Act 44 became law, the PA Turnpike had a long-standing reputation of being one of the most expensive toll roads in the country but in the worst overall condition.

The 2006 I-90/Big Dig Connector Tunnel ceiling tile collapse was the main reason why then-Gov. Romney decided to consolidate the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority (that controlled the Turnpike & harbor tunnels) with then-MassHighway agency into the current MassDOT.

As far as I know, the tolled portion of the DE-1 expressway is owned and maintained by DelDOT.  I find it to be in very good condition overall, but it also helps that it's a road that's less than 30 years old.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: roadman on June 27, 2018, 09:23:50 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 26, 2018, 08:52:27 AM
The 2006 I-90/Big Dig Connector Tunnel ceiling tile collapse was the main reason why then-Gov. Romney decided to consolidate the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority (that controlled the Turnpike & harbor tunnels) with then-MassHighway agency into the current MassDOT.

The MassDOT consolidation was the result of legislation submitted by Governor Patrick, and not Governor Romney.  And the continual criticism of the Turnpike Authority by Howie Carr and others in the media had far more to do with the decision to eliminate that agency that the ceiling collapse did.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Rothman on June 27, 2018, 09:32:55 AM
It was Romney that definitely got the ball rolling though, even though the legislation was not signed until Patrick was in office.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on June 27, 2018, 10:24:53 AM
Quote from: roadman on June 27, 2018, 09:23:50 AM
I've since modified my earlier post; however, one can not tell me for one nanosecond that the tunnel ceiling collapse was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back regarding the future of the Turnpike Authority.  As stated in my previous post edit, the media criticism (I remember when the late-Jerry Williams was talking about it during the late 1980s) of the Authority existed well before the tunnel ceiling collapse; the incident itself was the proverbial match that lit the gasoline on that media fire.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on June 27, 2018, 04:02:38 PM
I-84 signing project update:

Courtesy of the ConnDOT traffic cameras, looks like we have a new 4-chord cantilever just installed for LEFT Exit 36/Slater Rd, I-84 EB:
https://cttravelsmart.org/cctv?start=30&length=10&filters%5B0%5D%5Bi%5D=2&filters%5B0%5D%5Bs%5D=I-84&order%5Bi%5D=0&order%5Bdir%5D=asc
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on June 28, 2018, 04:16:36 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on June 27, 2018, 04:02:38 PM
I-84 signing project update:

Courtesy of the ConnDOT traffic cameras, looks like we have a new 4-chord cantilever just installed for LEFT Exit 36/Slater Rd, I-84 EB:
https://cttravelsmart.org/cctv?start=30&length=10&filters%5B0%5D%5Bi%5D=2&filters%5B0%5D%5Bs%5D=I-84&order%5Bi%5D=0&order%5Bdir%5D=asc

Drove the stretch from Southington to Hartford this evening and got a couple shots of them.  There's a half mile and a quarter mile advance one.  Also there are new cantilever 3/4 and 1/4 mile advance signs for Exit 39A EB.  No new signage WB yet, except the white WEST shields are corrected to blue.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on June 28, 2018, 02:29:18 PM
Noticed studs were installed on I-84 W in the vicinity of exit 70/69.  It's either for a new gantry or a new VMS.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: zzyzx on July 03, 2018, 02:47:46 PM
I found this home video of Connecticut on YouTube from 1987.  Most of it appears to have been shot in Fairfield County, and it includes footage driving down the Merritt Parkway (about 12:48 into the video).  Nice to see the old state outline route shields!

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on July 04, 2018, 07:20:14 PM
Quote from: zzyzx on July 03, 2018, 02:47:46 PM
I found this home video of Connecticut on YouTube from 1987.  Most of it appears to have been shot in Fairfield County, and it includes footage driving down the Merritt Parkway (about 12:48 into the video).  Nice to see the old state outline route shields!



Interesting that the US-7/Main Ave ramps were Exits 39-40 rather than Exit 39 A-B and Exit 40 A-B as they are today. Surprised to see how many more overhead gantries were up as well.  The only one remaining is for Exit 35 SB I believe.

The Merritt never had reflective button copy except for the US-7/Main Ave ramps.  It had non-reflective button copy up until the wood panel recreations.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on July 05, 2018, 12:06:29 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on July 04, 2018, 07:20:14 PM
Interesting that the US-7/Main Ave ramps were Exits 39-40 rather than Exit 39 A-B and Exit 40 A-B as they are today. Surprised to see how many more overhead gantries were up as well.  The only one remaining is for Exit 35 SB I believe.

Yup, there were a few overheads in the "state outline shield" days.  With the state reducing its overhead sign footprint, there will be less and less (except Exit 88 on I-95 which is getting new overheads on its signs). 

I'm guessing Exits 39 and 40 instead of 39N-S was used because this was the first road in CT to have exit numbers and they really didn't know what they were doing/there was no exit numbering standard.  That's why #27 is the first exit, as they're keeping it continuous with the exits on the 'Hutch.  Further up on the WCP, the exits for Route 34 are Exits 57 & 58, where they should be just Exit 57E-W. 

There's a short section before the Merritt section in the video showing I-95 in Norwalk, with the Phase III all reflective button copy.  It must be relatively new, as the old blue turnpike signs were replaced sometime in the early/mid 80s west of New Haven.  Though I doubt the exit for US 7 ever had all-blue signs, since the US 7 expressway in Norwalk opened well after the turnpike did.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: BamaZeus on July 05, 2018, 12:21:01 PM
Quote from: zzyzx on July 03, 2018, 02:47:46 PM
I found this home video of Connecticut on YouTube from 1987.  Most of it appears to have been shot in Fairfield County, and it includes footage driving down the Merritt Parkway (about 12:48 into the video).  Nice to see the old state outline route shields!



That is fascinating.  I was living in New Canaan at that time.  They were filming on a Sunday, but I was almost expecting to see myself walking downtown.  We ate at that Baskin Robbins all the time, and my mom was a crossing guard barely a block away from where they were, in front of St. Aloysius.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on July 06, 2018, 12:20:38 AM
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5569998,-72.642563,3a,54.9y,299.94h,79.23t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sG_CwfDdwel5TzPMYi_8fKQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5569998,-72.642563,3a,54.9y,299.94h,79.23t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sG_CwfDdwel5TzPMYi_8fKQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
The remnants of the CT 9 NB metered ramp, the only one CONNDOT has ever installed.  Control box on the left.  The cone marks where the light was mounted.  Cracked pavement is where the cabling was sunk.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: ipeters61 on July 06, 2018, 07:55:48 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on July 06, 2018, 12:20:38 AM
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5569998,-72.642563,3a,54.9y,299.94h,79.23t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sG_CwfDdwel5TzPMYi_8fKQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5569998,-72.642563,3a,54.9y,299.94h,79.23t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sG_CwfDdwel5TzPMYi_8fKQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
The remnants of the CT 9 NB metered ramp, the only one CONNDOT has ever installed.  Control box on the left.  The cone marks where the light was mounted.  Cracked pavement is where the cabling was sunk.
Hm...very interesting.  Do you know when it was in service?  Seems like an appropriate place to have a ramp meter since it's right before the stoplights in Middletown.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jon daly on July 06, 2018, 11:55:43 AM
I recall that ramp meter, but it's been many years since I entered CT-9 from CT-17. I had no idea that it was gone.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on July 06, 2018, 04:31:33 PM
Quote from: ipeters61 on July 06, 2018, 07:55:48 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on July 06, 2018, 12:20:38 AM
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5569998,-72.642563,3a,54.9y,299.94h,79.23t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sG_CwfDdwel5TzPMYi_8fKQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5569998,-72.642563,3a,54.9y,299.94h,79.23t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sG_CwfDdwel5TzPMYi_8fKQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
The remnants of the CT 9 NB metered ramp, the only one CONNDOT has ever installed.  Control box on the left.  The cone marks where the light was mounted.  Cracked pavement is where the cabling was sunk.
Hm...very interesting.  Do you know when it was in service?  Seems like an appropriate place to have a ramp meter since it's right before the stoplights in Middletown.
I've looked everywhere for paperwork; studies, engineering diagrams, completed projects, no dice.  Only proof (if you can call it that) is a memory of being in the car when my parents drove past it about 17-18 years ago.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: relaxok on July 07, 2018, 04:31:17 AM
My parents were back in CT recently (we've both moved away long ago).  They said the traffic and construction through I-84 in Waterbury is STILL going on.  It was getting into full swing back when I left in 2002 and was terrible again when I visited around 2010.

What exactly are they doing in Waterbury and why is it taking so long?

My recollection is that they were doing some straightening (which didn't seem all that helpful to me, being someone who commuted through it) but what else has it turned into?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on July 07, 2018, 09:44:07 AM
They're actually making really good progress with I-84 Waterbury.  A reverse curve section is being eliminated, local roads realigned and rebuilt, overpasses being replaced, new exits/ramps being built, etc etc.... its a lot more than a simple widening.  There's a web site with lots of photos and cameras in the project zone. 

http://i-84waterbury.com/

And if you love construction in Waterbury, there's the upcoming Mixmaster rehab, set to add several more years of road work in Waterbury. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: DrSmith on July 07, 2018, 10:01:53 AM
Some of the Waterbury work took forever because of shoddy work done in the Cheshire section. As they were finishing up the construction, there were major issues with the drainage, guard rails, lighting discovered and required extensive work to correct. Once that section was fixed and fully opened, it was several years before the state decided to go back and finally widen the last 2 lane segment (the current construction zone).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on July 07, 2018, 03:05:33 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on July 07, 2018, 09:44:07 AM
They're actually making really good progress with I-84 Waterbury.  A reverse curve section is being eliminated, local roads realigned and rebuilt, overpasses being replaced, new exits/ramps being built, etc etc.... its a lot more than a simple widening.  There's a web site with lots of photos and cameras in the project zone. 

http://i-84waterbury.com/

And if you love construction in Waterbury, there's the upcoming Mixmaster rehab, set to add several more years of road work in Waterbury.
What a time to be alive!  Got that, the Hartford Viaduct, I-91 Exit 29 reconfiguration, the potential Bulkley Bridge replacement, the final Merritt Parkway rehab project, the removal of the Middletown stoplights on CT 9.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: ipeters61 on July 07, 2018, 07:12:03 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on July 07, 2018, 03:05:33 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on July 07, 2018, 09:44:07 AM
They're actually making really good progress with I-84 Waterbury.  A reverse curve section is being eliminated, local roads realigned and rebuilt, overpasses being replaced, new exits/ramps being built, etc etc.... its a lot more than a simple widening.  There's a web site with lots of photos and cameras in the project zone. 

http://i-84waterbury.com/

And if you love construction in Waterbury, there's the upcoming Mixmaster rehab, set to add several more years of road work in Waterbury.
What a time to be alive!  Got that, the Hartford Viaduct, I-91 Exit 29 reconfiguration, the potential Bulkley Bridge replacement, the final Merritt Parkway rehab project, the removal of the Middletown stoplights on CT 9.
Makes me miss CT even more.

Also what is this with a Bulkeley Bridge replacement?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on July 07, 2018, 07:24:41 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on July 07, 2018, 03:05:33 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on July 07, 2018, 09:44:07 AM
They're actually making really good progress with I-84 Waterbury.  A reverse curve section is being eliminated, local roads realigned and rebuilt, overpasses being replaced, new exits/ramps being built, etc etc.... its a lot more than a simple widening.  There's a web site with lots of photos and cameras in the project zone. 

http://i-84waterbury.com/ (http://i-84waterbury.com/)

And if you love construction in Waterbury, there's the upcoming Mixmaster rehab, set to add several more years of road work in Waterbury.
What a time to be alive!  Got that, the Hartford Viaduct, I-91 Exit 29 reconfiguration, the potential Bulkley Bridge replacement, the final Merritt Parkway rehab project, the removal of the Middletown stoplights on CT 9.
How many of these will actually happen before being canned?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeCL on July 10, 2018, 06:54:55 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on July 06, 2018, 04:31:33 PM
Quote from: ipeters61 on July 06, 2018, 07:55:48 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on July 06, 2018, 12:20:38 AM
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5569998,-72.642563,3a,54.9y,299.94h,79.23t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sG_CwfDdwel5TzPMYi_8fKQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5569998,-72.642563,3a,54.9y,299.94h,79.23t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sG_CwfDdwel5TzPMYi_8fKQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
The remnants of the CT 9 NB metered ramp, the only one CONNDOT has ever installed.  Control box on the left.  The cone marks where the light was mounted.  Cracked pavement is where the cabling was sunk.
Hm...very interesting.  Do you know when it was in service?  Seems like an appropriate place to have a ramp meter since it's right before the stoplights in Middletown.
I've looked everywhere for paperwork; studies, engineering diagrams, completed projects, no dice.  Only proof (if you can call it that) is a memory of being in the car when my parents drove past it about 17-18 years ago.

Stupid question (happened to be in the shot when you move the camera around.. but what's those stations I've seen one 95-NB in Stamford.. are they weather motioning stations for the state?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on July 10, 2018, 07:19:08 PM
If it's not the weigh station between Exit 2 and 3 in Greenwich, then you've got me.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jon daly on July 10, 2018, 08:25:36 PM
Quote from: MikeCL on July 10, 2018, 06:54:55 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on July 06, 2018, 04:31:33 PM
Quote from: ipeters61 on July 06, 2018, 07:55:48 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on July 06, 2018, 12:20:38 AM
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5569998,-72.642563,3a,54.9y,299.94h,79.23t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sG_CwfDdwel5TzPMYi_8fKQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5569998,-72.642563,3a,54.9y,299.94h,79.23t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sG_CwfDdwel5TzPMYi_8fKQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
The remnants of the CT 9 NB metered ramp, the only one CONNDOT has ever installed.  Control box on the left.  The cone marks where the light was mounted.  Cracked pavement is where the cabling was sunk.
Hm...very interesting.  Do you know when it was in service?  Seems like an appropriate place to have a ramp meter since it's right before the stoplights in Middletown.
I've looked everywhere for paperwork; studies, engineering diagrams, completed projects, no dice.  Only proof (if you can call it that) is a memory of being in the car when my parents drove past it about 17-18 years ago.

Stupid question (happened to be in the shot when you move the camera around.. but what's those stations I've seen one 95-NB in Stamford.. are they weather motioning stations for the state?

I see a couple stations that look like weather stations on or just off of Route 2. One is in the median between Colchester and Norwich (I think it is in Bozrah, but I'm not sure.) The other is right next to the entrance ramp to CT-2 North from High Street, E Hartford. I see it on Streetview, but I don't have the Google Fu skills to link the pic.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on July 10, 2018, 08:30:43 PM
Roadway Weather Information System

Diagram: http://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/documents/deng/170-3346/typical_diagram.pdf
Picture: http://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/documents/deng/170-3346/picture_of_typical_installation.jpg
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeCL on July 10, 2018, 09:20:53 PM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on July 10, 2018, 08:30:43 PM
Roadway Weather Information System

Diagram: http://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/documents/deng/170-3346/typical_diagram.pdf
Picture: http://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/documents/deng/170-3346/picture_of_typical_installation.jpg
Nice!! Most of the sensors I've seen have wind speed sensor
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on July 11, 2018, 05:04:46 PM
https://www.nytimes.com/1983/03/27/nyregion/it-is-boom-time-in-highway-construction.html

Old NY Times article on CT road building boom
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on July 11, 2018, 08:48:00 PM
Quote from: ipeters61 on July 07, 2018, 07:12:03 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on July 07, 2018, 03:05:33 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on July 07, 2018, 09:44:07 AM
They're actually making really good progress with I-84 Waterbury.  A reverse curve section is being eliminated, local roads realigned and rebuilt, overpasses being replaced, new exits/ramps being built, etc etc.... its a lot more than a simple widening.  There's a web site with lots of photos and cameras in the project zone. 

http://i-84waterbury.com/

And if you love construction in Waterbury, there's the upcoming Mixmaster rehab, set to add several more years of road work in Waterbury.
What a time to be alive!  Got that, the Hartford Viaduct, I-91 Exit 29 reconfiguration, the potential Bulkley Bridge replacement, the final Merritt Parkway rehab project, the removal of the Middletown stoplights on CT 9.
Makes me miss CT even more.

Also what is this with a Bulkeley Bridge replacement?
There have been rumblings by Congressmen about replacing it with a new bridge or a tunnel. But this is very early talks.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jon daly on July 12, 2018, 06:46:49 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on July 11, 2018, 05:04:46 PM
https://www.nytimes.com/1983/03/27/nyregion/it-is-boom-time-in-highway-construction.html

Old NY Times article on CT road building boom

"Major road projects in the state will include widening the Commodore Hull Bridge between Derby and Shelton, widening I-91 north of Hartford, replacing the interchange of I-91 and I-84 in Hartford and rebuilding portions of I-86 near Manchester."

These aren't as sexy as new road construction from my perspective. They don't change the maps much unless they get detailed enough to show ramps. But I remember these projects very well. Before this, it wasn't easy to merge on to 91 in Enfield or Windsor Locks. And I think this was also the end of having to use Morgan St in Hartford to get from 84 to 91.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on July 12, 2018, 07:52:00 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on July 11, 2018, 08:48:00 PM
Quote from: ipeters61 on July 07, 2018, 07:12:03 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on July 07, 2018, 03:05:33 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on July 07, 2018, 09:44:07 AM
They're actually making really good progress with I-84 Waterbury.  A reverse curve section is being eliminated, local roads realigned and rebuilt, overpasses being replaced, new exits/ramps being built, etc etc.... its a lot more than a simple widening.  There's a web site with lots of photos and cameras in the project zone. 

http://i-84waterbury.com/

And if you love construction in Waterbury, there's the upcoming Mixmaster rehab, set to add several more years of road work in Waterbury.
What a time to be alive!  Got that, the Hartford Viaduct, I-91 Exit 29 reconfiguration, the potential Bulkley Bridge replacement, the final Merritt Parkway rehab project, the removal of the Middletown stoplights on CT 9.
Makes me miss CT even more.

Also what is this with a Bulkeley Bridge replacement?
There have been rumblings by Congressmen about replacing it with a new bridge or a tunnel. But this is very early talks.

I wouldn't worry too much just yet on replace the Bulkeley.  From what I've heard, those rumblings are just that... pie in the sky ideas for massive reroutes of the interstates through Hartford.  Well, pie in the sky for now.  There's been no mention of the Bulkeley in the "Ramp Up CT" project or any other long-term docs that I've seen. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Rothman on July 12, 2018, 08:03:00 AM
Quote from: jon daly on July 12, 2018, 06:46:49 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on July 11, 2018, 05:04:46 PM
https://www.nytimes.com/1983/03/27/nyregion/it-is-boom-time-in-highway-construction.html

Old NY Times article on CT road building boom

"Major road projects in the state will include widening the Commodore Hull Bridge between Derby and Shelton, widening I-91 north of Hartford, replacing the interchange of I-91 and I-84 in Hartford and rebuilding portions of I-86 near Manchester."

These aren't as sexy as new road construction from my perspective. They don't change the maps much unless they get detailed enough to show ramps. But I remember these projects very well. Before this, it wasn't easy to merge on to 91 in Enfield or Windsor Locks. And I think this was also the end of having to use Morgan St in Hartford to get from 84 to 91.
The flyover from I-84 East to I-91 North was a huge deal.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on July 12, 2018, 10:41:51 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on July 12, 2018, 07:52:00 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on July 11, 2018, 08:48:00 PM
Quote from: ipeters61 on July 07, 2018, 07:12:03 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on July 07, 2018, 03:05:33 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on July 07, 2018, 09:44:07 AM
They're actually making really good progress with I-84 Waterbury.  A reverse curve section is being eliminated, local roads realigned and rebuilt, overpasses being replaced, new exits/ramps being built, etc etc.... its a lot more than a simple widening.  There's a web site with lots of photos and cameras in the project zone. 

http://i-84waterbury.com/

And if you love construction in Waterbury, there's the upcoming Mixmaster rehab, set to add several more years of road work in Waterbury.
What a time to be alive!  Got that, the Hartford Viaduct, I-91 Exit 29 reconfiguration, the potential Bulkley Bridge replacement, the final Merritt Parkway rehab project, the removal of the Middletown stoplights on CT 9.
Makes me miss CT even more.

Also what is this with a Bulkeley Bridge replacement?
There have been rumblings by Congressmen about replacing it with a new bridge or a tunnel. But this is very early talks.

I wouldn't worry too much just yet on replace the Bulkeley.  From what I've heard, those rumblings are just that... pie in the sky ideas for massive reroutes of the interstates through Hartford.  Well, pie in the sky for now.  There's been no mention of the Bulkeley in the "Ramp Up CT" project or any other long-term docs that I've seen.

I would think that even if I-84 is rerouted and no longer uses the Bulkeley Bridge, the bridge would be retrofitted to its prior use as the Morgan St Bridge for local traffic to connect Morgan St in Hartford and Connecticut Boulevard in East Hartford.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on July 12, 2018, 03:57:45 PM
Quote from: jon daly on July 12, 2018, 06:46:49 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on July 11, 2018, 05:04:46 PM
https://www.nytimes.com/1983/03/27/nyregion/it-is-boom-time-in-highway-construction.html

Old NY Times article on CT road building boom

"Major road projects in the state will include widening the Commodore Hull Bridge between Derby and Shelton, widening I-91 north of Hartford, replacing the interchange of I-91 and I-84 in Hartford and rebuilding portions of I-86 near Manchester."

These aren't as sexy as new road construction from my perspective. They don't change the maps much unless they get detailed enough to show ramps. But I remember these projects very well. Before this, it wasn't easy to merge on to 91 in Enfield or Windsor Locks. And I think this was also the end of having to use Morgan St in Hartford to get from 84 to 91.

CT was busy building new expressways well into the 1980s.  CT-72 west of I-84 until around CT-177 in 1981, CT-8 in 1982, CT-25 in 1983, I-384 in 1986, I-691 in 1987, even I-291 and CT-9 were completed in 1992/1994 respectively.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on July 12, 2018, 09:11:13 PM
Flip the last two. CT Route 9's last segment, from Cedar Street (CT Route 175) in Newington to I-84 in Farmington, opened on September 30, 1992. I still have the story from WVIT-TV (NBC) channel 30 of New Britain/Hartford somewhere.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jon daly on July 13, 2018, 06:18:12 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on July 12, 2018, 03:57:45 PM
Quote from: jon daly on July 12, 2018, 06:46:49 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on July 11, 2018, 05:04:46 PM
https://www.nytimes.com/1983/03/27/nyregion/it-is-boom-time-in-highway-construction.html

Old NY Times article on CT road building boom

"Major road projects in the state will include widening the Commodore Hull Bridge between Derby and Shelton, widening I-91 north of Hartford, replacing the interchange of I-91 and I-84 in Hartford and rebuilding portions of I-86 near Manchester."

These aren't as sexy as new road construction from my perspective. They don't change the maps much unless they get detailed enough to show ramps. But I remember these projects very well. Before this, it wasn't easy to merge on to 91 in Enfield or Windsor Locks. And I think this was also the end of having to use Morgan St in Hartford to get from 84 to 91.

CT was busy building new expressways well into the 1980s.  CT-72 west of I-84 until around CT-177 in 1981, CT-8 in 1982, CT-25 in 1983, I-384 in 1986, I-691 in 1987, even I-291 and CT-9 were completed in 1992/1994 respectively.

This is true, but I don't think the NYT article mentioned this. Then again,  I read it right after waking up so my reading retention skills weren't 100% :).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on July 18, 2018, 06:17:50 PM
I was on the non-expressway portion of CT Route 8 for the first time on July 17th, riding through Winchester, the village of Winsted and Colebrook into Massachusetts. We stayed on it until reaching US Route 20 near Lee, MA. I now have 2 questions:

1- Was the expressway portion ever intended to continue further north?
2- Why does the route have an even number? (The same could be said about Route 9 in MA, along with Route 9 in VT and NH.)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on July 18, 2018, 07:10:32 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on July 18, 2018, 06:17:50 PM
I was on the non-expressway portion of CT Route 8 for the first time on July 17th, riding through Winchester, the village of Winsted and Colebrook into Massachusetts. We stayed on it until reaching US Route 20 near Lee, MA. I now have 2 questions:

1- Was the expressway portion ever intended to continue further north?
2- Why does the route have an even number? (The same could be said about Route 9 in MA, along with Route 9 in VT and NH.)
1- Yes, all the way to the Mass Pike
2- I would guess it's because it's an alternative route to Southern VT. US 7 takes you through more densely populated towns in the Berkshires than CT/MA/VT 8.  8 ends literally in the middle of nowhere; Searsburg, VT. No fanfare, just a T intersection with VT 9.  8 was also a former NE Interstate route.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on July 18, 2018, 07:46:30 PM
Apparently, Gov. Malloy isn't ready to give up the ghost regarding tolls on CT highways.  He just authorized a $10 million study for such.  Wasn't a study already done prior to the withdrawn-legislative vote a month or two ago?

Gov Malloy Orders 10 Million Electronic Tolls Study (https://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/Gov-Malloy-Orders-10-Million-Electronic-Tolls-Study-488458521.html?_osource=SocialFlowFB_CTBrand)

Complete waste of $10 million if one asks me.  How about placing that money towards actual maintenance & repairs instead.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on July 18, 2018, 08:25:25 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 18, 2018, 07:46:30 PM
Apparently, Gov. Malloy isn't ready to give up the ghost regarding tolls on CT highways.  He just authorized a $10 million study for such.  Wasn't a study already done prior to the withdrawn-legislative vote a month or two ago?

Gov Malloy Orders 10 Million Electronic Tolls Study (https://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/Gov-Malloy-Orders-10-Million-Electronic-Tolls-Study-488458521.html?_osource=SocialFlowFB_CTBrand)

Complete waste of $10 million if one asks me.  How about placing that money towards actual maintenance & repairs instead.
The General Assembly doesn't directly allocate funds that are given to CONNDOT. CONNDOT maintains roads based on their budget, which is based on the money they are budgeted from the GA. And they aren't not maintaining roads, obviously.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on July 18, 2018, 08:28:23 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 18, 2018, 07:46:30 PM
Apparently, Gov. Malloy isn't ready to give up the ghost regarding tolls on CT highways.  He just authorized a $10 million study for such.  Wasn't a study already done prior to the withdrawn-legislative vote a month or two ago?

Gov Malloy Orders 10 Million Electronic Tolls Study (https://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/Gov-Malloy-Orders-10-Million-Electronic-Tolls-Study-488458521.html?_osource=SocialFlowFB_CTBrand)

Complete waste of $10 million if one asks me.  How about placing that money towards actual maintenance & repairs instead.


There was a congestion relief study done about tolls. It's still on the CT DOT website. It's studied and studied again
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on July 19, 2018, 09:22:01 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on July 18, 2018, 08:25:25 PMThe General Assembly doesn't directly allocate funds that are given to CONNDOT.
Maybe it's time that they should.

I've stated such before & I'll state it again; if CT is actually serious regarding fixing/building/maintaining its roadway system, they should change/reform how their gas tax revenue is allocated first!  Having such go to a general fund where the monies are subject to being raided for other purposes is basically one reason why its high gas tax is underperforming in terms of transportation/road funding.

Such, the gas tax allocation reform, would be a good-faith effort on CT's part that they're willing to make adjustments on their end before tapping into motorists' & taxpayers' wallets again at either the gas pump or toll gantries.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on July 25, 2018, 10:42:05 PM
From the state that brought you "Framington"...

http://www.michaelwhitehouse.org/2018/04/downton-groton.html

QuoteThe state of Connecticut recently spent a spectacular amount of money to install new highway signs on I-95 through Groton, and this is one of them. There are two things you may notice on this sign. The first is that there is a letter missing from the word "Downtown," and the second is that it's behind a tree.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on July 25, 2018, 11:35:16 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on July 25, 2018, 10:42:05 PM
From the state that brought you "Framington"...

http://www.michaelwhitehouse.org/2018/04/downton-groton.html

QuoteThe state of Connecticut recently spent a spectacular amount of money to install new highway signs on I-95 through Groton, and this is one of them. There are two things you may notice on this sign. The first is that there is a letter missing from the word "Downtown," and the second is that it's behind a tree.


Don't even get me started on how this state wastes money :verymad:.  My blood is boiling over this, since so much has been studied already.  This is another prime example of why our roads are in disrepair, and nothing is ever accomplished in this state:

http://www.courant.com/politics/hc-pol-bond-vote-toll-study-20180724-story.html#nt=oft12aH-1gp2




Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jon daly on July 26, 2018, 06:32:53 AM
There is no downtown Groton.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on July 26, 2018, 09:21:43 AM
Quote from: jon daly on July 26, 2018, 06:32:53 AM
There is no downtown Groton.

The Town of Groton disagrees with you: http://www.exploremoregroton.com/groton/explore-groton/neighborhoods
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on July 26, 2018, 09:31:58 AM
Quote from: jon daly on July 26, 2018, 06:32:53 AMThere is no downtown Groton.
Of course not, it's Downton Groton per the sign.  :-D
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on July 26, 2018, 09:33:09 AM
"Downtown Groton" has been posted on signs in the area for years... Exit 85 NB coming off the Gold Star, and the US 1 exit off Exit 87 NB/SB.  With Clarence B. Sharp no longer getting recognition on the new I-95 guide signs, "Groton City" comes into play as the new Exit 87 destination.  And, to add to the confusion, there's "Groton Waterfront" which is replacing "Thames Street" on the Exit 85 NB signs and is being added as a supplemental sign, along with "Downto[w]n Groton" for Exit 87 SB.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jon daly on July 26, 2018, 09:35:33 AM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on July 26, 2018, 09:21:43 AM
Quote from: jon daly on July 26, 2018, 06:32:53 AM
There is no downtown Groton.

The Town of Groton disagrees with you: http://www.exploremoregroton.com/groton/explore-groton/neighborhoods


Diving into that link, I saw this.

The Town's largest commercial district is situated at the community crossroads along the intersection of Route 1 (Long Hill Road) and Poquonnock Road. Targeted for designation as a Tax Increment Financing (TIF) district, one of the first in the State, Downtown Groton is undergoing an economic transformation from single-use "big box"  and "strip"  style retail to a modern, mixed-use Town Center.

They have a ways to go. Groton Shoppers Mart is still the biggest landmark I can think of in that area and it surrounded by strip plazas and Hamburger (AKA Long) Hill.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on July 26, 2018, 10:34:24 AM
Interesting read:
http://www.myrecordjournal.com/News/Throwback-Thursday/THROWBACK-THURSDAY-Abandoned-plan-for-Route-10-expressway-through-Connecticut.html#gallery-1
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on July 26, 2018, 02:20:06 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on July 26, 2018, 10:34:24 AM
Interesting read:
http://www.myrecordjournal.com/News/Throwback-Thursday/THROWBACK-THURSDAY-Abandoned-plan-for-Route-10-expressway-through-Connecticut.html#gallery-1
Throw this one under the "sensible idea that we don't like because we hate freeways and would rather sit in gridlock on Queen Street" category.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeCL on July 27, 2018, 11:16:46 AM
I was up in the New Haven area what is this going to be?(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180727/c1d8fcaa05d168b8e257ebd3864d9777.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: roadman on July 27, 2018, 12:21:14 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on July 25, 2018, 10:42:05 PM
From the state that brought you "Framington"...

http://www.michaelwhitehouse.org/2018/04/downton-groton.html

QuoteThe state of Connecticut recently spent a spectacular amount of money to install new highway signs on I-95 through Groton, and this is one of them. There are two things you may notice on this sign. The first is that there is a letter missing from the word "Downtown," and the second is that it's behind a tree.

Per the I-95 re-signing project plans, that sign was originally supposed to read "Groton-New London Airport."  Wonder if the error happened when the legend was changed, or if it was a fabricator goof?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jon daly on July 27, 2018, 12:58:56 PM
I mentioned this in the R.I. thread, but it's more appropriate here:

I saw an ad for Ned Lamont in which it sounded like he was proposing a system like theirs; tolling tractor trailers.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on July 27, 2018, 01:04:09 PM
https://wsayshregister.com/local/article/Surveying-to-close-West-Rock-tunnel-on-Route-15-13110110.php

Survey says? Close! That looks likely with sections of the CT Route 15 tunnel shortly. Look how long this project could take!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on July 27, 2018, 03:26:22 PM
The link didn't work for me, but I found this instead: https://www.heroestunnelproject.com/

Surveying will close each tunnel for 3 nights.

Construction (if funded) to begin in 2022.  There's mention of an 11 year time horizon in some of the press, but it's not clear to me when the 11 years starts/started.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Marc_in_CT on July 27, 2018, 03:34:39 PM
Quote from: MikeCL on July 27, 2018, 11:16:46 AM
I was up in the New Haven area what is this going to be?

It's an embellishment to the Canal Dock Rd bridge.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.2964122,-72.9179309,3a,75y,113.5h,91.22t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1su96_iFNl6Owwxc5sceGAPw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0 (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.2964122,-72.9179309,3a,75y,113.5h,91.22t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1su96_iFNl6Owwxc5sceGAPw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeCL on July 27, 2018, 03:40:14 PM
Quote from: Marc_in_CT on July 27, 2018, 03:34:39 PM
Quote from: MikeCL on July 27, 2018, 11:16:46 AM
I was up in the New Haven area what is this going to be?

It's an embellishment to the Canal Dock Rd bridge.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.2964122,-72.9179309,3a,75y,113.5h,91.22t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1su96_iFNl6Owwxc5sceGAPw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0 (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.2964122,-72.9179309,3a,75y,113.5h,91.22t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1su96_iFNl6Owwxc5sceGAPw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0)
Is it just me or do I get like a Art Deco style feel to it?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on July 27, 2018, 04:19:29 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on July 27, 2018, 01:04:09 PM
https://wsayshregister.com/local/article/Surveying-to-close-West-Rock-tunnel-on-Route-15-13110110.php

Survey says? Close! That looks likely with sections of the CT Route 15 tunnel shortly. Look how long this project could take!

Corrected link:
https://www.nhregister.com/local/article/Surveying-to-close-West-Rock-tunnel-on-Route-15-13110110.php

11 years?  Really?  For a tunnel that's 1100' long?  Sure, its under rock, but 11 years???

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on July 27, 2018, 04:33:24 PM
Quote from: jon daly on July 27, 2018, 12:58:56 PM
I mentioned this in the R.I. thread, but it's more appropriate here:

I saw an ad for Ned Lamont in which it sounded like he was proposing a system like theirs; tolling tractor trailers.


Yup.  You can count on tolls as a foregone conclusion if Malloy 2.0 Lamont, or Ganim is elected.  And the cost of those tolls won't be absorbed by the shippers or wholesalers.  It will be absorbed by the consumer in higher retail prices.   
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on July 27, 2018, 05:03:10 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on July 27, 2018, 04:19:29 PM11 years?  Really?  For a tunnel that's 1100' long?  Sure, its under rock, but 11 years???

That was the reason I expressed uncertainty about what's included in the 11 years.

Some study work has taken place, and we're still 4 years out from projected start of construction.  If it's measured from the initial study start...that would trim the construction time down to 6 years....which admittedly still seems like a lot.

But they are talking about boring a third tube, and (maybe?) expanding the diameter of the existing two tubes.  And, this being Connecticut, you know the work is going to have to be done twice or thrice to get it done correctly....
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on July 27, 2018, 08:50:30 PM
And why wouldn't this project extend down to Exit 59?  If you're going to widen the tunnels and add an additional lane, you may as well extend it right to Exit 59.  That's a busy exit and the ramps are often backed up.  Why not have the 3rd lane go to the north end of the tunnel?

No, wait, that'll add another 5 years of construction onto the timeline.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on July 27, 2018, 09:04:45 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on July 27, 2018, 08:50:30 PM
And why wouldn't this project extend down to Exit 59?  If you're going to widen the tunnels and add an additional lane, you may as well extend it right to Exit 59.  That's a busy exit and the ramps are often backed up.  Why not have the 3rd lane go to the north end of the tunnel?

No, wait, that'll add another 5 years of construction onto the timeline.

For a state that hates to add turn lanes because of NIMBYism I'm suprised nobody has raised a stink over the third tunnel....and for what?  If they're going to build a third tunnel at least increase capacity somehow. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on July 27, 2018, 09:47:33 PM
anybody have the signage plans for I-95 from Exits 83-93? I had them but deleted them somehow.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on July 28, 2018, 12:27:11 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on July 27, 2018, 09:04:45 PMFor a state that hates to add turn lanes because of NIMBYism I'm suprised nobody has raised a stink over the third tunnel....and for what?  If they're going to build a third tunnel at least increase capacity somehow.

Looking through some more information (the planning started in 2015), I think the most likely plans are for a third tunnel to be bored; one of the existing tunnels to be widened, and the other existing tunnel to be retained as-is as a spare in case of emergency or repair project.  That could then be sold as "no additional lanes".
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jon daly on July 28, 2018, 08:29:55 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on July 27, 2018, 09:47:33 PM
anybody have the signage plans for I-95 from Exits 83-93? I had them but deleted them somehow.

I don't, but I found a staging area for that project. On  the frontage road near Exit 92, there's a park and ride where I saw a mix of some old signs and new ones. Most of them look new, but I saw a button copy blue  Tourist Info sign.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on July 28, 2018, 03:55:45 PM
The simplest solution would be to run two-way traffic in one tunnel while the other is being worked on. Problem is, the traffic volumes through there are too high for that to really work.

The idea of boring a third tunnel instead seems like an awful lot of expense for something that isn't going to be kept in use... but then, having a third tunnel doesn't do anything to increase capacity if the road approaching it from either side is still only four lanes.


It is kind of odd that this tunnel even exists to begin with, a relic of the fact that it was built in 1949 when tunneling through West Rock Ridge was seen as the best method of traversing it. If the road had been built 10-20 years later they would likely have simply blasted a cut through the ridge. 30+ years later, section 4(f) would have prevented the road from being built through there at all.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jon daly on July 30, 2018, 11:07:14 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on July 27, 2018, 04:33:24 PM
Quote from: jon daly on July 27, 2018, 12:58:56 PM
I mentioned this in the R.I. thread, but it's more appropriate here:

I saw an ad for Ned Lamont in which it sounded like he was proposing a system like theirs; tolling tractor trailers.




Yup.  You can count on tolls as a foregone conclusion if Malloy 2.0 Lamont, or Ganim is elected.  And the cost of those tolls won't be absorbed by the shippers or wholesalers.  It will be absorbed by the consumer in higher retail prices.   

An apolitical aside with regards to the gubernatorial race:

Are  any of these folks NOT from Fairfield  County or other parts of the state that hijacked the 203 area code from the real New England part of Connecticut?

The last governor I recall from east of the Connecticut River was Bill O'Neill. Since then, it's been Weicker, Rowland, Rell, and Malloy and I don't see an end to this streak.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on July 30, 2018, 11:16:22 AM
From what I see, the two independent candidates are from Hartford, and Coventry.  Many of the lieutenant governor candidates are.  Joe Markley is from Southington, but a portion of his state senate district is in the 203.  Erin Stewart is the mayor of New Britain, and I believe Susan Bysiewicz is from Middletown. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: roadman on July 30, 2018, 11:23:27 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on July 27, 2018, 09:47:33 PM
anybody have the signage plans for I-95 from Exits 83-93? I had them but deleted them somehow.

Available at  https://biznet.ct.gov/SCP_Search/BidDetail.aspx?CID=40931
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jon daly on July 30, 2018, 12:08:44 PM
Thanks, jp. I haven't figured out if I'll be in Conn. or R.I. come November, so I haven't been diligently following the race.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: zzyzx on July 30, 2018, 12:51:18 PM
I was at the doctors office in my hometown this past week, and found these historical images in a book in the waiting room:

One shows the construction progress on I-95 between what looks to be exits 81-82, the other is the tollbooth heading southbound on the Gold Star Bridge.

The book is from The Day newspaper: "Looking Back: New London County vol.2"  but appears to be sold out. 

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180730/673865b7ccf35f0cd7a26110f5de5894.jpg)

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180730/c31665befe266ef3a7b8b086af9fde43.jpg)


iPhone
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jon daly on July 30, 2018, 01:38:21 PM
That span of the Gold Star over the Thames looks quite similar today. The main difference are that the tolls are long gone and that a second span was added.

I had no idea that Saint Bernard's was in New London before it was in Montville.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on July 30, 2018, 05:44:39 PM
Quote from: jon daly on July 30, 2018, 01:38:21 PM
That span of the Gold Star over the Thames looks quite similar today. The main difference are that the tolls are long gone and that a second span was added.

I had no idea that Saint Bernard's was in New London before it was in Montville.

In what year did they stop collecting tolls on the Gold Star Bridge?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on July 30, 2018, 07:34:55 PM
I had preliminary plans for the upcoming I-84 signage in Hartford but deleted them somehow, someway. I believe there were some APL signs in there. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on July 30, 2018, 08:43:04 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on July 30, 2018, 05:44:39 PM
In what year did they stop collecting tolls on the Gold Star Bridge?

1963, according to this article (https://www.theday.com/article/20180224/NWS01/180229621).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeCL on August 05, 2018, 06:46:35 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on July 27, 2018, 01:04:09 PM
https://wsayshregister.com/local/article/Surveying-to-close-West-Rock-tunnel-on-Route-15-13110110.php

Survey says? Close! That looks likely with sections of the CT Route 15 tunnel shortly. Look how long this project could take!
I know not in the same area but in Fairfield Co as well from at least CT border to Norwalk I've been seeing a lot of surverying going on anyone know why? Also Now by exit 9 NB they put up Jersey barriers now.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on August 05, 2018, 11:33:39 PM
Quote from: MikeCL on August 05, 2018, 06:46:35 PMI know not in the same area but in Fairfield Co as well from at least CT border to Norwalk I've been seeing a lot of surverying going on anyone know why? Also Now by exit 9 NB they put up Jersey barriers now.
Also what's up with the massive tree clearing effort between the highway and the railroad tracks between exits 3 and 4? They've removed every tree.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeCL on August 06, 2018, 08:24:25 AM
Quote from: connroadgeek on August 05, 2018, 11:33:39 PM
Quote from: MikeCL on August 05, 2018, 06:46:35 PMI know not in the same area but in Fairfield Co as well from at least CT border to Norwalk I've been seeing a lot of surverying going on anyone know why? Also Now by exit 9 NB they put up Jersey barriers now.
Also what's up with the massive tree clearing effort between the highway and the railroad tracks between exits 3 and 4? They've removed every tree.
I agree what is up with that? I know they laid down some pipe.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on August 06, 2018, 12:04:41 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on August 05, 2018, 11:33:39 PM
Quote from: MikeCL on August 05, 2018, 06:46:35 PMI know not in the same area but in Fairfield Co as well from at least CT border to Norwalk I've been seeing a lot of surverying going on anyone know why? Also Now by exit 9 NB they put up Jersey barriers now.
Also what's up with the massive tree clearing effort between the highway and the railroad tracks between exits 3 and 4? They've removed every tree.

They're replacing a sewer. (https://greenwichfreepress.com/news/government/bocchino-explains-sudden-and-unexpected-clear-cutting-of-trees-along-i95-109363/)

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeCL on August 06, 2018, 12:36:37 PM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on August 06, 2018, 12:04:41 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on August 05, 2018, 11:33:39 PM
Quote from: MikeCL on August 05, 2018, 06:46:35 PMI know not in the same area but in Fairfield Co as well from at least CT border to Norwalk I've been seeing a lot of surverying going on anyone know why? Also Now by exit 9 NB they put up Jersey barriers now.
Also what's up with the massive tree clearing effort between the highway and the railroad tracks between exits 3 and 4? They've removed every tree.

They're replacing a sewer. (https://greenwichfreepress.com/news/government/bocchino-explains-sudden-and-unexpected-clear-cutting-of-trees-along-i95-109363/)
Really they needed to remove that many trees?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Rothman on August 06, 2018, 12:43:42 PM
I am very much reminded of Farrah Fawcett in The Cannonball Run right now. :D
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on August 06, 2018, 12:55:24 PM
Quote from: MikeCL on August 06, 2018, 12:36:37 PM
Really they needed to remove that many trees?

I haven't seen that stretch of 95 in a long time -- I prefer to take the Parkway if I must drive into/around the City -- but the article mentions that there isn't much space to work in given the locations of the highway, the railway, and the power infrastructure.

ConnDOT cites the lack of space as a reason why they don't want to replace the trees when done.  Bridgeport appears to have different ideas (I assume they've forgotten the lessons of a few years ago about the issues with having lots of trees in close proximity to infrastructure).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeCL on August 06, 2018, 12:56:33 PM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on August 06, 2018, 12:55:24 PM
Quote from: MikeCL on August 06, 2018, 12:36:37 PM
Really they needed to remove that many trees?

I haven't seen that stretch of 95 in a long time -- I prefer to take the Parkway if I must drive into/around the City -- but the article mentions that there isn't much space to work in given the locations of the highway, the railway, and the power infrastructure.

ConnDOT cites the lack of space as a reason why they don't want to replace the trees when done.  Bridgeport appears to have different ideas (I assume they've forgotten the lessons of a few years ago about the issues with having lots of trees in close proximity to infrastructure).
I understand the parkway but I did not think these trees would have caused much of any issues
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: zzyzx on August 06, 2018, 03:24:33 PM
I stumbled upon  another study of I-95 (https://www.branfordanimalshelter.org/filestorage/285/2576/T-16C5934-PRESENT-PIM_2018-05-30.pdf), this one from the South Central Regional Council of Governments on Exit 53 (the Branford Connector).

It looks like they're trying to complete the interchange by adding a NB entrance ramp and a SB exit, but the nearby service plaza and ROW needed is posing a challenge.

This being CT, the preferred alternate is Option 2 from the presentation document, which will eliminate the trumpet interchange and replace it with a modified diamond interchange with 2 traffic signals.  It would combine traffic exiting to the Branford Connector as well as the service plaza.  Traffic exiting both service plazas would then merge back with the connector traffic and have to sit at one of the lights before re-entering I-95.

Confused? So am I. I'm hoping that more modifications are made if and when they decide to re-build this.  I'm sure one of us here can come up with some better ideas. ConnDOT could learn some things from TxDOT how to design efficient ramps without major environmental impacts. IMO, I prefer Option 1 without the traffic signals.

Here's a screenshot of Option 2:
(https://i.imgur.com/QkHLPiD.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Beeper1 on August 06, 2018, 06:52:02 PM
Those NB service area connections make no sense.  Why not leave the existing merge from the service area back to the highway as-is?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on August 06, 2018, 07:39:24 PM
Quote from: Beeper1 on August 06, 2018, 06:52:02 PM
Those NB service area connections make no sense.  Why not leave the existing merge from the service area back to the highway as-is?

The study document notes the short weave between the on ramp from the service area and the off ramp for Exit 54.  That's an oversimplification of the situation, as Exit 54 is where the Turnpike drops from 3 lanes to 2 lanes northbound; if you enter from the service area, you have to merge left two lanes, while through traffic is also trying to merge left, and exiting traffic is trying to keep right.

You arguably could simplify matters by having the lane drop occur at a combined Service Area / Exit 53 exit, and get rid of the Exit 54 ramp northbound.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on August 06, 2018, 11:34:31 PM
TIL of the "Pretzel" channelized intersection of US 1, SR 794, CT 146, replaced in 1997. (see Zzyzx's link (https://www.branfordanimalshelter.org/filestorage/285/2576/T-16C5934-PRESENT-PIM_2018-05-30.pdf))

I also prefer option 1 - fewer traffic signals.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on August 08, 2018, 11:30:34 PM
Quote from: kurumi on August 06, 2018, 11:34:31 PM
I also prefer option 1 - fewer traffic signals.

According to the comparison matrix that is the least preferred alternative because it has the greatest ROW requirements and the greatest environmental impact. It also doesn't do as good a job to "promote local growth and development goals", though they don't specify what those goals are.

I imagine something like option 2 is what we're going to get if we get anything since it's consistent with the "build it smaller" mentality that pervades CT along with much of the northeast these days.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on August 09, 2018, 02:32:45 PM
I still can't believe when CT redid the service plazas on the Merritt and Wilbur Cross they didn't fix the on-off-ramps to them.  I heard the Pkwy Conservancy had a role in that as they didn't allow any changes to the footprints.

It seems to me if this were any other state the on-off-ramps would've been included and updated.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeCL on August 09, 2018, 02:59:08 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on August 09, 2018, 02:32:45 PM
I still can't believe when CT redid the service plazas on the Merritt and Wilbur Cross they didn't fix the on-off-ramps to them.  I heard the Pkwy Conservancy had a role in that as they didn't allow any changes to the footprints.

It seems to me if this were any other state the on-off-ramps would've been included and updated.
Some of the on ramps are so short it's crazy
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on August 09, 2018, 04:07:27 PM
Quote from: MikeCL on August 09, 2018, 02:59:08 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on August 09, 2018, 02:32:45 PM
I still can't believe when CT redid the service plazas on the Merritt and Wilbur Cross they didn't fix the on-off-ramps to them.  I heard the Pkwy Conservancy had a role in that as they didn't allow any changes to the footprints.

It seems to me if this were any other state the on-off-ramps would've been included and updated.
Some of the on ramps are so short it's crazy


Plus most don't have a dedicated acceleration lane so there are still stop signs at the top of the ramp and one has to go 0 to 60 in about 4 seconds to avoid getting run over.  At least some of the Wilbur Cross ramps have been fixed.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on August 09, 2018, 05:07:23 PM
You guys don't find it fun exiting the parkway and having to go from 65 mph to a stop sign at the end of a 200 ft curvy off-ramp? If not then I'll bet you find the stop signs at the end of the on-ramps charming! Having to enter a highway from a dead stop is always a great time.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 09, 2018, 05:26:08 PM
Quote from: zzyzx on August 06, 2018, 03:24:33 PM
I stumbled upon  another study of I-95 (https://www.branfordanimalshelter.org/filestorage/285/2576/T-16C5934-PRESENT-PIM_2018-05-30.pdf), this one from the South Central Regional Council of Governments on Exit 53 (the Branford Connector).

It looks like they're trying to complete the interchange by adding a NB entrance ramp and a SB exit, but the nearby service plaza and ROW needed is posing a challenge.

This being CT, the preferred alternate is Option 2 from the presentation document, which will eliminate the trumpet interchange and replace it with a modified diamond interchange with 2 traffic signals.  It would combine traffic exiting to the Branford Connector as well as the service plaza.  Traffic exiting both service plazas would then merge back with the connector traffic and have to sit at one of the lights before re-entering I-95.

Confused? So am I. I'm hoping that more modifications are made if and when they decide to re-build this.  I'm sure one of us here can come up with some better ideas. ConnDOT could learn some things from TxDOT how to design efficient ramps without major environmental impacts. IMO, I prefer Option 1 without the traffic signals.

Here's a screenshot of Option 2:
(https://i.imgur.com/QkHLPiD.jpg)


This all seems like an incredible waste of money and I can think of 1000 more important construction projects to tackle across the state over this.  I mean, Exits 53 and 54 are, what, about a mile apart.  Improve Route 1 between them.  There's no reason why traffic wishing to reach the area of the Branford Connector can't take Exit 54 if heading on 95 SB. 

My solution?  Close the NB offramp and SB onramp at Exit 54.  This gives traffic better time to merge into two lanes.  I-95 should be widened to 3 lanes all the way to New London, but that project can be broken up into sections (start with widening Exit 54 to the Guilford town line, for example).  And I would close the Branford-SB service plaza and make it a weigh station (same with Madison NB).  Those two are the smallest plazas on I-95 and its not that far from other plazas. 

But if they really want to make Exit 53 a full interchange, then I like Option 1. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: 64CatalinaVentura on August 09, 2018, 11:47:47 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on August 09, 2018, 05:26:08 PM
Quote from: zzyzx on August 06, 2018, 03:24:33 PM
I stumbled upon  another study of I-95 (https://www.branfordanimalshelter.org/filestorage/285/2576/T-16C5934-PRESENT-PIM_2018-05-30.pdf), this one from the South Central Regional Council of Governments on Exit 53 (the Branford Connector).

It looks like they're trying to complete the interchange by adding a NB entrance ramp and a SB exit, but the nearby service plaza and ROW needed is posing a challenge.

This being CT, the preferred alternate is Option 2 from the presentation document, which will eliminate the trumpet interchange and replace it with a modified diamond interchange with 2 traffic signals.  It would combine traffic exiting to the Branford Connector as well as the service plaza.  Traffic exiting both service plazas would then merge back with the connector traffic and have to sit at one of the lights before re-entering I-95.

Confused? So am I. I'm hoping that more modifications are made if and when they decide to re-build this.  I'm sure one of us here can come up with some better ideas. ConnDOT could learn some things from TxDOT how to design efficient ramps without major environmental impacts. IMO, I prefer Option 1 without the traffic signals.

Here's a screenshot of Option 2:
(https://i.imgur.com/QkHLPiD.jpg)


This all seems like an incredible waste of money and I can think of 1000 more important construction projects to tackle across the state over this.  I mean, Exits 53 and 54 are, what, about a mile apart.  Improve Route 1 between them.  There's no reason why traffic wishing to reach the area of the Branford Connector can't take Exit 54 if heading on 95 SB. 

My solution?  Close the NB offramp and SB onramp at Exit 54.  This gives traffic better time to merge into two lanes.  I-95 should be widened to 3 lanes all the way to New London, but that project can be broken up into sections (start with widening Exit 54 to the Guilford town line, for example).  And I would close the Branford-SB service plaza and make it a weigh station (same with Madison NB).  Those two are the smallest plazas on I-95 and its not that far from other plazas. 

But if they really want to make Exit 53 a full interchange, then I like Option 1.

I live about two miles from this. Traffic in that area on 95 and route 1 is a total disaster. Route 1 needs to be totally reconfigured for better traffic flow due to the numerous stop lights within a short distance of one another, difficulty changing lanes in the area, with many out of area drivers being confused or stuck in the wrong lane, and difficulty getting in and out of some local business lots during peak traffic. Adding the other half of this exit makes sense. Remember that southern New England is very densely populated. Currently both exits 53 and 54 are very busy, especially during rush hour. This will help to reduce traffic in the area around exit 54 in Branford and exit 52 in East Haven.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on August 10, 2018, 10:45:34 AM
Quote from: 64CatalinaVentura on August 09, 2018, 11:47:47 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on August 09, 2018, 05:26:08 PM
Quote from: zzyzx on August 06, 2018, 03:24:33 PM
I stumbled upon  another study of I-95 (https://www.branfordanimalshelter.org/filestorage/285/2576/T-16C5934-PRESENT-PIM_2018-05-30.pdf), this one from the South Central Regional Council of Governments on Exit 53 (the Branford Connector).

It looks like they're trying to complete the interchange by adding a NB entrance ramp and a SB exit, but the nearby service plaza and ROW needed is posing a challenge.

This being CT, the preferred alternate is Option 2 from the presentation document, which will eliminate the trumpet interchange and replace it with a modified diamond interchange with 2 traffic signals.  It would combine traffic exiting to the Branford Connector as well as the service plaza.  Traffic exiting both service plazas would then merge back with the connector traffic and have to sit at one of the lights before re-entering I-95.

Confused? So am I. I'm hoping that more modifications are made if and when they decide to re-build this.  I'm sure one of us here can come up with some better ideas. ConnDOT could learn some things from TxDOT how to design efficient ramps without major environmental impacts. IMO, I prefer Option 1 without the traffic signals.

Here's a screenshot of Option 2:
(https://i.imgur.com/QkHLPiD.jpg)


This all seems like an incredible waste of money and I can think of 1000 more important construction projects to tackle across the state over this.  I mean, Exits 53 and 54 are, what, about a mile apart.  Improve Route 1 between them.  There's no reason why traffic wishing to reach the area of the Branford Connector can't take Exit 54 if heading on 95 SB. 

My solution?  Close the NB offramp and SB onramp at Exit 54.  This gives traffic better time to merge into two lanes.  I-95 should be widened to 3 lanes all the way to New London, but that project can be broken up into sections (start with widening Exit 54 to the Guilford town line, for example).  And I would close the Branford-SB service plaza and make it a weigh station (same with Madison NB).  Those two are the smallest plazas on I-95 and its not that far from other plazas. 

But if they really want to make Exit 53 a full interchange, then I like Option 1.

I live about two miles from this. Traffic in that area on 95 and route 1 is a total disaster. Route 1 needs to be totally reconfigured for better traffic flow due to the numerous stop lights within a short distance of one another, difficulty changing lanes in the area, with many out of area drivers being confused or stuck in the wrong lane, and difficulty getting in and out of some local business lots during peak traffic. Adding the other half of this exit makes sense. Remember that southern New England is very densely populated. Currently both exits 53 and 54 are very busy, especially during rush hour. This will help to reduce traffic in the area around exit 54 in Branford and exit 52 in East Haven.


I'd say do a flyover and have the SB off-ramp start before the SB rest area and go behind it. But this is CT and people will freak over that.  So instead CT will downgrade another interchange and free flow movement.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jon daly on August 10, 2018, 11:18:37 AM
Quote from: connroadgeek on August 09, 2018, 05:07:23 PM
You guys don't find it fun exiting the parkway and having to go from 65 mph to a stop sign at the end of a 200 ft curvy off-ramp? If not then I'll bet you find the stop signs at the end of the on-ramps charming! Having to enter a highway from a dead stop is always a great time.

When I was a kid, I-91 north of Hartford was sort of like that, IIRC. Wasn't there a link recently that mentioned that widening project?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Rothman on August 10, 2018, 11:56:00 AM
Before the expansion of I-91 that added the HOV lanes, not only were their some stupid ramps, but the signage was horrible.

Southbound, the exit for CT 178 was barely signed -- the last guide sign wasn't even a BGS.  It was about the size of legal sized paper.  Didn't have the CT outline reflector shield on it though, but a squashed CT 178 white rectangle shield.

Can't describe how amazing the transformation was between the glorified parkway that section of I-91 was to what it is now.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: ipeters61 on August 10, 2018, 01:55:12 PM
Quote from: Rothman on August 10, 2018, 11:56:00 AM
Before the expansion of I-91 that added the HOV lanes, not only were their some stupid ramps, but the signage was horrible.

Southbound, the exit for CT 178 was barely signed -- the last guide sign wasn't even a BGS.  It was about the size of legal sized paper.  Didn't have the CT outline reflector shield on it though, but a squashed CT 178 white rectangle shield.

Can't describe how amazing the transformation was between the glorified parkway that section of I-91 was to what it is now.
Are we talking about signs of this size?  I can't stand those.

(https://cdn.pbrd.co/images/HyyDrns.png)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Rothman on August 10, 2018, 11:59:07 PM
No.  Shorter but wider and much flimsier.  Think more like the crappy signage on NJ 17.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on August 11, 2018, 01:22:37 AM
On old I-91, the interchange with CT 305 was constructed more than a decade before 305 became a signed route in 1962/3. The BGS was (IIRC) a plain "Bloomfield Ave / Windsor" sign.

When 305 was designated, the highway department did not replace the BGS, but instead attached a CT 305 marker to the top border.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 11, 2018, 09:58:35 AM
My first experience with I-91 north of Hartford was in the 1989/1990 timeframe.  Signs from Exits 33 up to 38 were quite flimsy, but I'm assuming that was because the whole road was under construction.  North to Exit 41, there were some overheads that were on slim gantries (similar to those on the turnpike).  Entrance signs lacked direction... instead of "91 North/Springfield/->", they were just "91/Springfield->".  Exit 43 was still open at the time, northbound.  Once you got past Exit 44, the road was already widened, up to the state line. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on August 12, 2018, 04:24:35 PM
Are they making a new Exit 9 on-ramp for I-95 NB?  I see grading that looks to be for that unless it's for construction vehicles for some other project. 

EDIT:
I found it
https://darienite.com/rt-1-bridge-over-i-95-at-exit-9-to-be-replaced-by-november-2019-34234
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: tckma on August 15, 2018, 04:21:19 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on August 09, 2018, 05:07:23 PM
You guys don't find it fun exiting the parkway and having to go from 65 mph to a stop sign at the end of a 200 ft curvy off-ramp? If not then I'll bet you find the stop signs at the end of the on-ramps charming! Having to enter a highway from a dead stop is always a great time.

Just like the Merritt/Wilbur Cross Parkways, the Taconic State Parkway, Saw Mill River Parkway, and just about any other Westchester County, NY parkway.  Yeah.  A whole lot of not fun.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeCL on August 20, 2018, 03:28:25 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on August 12, 2018, 04:24:35 PM
Are they making a new Exit 9 on-ramp for I-95 NB?  I see grading that looks to be for that unless it's for construction vehicles for some other project. 

EDIT:
I found it
https://darienite.com/rt-1-bridge-over-i-95-at-exit-9-to-be-replaced-by-november-2019-34234
I came here to wonder that as well what about a little past the on ramp from 9? Did the sate put something up on the website about this?

looks like adding one northbound lane

https://www.equipmentworld.com/ctdot-says-strategic-widening-of-i-95-will-reduce-congestion-boost-economy/


And this one talks about a bridge replacement..

https://darienite.com/rt-1-bridge-over-i-95-at-exit-9-to-be-replaced-by-november-2019-34234
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on August 20, 2018, 03:42:59 PM
http://nbcct.co/N1Nuucx

I-84 will have three lanes in Waterbury sooner rather than later.  A year ahead of schedule.  EB this week.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeCL on August 20, 2018, 03:46:54 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on August 20, 2018, 03:42:59 PM
http://nbcct.co/N1Nuucx

I-84 will have three lanes in Waterbury sooner rather than later.  A year ahead of schedule.  EB this week.

I wonder if it's possible for them to widen the rt 8 exit plus the bridge? I still can't on earth think  why they would have the bridge what is it two lanes that's open to 3? Given it's been the bottleneck for as long as I can remember.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 21, 2018, 02:24:03 PM
So I was down in CT this past weekend for 4 days.  While there, I did some driving around, including I-95 South from Westbrook to Norwalk, US 7 up to Danbury, I-84 from the NY state line to Cheshire, I-691, and I-95 North from Old Saybrook out to the RI state line.

A few new signs up on I-95 within the Groton->RI state line sign replacement.  No new overhead supports yet, and some of the bridge-mounted signs still remain, while their new ground-mount counterparts are in place. 

New 4-chord trusses are up on the Gold Star Bridge SB, along with BGS supports, but no signs themselves.  The old trusses and signs remain in place.

The speed limit on I-84 has been risen to 65 MPH starting at Exit 25A in Waterbury.  This 65 mph zone continues to Exit 40 in West Hartford, except a 55 MPH stretch between the Route 72 exits in New Britain.  I did not travel I-84 through the Southington-Farmington sign replacement project this time, however. 

Being a Friday, traffic was bad where expected... I-84 from Exit 17 out to 25A.  Significant progress through the I-84 widening... what a difference.  The new Exit 25 was open, as was the ramp from Route 69 to I-84 East.  Looking in the rear-view, I did catch one old remaining NRBC Exit 23 sign, with the large "69" shield.  The sign at the exit itself has been replaced, with a new EXIT -> ONLY tab. 

I-95 SB moved right along until Exit 16 in Norwalk.  Originally I had planned to go to NY and cross over 287 and up 684 to meet up with I-84, but I took Route 7 instead.  The West River Bridge proejct in New Haven is pretty much complete and looks good.  There's one BGS to put up for Exit 43, however.

The return trip back to Vermont took me on I-95 from southern Connecticut up to Hampton, NH, then cut back northwest via NH 101, I-93, and I-89.

All the pics are at the link in my sig, for those interested!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jon daly on August 21, 2018, 02:41:41 PM
There's two poles on I-95 South in North Stoning; just next to the state line and the huge Welcome sign. Not sure what's up with them.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Rothman on August 23, 2018, 01:57:41 PM
Took a trip down to the Groton side of Mystic from here in Albany yesterday.

Didn't know about the "Business Route" BGS in Colchester on CT 2:

(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1876/44221636311_bd36910d71_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2anHrPn)


More interesting to me was how bad traffic was on I-91 SB north of Hartford.  Managed to bypass most of it by taking the HOV lane, but even around 2:00, the backup would have added 8-10 minutes to travel time (per Google Maps), if not more.  Pretty bad for a Wednesday when it wasn't even rush hour.

Lucked out with the HOV lane, too.  Every other time I've gambled on taking it, I've gotten behind some sort of slowpoke and there's no way out once you're in.  Also wonder how many traffic problems are caused by the left-hand merge and then people cutting across to get to I-84 west (on top of what I think is also construction west of the interchange?).

Strange little backup getting onto CT 2 East from I-84 East as well.  Single lane exit wasn't handling the capacity; might also have been due to the curvier nature of CT 2 at the merge point.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on August 23, 2018, 02:54:56 PM
Quote from: Rothman on August 23, 2018, 01:57:41 PMMore interesting to me was how bad traffic was on I-91 SB north of Hartford.  Managed to bypass most of it by taking the HOV lane, but even around 2:00, the backup would have added 8-10 minutes to travel time (per Google Maps), if not more.  Pretty bad for a Wednesday when it wasn't even rush hour.

Lucked out with the HOV lane, too.  Every other time I've gambled on taking it, I've gotten behind some sort of slowpoke and there's no way out once you're in.  Also wonder how many traffic problems are caused by the left-hand merge and then people cutting across to get to I-84 west (on top of what I think is also construction west of the interchange?).

I've had enough headaches with congestion and construction on 84 in Hartford that I now simply refuse to drive it under any circumstances.  The alternatives might sometimes be slower, but they're almost always less stressful.

That kind of delay on 91 south at that time of day isn't THAT uncommon, but there's usually an explanation for it -- an accident, pothole or guard-rail repair, etc.   After 3-4pm, the congestion is usually just the result of the failure of the design of the 84-91 interchange given the volume.

Outside of congestion, my luck with the HOV lane on 91 south is that I get stuck behind either someone driving close to the speed limit or a school bus, at a time when the left lane of 91 is running 10+ mph faster.  Since I try to drive efficiently / with as little interaction with other vehicles as possible, that's usually OK...but it gets annoying when running late for an appointment.  :)

Oh, and the congestion observed going from 91 south to 2 east I would blame on the weave occuring mostly on the bridge.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on August 29, 2018, 01:55:19 PM
Just downloaded the plans for the last Route 8 sign replacement contract that covers the section from I-95 to Shelton. Main item of note is the plans show all of the exit signs retaining sequential numbering. Last that I had read was Route 8 was to be converted to mile-based exit numbers with these sign replacement contracts,  but it appears that is not happening.  Would anyone happen to know if ConnDOT has abandoned its plans to convert to mile-based exit numbering?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeCL on August 29, 2018, 04:00:09 PM
I was passing the 95 NB weigh station like I do each morning but I noticed something missing... they took down the VMS sign.. I emailed the DOT many of times because the sign would be on talking about a lane being closed or something. I emailed them every day 2 years ago until they fixed the florescent light fixture it worked for about 4 months now it's back to not working..

I guess they will be replacing it now they took the whole mounting platform.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 29, 2018, 04:13:48 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on August 29, 2018, 01:55:19 PM
Just downloaded the plans for the last Route 8 sign replacement contract that covers the section from I-95 to Shelton. Main item of note is the plans show all of the exit signs retaining sequential numbering. Last that I had read was Route 8 was to be converted to mile-based exit numbers with these sign replacement contracts,  but it appears that is not happening.  Would anyone happen to know if ConnDOT has abandoned its plans to convert to mile-based exit numbering?

I noticed that as well.  But, in true ConnDOT fashion, it'll probably be a separate project after this one is complete.  The least they could've done was add the exit tabs for the CT 25 "exit" in Bridgeport and left the exit part blank for the time being. 

What I do like is the moving of some of the guide signs in Trumbull/Shelton from overhead supports to ground supports.  There's no need for a sign on a fairly level, straight, 2-lane roadway to be overhead in a rural setting.  That is, unless you're in the state of Massachusetts.

The Merritt Parkway SB Exit 52 overhead at the split for Route 8 North/South, which wasn't being replaced as part of the MP sign project (currently ongoing), IS in fact being replaced as part of this Route 8 contract.  At least that assembly won't be the "one that got away" (see I-95 Exit 32, CT 15 Exit 55, CT 9 NB Jct 91 1 1/2 miles, etc). 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: ipeters61 on August 30, 2018, 12:01:37 PM
Quote from: MikeCL on August 29, 2018, 04:00:09 PM
I was passing the 95 NB weigh station like I do each morning but I noticed something missing... they took down the VMS sign.. I emailed the DOT many of times because the sign would be on talking about a lane being closed or something. I emailed them every day 2 years ago until they fixed the florescent light fixture it worked for about 4 months now it's back to not working..

I guess they will be replacing it now they took the whole mounting platform.
It's funny that you mention that since I once emailed ConnDOT about an incorrect lane ending sign being posted on CT-195 in Mansfield.  They responded within 2 weeks with a new sign posted.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeCL on August 30, 2018, 12:20:04 PM
Quote from: ipeters61 on August 30, 2018, 12:01:37 PM
Quote from: MikeCL on August 29, 2018, 04:00:09 PM
I was passing the 95 NB weigh station like I do each morning but I noticed something missing... they took down the VMS sign.. I emailed the DOT many of times because the sign would be on talking about a lane being closed or something. I emailed them every day 2 years ago until they fixed the florescent light fixture it worked for about 4 months now it's back to not working..

I guess they will be replacing it now they took the whole mounting platform.
It's funny that you mention that since I once emailed ConnDOT about an incorrect lane ending sign being posted on CT-195 in Mansfield.  They responded within 2 weeks with a new sign posted.
I was shocked when I saw they fixed the lights I'm glad they are fixing the sign or replacing it which they must be because the next sign is not until exit 9 NB.

Now don't get me started on those.. I'm not sure if they are glitchy but sometimes it will show jarbled words until the sign changes or sometimes a stuck LED or missing.. looks to be three color amber/red/green

Having that why buy a three color sign if you only use just one color all the time?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: zzyzx on August 30, 2018, 04:48:36 PM
I found this on the Portland Historical Society FB page...had no idea the Arrigoni bridge replaced another one built in 1896:
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180830/cc190456125cc24e0b5cb870dbc04f96.png)


iPhone
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on August 30, 2018, 09:28:33 PM
That's cool; I had never seen a pic of the 1896 bridge. At the time it opened, it was the longest highway drawbridge in the world. Too bad there are no Route 14/15 markers in the pic.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on September 01, 2018, 10:41:38 AM
CT-8 signing is out for Bridgeport to Shelton.  Still NO mileage based exits.  IDK what is CT's problem with this.

https://biznet.ct.gov/SCP_Search/BidDetail.aspx?CID=47412

Still no extruded aluminum signing for the horrible loop ramps for I-95 and CT-8.  MA would be signing the heck out of that.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on September 01, 2018, 11:24:44 AM
The 25/8 split is apparently signed as exit 4, which would be mileage-based. :-/

(All other signs retain the sequential numbering)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: yakra on September 01, 2018, 01:37:21 PM
Quote from: kurumi on September 01, 2018, 11:24:44 AM
The 25/8 split is apparently signed as exit 4, which would be mileage-based. :-/

(All other signs retain the sequential numbering)
So would the exit numbering thus be 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 4, 7, 8...?

Edit: That's not the impression I get from looking at the 2nd PDF in the .zip Mergingtraffic linked. Looks like the split will be unnumbered?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on September 01, 2018, 03:16:05 PM
Yeah the detailed plans show the split being unnumbered... same as it currently is.

Two actual changes I note:
1) the destination for exit 1 will now be "South End" instead of "Prospect St/Myrtle Ave".
2) the northbound destination for exit 2 will now be "TO CT 130" with the reference to Golden Hill St removed.

Unfortunately they have not had the wherewithal to add the missing "TO" to the reference to US 1 at exit 5 (the exit leads to Chopsey Hill Road, CT 8/25 does not have a direct interchange with US 1)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: ipeters61 on September 01, 2018, 05:49:45 PM
Just looked over the signage plans.  Does that mean that these diagrammatics are gone?

(https://cdn.pbrd.co/images/HBVEzey.png)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on September 01, 2018, 06:15:04 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on September 01, 2018, 10:41:38 AM
CT-8 signing is out for Bridgeport to Shelton.  Still NO mileage based exits.  IDK what is CT's problem with this.

Because Connecticut has a spending problem.  $10 million allocated to do a study of something that has been studied numerous times.  CT is so inefficient that if they built a building and painted it the wrong color, they would take a wrecking ball to it and start from scratch rather than repaint it.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: ipeters61 on September 01, 2018, 07:59:42 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on September 01, 2018, 06:15:04 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on September 01, 2018, 10:41:38 AM
CT-8 signing is out for Bridgeport to Shelton.  Still NO mileage based exits.  IDK what is CT's problem with this.

Because Connecticut has a spending problem.  $10 million allocated to do a study of something that has been studied numerous times.  CT is so inefficient that if they built a building and painted it the wrong color, they would take a wrecking ball to it and start from scratch rather than repaint it.
Why does that sound oddly familiar? (https://www.theday.com/article/20180514/NWS01/180519632)

I know I say this probably too much but I miss Connecticut, despite its inefficiency.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on September 02, 2018, 04:18:16 AM
Quote from: kurumi on September 01, 2018, 11:24:44 AM
The 25/8 split is apparently signed as exit 4, which would be mileage-based. :-/

(All other signs retain the sequential numbering)
I'm just wondering why the split would be numbered anyway.  It's a mainline split of 2 highways at the end of a concurrency.  Only real reason it would need an exit number is if 25 were truncated to the split (I usually don't think of 25 going into Bridgeport because 8 is the longer expressway overall, and I'm personally biased because I would take 8 south from Waterbury coming from home). 

Also, ConnDOT is really dragging its feet on the Southington-West Hartford sign replacement project on I-84.  It's been two months since a few new gantries went up, but the old signage has yet to be taken down.  It's been almost a year now since the new ground mounted signage went in, plus none of the new MUTCD mileposts have been installed.  Amazing how RIDOT did 295 in a couple weeks while this has taken almost a year.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on September 02, 2018, 02:31:13 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on September 02, 2018, 04:18:16 AM
Quote from: kurumi on September 01, 2018, 11:24:44 AM
The 25/8 split is apparently signed as exit 4, which would be mileage-based. :-/

(All other signs retain the sequential numbering)
I'm just wondering why the split would be numbered anyway.  It's a mainline split of 2 highways at the end of a concurrency.  Only real reason it would need an exit number is if 25 were truncated to the split (I usually don't think of 25 going into Bridgeport because 8 is the longer expressway overall, and I'm personally biased because I would take 8 south from Waterbury coming from home). 

Also, ConnDOT is really dragging its feet on the Southington-West Hartford sign replacement project on I-84.  It's been two months since a few new gantries went up, but the old signage has yet to be taken down.  It's been almost a year now since the new ground mounted signage went in, plus none of the new MUTCD mileposts have been installed.  Amazing how RIDOT did 295 in a couple weeks while this has taken almost a year.
Too busy paving CT 30 😅
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on September 05, 2018, 09:13:52 PM
I sent an e-mail to ConnDOT asking them what their plan forward is in converting from sequential to mile-based exits. Since the plans for the last sign replacement project on Route 8 retains the existing exit numbers, I have reason to believe that ConnDOT may be scrapping its plan to convert all of the state's freeways to mile-based exits.

On a related note, the I-84 article on Wikipedia indicates that New York is converting its stretch of I-84 to mile-based exits.  That article had a reference link to the sign plans for that contract.

Anyhow, as soon as I get a reply from ConnDOT concerning its exit conversion plan, I will post it.  But I won't hold my breath...
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on September 05, 2018, 11:45:04 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on September 05, 2018, 09:13:52 PM
I sent an e-mail to ConnDOT asking them what their plan forward is in converting from sequential to mile-based exits. Since the plans for the last sign replacement project on Route 8 retains the existing exit numbers, I have reason to believe that ConnDOT may be scrapping its plan to convert all of the state's freeways to mile-based exits.

On a related note, the I-84 article on Wikipedia indicates that New York is converting its stretch of I-84 to mile-based exits.  That article had a reference link to the sign plans for that contract.

Anyhow, as soon as I get a reply from ConnDOT concerning its exit conversion plan, I will post it.  But I won't hold my breath...
They probably figure there's no benefit to doing it. There are no plans to add exits, everyone already knows how far it is to the next exit (1 mile), and at best it will just create confusion when some exits go up or down a number while many others stay the same. 395 was an easy one to try it on because the numbering didn't make sense anyway. I will probably die before the exit number conversion occurs en masse across the state.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on September 06, 2018, 06:20:42 PM
I still wish CT Route 15 would get renumbered. I don't know how the numbers would be between the Berlin Turnpike in Wethersfield to I-84/US Route 6 in East Hartford.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: ipeters61 on September 06, 2018, 07:55:01 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on September 05, 2018, 11:45:04 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on September 05, 2018, 09:13:52 PM
I sent an e-mail to ConnDOT asking them what their plan forward is in converting from sequential to mile-based exits. Since the plans for the last sign replacement project on Route 8 retains the existing exit numbers, I have reason to believe that ConnDOT may be scrapping its plan to convert all of the state's freeways to mile-based exits.

On a related note, the I-84 article on Wikipedia indicates that New York is converting its stretch of I-84 to mile-based exits.  That article had a reference link to the sign plans for that contract.

Anyhow, as soon as I get a reply from ConnDOT concerning its exit conversion plan, I will post it.  But I won't hold my breath...
They probably figure there's no benefit to doing it. There are no plans to add exits, everyone already knows how far it is to the next exit (1 mile), and at best it will just create confusion when some exits go up or down a number while many others stay the same. 395 was an easy one to try it on because the numbering didn't make sense anyway. I will probably die before the exit number conversion occurs en masse across the state.
That makes a lot of sense and has been something I wondered about with the possibility of CT going to mile based exits.  If I recall correctly, I predicted that my old exit (I-84 Exit 62) would have become Exit 69, which isn't a terribly big conversion, considering that my old exit way back when I lived in PA went from 47 to 170 (I-81).

Historically, I-395's exit numbering made sense.  The PA Turnpike did the same with the Northeast Extension before it went to mile based.  Exit 30 was the highest exit on the mainline, 31 was the first on the Extension.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on September 07, 2018, 01:46:18 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on September 06, 2018, 06:20:42 PM
I still wish CT Route 15 would get renumbered. I don't know how the numbers would be between the Berlin Turnpike in Wethersfield to I-84/US Route 6 in East Hartford.


Exits would go 1-65 on the Merritt/Wilbur Cross.  I wouldn't number any of the Berlin Turnpike exits, but here's what I have for CT 15 mileage based exits from the Turnpike to East Hartford, based on CT 15 mileage, since ConnDOT treats the entire 5/15 concurrency as CT 15 for logging purposes:

NORTHBOUND
79: CT 99
80A: I-91 South
80B: Brainard Rd/Airport Rd
81: I-91 North
82 A-B-C: US 5 North/CT 2 East/CT 2 West
83: Silver Lane

SOUTHBOUND
82: US 5/East River Dr
80A: I-91 South
80B: Brainard/Rd Airport Rd
79: CT 99

Parkway would look something like this.  I rounded down to the milepost unless it created an alphabet city or it was within a tenth of a mile of the next one

27: 1
28: 3
29: 4
31: 5
33: 8
34: 9
35: 10
36: 13
37: 14
38: 15
39 A/B: 16 A/B
40 A/B: 17 A/B (here, I rounded up to avoid a major alphabet city)
41: 20
42: 21
44: 27
46: 28
47: 29
48: 30
49: (N/S NB): 32 A/B NB, 32A SB
50 (SB ONLY): 32B
51: (NB ONLY): 33
52 (N/S SB): 34 (A/B SB)
53: 36 (it is close to 37, but I rounded down to avoid 37 A/B on opposite sides of the Sikorsky)
54: 37
55 A/B: 38 A/B
56: 41
57/58: 42 A/B
59: 46
60: 50
61 NB: 51
62 NB: 52
61/62 SB: 51 A/B
63: 53
64: 58
65: 59 (again, rounded up to avoid A/B suffixes)
66: 61
67 (NB): 64
67S (SB): 64A
67W (SB): 64B
68 N-E NB: 65A (is double lettering really necessary for one ramp?)
68W: 65B

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: ipeters61 on September 07, 2018, 03:41:26 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on September 07, 2018, 01:46:18 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on September 06, 2018, 06:20:42 PM
I still wish CT Route 15 would get renumbered. I don't know how the numbers would be between the Berlin Turnpike in Wethersfield to I-84/US Route 6 in East Hartford.


Exits would go 1-65 on the Merritt/Wilbur Cross.  I wouldn't number any of the Berlin Turnpike exits, but here's what I have for CT 15 mileage based exits from the Turnpike to East Hartford, based on CT 15 mileage, since ConnDOT treats the entire 5/15 concurrency as CT 15 for logging purposes:

NORTHBOUND
79: CT 99
80A: I-91 South
80B: Brainard Rd/Airport Rd
81: I-91 North
82 A-B-C: US 5 North/CT 2 East/CT 2 West
83: Silver Lane

SOUTHBOUND
82: US 5/East River Dr
80A: I-91 South
80B: Brainard/Rd Airport Rd
79: CT 99
Was trying to figure out how the exit numbering dropped so dramatically when switching to mile based, then I forgot that the Merritt starts at Exit 27.  :pan:
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on September 07, 2018, 05:37:09 PM
Quote from: ipeters61 on September 07, 2018, 03:41:26 PM
Was trying to figure out how the exit numbering dropped so dramatically when switching to mile based, then I forgot that the Merritt starts at Exit 27.  :pan:

I suppose it would be wrong of me to suggest that all of those exit numbers be increased by 18.  :D
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: NoGoodNamesAvailable on September 07, 2018, 06:14:06 PM
Quote from: ipeters61 on September 07, 2018, 03:41:26 PM
Was trying to figure out how the exit numbering dropped so dramatically when switching to mile based, then I forgot that the Merritt starts at Exit 27.  :pan:

Was going to comment "NY should troll them by switching to mile-based exits," making the ridiculous assumption that the last exit in NY might be 26, then I checked google maps. I... connecticut... no.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on September 07, 2018, 08:41:46 PM
As much as I'd like to see CT get moving with mile-based exit numbers, it would probably be better if NY were to renumber first here, so the 30/27 situation doesn't become 19/1 or 19/27 or 19/30 or something completely different.  Ideally the exit would be numbered based on NY since it's for NY 120A.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on September 07, 2018, 11:09:26 PM
I don't believe CT 15 should be renumbered, at all, as a tribute to the parkway era of the 20th Century.  There aren't many roads that continue exit numbers between two states.  If I had it my way I would have kept the original exit numbers on I-84 from East Hartford to Union.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Rothman on September 07, 2018, 11:44:06 PM
Exit numbers are historical landmarks now?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on September 08, 2018, 12:36:41 AM
Quote from: vdeane on September 07, 2018, 08:41:46 PM
As much as I'd like to see CT get moving with mile-based exit numbers, it would probably be better if NY were to renumber first here, so the 30/27 situation doesn't become 19/1 or 19/27 or 19/30 or something completely different.  Ideally the exit would be numbered based on NY since it's for NY 120A.
If CT goes to 1 - which they should - it won't matter what NY does.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on September 08, 2018, 04:09:48 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on September 07, 2018, 11:09:26 PM
I don't believe CT 15 should be renumbered, at all, as a tribute to the parkway era of the 20th Century.  There aren't many roads that continue exit numbers between two states.  If I had it my way I would have kept the original exit numbers on I-84 from East Hartford to Union.

In order for that to happen, the mileposts would have to not reset at the CT line, sort of like how the Palisades Parkway doesn't reset at the NY line.  The highest number would be either 84 or 85 at I-691.  If that were to happen, I would either truncate CT 15 to Meriden at the south end of the Berlin Turnpike, or retire the number altogether.  It would make the Wethersfield-East Hartford section too confusing in that you'd either have a number in Wethersfield lower than one in Meriden if CT 15 mileage is used, or you'd have a couple of triple digit exit numbers if you used mileage from the Bruckner interchange, even though you are no longer officially on the parkway.  If CT 15 were truncated or retired, you could use US 5 mileage (the exits fall between MP's 32 and 34), and just leave Silver Lane NB unnumbered.  Or, you could start from scratch with a new state route such as CT 284 that starts at the Turnpike and connects to I-84.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on September 08, 2018, 10:32:09 AM
Quote from: Rothman on September 07, 2018, 11:44:06 PM
Exit numbers are historical landmarks now?

According to the Conservancy, everything about the Merritt is a historical landmark.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on September 08, 2018, 10:15:30 PM
Quote from: Alps on September 08, 2018, 12:36:41 AM
Quote from: vdeane on September 07, 2018, 08:41:46 PM
As much as I'd like to see CT get moving with mile-based exit numbers, it would probably be better if NY were to renumber first here, so the 30/27 situation doesn't become 19/1 or 19/27 or 19/30 or something completely different.  Ideally the exit would be numbered based on NY since it's for NY 120A.
If CT goes to 1 - which they should - it won't matter what NY does.
It would at least be more logical than it is now, though I still don't like the idea of both sides having different numbers, and I still think it should be on whatever NY does because it's for NY 120A.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: ipeters61 on September 08, 2018, 10:24:15 PM
Quote from: vdeane on September 08, 2018, 10:15:30 PM
Quote from: Alps on September 08, 2018, 12:36:41 AM
Quote from: vdeane on September 07, 2018, 08:41:46 PM
As much as I'd like to see CT get moving with mile-based exit numbers, it would probably be better if NY were to renumber first here, so the 30/27 situation doesn't become 19/1 or 19/27 or 19/30 or something completely different.  Ideally the exit would be numbered based on NY since it's for NY 120A.
If CT goes to 1 - which they should - it won't matter what NY does.
It would at least be more logical than it is now, though I still don't like the idea of both sides having different numbers, and I still think it should be on whatever NY does because it's for NY 120A.
Is NY-120A's Connecticut side even logged by ConnDOT?  If it's a route that's only officially recognized by NYSDOT, I feel like NYSDOT should decide on that exit number, then Round Hill Road should be the "first exit" in CT if/when they renumber.

I do definitely think that each state should use the same exit number for NY-120A, just for consistency (e.g. so businesses can say "we're Exit 30 on the Hutch!" instead of "exit 30 on the Hutch, exit 1 on the Merritt, because whyyyyyy" or something like that).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on September 09, 2018, 08:17:45 AM
ConnDOT does not log NY 120A in its route log.  The CT portion of the road is fully maintained by NYSDOT, similar to the nearby I-684 portion and the Waverly area piece of NY 17.  It would make sense to give it a NY exit number.  If only NYSDOT had added suffixed numbers rather than to keep adjusting numbers upward when adding new exits, we would have never had this problem.  Of course, CONNDOT could have adjusted 27 to 31, started renumbering exits, and eventually have caught up to the current numbering system by Exit 46, as Exits 30, 32, 43, and 45 are not used.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on September 09, 2018, 08:58:56 PM
Considering how far up Exit 28 is, it would be Exit 3 under a mile-based system, so 120A could be Exit 1 in a CT system without squeezing other numbers. That said, I would also support it having a NY number, since that makes more sense with the NY route designation.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Pete from Boston on September 10, 2018, 07:34:46 PM
I haven't kept up–what's the status of the proposed expansion of the I-91/Charter Oak Bridge interchange?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on September 10, 2018, 08:12:49 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 10, 2018, 07:34:46 PM
I haven't kept up–what's the status of the proposed expansion of the I-91/Charter Oak Bridge interchange?
AFIAK it is in the design phase.  Construction start date is April, next year.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on September 10, 2018, 08:21:17 PM
Wednesday 9/19 is the date the plans will be released.  Most likely construction to start in the spring. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeCL on September 11, 2018, 04:28:15 PM
I wanted to know since it's been a long time for some that know around the Darien area they have the roadway lighting in the center on the Jersey berries. I noticed this morning that around the on ramp 4 NB they look like they have provisions for it but why did they stop in just Darien to Norwalk?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on September 11, 2018, 05:50:14 PM
Here are the areas on I-95 where the center-median lighting is installed:
vic. Exits 10/11 in Darien to Exit 15 in Norwalk
vic. Exit 23 in Fairfield to vic. Exit 29 in Bridgeport/Stratford
Exit 33 in Stratford to Exit 34 in Milford
vic. Exit 43 in West Haven to Exit 53 in Branford

In other places, it appears that the median is ready to accept the lighting, though I'm not sure why it hasn't been installed yet.  Areas where it appears ready is in Darien just west of where it presently begins, from Exit 20 to 23 in Fairfield, and in most of Milford (Exits 34-40). 

Two upcoming I-95 projects will most likely extend the center lighting further... the rehab of the Yankee Doodle Bridge in Norwalk and the replacement of the median in East Norwalk, into Westport.  This is the last section west of New Haven where there is still a grassy median.  Some of those gantries are quite old as well.  Hopefully they do the median right this time, paving the entire median area and centering the barrier (unlike east of Old Saybrook, where the median isn't centered and isn't fully paved.  Some sections in Greenwich appear to have the compatible median for the lighting, but don't, or may not connect to anything else.  Stamford's jersey barrier is too narrow and wouldn't support the bases or doesn't have the conduit.  The narrow profile of I-95 through that area makes making that section difficult to convert.  But the rest should be relatively easy and probably will come with future median or other "safety improvement" projects.

Years ago I was surveying alongside I-95 in Stratford (near the old toll booths) and saw the plastic conduit for the existing side-lighting just laying on the ground, not even buried.  This gave it quite the temporary look.  The center lighting looks better and reduces the clutter along this already-crowded interstate corridor.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on September 11, 2018, 07:13:11 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong but center-mounted lighting has been the ConnDOT standard since the 90's, at least for new construction.  I-291, I-91 north of Hartford, I-84 east of Waterbury have all been done since then.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on September 11, 2018, 08:20:03 PM
Correct.  Only new construction not to get center median lighting was Route 9 north of New Britain to I-84.  That would've been a short section, though, as the median is only narrow for about a mile or so between Exits 29 & 30, where it widens again heading up to the Stack.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeCL on September 11, 2018, 10:35:48 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on September 11, 2018, 05:50:14 PM
Here are the areas on I-95 where the center-median lighting is installed:
vic. Exits 10/11 in Darien to Exit 15 in Norwalk
vic. Exit 23 in Fairfield to vic. Exit 29 in Bridgeport/Stratford
Exit 33 in Stratford to Exit 34 in Milford
vic. Exit 43 in West Haven to Exit 53 in Branford

In other places, it appears that the median is ready to accept the lighting, though I'm not sure why it hasn't been installed yet.  Areas where it appears ready is in Darien just west of where it presently begins, from Exit 20 to 23 in Fairfield, and in most of Milford (Exits 34-40). 

Two upcoming I-95 projects will most likely extend the center lighting further... the rehab of the Yankee Doodle Bridge in Norwalk and the replacement of the median in East Norwalk, into Westport.  This is the last section west of New Haven where there is still a grassy median.  Some of those gantries are quite old as well.  Hopefully they do the median right this time, paving the entire median area and centering the barrier (unlike east of Old Saybrook, where the median isn't centered and isn't fully paved.  Some sections in Greenwich appear to have the compatible median for the lighting, but don't, or may not connect to anything else.  Stamford's jersey barrier is too narrow and wouldn't support the bases or doesn't have the conduit.  The narrow profile of I-95 through that area makes making that section difficult to convert.  But the rest should be relatively easy and probably will come with future median or other "safety improvement" projects.

Years ago I was surveying alongside I-95 in Stratford (near the old toll booths) and saw the plastic conduit for the existing side-lighting just laying on the ground, not even buried.  This gave it quite the temporary look.  The center lighting looks better and reduces the clutter along this already-crowded interstate corridor.
Man I would give you a thumbs up if I had the option to! Near the state border it doesn't seem the barrier has the option for lighting as they have the light barrier installed I remember when these lights went up it was very welcomed however they have been up so long I've seen some with bulbs due to be changed.

I agree the center looks better.. whatever reason people like taking out light poles around this area not willing to put down the phone while driving.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on September 12, 2018, 12:27:30 AM
It appears that very recently, ConnDOT has been changing over to CTDOT. Was there a press release or some other information about this?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on September 12, 2018, 09:32:29 AM
Today, the 2018 version of the state's random sign replacement project was released.  It includes a couple sites on I-95, I-84, the I-84 Exit 39 ramps, I-691 WB at Exit 7, CT 2 WB at Exit 18, and a few other scattered locations.  Within the contract document is a separate section for the replacement of the single I-91 NB Exit 15 sign with a 4-chord cantilever.  I was kind of surprised, given the state's recent shifting of signs to ground-based.  But then I realized this is ConnDOT (or CTDOT) we're talking about, and the gantry will probably last only until I-91 signs in the area get replaced, then it will be relocated to the ground. 

What did strike me as odd were the plans for the I-84 sign at Exit 57 (which will span all of I-84 and contain a new Exit 59 sign in the EB direction).  "Charter Oak Bridge" remains as a control point but that's probably only until this section of I-84 gets a blanket replacement.  Even stranger, in the EB direction, the new diagrammatic is proposed as an Exit 59 1 1/2 miles.  There is already a 1 1/4 miles diagramattic on an overpass just to the east, and its not showing as being removed (maybe a future project).  In the plans, it shows the 1 1/2 mile diagramattic, with proposed separate signs to be installed as part of a future sign replacement project.  It didn't make much sense, as the separate signs had no distances shown, just a dual-arrow EXIT ONLY banner for the Exit 59 sign. 

Another oddball was one of the sites is I-91 NB Exit 47W and addresses the 3 signs mounted to the CT 190 overpass.  It doesn't show any sign replacements, just removal of the middle sign only.  That sign today is a 1/4 mile advance for Exit 48.  It shows retaining the 91NB pull-through and the Exit 47W final sign. 

Find the link here:
https://biznet.ct.gov/scp_search/BidDetail.aspx?CID=47615
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: ipeters61 on September 12, 2018, 12:07:41 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on September 12, 2018, 09:32:29 AM
What did strike me as odd were the plans for the I-84 sign at Exit 57 (which will span all of I-84 and contain a new Exit 59 sign in the EB direction).  "Charter Oak Bridge" remains as a control point but that's probably only until this section of I-84 gets a blanket replacement.
So this is just one Exit 57 sign being replaced?  I always found that Exit 57 interchange interesting since each sign has a different error.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on September 12, 2018, 03:05:58 PM
Just one for now, apparently. 

With the Waterbury reconstruction project replacing signs in the Exits 23-25A region, the signs from Exits 57-64/65 in East Hartford-Manchester-Vernon are now the oldest on an interstate in the state, and are in need of replacement.  I'm surprised (well, no, not really surprised) that this section isn't in line yet for a blanket replacement.  The proposed I-84 West Hartford-East Hartford sign replacement project stops just shy of Exit 57.  The one gantry westbound being replaced will maintan the "status quo" for Exit 57, that's why "Charter Oak Br" is still a control point.  I'm sure that one sign will get replaced again, come a blanket replacement, with something like "New Haven/NY City", or just "New Haven".

The eastbound sign just east of this location, which is the 1 1/4 mile advance for Exit 59 mounted on a bridge, also has a newly replaced HOV lane sign on it.  I wondered why that Exit 59 sign isn't shown as being removed on the plans (maybe it is mentioned in the "special provisions" - I didn't read that doc), but it would make sense for it to be removed.  And why would they put up a new 1 1/2 mile diagrammatic only to replace it in a couple years with two separate signs, without showing any distances? 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on September 12, 2018, 03:16:00 PM
Will the control city for exit 59 still be Providence?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on September 12, 2018, 09:34:24 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on September 12, 2018, 03:16:00 PM
Will the control city for exit 59 still be Providence?

I would imagine, except that I would also add Willimantic. At least it's not the huge metopoli of Spencer St and Silver Lane like it is WB.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on September 12, 2018, 10:47:46 PM
Per the plans, Providence is still the sole control city on both the new sign (diagrammatic) and the dual-sign versions.  Maybe a blanket sign replacement in the area would include a supplemental sign for Willimantic. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on September 12, 2018, 11:21:17 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on September 12, 2018, 10:47:46 PM
Per the plans, Providence is still the sole control city on both the new sign (diagrammatic) and the dual-sign versions.  Maybe a blanket sign replacement in the area would include a supplemental sign for Willimantic.
I'd prefer supplemental signage advising drivers to use I-384 to US 6 to get to Providence.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on September 12, 2018, 11:41:39 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on September 12, 2018, 10:47:46 PM
Per the plans, Providence is still the sole control city on both the new sign (diagrammatic) and the dual-sign versions.  Maybe a blanket sign replacement in the area would include a supplemental sign for Willimantic.

I could also see a future project including an APL or two eastbound for Exit 59.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: ipeters61 on September 13, 2018, 08:38:21 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on September 12, 2018, 11:41:39 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on September 12, 2018, 10:47:46 PM
Per the plans, Providence is still the sole control city on both the new sign (diagrammatic) and the dual-sign versions.  Maybe a blanket sign replacement in the area would include a supplemental sign for Willimantic.

I could also see a future project including an APL or two eastbound for Exit 59.
I thought APLs were only used if there was an option lane?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on September 13, 2018, 10:49:36 AM
Quote from: ipeters61 on September 13, 2018, 08:38:21 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on September 12, 2018, 11:41:39 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on September 12, 2018, 10:47:46 PM
Per the plans, Providence is still the sole control city on both the new sign (diagrammatic) and the dual-sign versions.  Maybe a blanket sign replacement in the area would include a supplemental sign for Willimantic.

I could also see a future project including an APL or two eastbound for Exit 59.
I thought APLs were only used if there was an option lane?
Correct, that is the criteria for such.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on September 13, 2018, 10:24:42 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on September 12, 2018, 10:47:46 PM
Per the plans, Providence is still the sole control city on both the new sign (diagrammatic) and the dual-sign versions.  Maybe a blanket sign replacement in the area would include a supplemental sign for Willimantic. 

I think it's odd the I-95 sign replacements, I think some of those were just replaced. However the exit 32 "exit now"  signs are still button copy and were never replaced. And this project seems to replace perfectly fine signage. Strange.

SR-508 signage that wasn't replaced with the lagging I-84 sign project are being replaced, just that one gantry. I'm surprised the whole SR-508 wasn't involved with the I-84 signage contract.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on September 14, 2018, 12:11:31 AM
Quote from: Alps on September 08, 2018, 12:36:41 AM
Quote from: vdeane on September 07, 2018, 08:41:46 PM
As much as I'd like to see CT get moving with mile-based exit numbers, it would probably be better if NY were to renumber first here, so the 30/27 situation doesn't become 19/1 or 19/27 or 19/30 or something completely different.  Ideally the exit would be numbered based on NY since it's for NY 120A.
If CT goes to 1 - which they should - it won't matter what NY does.

To be fair, you're looking at what is (sort of) a cloverleaf precisely straddling a state line, with each state maintaining their half of it. It is, as far as I am aware, a unique situation. I would be in favor of using the NY exit numbering for both sides to minimize confusion but this would require NYSDOT and ConnDOT to actually coordinate on this which as the existing signs show they really... don't.

Meanwhile if CT does use its own exit number it should logically be 0, not 1.


I also have the NY side being numbered 33 in my spreadsheet, not 19... but then I numbered the Hutch continuously with I-678. Something which NY will not actually do, but they really should.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on September 14, 2018, 07:15:22 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on September 13, 2018, 10:24:42 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on September 12, 2018, 10:47:46 PM
Per the plans, Providence is still the sole control city on both the new sign (diagrammatic) and the dual-sign versions.  Maybe a blanket sign replacement in the area would include a supplemental sign for Willimantic. 

I think it's odd the I-95 sign replacements, I think some of those were just replaced. However the exit 32 "exit now"  signs are still button copy and were never replaced. And this project seems to replace perfectly fine signage. Strange.

SR-508 signage that wasn't replaced with the lagging I-84 sign project are being replaced, just that one gantry. I'm surprised the whole SR-508 wasn't involved with the I-84 signage contract.



There has GOT to be a certain criteria for their order of replacing signs in the yearly statewide spot sign replacement projects.  To be fair, most of the signs replaced in these projects are bridge-mounted signs that are moving to either ground or other supports.  Then you have the Exit 29 case, where perfectly good signs are being replaced, while others rot in place.  And you have gantries that look like they can barely hold their own wait, yet continue to evade these projects (such as on I-95 in Norwalk). 

The Exit 32 sign on I-95 in Stratford that wasn't replaced occurs in both directions.  Is this a case of "there's always one", or is there something larger planned for the exit?  I know they're planning on making Exit 33 a complete interchange, but that wouldn't necessarily affect the signs in question.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on September 15, 2018, 09:50:59 PM
Or, as I've said, have ConnDOT/NysDOT/NYCDOT together renumber the highway sequentially in keeping with the highway's heritage.  The Wilbur Cross Highway portion of CT 15 can be milage-based if it really wants to. The current numbers are there in case they ever upgraded the Berlin Turnpike to a full freeway.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on September 18, 2018, 08:06:58 AM
Congressman Larson apparently gave a presentation yesterday as part of his push for a double Big Dig for Hartford:

http://www.courant.com/real-estate/property-line/hc-biz-hartford-highway-tunnels-larson-vision-20180912-story.html
http://www.courant.com/real-estate/property-line/hc-biz-hartford-tunnel-symposium-live-20180914-story.html

Key points:

- He still wants to put both I-84 and I-91 in tunnels.
- Tunnels would be intended for through traffic
- Urban boulevards in current 84/91 rights of way would handle local traffic
- Because of local traffic volumes, the urban boulevards would be more like expressways than something bike/pedestrian/new urbanism activists would prefer
- Price tag of up to $50 billion
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on September 18, 2018, 08:54:35 AM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on September 18, 2018, 08:06:58 AM
- Price tag of up to $50 billion
That's roughly twice the actual overall cost of of Boston's Big Dig.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on September 18, 2018, 11:26:34 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 18, 2018, 08:54:35 AM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on September 18, 2018, 08:06:58 AM
- Price tag of up to $50 billion
That's roughly twice the actual overall cost of of Boston's Big Dig.

I'm starting to think...would it make more sense from a cost and engineering perspective to reroute I-91 over the Charter Oak Bridge to a reconfigured interchange with I-84 and Route 2 in East Hartford?  North of that interchange a new bridge would have to be built over the Connecticut River to tie I-91 back into its existing alignment (probably between Exits 33 and 34).  I can't imagine that would be more expensive than tunneling a big interchange between two major interstates directly beneath downtown Hartford. 

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on September 18, 2018, 11:33:37 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 18, 2018, 08:54:35 AM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on September 18, 2018, 08:06:58 AM
- Price tag of up to $50 billion
That's roughly twice the actual overall cost of of Boston's Big Dig.

Or a little over 3 years of gross tax revenue for the state: http://ctstatefinance.org/revenue
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on September 18, 2018, 11:56:33 AM
Quote from: kurumi on September 18, 2018, 11:33:37 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 18, 2018, 08:54:35 AM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on September 18, 2018, 08:06:58 AM
- Price tag of up to $50 billion
That's roughly twice the actual overall cost of of Boston's Big Dig.

Or a little over 3 years of gross tax revenue for the state: http://ctstatefinance.org/revenue

And that's exactly why there's not a snowball's chance in a blast furnace that such a plan plan will ever come to fruition.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: ipeters61 on September 18, 2018, 09:01:51 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 18, 2018, 08:54:35 AM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on September 18, 2018, 08:06:58 AM
- Price tag of up to $50 billion
That's roughly twice the actual overall cost of of Boston's Big Dig.
Just Googled it and Connecticut's entire state budget is $31 billion (https://ballotpedia.org/Connecticut_state_budget_and_finances).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on September 18, 2018, 09:04:16 PM
If Mr. Larson wants the tunnels to be for through traffic, he should be more concerned with new construction.  I would suggest implementing ConnDOT's plan to replace the viaduct (because unlike Larson, the people who work there are ACTUAL engineers) and also:

-Completing I-484
-Eliminating left exits
-That US 44 freeway to the NW.  That would definitely cut down on congestion in W Hartford and Avon and points NW
-Complete I-291 to said US 44 freeway.  Do what you have to do to save the environment.
-Freeway bypass for CT 4 as originally envisioned
-Build a new bridge just north of the Bulkley Bridge allowing three lanes (opposed to two) through downtown Hartford.  The Bulkley stays and is reverted to carry only US 44 as it did before I-84 was built.

You could probably do all that at a lower cost than two tunnels that won't do anything to add new volume.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on September 18, 2018, 10:41:00 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on September 18, 2018, 09:04:16 PM
If Mr. Larson wants the tunnels to be for through traffic, he should be more concerned with new construction.  I would suggest implementing ConnDOT's plan to replace the viaduct (because unlike Larson, the people who work there are ACTUAL engineers) and also:

-Completing I-484
-Eliminating left exits
-That US 44 freeway to the NW.  That would definitely cut down on congestion in W Hartford and Avon and points NW
-Complete I-291 to said US 44 freeway.  Do what you have to do to save the environment.
-Freeway bypass for CT 4 as originally envisioned
-Build a new bridge just north of the Bulkley Bridge allowing three lanes (opposed to two) through downtown Hartford.  The Bulkley stays and is reverted to carry only US 44 as it did before I-84 was built.

You could probably do all that at a lower cost than two tunnels that won't do anything to add new volume.


Propose all that, and all the local NIMBYs will explode in a spontaneous nuclear detonation, rendering the area uninhabitable, and making Hartford traffic a moot concern.  :)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on September 19, 2018, 03:08:15 PM
Multi subject post here:

Since the logo service signs are paid for by businesses, will the DOT ever upgrade the older ones that are still button copy?  I noticed the rules for putting up logo service signs are much more stringent than the ATTRACTION signs.  Restrictions such as which exits are allowed to get them based on the proximity of other ramps, signage etc.  But the ATTRACTIONS signs restrictions seem to be a lot looser. 

Is that because tourism dollars are involved?  You'd think since logo service signs restrictions are in place for driver safety, so shouldn't the same be applied to the ATTRACTION signs?

annnnnnnnnnnnnnd the I-91 interchange with CT-15 went out to bid.  WOW!
https://biznet.ct.gov/SCP_Search/BidDetail.aspx?CID=47623
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on September 19, 2018, 11:18:49 PM
I would like to see a real Hartford beltway. Start by completing the NW side by continuing I-291 westward through Bloomfield then turn it southward west of West Hartford to meet up with the CT-9 terminus at West Farms. Eventually, like after I'm long dead, I would extend the eastern end south of I-84 to CT-2 in Glastonbury. From there you can extend to CT-9 in Middletown or the CT-9/I-91 interchange in Cromwell. From the point where the new I-291 meets CT-9 on northward would become I-291 completing the full (albeit somewhat lopsided) circle around Hartford. You can do a tighter loop, but the south side would have to run through some pretty dense neighborhoods whereas further out there's not much of anything.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on September 20, 2018, 04:09:38 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on September 13, 2018, 10:24:42 PM

SR-508 signage that wasn't replaced with the lagging I-84 sign project are being replaced, just that one gantry. I'm surprised the whole SR-508 wasn't involved with the I-84 signage contract.

There is the one overhead gantry westbound, plus 3 ground mounted signs.  The first is before the jughandle eastbound on route 4 for 4 east passing through the jughandle.  The second is the BGS facing Route 4 west at the end of SR 508 for I-84 (the shield is button copy).  The third is an advanced warning BGS just before the light telling the left 2 lanes are for 84 and the right is for 4 West.  What I would love to see is a sign on 4 West saying that the left left turn lane is for 84 East and the right left turn lane is for 84 West.  I passed through there yesterday and was amazed how many cars use the left left turn lane then cut over to the right to get to 84 West. It can be a traffic hazard, plus it's not often courteous.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on September 20, 2018, 03:50:38 PM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on September 18, 2018, 10:41:00 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on September 18, 2018, 09:04:16 PM
If Mr. Larson wants the tunnels to be for through traffic, he should be more concerned with new construction.  I would suggest implementing ConnDOT's plan to replace the viaduct (because unlike Larson, the people who work there are ACTUAL engineers) and also:

-Completing I-484
-Eliminating left exits
-That US 44 freeway to the NW.  That would definitely cut down on congestion in W Hartford and Avon and points NW
-Complete I-291 to said US 44 freeway.  Do what you have to do to save the environment.
-Freeway bypass for CT 4 as originally envisioned
-Build a new bridge just north of the Bulkley Bridge allowing three lanes (opposed to two) through downtown Hartford.  The Bulkley stays and is reverted to carry only US 44 as it did before I-84 was built.

You could probably do all that at a lower cost than two tunnels that won't do anything to add new volume.


Propose all that, and all the local NIMBYs will explode in a spontaneous nuclear detonation, rendering the area uninhabitable, and making Hartford traffic a moot concern.  :)
Well they need a dose of reality because all these things would ease congestion on secondary roads.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: The Ghostbuster on September 20, 2018, 04:03:05 PM
None of the above will be done, not in a million years. In fact, I expect Interstate 84 will collapse before they come up with a reasonable plan to propose, design, fund and construct an Interstate 84 viaduct replacement (one that gets public opinion and NIMBYS approval).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on September 20, 2018, 05:07:54 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 20, 2018, 04:03:05 PM
None of the above will be done, not in a million years. In fact, I expect Interstate 84 will collapse before they come up with a reasonable plan to propose, design, fund and construct an Interstate 84 viaduct replacement (one that gets public opinion and NIMBYS approval).

They'll just keep patching up the existing I-84 viaduct and milk it for as long as they can.  Eventually, I think you'll see it get to the point where the viaduct is condemned and closed, and I-84 through-traffic will be rerouted via either I-691 or Route 9 and 72, to I-91, and then over the Charter Oak Bridge.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on September 20, 2018, 08:11:17 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on September 20, 2018, 05:07:54 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 20, 2018, 04:03:05 PM
None of the above will be done, not in a million years. In fact, I expect Interstate 84 will collapse before they come up with a reasonable plan to propose, design, fund and construct an Interstate 84 viaduct replacement (one that gets public opinion and NIMBYS approval).

They'll just keep patching up the existing I-84 viaduct and milk it for as long as they can.  Eventually, I think you'll see it get to the point where the viaduct is condemned and closed, and I-84 through-traffic will be rerouted via either I-691 or Route 9 and 72, to I-91, and then over the Charter Oak Bridge.
True punishment.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on September 20, 2018, 08:49:27 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on September 20, 2018, 05:07:54 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 20, 2018, 04:03:05 PM
None of the above will be done, not in a million years. In fact, I expect Interstate 84 will collapse before they come up with a reasonable plan to propose, design, fund and construct an Interstate 84 viaduct replacement (one that gets public opinion and NIMBYS approval).

They'll just keep patching up the existing I-84 viaduct and milk it for as long as they can.  Eventually, I think you'll see it get to the point where the viaduct is condemned and closed, and I-84 through-traffic will be rerouted via either I-691 or Route 9 and 72, to I-91, and then over the Charter Oak Bridge.
I'll disagree with that. It is very possible to replace substructure one column at a time, and superstructure one panel at a time, and gradually replenish the entire structure in place. It's expensive and will be there for 20 years, but may be the only workable solution.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on September 20, 2018, 09:28:11 PM
Quote from: Alps on September 20, 2018, 08:49:27 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on September 20, 2018, 05:07:54 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 20, 2018, 04:03:05 PM
None of the above will be done, not in a million years. In fact, I expect Interstate 84 will collapse before they come up with a reasonable plan to propose, design, fund and construct an Interstate 84 viaduct replacement (one that gets public opinion and NIMBYS approval).
They'll just keep patching up the existing I-84 viaduct and milk it for as long as they can.  Eventually, I think you'll see it get to the point where the viaduct is condemned and closed, and I-84 through-traffic will be rerouted via either I-691 or Route 9 and 72, to I-91, and then over the Charter Oak Bridge.
I'll disagree with that. It is very possible to replace substructure one column at a time, and superstructure one panel at a time, and gradually replenish the entire structure in place. It's expensive and will be there for 20 years, but may be the only workable solution.

Given how long Connecticut is taking to study, debate, argue over financing, re-study, ... I don't think it's wrong to wonder if ConnDOT will still be deciding what to do when the viaduct comes tumbling down on its own.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: J N Winkler on September 20, 2018, 10:08:30 PM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on September 20, 2018, 09:28:11 PMGiven how long Connecticut is taking to study, debate, argue over financing, re-study, ... I don't think it's wrong to wonder if ConnDOT will still be deciding what to do when the viaduct comes tumbling down on its own.

Pin and hanger construction (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7703005,-72.6828781,3a,15y,132.29h,98.51t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKICU5j_DIwz9xlm6Mq6Vyg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)--just like the infamous Mianus bridge.  One presumes they are not still using binoculars to inspect the assemblies, however.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on September 21, 2018, 12:36:32 PM
https://www.wfsb.com/news/car-hit-weigh-station-off-i--in-waterford/article_464220c6-bdb6-11e8-985a-37512ed9d134.html

A car slammed into a weigh station on I-95 South in Waterford this morning.
😮
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on September 21, 2018, 05:17:57 PM
Wow... that building's toast.  Wonder if it'll get rebuilt or not.  Not too many buildings left at weigh stations throughout New England. 

In other news, I perused the I-91 Exit 29 relocation plans and found the signing plans.  Looks like signs in both directions will be replaced from the Route 3 overpass at Exit 25 up to just past Exit 29.  US 5 is being omitted from all Exit 28 and 29 signs northbound, except a mention of "US 5/CT 15 North/Charter Oak Bridge" where the current Exit 27-exit now gantry is.  APLs will be going in for Exit 29, including a 2 mile advance.  The arrows on the APL are angled up/left, instead of curved left. 

So you don't have to download all the plans, they're here (fair warning - large file):
https://biznet.ct.gov/SCP_Documents/Bids/47623/sec_01.01-01.05_Plans.zip

Then open in the TRAFFIC.PDF.

What's interesting is the plans not only show the final sign placement, but intermediate stages of signs (ie - moving existing signs to new gantry during one phase, replacing the signs themselves in the next phase, etc).  Also interesting, not all signs on CT 15 North or South through the project limits are being replaced.  There will still be some button copy mixed in there.  And while the CT 15 SB final sign for the I-91 SB ramp is being replaced, the ones on the bridge itself are not.  So you'll have NY City posted on the bridge but no mention of it at the actual exit. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on September 22, 2018, 05:54:25 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on September 21, 2018, 05:17:57 PM
Wow... that building's toast.  Wonder if it'll get rebuilt or not.  Not too many buildings left at weigh stations throughout New England. 

In other news, I perused the I-91 Exit 29 relocation plans and found the signing plans.  Looks like signs in both directions will be replaced from the Route 3 overpass at Exit 25 up to just past Exit 29.  US 5 is being omitted from all Exit 28 and 29 signs northbound, except a mention of "US 5/CT 15 North/Charter Oak Bridge" where the current Exit 27-exit now gantry is.  APLs will be going in for Exit 29, including a 2 mile advance.  The arrows on the APL are angled up/left, instead of curved left. 

So you don't have to download all the plans, they're here (fair warning - large file):
https://biznet.ct.gov/SCP_Documents/Bids/47623/sec_01.01-01.05_Plans.zip

Then open in the TRAFFIC.PDF.

What's interesting is the plans not only show the final sign placement, but intermediate stages of signs (ie - moving existing signs to new gantry during one phase, replacing the signs themselves in the next phase, etc).  Also interesting, not all signs on CT 15 North or South through the project limits are being replaced.  There will still be some button copy mixed in there.  And while the CT 15 SB final sign for the I-91 SB ramp is being replaced, the ones on the bridge itself are not.  So you'll have NY City posted on the bridge but no mention of it at the actual exit. 

Local news says the building will not be replaced. They have a nice little building at the exit 3 weigh station on I-95 NB, plus it also has a little booth at the entrance to it.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on September 22, 2018, 09:48:37 PM
Synopsis of the I-91 NB Exit 29 project for those that don't want to read:

--Exit 29 becomes a two-lane left exit. Basically, the NB approach from CT 15 for the COB will be shifted east to allow for a new NB approach for CT 15
-I-91 NB will be widened to four lanes starting at Exit 26
-Charter Oak Bridge will get one additional lane, so the outermost lane will be Exit 90 only, the three to the left will be CT 15 N.
-CT 15 N stay at three lanes till just after Exit 91.  The crossover for the Exit 90 on-ramp will still be there, just shifted over.
-Ramp improvements for I-91 S Exit 28
-MOST signs and sign mounts will get replaced.  One's that are not being replaced, for example, will be the overhead gantries actually on the COB. CT 2 NB's three bridge-mounted signs are also going to be replaces.

Ramp closures:
I-91 NB Exit 28
CT 15 SB Exit 86 (so no alt. route to I-91 S for a little while)
CT 15 SB Exit 87 (NIGHTLY only, use exit 86, CT 2 E to CT 3 S, or I-84 W to I-291 W to I-91 S)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on September 23, 2018, 06:41:55 PM
Noticed new foundations on CT-15 SB near the US-7 ramps for the new signing project that has started.  Also saw a pair of CT-7 signs at the bottom of the Exit 40B ramp SB.  How do they keep making these mistakes.  The signs look good though and are properly spaced and made though.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on September 23, 2018, 10:20:01 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on September 22, 2018, 05:54:25 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on September 21, 2018, 05:17:57 PM
Wow... that building's toast.  Wonder if it'll get rebuilt or not.  Not too many buildings left at weigh stations throughout New England. 

In other news, I perused the I-91 Exit 29 relocation plans and found the signing plans.  Looks like signs in both directions will be replaced from the Route 3 overpass at Exit 25 up to just past Exit 29.  US 5 is being omitted from all Exit 28 and 29 signs northbound, except a mention of "US 5/CT 15 North/Charter Oak Bridge" where the current Exit 27-exit now gantry is.  APLs will be going in for Exit 29, including a 2 mile advance.  The arrows on the APL are angled up/left, instead of curved left. 

So you don't have to download all the plans, they're here (fair warning - large file):
https://biznet.ct.gov/SCP_Documents/Bids/47623/sec_01.01-01.05_Plans.zip

Then open in the TRAFFIC.PDF.

What's interesting is the plans not only show the final sign placement, but intermediate stages of signs (ie - moving existing signs to new gantry during one phase, replacing the signs themselves in the next phase, etc).  Also interesting, not all signs on CT 15 North or South through the project limits are being replaced.  There will still be some button copy mixed in there.  And while the CT 15 SB final sign for the I-91 SB ramp is being replaced, the ones on the bridge itself are not.  So you'll have NY City posted on the bridge but no mention of it at the actual exit. 

Local news says the building will not be replaced. They have a nice little building at the exit 3 weigh station on I-95 NB, plus it also has a little booth at the entrance to it.

If ConnDOT were smart, they'd file a claim with the driver's insurance carrier for the cost to replace the destroyed building. That way they get themselves a shiny new weigh station at no cost to the taxpayer. But...for a government agency to go after a motorists insurance carrier to rebuild the building the driver wrecked...that would never happen because it's something that actually makes sense.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: wytout on September 24, 2018, 11:01:29 AM
As somebody be who works in auto liability claims including CT, I assure you that if the DOT knows about it... ie a police report written to identify the damaged  state property, etc... they will seek a claim against the motorist responsible for the damages... no matter how big or small right down to 1 section of guardrail or a no parking sign
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeCL on September 24, 2018, 03:57:36 PM
Any word about a replacement VMS at the 95NB CT state line weigh station? It was taken down a few weeks ago the whole support pole and all.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on September 24, 2018, 11:30:57 PM
Quote from: MikeCL on September 24, 2018, 03:57:36 PM
Any word about a replacement VMS at the 95NB CT state line weigh station? It was taken down a few weeks ago the whole support pole and all.
If history is any guide it will get replaced with one of the newer LED signs attached to the overkill heavy duty gantries eventually. I believe that was one of the last flip dot matrix signs to be retired. I think having them mounted to bridges is not something we'll see anymore either as the state seems to be moving away from attaching things to bridges. There was one in Darien and one in Fairfield and both of those are now of the LED gantry mounted variety. Why can't Connecticut get the nice VMSes like NY has instead of these cheap looking ones? I guess it's better than the semi-permanent portable sign installations they were doing for a while, but NY now even has LCD screens that display a BGS on the Triboro which are awesome. Connecticut has been installing new RWIS stations too. Looks like there could be a new one going up along the exit 4 NB on-ramp (that looks way too close to traffic), and there are new fancier ones in Fairfield and Madison.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jon daly on September 25, 2018, 09:48:12 AM
I was on CT-2A the other day and noticed that the DOT hasn't removed an old Exit 1 sign for CT-32 near the east bound ramp. There is a larger sign that has the new exit # (Exit 5.)
Title: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeCL on September 25, 2018, 12:45:38 PM
Yeeessss!! The LCD for the Triborough is really nice but last time i saw it I thought was a little distracting with the transitions.

But yeah that sign was the last flip dot.. looks like the new signs are just orange i never understood the exit 9 NB why they put a tri color sign when they just use only one color.

Maybe they got a good deal on it who knows..

I think when that bridge gets replaced that will also be coming down.

Also yes that is a new RWWS going up I saw yesterday when he was putting the instruments on and it's upright as of today.. I agree it's a odd spot given people park off that area.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on September 25, 2018, 09:51:28 PM
Why would you need full-color LED VMSs? White text on a black background is easy enough to read.  The ones the state has now are entering the end of their useful life. Just replace them with more energy-efficient units that have a higher resolution.  The problem with the vane-type signs was likely their additional mechanical components and the fact that they had to be front-lit, the latter often caused glare if the plastic cover was dirty.

FWIW this is the probably the oldest VMS in New England:
https://goo.gl/maps/JHXBWZGuUuj (https://goo.gl/maps/JHXBWZGuUuj)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on September 25, 2018, 10:41:22 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on September 25, 2018, 09:51:28 PM
Why would you need full-color LED VMSs? White text on a black background is easy enough to read.  The ones the state has now are entering the end of their useful life. Just replace them with more energy-efficient units that have a higher resolution.  The problem with the vane-type signs was likely their additional mechanical components and the fact that they had to be front-lit, the latter often caused glare if the plastic cover was dirty.

FWIW this is the probably the oldest VMS in New England:
https://goo.gl/maps/JHXBWZGuUuj (https://goo.gl/maps/JHXBWZGuUuj)


I would think the ones on the NJTP with the inlaid multiple warnings are the oldest
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on September 25, 2018, 11:30:11 PM
The NJ ones aren't VMSes - they are fixed message signs. I don't know if there was anything before flip dot matrix signs because those are pretty low tech and have been around for decades in various forms.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on September 25, 2018, 11:40:19 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on September 25, 2018, 10:41:22 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on September 25, 2018, 09:51:28 PM
Why would you need full-color LED VMSs? White text on a black background is easy enough to read.  The ones the state has now are entering the end of their useful life. Just replace them with more energy-efficient units that have a higher resolution.  The problem with the vane-type signs was likely their additional mechanical components and the fact that they had to be front-lit, the latter often caused glare if the plastic cover was dirty.

FWIW this is the probably the oldest VMS in New England:
https://goo.gl/maps/JHXBWZGuUuj (https://goo.gl/maps/JHXBWZGuUuj)


I would think the ones on the NJTP with the inlaid multiple warnings are the oldest
Also not New England
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on September 25, 2018, 11:43:08 PM
Quote from: MikeCL on September 25, 2018, 12:45:38 PM
Yeeessss!! The LCD for the Triborough is really nice but last time i saw it I thought was a little distracting with the transitions.

But yeah that sign was the last flip dot.. looks like the new signs are just orange i never understood the exit 9 NB why they put a tri color sign when they just use only one color.

Maybe they got a good deal on it who knows..

I think when that bridge gets replaced that will also be coming down.

Also yes that is a new RWWS going up I saw yesterday when he was putting the instruments on and it's upright as of today.. I agree it's a odd spot given people park off that area.
The first time I saw that Triboro sign I was confused. At first I just thought it was a really reflective new BGS that was catching the sun because it was so bright, and then it transitioned to show something else and I couldn't believe a DOT would spend that kind of money to buy a 20 x 15 ft TV screen to use as a road sign, but after a few seconds of not being able to figure out how the sign changed I realized that's exactly what the TBTA must have done.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Rothman on September 26, 2018, 11:03:06 AM
I liked the old neon ones on the NJ Turnpike. :D
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeCL on September 26, 2018, 11:08:23 AM
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180926/e5e96d4c91c5b1397cf3ef0a262bade8.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on September 26, 2018, 10:43:55 PM
Quote from: Alps on September 25, 2018, 11:40:19 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on September 25, 2018, 10:41:22 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on September 25, 2018, 09:51:28 PM
Why would you need full-color LED VMSs? White text on a black background is easy enough to read.  The ones the state has now are entering the end of their useful life. Just replace them with more energy-efficient units that have a higher resolution.  The problem with the vane-type signs was likely their additional mechanical components and the fact that they had to be front-lit, the latter often caused glare if the plastic cover was dirty.

FWIW this is the probably the oldest VMS in New England:
https://goo.gl/maps/JHXBWZGuUuj (https://goo.gl/maps/JHXBWZGuUuj)


I would think the ones on the NJTP with the inlaid multiple warnings are the oldest
Also not New England
This one is on the Mass Pike westbound just before the old Stockbridge toll plaza. I have no idea what purpose it serves.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on September 27, 2018, 10:48:34 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on September 26, 2018, 10:43:55 PM
Quote from: Alps on September 25, 2018, 11:40:19 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on September 25, 2018, 10:41:22 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on September 25, 2018, 09:51:28 PM
Why would you need full-color LED VMSs? White text on a black background is easy enough to read.  The ones the state has now are entering the end of their useful life. Just replace them with more energy-efficient units that have a higher resolution.  The problem with the vane-type signs was likely their additional mechanical components and the fact that they had to be front-lit, the latter often caused glare if the plastic cover was dirty.

FWIW this is the probably the oldest VMS in New England:
https://goo.gl/maps/JHXBWZGuUuj (https://goo.gl/maps/JHXBWZGuUuj)


I would think the ones on the NJTP with the inlaid multiple warnings are the oldest
Also not New England
This one is on the Mass Pike westbound just before the old Stockbridge toll plaza. I have no idea what purpose it serves.

Makes me wonder if it is property of the NYTA and warns of delays or hazards on the Berkshire Thruway or Free 90 heading to Albany. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on September 27, 2018, 08:31:05 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on September 27, 2018, 10:48:34 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on September 26, 2018, 10:43:55 PM
Quote from: Alps on September 25, 2018, 11:40:19 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on September 25, 2018, 10:41:22 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on September 25, 2018, 09:51:28 PM
Why would you need full-color LED VMSs? White text on a black background is easy enough to read.  The ones the state has now are entering the end of their useful life. Just replace them with more energy-efficient units that have a higher resolution.  The problem with the vane-type signs was likely their additional mechanical components and the fact that they had to be front-lit, the latter often caused glare if the plastic cover was dirty.

FWIW this is the probably the oldest VMS in New England:
https://goo.gl/maps/JHXBWZGuUuj (https://goo.gl/maps/JHXBWZGuUuj)


I would think the ones on the NJTP with the inlaid multiple warnings are the oldest
Also not New England
This one is on the Mass Pike westbound just before the old Stockbridge toll plaza. I have no idea what purpose it serves.

Makes me wonder if it is property of the NYTA and warns of delays or hazards on the Berkshire Thruway or Free 90 heading to Albany.
There's four separate display elements on it. It's weird. Weirdest one I've ever seen.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on September 28, 2018, 12:18:41 PM
3 lanes of I-84 West are opening tonight (9/28) in Waterbury.  Construction will continue through the fall on final paving.
http://widening.i-84waterbury.com/announcements/280
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on September 28, 2018, 03:50:35 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on September 28, 2018, 12:18:41 PM
3 lanes of I-84 West are opening tonight (9/28) in Waterbury.  Construction will continue through the fall on final paving.
http://widening.i-84waterbury.com/announcements/280
I hope the same contractors bidded on the I-91 Exit 29 project. These guys finished up ahead of schedule.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on September 28, 2018, 03:57:59 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on September 28, 2018, 03:50:35 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on September 28, 2018, 12:18:41 PM
3 lanes of I-84 West are opening tonight (9/28) in Waterbury.  Construction will continue through the fall on final paving.
http://widening.i-84waterbury.com/announcements/280
I hope the same contractors bidded on the I-91 Exit 29 project. These guys finished up ahead of schedule.

As long as it's not the company handling the I-84 Southington-Farmington sign replacement project.  Been almost a year since it started and no new signage installed since June, with old signage still standing behind new signage and a new gantry for Exit 39 EB at exit sign installed and a new sign, but on the old gantry which is ridiculously long like the old Exit 32 WB 1/2 mi gantry.

Speaking of signs, the one thing that drives me nutty about the new signage for the I-91 project that is not being corrected: The pull through for 91 north on the APL says "91 North/84 West//Hartford/Waterbury".  Why does ConnDOT need to use Hartford when you are already within the Hartford city limits?  It should be Springfield. 

Here's one I created with a mileage based exit #
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1964/43171024250_8dba01e143_n.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on September 30, 2018, 10:25:48 PM
Another weekend, another road trip, this time down to CT.  I had an unexpected trip down I-95 from Westbrook to Norwalk on Friday afternoon (4pm - great...) and did get a chance to lense the newest overhead on I-95:

(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1913/44940650592_ebd3d8feff_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2btfzHj)95SB-Exit43 (https://flic.kr/p/2btfzHj) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

I returned back north after dark, so I didn't get the northbound sign, but it does contain an aux sign for Exit 44 and a 1 mile advance for Exit 46. 
As for southbound, there is still an older button copy "exit now" sign at Exit 43 (which I thought this new assembly was going to take care of), and still the old "exit now" button copy signs for Exit 34 still exist.  As for traffic, you know how it was....it was Friday afternoon/evening.  After leaving Norwalk, I contemplated making the trip up to the Merritt to check on the sign replacement project there, but it was after dark and was talked out of it.

On the way back to Vermont this afternoon, I contemplated which way to take.  My original plan was to cover I-84 Eastbound through the Southington-Farmington sign replacement project, but after hearing of (and seeing on traffic cameras) little progress, I figured I'd go up I-95 and check out the Groton-RI state line sign project instead.  My last trip on this section was in August, and since then, there is almost zero progress to report.  There are still overheads on bridges yet to be removed, some regulatory signage still to be replaced, and still no new signs for Exits 86, 87, or 88 (no overhead supports installed yet).  Not all the ramp signs are up yet.  I did observe equipment at the Exit 86 overhead that was staged to prepare a foundation.  From misc travels throughout the state, I passed several sign locations that were in last year's spot overhead sign replacement project, and none of those have been worked on yet either.  Is there a strike or equipment shortage of overhead sign materials or something? 

I did observe the weigh station southbound in Waterford (that was hit by a wayward driver earlier this month) is a pile of rubble, and the offramp to the weigh station is blocked off.  Also, the new 4-chord truss overheads on the SB Gold Star Bridge are still sign-less.  My guess is that signs will be replaced there once work wraps up (this fall?). 

So only one CT photo this time around, but several from RI, MA, and NH.  For those interested in those, the album link is down in my sig.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on October 22, 2018, 03:17:46 PM
Some sign updates on I-84 in Southington and CT-8 between Derby and Waterbury....

Well there is none and that's the annoying part.

On CT-8 I see new gaurdrail going up near signs but IDK if that's related or not. 
The I-84 signage from Exit 30-39 has completely stopped. 

However new signage at the I-84 widening is also slow.  Still no new Exit 25 "exit now" sign on I-84 WB and the EB sign is still missing the arrow.

The C&D road still has the temp signs up with a temp orange "I-84 East Keep Left"

(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/822/39633354100_98aff8d73d_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/23ogino)
The above sign is up and I'm hoping to catch a pic with the overlay and handwritten "NORTH" taken off of it.  I hoping there will be a window when they put the I-84 LEFT LANES" back up for a quick second or two.

A quick question: I noticed a blue logo service sign knocked down on I-91 NB somewhere around Exit 12 or Exit 13. I forget which service either FOOD or GAS. it was button copy though.  Who's responsible for putting it back up? The business or the DOT?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on October 22, 2018, 03:39:23 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on October 22, 2018, 03:17:46 PM
Some sign updates on I-84 in Southington and CT-8 between Derby and Waterbury....

Well there is none and that's the annoying part.

On CT-8 I see new gaurdrail going up near signs but IDK if that's related or not. 
The I-84 signage from Exit 30-39 has completely stopped. 

However new signage at the I-84 widening is also slow.  Still no new Exit 25 "exit now" sign on I-84 WB and the EB sign is still missing the arrow.

The C&D road still has the temp signs up with a temp orange "I-84 East Keep Left"

(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/822/39633354100_98aff8d73d_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/23ogino)
The above sign is up and I'm hoping to catch a pic with the overlay and handwritten "NORTH" taken off of it.  I hoping there will be a window when they put the I-84 LEFT LANES" back up for a quick second or two.

A quick question: I noticed a blue logo service sign knocked down on I-91 NB somewhere around Exit 12 or Exit 13. I forget which service either FOOD or GAS. it was button copy though.  Who's responsible for putting it back up? The business or the DOT?

Normally, the DOT will repair or replace the sign, and send the bill to the driver's insurance carrier.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on October 22, 2018, 04:39:24 PM
I've been checking the web cams for the I-84 sign project and the one cam at the west end of the I-95 project and am stunned by the lack of progress as well.  Haven't seen any progress in any spot sign replacement projects either.  What's going on?

I've also been wondering why ConnDOT didn't take the time to slightly renumber the exits in Waterbury.  With Exit 24 no longer existing, why not make existing Exit 25 be Exit 24 and renumber Exit 25A to Exit 25?  They did something similar as part of the West River Bridge project on I-95 when Exit 45 became Exit 44.  But perhaps that was to get the exit closer to the mile, and they'll just wait until I-84 goes mile-based to make any exit changes there.  At this rate, that'll happen in 2050.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jon daly on October 22, 2018, 08:32:58 PM
That is one ugly sign.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on October 23, 2018, 02:37:18 PM
I saw this on the I-84 Danbury widening website:
http://www.i84danbury.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Focus_Group_Set_1_Full_Report_FINAL_DRAFT.pdf

Page 11 mentioned people want a direct expressway between I-84 and I-95.  Hmmm but if you read the media you'd think everyone is against it (Super 7).  It'll never be built, but people DO want it.

I just hope they do it right, the backup occurs when lanes drop thru the US-7 exits and on-ramps and the left hand nature of the interchanges.  I'd rather see no additional lanes as long as they fix that.  Keep the same number of thru lanes thru the interchanges and make them all right sided.  We shall see. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: tckma on October 23, 2018, 05:08:33 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on October 23, 2018, 02:37:18 PM
Page 11 mentioned people want a direct expressway between I-84 and I-95.  Hmmm but if you read the media you'd think everyone is against it (Super 7).  It'll never be built, but people DO want it.

I-91 isn't?  CT-8 isn't? 

[edit] Oh, just noticed this is for Danbury.  What about I-684 in New York State?  It's not direct in that you need to jump over using I-287, but it's pretty close.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on October 23, 2018, 05:36:39 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on October 22, 2018, 04:39:24 PM
I've been checking the web cams for the I-84 sign project and the one cam at the west end of the I-95 project and am stunned by the lack of progress as well.  Haven't seen any progress in any spot sign replacement projects either.  What's going on?

I've also been wondering why ConnDOT didn't take the time to slightly renumber the exits in Waterbury.  With Exit 24 no longer existing, why not make existing Exit 25 be Exit 24 and renumber Exit 25A to Exit 25?  They did something similar as part of the West River Bridge project on I-95 when Exit 45 became Exit 44.  But perhaps that was to get the exit closer to the mile, and they'll just wait until I-84 goes mile-based to make any exit changes there.  At this rate, that'll happen in 2050.

The exits from West Haven to the Q-Bridge (43-48) would be 45 (Campbell Ave/CT 122, 46A (CT 10), 46B (Long Wharf), 47A (MLK Blvd/CT 34), and 47B (I-91 North).  Waterbury would be 34 (CT 69), 35 (Harpers Ferry/Scott Rd) and 36 (Austin Rd)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on October 24, 2018, 12:18:05 PM
Quote from: tckma on October 23, 2018, 05:08:33 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on October 23, 2018, 02:37:18 PM
Page 11 mentioned people want a direct expressway between I-84 and I-95.  Hmmm but if you read the media you'd think everyone is against it (Super 7).  It'll never be built, but people DO want it.

I-91 isn't?  CT-8 isn't? 

[edit] Oh, just noticed this is for Danbury.  What about I-684 in New York State?  It's not direct in that you need to jump over using I-287, but it's pretty close.

Oh man, I-684 is already congested as it it.  Ever try going from I-84 W to I-684 S on a weekday?  Always a one-mile backup for the ramp.  Plus, 684 is a longer route to I-95 than you think.  A compromise for US 7 would be to widen it to a Jersey freeway (50-55mph limit) and eliminate petty left turns.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on October 24, 2018, 02:31:02 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on October 24, 2018, 12:18:05 PM
Quote from: tckma on October 23, 2018, 05:08:33 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on October 23, 2018, 02:37:18 PM
Page 11 mentioned people want a direct expressway between I-84 and I-95.  Hmmm but if you read the media you'd think everyone is against it (Super 7).  It'll never be built, but people DO want it.

I-91 isn't?  CT-8 isn't? 

[edit] Oh, just noticed this is for Danbury.  What about I-684 in New York State?  It's not direct in that you need to jump over using I-287, but it's pretty close.

Oh man, I-684 is already congested as it it.  Ever try going from I-84 W to I-684 S on a weekday?  Always a one-mile backup for the ramp.  Plus, 684 is a longer route to I-95 than you think.  A compromise for US 7 would be to widen it to a Jersey freeway (50-55mph limit) and eliminate petty left turns.

I think that was in the original plans with the Ridgefield widening to have a media barrier but people freaked and it was taken out.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on October 24, 2018, 08:15:43 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on October 24, 2018, 02:31:02 PM
I think that was in the original plans with the Ridgefield widening to have a media barrier but people freaked and it was taken out.

For much of the length yes, since there are almost no driveways. ConnDOT was going to put in a median barrier since it would have provided greater safety with minimal compromise to local access.

But yes, locals complained and demanded there be no median barrier because its presence created the perception that this was part of "Super 7" getting built.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on October 24, 2018, 09:37:24 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on October 24, 2018, 08:15:43 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on October 24, 2018, 02:31:02 PM
I think that was in the original plans with the Ridgefield widening to have a media barrier but people freaked and it was taken out.

For much of the length yes, since there are almost no driveways. ConnDOT was going to put in a median barrier since it would have provided greater safety with minimal compromise to local access.

But yes, locals complained and demanded there be no median barrier because its presence created the perception that this was part of "Super 7" getting built.
Punish them with speed humps and a 25mph limit the entire length. And remove all stoplights and replace them with stop signs. Gridlock imperptuity.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: zzyzx on October 25, 2018, 03:03:10 PM


CONNDOT is paving Route 156 in Niantic this week...they must have ran out of temporary road work signs because I found this perfectly good US-44 shield with a "No Parking"  sign slapped on the other side.

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20181025/88e5ede55c1e3aedcb7d1e8b0eca484d.jpg)


iPhone
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on October 25, 2018, 10:23:30 PM
I finally got a reply from CONNDOT regarding their exit-renumbering timeline.  Originally, they had planned for Routes 8 and 25 to be the next highways in line to be converted to mile-based exits starting next year.  According to the e-mail I received below from Mr. Barry Schilling at CONNDOT, Routes 9 and 72 will be converted to mile-based exits in the 2020-2022 timeframe, followed by Routes 8 and 25 around 2022.  Other highways will follow suit.  One thing of note, Mr. Schilling made no mention of renumbering exits on Route 7 or Route 15, so I presume that those routes will retain their current numbering schemes.

(https://pagcore.com/dev/ExitRenumberingCTDOT.png)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on October 25, 2018, 11:24:36 PM
The only question that I have is whether or not I-691 and CT 72 would be numbered west-east or east-west.  The reason: CTDOT has them logged as south-north for inventory purposes, but signed east-west (except for a single set of CT 72 South signs at CT 4 in Harwinton).  If they follow the highway log, the numbers would go in the opposite direction as they do now.  For I-691:

Current Exit 1-2: Exit 1 A/B as is or Exit 8 A/B by log
Current Exit 3: Exit 2 or Exit 7
Current Exit 4: Remains Exit 4 no matter what
Current Exit 5 EB/Exit 6 WB: Exit 6 or Exit 2B
Current Exit 7: Exit 7A or Exit 2A
Current Exit 8: Exit 7B or Exit 1D
Current Exit 9: Exit 8B or Exit 1C
Current Exit 10: Exit 8A or Exit 1B
Current Exit 11: Exit 8C or Exit 1A
Current Exit 12 (part of CT 66): Exit 9 (continuation of I-691 numbers), or No #/Exit 0 (too confusing to reset for CT 66)
Current Exit 13 (part of CT 66): Exit 10 or No #/Exit 0

And for CT 72:
Exit 1: Exit 14 or Exit 6
Exit 2 (WB ONLY): Exit 16 or Exit 4
Exit 3/4 (EB ONLY): Exit 16 A/B or Exit 4 A/B
Exit 6 (WB ONLY): Exit 17 or Exit 3
Exit 7: Exit 18 or Exit 2
Exit 8 (EB ONLY): Exit 19 or Exit 1D
Exit 9 (EB ONLY): Exit 20A or Exit 1C
Unnumbered CT 9 exits (EB ONLY): Exit 20 B/C or Exit 1 B/A
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on October 25, 2018, 11:59:00 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on October 25, 2018, 11:24:36 PM
The only question that I have is whether or not I-691 and CT 72 would be numbered west-east or east-west.  The reason: CTDOT has them logged as south-north for inventory purposes, but signed east-west (except for a single set of CT 72 South signs at CT 4 in Harwinton).  If they follow the highway log, the numbers would go in the opposite direction as they do now.  For I-691:

Current Exit 1-2: Exit 1 A/B as is or Exit 8 A/B by log
Current Exit 3: Exit 2 or Exit 7
Current Exit 4: Remains Exit 4 no matter what
Current Exit 5 EB/Exit 6 WB: Exit 6 or Exit 2B
Current Exit 7: Exit 7A or Exit 2A
Current Exit 8: Exit 7B or Exit 1D
Current Exit 9: Exit 8B or Exit 1C
Current Exit 10: Exit 8A or Exit 1B
Current Exit 11: Exit 8C or Exit 1A
Current Exit 12 (part of CT 66): Exit 9 (continuation of I-691 numbers), or No #/Exit 0 (too confusing to reset for CT 66)
Current Exit 13 (part of CT 66): Exit 10 or No #/Exit 0

And for CT 72:
Exit 1: Exit 14 or Exit 6
Exit 2 (WB ONLY): Exit 16 or Exit 4
Exit 3/4 (EB ONLY): Exit 16 A/B or Exit 4 A/B
Exit 6 (WB ONLY): Exit 17 or Exit 3
Exit 7: Exit 18 or Exit 2
Exit 8 (EB ONLY): Exit 19 or Exit 1D
Exit 9 (EB ONLY): Exit 20A or Exit 1C
Unnumbered CT 9 exits (EB ONLY): Exit 20 B/C or Exit 1 B/A

I can't see either route being numbered north-south. I-691's main purposes are both related to I-84 traffic, and... really, so is CT 72. At least 72 has a N-S portion!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on October 26, 2018, 01:09:54 AM
Quote from: Alps on October 25, 2018, 11:59:00 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on October 25, 2018, 11:24:36 PM
The only question that I have is whether or not I-691 and CT 72 would be numbered west-east or east-west.  The reason: CTDOT has them logged as south-north for inventory purposes, but signed east-west (except for a single set of CT 72 South signs at CT 4 in Harwinton).  If they follow the highway log, the numbers would go in the opposite direction as they do now.  For I-691:

Current Exit 1-2: Exit 1 A/B as is or Exit 8 A/B by log
Current Exit 3: Exit 2 or Exit 7
Current Exit 4: Remains Exit 4 no matter what
Current Exit 5 EB/Exit 6 WB: Exit 6 or Exit 2B
Current Exit 7: Exit 7A or Exit 2A
Current Exit 8: Exit 7B or Exit 1D
Current Exit 9: Exit 8B or Exit 1C
Current Exit 10: Exit 8A or Exit 1B
Current Exit 11: Exit 8C or Exit 1A
Current Exit 12 (part of CT 66): Exit 9 (continuation of I-691 numbers), or No #/Exit 0 (too confusing to reset for CT 66)
Current Exit 13 (part of CT 66): Exit 10 or No #/Exit 0

And for CT 72:
Exit 1: Exit 14 or Exit 6
Exit 2 (WB ONLY): Exit 16 or Exit 4
Exit 3/4 (EB ONLY): Exit 16 A/B or Exit 4 A/B
Exit 6 (WB ONLY): Exit 17 or Exit 3
Exit 7: Exit 18 or Exit 2
Exit 8 (EB ONLY): Exit 19 or Exit 1D
Exit 9 (EB ONLY): Exit 20A or Exit 1C
Unnumbered CT 9 exits (EB ONLY): Exit 20 B/C or Exit 1 B/A

I can't see either route being numbered north-south. I-691's main purposes are both related to I-84 traffic, and... really, so is CT 72. At least 72 has a N-S portion!

It defies logic why I-691 would be logged as a N-S route, when it clearly goes E-W.  Exit numbers start at I-84 and increase heading east, which is in line with standard exit numbering conventions. For the 1 or 2 exits on CT-66, comverting them to mile-based numbers should just be a continuation of I-691's numbering scheme to avoid any confusion.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on October 26, 2018, 01:11:54 AM
I-691 is logged going west, which is "backwards"* but not out of character for the route: https://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/documents/dpolicy/hwylog/highwaylog_2017_final.pdf

It would make sense for the motoring public for ConnDOT to optionally relog the route going east (though that might mess up their inventory and anything keyed to existing mileposts) and continue to start exit numbering at I-84.

* all other routes are logged going east or north, except for one-way routes
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on October 26, 2018, 01:54:27 AM
For CT Route 9? Hmmm!

Exit 25 for Eliis Street in New Britain would be Exit 35, as mile marker 35 is maybe a hundred feet north of the Ellis Street Bridge. Exit 24 for the Willow Brook Connector (unsigned CT Route 571) would become Exit 34. Exit 23 for Christian Lane in Berlin could become Exit 33.

CT Route 72 is a bit more complicated. I would start the exits at the downtown New Britain split and move west. Maybe the numbering could follow the newer section of Route 72 in Bristol. What about the junction of CT Route 372 by the Plainville/Bristol town line? 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on October 26, 2018, 02:30:35 AM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on October 26, 2018, 01:54:27 AM
For CT Route 9? Hmmm!

Exit 25 for Eliis Street in New Britain would be Exit 35, as mile marker 35 is maybe a hundred feet north of the Ellis Street Bridge. Exit 24 for the Willow Brook Connector (unsigned CT Route 571) would become Exit 34. Exit 23 for Christian Lane in Berlin could become Exit 33.

CT Route 72 is a bit more complicated. I would start the exits at the downtown New Britain split and move west. Maybe the numbering could follow the newer section of Route 72 in Bristol. What about the junction of CT Route 372 by the Plainville/Bristol town line?

I don't give a number to the 72/372 intersection because it's an at-grade, signalized intersection. The two intersections on the new portion of 72 are also at-grade and signalized.    As for the Route 9 exits: pretty accurate; only thing is that Ellis St would have to be 35A northbound, with the Downtown (Columbus Blvd) exit being 35B.


My Route 9 Exits:

Exit 0 A/B (SB ONLY): I-95/US 1
Exit 1A (NB ONLY): Ferry Point
Exit 1B NB/1 SB: CT 154
Exit 4: CT 153/154
Exit 5: CT 154
Exit 7: CT 80
Exit 9: CT 148
Exit 10: CT 82
Exit 13: Beaver Meadow Rd
Exit 15: CT 81
Exit 18: CT 154/Aircraft Rd
Exit 21: CT 155
Exit 22: Bow Lane/Harbor Area (NB); Silver St (SB)
Exit 23A (SB ONLY): CT 17 South
Exit 23B (SB ONLY): deKoven Dr
Exit 24A: CT 66 West
Exit 24B: CT 17 North/CT 66 East
Exit 25 (NB ONLY): CT 99 North
Exit 27: CT 372
Exit 29 A/B: I-91
Exit 31: CT 372 TO US 5/CT 15 North (NB); US 5/CT 15 (SB)
Exit 32: US 5/CT 15 South (SB); CT 372 (SB)
Exit 33 (SB ONLY): Christian Lane
Exit 34 (NB ONLY): (SR 571) TO CT 71/CT 372
Exit 35A NB/35 SB: Ellis St (TO CT 71 on SB signage)
Exit 35B (NB ONLY): Downtown New Britain
Exit 36 NB/36A SB: CT 72 West
Exit 36B (SB ONLY): Chestnut St
Exit 36C (SB ONLY): East Main St
Exit 38: CT 175 (NB); Ella Grasso Blvd/TO CT 175 (SB)
Exit 39: CT 71
Exit 40 A/B: I-84 (US 6)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jon daly on October 26, 2018, 12:06:04 PM
Speaking of I-691, why is it an even # 3di? It's more of a spur than a loop or bypass.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on October 26, 2018, 12:24:48 PM
Quote from: jon daly on October 26, 2018, 12:06:04 PM
Speaking of I-691, why is it an even # 3di? It's more of a spur than a loop or bypass.

It connects two interstates as a bypass or to form a partial loop.  It's eligible for an even first number.

See also I-291 and I-684.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jon daly on October 26, 2018, 02:21:33 PM
OK. I was wondering about that (Less so about Conn's I-291. It was originally supposed to be a loop.) But I-395 in Conn. and Mass. also qualifies for an even number by this logic and I-695 and I-895 are available (unless one of those was reserved for a cross-Sound bridge.)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: ipeters61 on October 26, 2018, 02:43:52 PM
Quote from: jon daly on October 26, 2018, 02:21:33 PM
OK. I was wondering about that (Less so about Conn's I-291. It was originally supposed to be a loop.) But I-395 in Conn. and Mass. also qualifies for an even number by this logic and I-695 and I-895 are available (unless one of those was reserved for a cross-Sound bridge.)
Was I-395 originally just the number from the I-95/395 split to CT-695 in Danielson?  I ask because I don't know.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on October 26, 2018, 03:02:48 PM
The repaved over the concrete on I-691. I thought they originally left it bc they finally realized concrete last longer after all these years. I guess not. It'll need to be repaved in 7 years meanwhile the concrete that just got paid over would've lasted a lot longer.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on October 26, 2018, 03:05:00 PM
Quote from: ipeters61 on October 26, 2018, 02:43:52 PM
Quote from: jon daly on October 26, 2018, 02:21:33 PM
OK. I was wondering about that (Less so about Conn's I-291. It was originally supposed to be a loop.) But I-395 in Conn. and Mass. also qualifies for an even number by this logic and I-695 and I-895 are available (unless one of those was reserved for a cross-Sound bridge.)
Was I-395 originally just the number from the I-95/395 split to CT-695 in Danielson?  I ask because I don't know.
I-395 was originally CT/MA 52.  Route 52 was completed to I-290 in Auburn, MA circa 1977 & became I-395 circa 1983.

Due to the highway being in two states; a number had to be assigned that wasn't already used (CT 695) or was proposed to be used at the time (the I-895 proposal in MA & RI was just killed off a year earlier).

Since the road was to be a child to I-95 & all the even 3di numbers were still somewhat spoken for at the time; an odd 3-digit derivative of I-95 was selected.  Given that one end of the highway terminated near New London, one could argue that at least one end of I-395 was near a city.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jon daly on October 26, 2018, 03:07:35 PM
Thanks. I appreciate your patience. I'm sure this has been discussed before and some may be tired of explaining why these 3dis were numbered the way they were..
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: ipeters61 on October 26, 2018, 03:47:48 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 26, 2018, 03:05:00 PM
Quote from: ipeters61 on October 26, 2018, 02:43:52 PM
Quote from: jon daly on October 26, 2018, 02:21:33 PM
OK. I was wondering about that (Less so about Conn's I-291. It was originally supposed to be a loop.) But I-395 in Conn. and Mass. also qualifies for an even number by this logic and I-695 and I-895 are available (unless one of those was reserved for a cross-Sound bridge.)
Was I-395 originally just the number from the I-95/395 split to CT-695 in Danielson?  I ask because I don't know.
I-395 was originally CT/MA 52.  Route 52 was completed to I-290 in Auburn, MA circa 1977 & became I-395 circa 1983.

Due to the highway being in two states; a number had to be assigned that wasn't already used (CT 695) or was proposed to be used at the time (the I-895 proposal in MA & RI was just killed off a year earlier).

Since the road was to be a child to I-95 & all the even 3di numbers were still somewhat spoken for at the time; an odd 3-digit derivative of I-95 was selected.  Given that one end of the highway terminated near New London, one could argue that at least one end of I-395 was near a city.
Dumb question, even though I know I-395 was really the continuation of the Connecticut Turnpike (up to Danielson), wouldn't it have just made sense to make it an extension of I-290 or to extend I-395 up to I-495?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on October 26, 2018, 04:01:10 PM
Quote from: ipeters61 on October 26, 2018, 03:47:48 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 26, 2018, 03:05:00 PM
Quote from: ipeters61 on October 26, 2018, 02:43:52 PM
Quote from: jon daly on October 26, 2018, 02:21:33 PM
OK. I was wondering about that (Less so about Conn's I-291. It was originally supposed to be a loop.) But I-395 in Conn. and Mass. also qualifies for an even number by this logic and I-695 and I-895 are available (unless one of those was reserved for a cross-Sound bridge.)
Was I-395 originally just the number from the I-95/395 split to CT-695 in Danielson?  I ask because I don't know.
I-395 was originally CT/MA 52.  Route 52 was completed to I-290 in Auburn, MA circa 1977 & became I-395 circa 1983.

Due to the highway being in two states; a number had to be assigned that wasn't already used (CT 695) or was proposed to be used at the time (the I-895 proposal in MA & RI was just killed off a year earlier).

Since the road was to be a child to I-95 & all the even 3di numbers were still somewhat spoken for at the time; an odd 3-digit derivative of I-95 was selected.  Given that one end of the highway terminated near New London, one could argue that at least one end of I-395 was near a city.
Dumb question, even though I know I-395 was really the continuation of the Connecticut Turnpike (up to Danielson), wouldn't it have just made sense to make it an extension of I-290 or to extend I-395 up to I-495?
Short answer: state politics/egos. 

CT probably would've objected to I-290 coming in their state because 290's I-90 parent doesn't enter into it. 
MA's thought probably was something like; "I-290 in our state is already fully completed; why should we redesignate it?"
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Roadsguy on October 26, 2018, 04:04:28 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 26, 2018, 03:05:00 PM
Quote from: ipeters61 on October 26, 2018, 02:43:52 PM
Quote from: jon daly on October 26, 2018, 02:21:33 PM
OK. I was wondering about that (Less so about Conn's I-291. It was originally supposed to be a loop.) But I-395 in Conn. and Mass. also qualifies for an even number by this logic and I-695 and I-895 are available (unless one of those was reserved for a cross-Sound bridge.)
Was I-395 originally just the number from the I-95/395 split to CT-695 in Danielson?  I ask because I don't know.
I-395 was originally CT/MA 52.  Route 52 was completed to I-290 in Auburn, MA circa 1977 & became I-395 circa 1983.

Due to the highway being in two states; a number had to be assigned that wasn't already used (CT 695) or was proposed to be used at the time (the I-895 proposal in MA & RI was just killed off a year earlier).

Since the road was to be a child to I-95 & all the even 3di numbers were still somewhat spoken for at the time; an odd 3-digit derivative of I-95 was selected.  Given that one end of the highway terminated near New London, one could argue that at least one end of I-395 was near a city.

Was the CT 695 spur ever a part of CT 52, or was that number only added once the road was extended north?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on October 26, 2018, 04:10:38 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on October 26, 2018, 04:04:28 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 26, 2018, 03:05:00 PM
Quote from: ipeters61 on October 26, 2018, 02:43:52 PM
Quote from: jon daly on October 26, 2018, 02:21:33 PM
OK. I was wondering about that (Less so about Conn's I-291. It was originally supposed to be a loop.) But I-395 in Conn. and Mass. also qualifies for an even number by this logic and I-695 and I-895 are available (unless one of those was reserved for a cross-Sound bridge.)
Was I-395 originally just the number from the I-95/395 split to CT-695 in Danielson?  I ask because I don't know.
I-395 was originally CT/MA 52.  Route 52 was completed to I-290 in Auburn, MA circa 1977 & became I-395 circa 1983.

Due to the highway being in two states; a number had to be assigned that wasn't already used (CT 695) or was proposed to be used at the time (the I-895 proposal in MA & RI was just killed off a year earlier).

Since the road was to be a child to I-95 & all the even 3di numbers were still somewhat spoken for at the time; an odd 3-digit derivative of I-95 was selected.  Given that one end of the highway terminated near New London, one could argue that at least one end of I-395 was near a city.

Was the CT 695 spur ever a part of CT 52, or was that number only added once the road was extended north?
No.  The number was assigned to that short piece of then-CT Turnpike (http://www.kurumi.com/roads/ct/ctx600.html) circa 1964.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on October 26, 2018, 08:44:40 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 26, 2018, 04:10:38 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on October 26, 2018, 04:04:28 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 26, 2018, 03:05:00 PM
Quote from: ipeters61 on October 26, 2018, 02:43:52 PM
Quote from: jon daly on October 26, 2018, 02:21:33 PM
OK. I was wondering about that (Less so about Conn's I-291. It was originally supposed to be a loop.) But I-395 in Conn. and Mass. also qualifies for an even number by this logic and I-695 and I-895 are available (unless one of those was reserved for a cross-Sound bridge.)
Was I-395 originally just the number from the I-95/395 split to CT-695 in Danielson?  I ask because I don't know.
I-395 was originally CT/MA 52.  Route 52 was completed to I-290 in Auburn, MA circa 1977 & became I-395 circa 1983.

Due to the highway being in two states; a number had to be assigned that wasn't already used (CT 695) or was proposed to be used at the time (the I-895 proposal in MA & RI was just killed off a year earlier).

Since the road was to be a child to I-95 & all the even 3di numbers were still somewhat spoken for at the time; an odd 3-digit derivative of I-95 was selected.  Given that one end of the highway terminated near New London, one could argue that at least one end of I-395 was near a city.

Was the CT 695 spur ever a part of CT 52, or was that number only added once the road was extended north?
No.  The number was assigned to that short piece of then-CT Turnpike (http://www.kurumi.com/roads/ct/ctx600.html) circa 1964.

So anyone know why I-395  wasn't signed as an extension of I-290?  Last time I was up that way, I recall that I-290's exit numbers are a continuatuion of I-395's in Massachusetts.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on October 26, 2018, 10:15:56 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on October 26, 2018, 08:44:40 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 26, 2018, 04:10:38 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on October 26, 2018, 04:04:28 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 26, 2018, 03:05:00 PM
Quote from: ipeters61 on October 26, 2018, 02:43:52 PM
Quote from: jon daly on October 26, 2018, 02:21:33 PM
OK. I was wondering about that (Less so about Conn's I-291. It was originally supposed to be a loop.) But I-395 in Conn. and Mass. also qualifies for an even number by this logic and I-695 and I-895 are available (unless one of those was reserved for a cross-Sound bridge.)
Was I-395 originally just the number from the I-95/395 split to CT-695 in Danielson?  I ask because I don't know.
I-395 was originally CT/MA 52.  Route 52 was completed to I-290 in Auburn, MA circa 1977 & became I-395 circa 1983.

Due to the highway being in two states; a number had to be assigned that wasn't already used (CT 695) or was proposed to be used at the time (the I-895 proposal in MA & RI was just killed off a year earlier).

Since the road was to be a child to I-95 & all the even 3di numbers were still somewhat spoken for at the time; an odd 3-digit derivative of I-95 was selected.  Given that one end of the highway terminated near New London, one could argue that at least one end of I-395 was near a city.

Was the CT 695 spur ever a part of CT 52, or was that number only added once the road was extended north?
No.  The number was assigned to that short piece of then-CT Turnpike (http://www.kurumi.com/roads/ct/ctx600.html) circa 1964.

So anyone know why I-395  wasn't signed as an extension of I-290?  Last time I was up that way, I recall that I-290's exit numbers are a continuatuion of I-395's in Massachusetts.
Because for a long time it was I-290 and CT-MA 52. So they just flat out converted 52 to 395 instead of trying to do anything fancy.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on October 27, 2018, 02:18:18 AM
Quote from: Alps on October 26, 2018, 10:15:56 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on October 26, 2018, 08:44:40 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 26, 2018, 04:10:38 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on October 26, 2018, 04:04:28 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 26, 2018, 03:05:00 PM
Quote from: ipeters61 on October 26, 2018, 02:43:52 PM
Quote from: jon daly on October 26, 2018, 02:21:33 PM
OK. I was wondering about that (Less so about Conn's I-291. It was originally supposed to be a loop.) But I-395 in Conn. and Mass. also qualifies for an even number by this logic and I-695 and I-895 are available (unless one of those was reserved for a cross-Sound bridge.)
Was I-395 originally just the number from the I-95/395 split to CT-695 in Danielson?  I ask because I don't know.
I-395 was originally CT/MA 52.  Route 52 was completed to I-290 in Auburn, MA circa 1977 & became I-395 circa 1983.

Due to the highway being in two states; a number had to be assigned that wasn't already used (CT 695) or was proposed to be used at the time (the I-895 proposal in MA & RI was just killed off a year earlier).

Since the road was to be a child to I-95 & all the even 3di numbers were still somewhat spoken for at the time; an odd 3-digit derivative of I-95 was selected.  Given that one end of the highway terminated near New London, one could argue that at least one end of I-395 was near a city.

Was the CT 695 spur ever a part of CT 52, or was that number only added once the road was extended north?
No.  The number was assigned to that short piece of then-CT Turnpike (http://www.kurumi.com/roads/ct/ctx600.html) circa 1964.

So anyone know why I-395  wasn't signed as an extension of I-290?  Last time I was up that way, I recall that I-290's exit numbers are a continuatuion of I-395's in Massachusetts.
Because for a long time it was I-290 and CT-MA 52. So they just flat out converted 52 to 395 instead of trying to do anything fancy.

I-290 appears to have been the original plan; up until about 2 weeks before the designation, people were calling it I-290: http://www.kurumi.com/roads/ct/i290.html
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jon daly on October 27, 2018, 10:24:31 AM
^ Your site is one website that changed my life, but I don't recall seeing that page before. Does this explain some of the engineering on US-6 in and near Danielson?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on October 27, 2018, 07:00:10 PM
The full freeway interchange at US 6 and I-395 (using SR 695 for 2 movements) dates back to the 1950s, when the highway department was calling the freeway "relocated Route 12" -- long before the idea of creating an interstate there.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on November 01, 2018, 04:00:25 PM
Concrete on I-84 in Waterbury is also being repaved, just like I-691 in Southington, although it might've gotten lost in the exit renumbering obsession posts.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on November 01, 2018, 06:38:33 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on November 01, 2018, 04:00:25 PM
Concrete on I-84 in Waterbury is also being repaved, just like I-691 in Southington, although it might've gotten lost in the exit renumbering obsession posts.
So the last concrete segment is I-84 in Manchester. 😭
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on November 01, 2018, 09:08:06 PM
Also in concrete:
CT 9 in New Britain (Exits 25-29)
CT 25 in Trumbull

There's also about a very small section (200-500') of I-95 in eastern Norwalk that's still concrete.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on November 01, 2018, 09:45:42 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on November 01, 2018, 09:08:06 PM
Also in concrete:
CT 9 in New Britain (Exits 25-29)
CT 25 in Trumbull

There's also about a very small section (200-500') of I-95 in eastern Norwalk that's still concrete.
Should also note that the OG I-84 concrete in Hartford still exists, just paved over.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on November 02, 2018, 11:09:11 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on November 01, 2018, 09:08:06 PM
Also in concrete:
CT 9 in New Britain (Exits 25-29)
CT 25 in Trumbull

There's also about a very small section (200-500') of I-95 in eastern Norwalk that's still concrete.

The remaining concrete sections on I-95 that I know of are on the southbound side in Westport. Each is a few hundred feet in length: one section is at the Hillspoint Road overpass; the other is at the Hales Road overpass. These sections were left as concrete because overlaying them with asphalt would reduce the overpass clearances such that most semis would no longer be able to fit.  At some point, both overpasses will eventually be replaced with bridges that will have higher clearances. When that happens, I suspect you'll see these two sections of concrete paved over with asphalt.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on November 04, 2018, 07:22:15 PM
The westbound lanes are now paved over, I'm assuming the EB lanes will be shortly:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4323/35905222326_602db45e27_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/WGPDFm)
The I-84 Waterbury concrete was in bad shape, but it's been untouched since the Exit 23 reconstruction of the late 1970s.  IDK why they didn't just diamond grind it?  Because you know the asphalt won't last 40 years.

I-95's SB concrete in Westport, CT:
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5826/30727752492_496748aed1_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/NPiLh5)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on November 04, 2018, 08:22:18 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on November 04, 2018, 07:22:15 PM
The westbound lanes are now paved over, I'm assuming the EB lanes will be shortly:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4323/35905222326_602db45e27_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/WGPDFm)
The I-84 Waterbury concrete was in bad shape, but it's been untouched since the Exit 23 reconstruction of the late 1970s.  IDK why they didn't just diamond grind it?  Because you know the asphalt won't last 40 years.

I'm assuming the pullthrough on the bridge in the distance has had its "LANE ENDS MERGE LEFT" overlay removed, given that there's no longer a lane drop? 
(IIRC, this pullthrough was part of the state's spot overhead sign project from a few years ago, which changed it from EAST 84 with three down arrows to a modified pullthrough/lane ends).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on November 04, 2018, 09:37:00 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on November 04, 2018, 08:22:18 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on November 04, 2018, 07:22:15 PM
The westbound lanes are now paved over, I'm assuming the EB lanes will be shortly:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4323/35905222326_602db45e27_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/WGPDFm)
The I-84 Waterbury concrete was in bad shape, but it's been untouched since the Exit 23 reconstruction of the late 1970s.  IDK why they didn't just diamond grind it?  Because you know the asphalt won't last 40 years.

I'm assuming the pullthrough on the bridge in the distance has had its "LANE ENDS MERGE LEFT" overlay removed, given that there's no longer a lane drop? 
(IIRC, this pullthrough was part of the state's spot overhead sign project from a few years ago, which changed it from EAST 84 with three down arrows to a modified pullthrough/lane ends).

It's still there with the lane ends covered up without the third arrow.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on November 05, 2018, 10:57:02 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on November 04, 2018, 08:22:18 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on November 04, 2018, 07:22:15 PM
The westbound lanes are now paved over, I'm assuming the EB lanes will be shortly:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4323/35905222326_602db45e27_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/WGPDFm)
The I-84 Waterbury concrete was in bad shape, but it's been untouched since the Exit 23 reconstruction of the late 1970s.  IDK why they didn't just diamond grind it?  Because you know the asphalt won't last 40 years.

I'm assuming the pullthrough on the bridge in the distance has had its "LANE ENDS MERGE LEFT" overlay removed, given that there's no longer a lane drop? 
(IIRC, this pullthrough was part of the state's spot overhead sign project from a few years ago, which changed it from EAST 84 with three down arrows to a modified pullthrough/lane ends).
As of Oct. 26, when I last drove through there, the sign in its current form still remained.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on November 07, 2018, 09:57:21 PM
http://www.myrecordjournal.com/News/State/Voters-approve-constitutional-lock-box-for-transportation-funds.html

https://ballotpedia.org/Connecticut_Amendment_1,_Transportation_Revenue_Lockbox_Amendment_(2018)

Thank goodness the voters said yes to this! :D
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Roadsguy on November 07, 2018, 11:11:00 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on November 07, 2018, 09:57:21 PM
http://www.myrecordjournal.com/News/State/Voters-approve-constitutional-lock-box-for-transportation-funds.html

https://ballotpedia.org/Connecticut_Amendment_1,_Transportation_Revenue_Lockbox_Amendment_(2018)

Thank goodness the voters said yes to this! :D

Hopefully the next 100 pages will actually be full of things to talk about :bigass:
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on November 08, 2018, 02:06:30 AM
Quote from: Roadsguy on November 07, 2018, 11:11:00 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on November 07, 2018, 09:57:21 PM
http://www.myrecordjournal.com/News/State/Voters-approve-constitutional-lock-box-for-transportation-funds.html

https://ballotpedia.org/Connecticut_Amendment_1,_Transportation_Revenue_Lockbox_Amendment_(2018)

Thank goodness the voters said yes to this! :D

Hopefully the next 100 pages will actually be full of things to talk about :bigass:

The lockbox is a good idea, but I do have some concerns about it.  There are loopholes that could circumvent funds around  the lockbox.  For example, let's say a gas tax that is currently earmarked for the lockbox is repealed and replaced with a new gas tax.  However, the provision for the new tax could deem that the tax be earmarked for the general fund rather than the lockbox.  And with the same party now running rampant and having full control of everything, you could see shenanigans like this so that we're back to square one and the money is being used to put bike racks along the side of route 4 in Cornwall instead of fixing bridges. I'm hoping it's successful and that it goes to the right places, but I'm usually a little skeptical about what goes on in this state.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on November 11, 2018, 08:36:14 PM
New signs on the Merritt Pkwy, the usual merge signs and route markers.  They all look well designed, even the lowercase road overpass street name signs.  I see foundations for the US-7 signs near Exit 40B-A.  No extruded aluminum signs are up yet though.

One thing at the end of the Exit 40B ramp SB there are a pair of CT-7 trailblazers.  They're well designed sight wise except for the CT shield thing.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on November 16, 2018, 12:27:32 AM
Interesting article and report.  Has some interesting stats in there too:
https://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/CT-Do-Better-Exit-Left-500609102.html?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on November 16, 2018, 01:38:33 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on November 16, 2018, 12:27:32 AM
Interesting article and report.  Has some interesting stats in there too:
https://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/CT-Do-Better-Exit-Left-500609102.html?

That was a pretty good segment, especially for TV news. I was surprised that apparently Connecticut has more ramps than Massachusetts overall (880 vs 810).

A rough count of distinct CT interchanges is about 400 to 420. I'd think the average number of ramps per interchange would be closer to 4 than 2 (880/420), but counting them all would take a while.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: zzyzx on November 16, 2018, 01:58:00 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on November 16, 2018, 12:27:32 AM
Interesting article and report.  Has some interesting stats in there too:
https://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/CT-Do-Better-Exit-Left-500609102.html?

I knew CT had a lot of left exits, but one of the highest in New England? (6.4%). I guess that shouldn't surprise me given the age of their highways and unbuilt freeways that were supposed to CONNECT to other highways but got CUT (emphasis intended).

What are the rates in another states--the report mentioned MA having 39 left exits, NH with 5, 2 in RI, and 0 in ME and VT.  I know PA has a bunch.  Anyone here have a list? I'm curious if CT is #1 in the nation.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jon daly on November 16, 2018, 05:48:11 AM
I dunno, but RI has a left entrance on I-295 North coming from RI-37. It's been part of my commute since the 1st of October,
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: ipeters61 on November 16, 2018, 07:48:53 AM
Quote from: zzyzx on November 16, 2018, 01:58:00 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on November 16, 2018, 12:27:32 AM
Interesting article and report.  Has some interesting stats in there too:
https://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/CT-Do-Better-Exit-Left-500609102.html?

I knew CT had a lot of left exits, but one of the highest in New England? (6.4%). I guess that shouldn't surprise me given the age of their highways and unbuilt freeways that were supposed to CONNECT to other highways but got CUT (emphasis intended).

What are the rates in another states--the report mentioned MA having 39 left exits, NH with 5, 2 in RI, and 0 in ME and VT.  I know PA has a bunch.  Anyone here have a list? I'm curious if CT is #1 in the nation.
Delaware I can think of 6 (I-95 SB to I-295 NB, I-295 NB to US-13, I-495 SB to I-295 NB, DE-1 Exit 156 on both sides, DE-1 NB to I-95 NB), but I know there are a few left entrances too.  Bear in mind that we don't have that many expressways either!

I remember on my trips between PA and CT growing up, I always wondered why CT had a bunch of left exits.  Then I remembered one of my friends went on a rant about I-395's SB ramp to CT-32 SB (I think Exit 5 now?) and how left exits were bad design.  I had to reiterate to him several times that having it as a left exit meant one less bridge they had to build...at an expense that we are surely aware of!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on November 16, 2018, 09:08:13 AM
My first few times driving along I-84 in the Hartford area (where most of the left exits are along that westbound stretch) nearly 30 years ago took a tad getting used to.  Just when I would move into the left lane to pass a slower driver; I would have to quickly move back to the right or risk unintentionally exiting off the main road.

One item that the article did not mention is that there are currently plans to reconfigure the CT 15/Exit 29 ramp along I-91 northbound to a left-lane exit ramp as part of an overall I-91 reconstruction project in that area.  Such, when constructed/completed, would add one more to CT's already-high total.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jon daly on November 16, 2018, 09:48:19 AM
As a native Nutmegger, I was used to left exits. It didn't occur to me that left exits were an oddity.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on November 16, 2018, 10:44:11 AM
So let me do a quick count:

I-84:  18  (7,20,34,37,39,43,46,56-EB;  HOV,57,55,54,45,42,35,29,19,3-WB)
I-91:  9  (6,14,29A,32,HOV entr-NB, HOV entr, 30, 22S-SB
I-95:  3  (NB:  76,86;  SB:  87)
I-384: 1 (HOV entrance-WB)
I-291: 0
I-691: 2 (Exit 10-WB, Exit 11-EB).  Exit 1 not counted.
I-395: 2 (Exit 49-NB, Exit 7-SB)
CT 2:  0
CT 8:  5 (NB:  8/25 split, 84WB, CT 73;  SB:  84EB, Riverside St)
CT 9:  7 (15,16,20S,24,28 NB, 26 SB)
CT 15: 1 (SB:  67W)
I-84 HOV:  5 (EB:  384EB, Buckland St, CT 30/83, WB:  Silver Ln, Downtown Hartford)
I-91 HOV:  4 (NB:  218, 305, 78;  SB:  Leibert Rd)

Yup, that's 56.  That's if you include the HOV lanes and the start of the HOV lane.  I did not include the start of the I-84 EB HOV lane, as that actually occurs on the right, then flys over I-84 EB at Exit 57/58.

I did not include any exit signed that's at a highway's terminus.  Such as I-691 WB Exit 1.  Or CT 9 NB Exit 32. 

I think it's relatively possible to eliminate many of them, especially most of the ones on I-84.  Such as the exit to Slater Road.  Or the Trout Brook Drive exit.  Getting rid of the ones on I-395 should be easy.  That lone exit in the middle of nowhere (Grosvenordale) can just go.  For the I-395 SB to CT 32 ramp, move I-395 SB into the median and fly over with a ramp. 

Then you have the exits which are more of a thru route than an exit themselves.  Such as I-84 WB Exit 57.  Or the 8/25 split in Bridgeport. 

And then you have those that will fall by the wayside (at some point, hopefully).... CT 9 Exits 15-16, I-84/CT 8 in Waterbury (pending a future reconstruction). 

And... if nothing's done... the count goes up to 57.... with I-91 NB Exit 29. 

I'll tackle actual number of exits another time.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on November 16, 2018, 11:53:16 AM
I would add 5/15 at CT 314 NB*, and CT 17 SB at New London Turnpike, and CT 3 NB/SB at I-91, for 4 more left exits

* you could debate this one, because the freeway starts at this split
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on November 16, 2018, 01:38:26 PM
Quote from: kurumi on November 16, 2018, 11:53:16 AM
I would add 5/15 at CT 314 NB*, and CT 17 SB at New London Turnpike, and CT 3 NB/SB at I-91, for 4 more left exits

* you could debate this one, because the freeway starts at this split

I thought about 5/15/314 but voted against it as, #1, it's technically not an exit, and #2, the mainline (Berlin Tpke) goes straight and 5/15 "exit" right.
The CT 17 SB/New London Tpke exit is being eliminated IIRC.  So I didn't count that, but actually I did forget about it.
CT 3 at I-91 I did forget about. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on November 16, 2018, 03:28:53 PM
I know the two left exits in RI: I-95 North to I-295 North, and I-95 South to RI 4 South.  although one could make an argument for the I-95 south connection from I-195 west, as well as the US 6 West connection to I-295 South. In NH, the 5 are: I-93 North to I-293 North/NH 101 West, I-93 South to NH 101 East, I-95 North to the Spaulding Turnpike,  I-89 Exit 5 northbound, and Everett Turnpike Exit 3 southbound.  Technically, you can argue for a 6th or 7th if you were add a number for I-293 South at the 93 split from the Everett Turnpike in Hooksett, and if you were to add an Exit 0 for NH 3A at the southern terminus of I-89.


Here's what I got for CT:

I-84: Exit 3 (WB), Exit 7 (EB), Exit 19 (WB), Exit 20 (EB), Exit 29 (WB), Exit 33 (WB), Exit 35 (both), Exit 36 (EB),Exit 39 (EB), Exit 42 (WB), Exit 43 (EB), Exit 45 (WB), Exit 46 (EB), Exit 54 (WB), Exit 55 (WB), Exit 56 (EB), Exit 57 (WB).  HOV Exits to I-384, Buckland St, and CT 30/83 EB, HOV Exit to Silver Lane WB.

I-91 I-95 North (unofficial); Exit 6 (NB), Exit 13 (NB), Exit 22S (SB), Future Exit 29 ramp (NB), Exit 29A (NB), Exit 30 (SB), Exit 32 A-B (NB). HOV Exits to CT 218, CT 305, and CT 75 NB, HOV Exit to Leibert Rd SB

I-95: Exit 76 (NB), Exit 86 (NB), Exit 87 (SB)

I-384: None, unless you were to give the mainline an exit number as CTDOT did to the west end of I-691

I-291: Exit 2A (WB). Connection to I-84 East (unofficial)

I-691/CT 66: Exit 1 (WB), Exit 10 (WB), Exit 11 (EB), Exit 13 (WB)

I-395: Exit 5 (SB), Exit 49 (NB)

CT 2: Exit 7 (EB)

CT 2A: Connection to I-395 South westbound (unofficial, though it could technically be Exit 4)

CT 3: I-91 north (NB), I-91 (SB)

CT 8: CT 25 split NB (unofficial, though a # is proposed), Exit 30 (SB), Exit 31 (NB), Exit 32 (SB), Exit 35 (NB)

CT 9: Exit 15 (NB), Exit 16 (NB), Exit 20S (NB), Exit 24 (NB), Exit 27 (SB), Exit 28 (NB), Exit 32 (NB)

CT 15: Exit 67S (SB).  I don't count CT 314 split NB.

CT 17: New London Tpke (SB; for now)

CT 20: No official, although you could argue for I-91 North connection EB, and SSR 401 at the TOTSO WB

CT 40:  No official, although I-91 North connection SB could be argued

CT 72: None official, although CT 9 north connection eastbound could count, and there is a LEFT tab on the 84 West BGS westbound

So that would be 56 if you count the numbered exits, plus the exits from the HOV lane.  I am not counting Downtown Hartford at the end of the 84 West HOV, as that is already included as Exit 54.  I am also not counting any entrances from the conventional lanes of a highway (i.e. the I-84 EB connection past the CT 15 entrance or the I-384 WB approach).

Some MA ones: Mass Pike Exits 18 and 24B EB; I-91 Exit 27 (SB); I-93 Exits 1B, 4 and 7 SB, and Exit 27 Northbound;  I-95 Exit 12 SB and Exit 45 NB; I-195 Exit 8B EB, I-290 Exit 26 EB; MA 2 Exit 43 (WB); MA 3 Exits 1B and 4, and there is a LEFT tab for US 3 Exit 30C NB, although it is on the right hand Exit 30 A-B-C ramp; US 6 Exit 1A (WB), MA 24 Exit 3 (NB), Exit 4 (SB), and Exit 21B (NB), MA 140 Exit 3 (SB), Exit 12A (SB), Exit 12B (NB); MA 1A South to Mass Pike West (no #); MA 213 Exit 1B (WB), and 5B (EB); Lowell Connector Exit 1A (SB).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: ipeters61 on November 16, 2018, 04:30:16 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 16, 2018, 09:08:13 AM
My first few times driving along I-84 in the Hartford area (where most of the left exits are along that westbound stretch) nearly 30 years ago took a tad getting used to.  Just when I would move into the left lane to pass a slower driver; I would have to quickly move back to the right or risk unintentionally exiting off the main road.
The funny thing is when I moved from Connecticut to Delaware, I realized how many drivers in other states had difficulty with left exits.  I feel like CT drivers just are so used to them that it doesn't really matter...granted I also learned how to drive in Manchester CT, so I also tend to be used to them.

For some reason, I feel like Maryland has an unusually high number of left exits too, but I'm probably just imagining things.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on November 16, 2018, 05:11:02 PM
For those of you wondering about tolls, here is the map of 82 different tolling locations in CT

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4883/45863792932_19582e1034_c.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Roadsguy on November 16, 2018, 06:35:08 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on November 16, 2018, 05:11:02 PM
For those of you wondering about tolls, here is the map of 82 different tolling locations in CT

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4883/45863792932_19582e1034_c.jpg)

Wait, what? They're putting electronic tolls everywhere?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on November 16, 2018, 07:49:18 PM
I'm pretty sure I would never drive in the state again.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on November 16, 2018, 08:36:42 PM
Quote from: Alps on November 16, 2018, 07:49:18 PM
I'm pretty sure I would never drive in the state again.

Roads like the Berlin Turnpike, CT 10, CT 83, US 1, and US 6 are going to become gridlock with the shunpikers. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on November 16, 2018, 08:45:22 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on November 16, 2018, 05:11:02 PM
For those of you wondering about tolls, here is the map of 82 different tolling locations in CT

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4883/45863792932_19582e1034_c.jpg)
What's the context?  I read something recently about them looking to impose truck tolls like RI did... is this part of that, or something else?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: seicer on November 16, 2018, 09:12:51 PM
The sample toll rates (http://www.yankeeinstitute.org/2018/11/new-ctdot-study-calls-for-82-tolling-gantries-on-connecticut-highways/) seem pretty reasonable. To drive all of I-95, 112 miles, would be $4.93/$6.16 (non-peak/peak), and all of I-84 would be $2.77/$3.47.

Absent of raising fuel taxes, which would be political suicide, and in a state that's got a population that's plateaued, and in a state that has billions of unfunded obligations, what else would you expect? This isn't my favorite option, but with the advent of open road tolling, it's become a favorable solution. I'm still not sure how these tolls can be applied on existing interstates unless that's somehow being waivered.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: bob7374 on November 16, 2018, 09:13:29 PM
Quote from: vdeane on November 16, 2018, 08:45:22 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on November 16, 2018, 05:11:02 PM
For those of you wondering about tolls, here is the map of 82 different tolling locations in CT

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4883/45863792932_19582e1034_c.jpg)
What's the context?  I read something recently about them looking to impose truck tolls like RI did... is this part of that, or something else?
https://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-news-toll-study-takeaways-20181115-story.html (https://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-news-toll-study-takeaways-20181115-story.html)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: ipeters61 on November 16, 2018, 09:49:13 PM
I hate to be the person who plays devil's advocate here, but Connecticut is the only state in the northeast megalopolis which does NOT have tolls currently.  I get that the state has been toying around with doing everything to avoid killing off all of their idiotic corporate welfare (https://www.courant.com/politics/hc-xpm-2014-04-17-hc-utc-deal-house-debate-0418-20140417-story.html) (admittedly, it would be political suicide - I studied this extensively in undergrad but I won't get into it), but in a state with such high traffic volumes in such a highly populated area, I'm surprised it hasn't happened yet (and yes I am aware of the incident in 1983).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on November 16, 2018, 10:29:06 PM
The problem with adding tolls in CT is that CT would stand to lose the federal funding it receives as a result of abolishing tolls in the 1980's.  Furthermore, other than the (currently legally contested) truck tolls on I-95 in RI, no state in the northeast has added tolls to an existing roadway.  The Mass Pike, NY Thruway, NJTP, PATP, all the Hudson, East, and Delaware River Bridges, and roads like the GSP were built as toll facilities from the start.  Yes, MA did eliminate tolls for a while west of Exit 6 on the Pike, but they were never fully abolished like they were in CT; you still received and surrendered a ticket as you entered and exited, so there was always a chance a toll could once again be charged.  Sure, new tolls have been implemented such as on the ICC, many new FL highways, and HOT lanes in the Baltimore, DC, and Miami areas, but those were new construction, and not existing roads.  CT would become the first state to add tolls to existing facilities.  And on EVERY limited access road in CT?!?  One or two roads would be reasonable, but roads like I-291, I-691, CT 9, and CT 8 is a little overkill.  That toll on route 8 between Torrington and Winsted is one of the most sparsely traveled pieces of highway in the state, yet they want to toll it.  It's the result of years and years of the legislature spending funds on porkbarrel programs, making pension obligations to the state employees union that they can't meet,  and sinking more money into a busway that 10 people use than has been spent to maintain existing roadways.  And the DOT administrative costs per mile of roadway in the state are RIDICULOUS.  Malloy giving his friends $200,000 a year pencil pushing jobs and then they  get a full pension after a few years, or people working triple OT their last 6 quarters before retirement to beef up their pension.  Or 5 people traveling together in one car on a business trip, but all 5 claim the mileage instead of the one person that is actually paying the expenses.  I'll end the rant here, but the people of Hartford, New Haven, Bridgeport, and Waterbury that control the other 165 cities and towns in the state voted to continue this nightmare, and it's leaving many people no other choice but to pack up the moving van and head for greener pastures.  And if you think any sustained gas tax cut is coming, I have a nice 100 acre piece of prime oceanfront property in downtown Boise to sell you. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: seicer on November 16, 2018, 10:47:46 PM
Regarding the analogy of the business trip: when is that ever an issue? I rented a vehicle when I was in Texas recently, used TxTag, and had three co-workers in the vehicle. On our individual expense report, we listed out transportation outlays. Because the car was in my name, the car expenses were listed on my report. That simple.

As for the busway: 504,085 (october 2018). Not 10 riders. I can't take your entire statement to be anywhere near factual if you have never submitted an expense report or have actually used the Busway.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on November 17, 2018, 12:07:45 AM
Quote from: seicer on November 16, 2018, 10:47:46 PM
Regarding the analogy of the business trip: when is that ever an issue? I rented a vehicle when I was in Texas recently, used TxTag, and had three co-workers in the vehicle. On our individual expense report, we listed out transportation outlays. Because the car was in my name, the car expenses were listed on my report. That simple.

As for the busway: 504,085 (october 2018). Not 10 riders. I can't take your entire statement to be anywhere near factual if you have never submitted an expense report or have actually used the Busway.

Not everybody plays by the rules like you do.  And some people at DAS who process the reports are so inept that they will either let the fraudulent actions slip by, or they'll just be too incompetent to sniff it out.  It's not like they're going to get fired if they do something like that because the union will make sure they keep their job unless they commit a Class A felony.

And for the cost of the busway (the cost to build it was about $1000 per inch), plus with empty buses running every 10 minutes even during off-peak hours, it's a boondoggle.  And I'm sure that figure does not account for repeat riders, and for commuters it probably counts round trips as two separate trips.  Personally, I'd scale the service back, and even float the idea of opening up the roadway to private passenger vehicles whose owners are willing to pay a monthly fee to use it to avoid rush hour traffic. 

The problem with CT is the waste of money in so many different places.  Do we really need as many DMV offices as there are considering 90% of transactions can now be performed online, while license renewals can be performed at places like AAA offices?  And when you go to DMV, there is usually one person working the window, while 6 people are there supervising.  This state needs a full audit to find where spending and expenses could be cut, and where it could be better (or at least more properly) spent.  Unfortunately, we won't see it in the next 4 years.  Instead, Joe Q. Taxpayer will be asked by The Sheriff of Nottingham state government to give till it hurts every time he breathes.


But to answer iPeter's question, don't think there are that many left hand exits in MD. A few of them were eliminated with the I-95/Beltway interchange project north of Baltimore City. There is the MD 43 exit on the Inner Loop, and the I-97 exit on the Outer Loop.   I know DE has a few on DE 1 with the US 13 exits in both directions north of the canal, plus the new flyover at the I-95 junction.  I know there's a few embedded in the whole I-95/I-295/I-495/DE 141 junction.  NJ doesn't have many; I can only think of maybe 3 or 4, a couple of which will probably be eliminated by the I-295/I-76/NJ 42 interchange project.  The ones that come to mind are I-95 Exit 69 NB to I-80 West, and Exits 153 (NJ 3), and 163 (NJ 17) SB.  The ones in NY that come to mind are the Thruway southbound to I-287 East, the I-90 TOTSO from the Thruway eastbound, the Hutch NB to I-684, a couple on I-678, and a few on NYC/LI/Westchester parkways.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: ipeters61 on November 17, 2018, 10:33:31 AM
I REALLY don't want to be dealing with the endless commentary on Connecticut's spending issues since anybody who is remotely familiar with the state is well aware of them.  But I will say that around when CTfastrak first became a thing, I was riding the new bus between Manchester and Hartford (121 which is an express, 83C was the previous route which is local) on a Saturday morning and I was the only rider.  However, I really don't view encouraging the use of public transportation as negative policy.  That's my own personal perspective.

Likewise, I think Connecticut is definitely more inefficient with some allocations than Delaware, in my experience from working in both states.  When I worked at ECSU as a student, I remember being told that faculty got the full per diem for their meals when traveling.  In Delaware, you only get what you spend, up to the per diem for travel (I don't know if college professors get special treatment though).

Connecticut has about as many DMVs per capita as Delaware, I believe.  Delaware has four (population 950k, 1 DMV per 238k) and Connecticut has fourteen (population 3.5m, 1 DMV per 250k).  The issue is really that Delaware completely revamped their DMV in the 2000s (I think) and is extremely efficient.  It took me 45 minutes to transfer all my files over from CT.  That would have taken an entire day in CT (I think they had a PC running Windows 3.1 when I was doing my permit in Enfield in 2010!).

Anyway, on the discussion about CT roads having the tolls added after the fact, (1) Wasn't the Connecticut Turnpike tolled until the 1980s?  Same for the Merritt? (2) The upgraded Scudder Falls Bridge (I-295 between PA/NJ) is going to have a toll added. (3) I think part of the issue is the older mentality of how Connecticut worked.  When Connecticut was lush with the wealthy, from what I had researched (bear in mind I read these papers/articles several years ago so I cannot remember the sources), Connecticut really had a mentality of having the wealthy help sustain the poor, meaning that the state provided a lot more services than most others do.  For example, here in Delaware, if I want to go to a state park I have to pay $4 for entry; in CT, outside of the beaches and I think Wolf's Den, you don't have to pay to enter.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on November 17, 2018, 10:46:50 AM
For whatever it's worth, if it weren't for the federal funding implications, I wouldn't hate seeing tolls on CT highways IF fuel taxes were reduced and IF the state could be efficient at billing non-transponder users.  The idea of getting some revenue from long-distance truckers who don't stop in the state (thank-you fuel taxes) has some appeal, as does the potential for reducing congestion / increasing demand for mass transit.

However, I'm not so naïve as to believe that those "ifs" would be satisfied.  :)

I'll decline comment on the inefficiencies in CT government.  They're arguably beyond the scope of this forum, and they're certainly well-known to most folks familiar with the state.  Hell, this is a state that prefers to have 169 local governments rather than 8-10, despite the potential efficiencies to be gained from regionalization.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on November 17, 2018, 12:08:39 PM
Idk why CT has to roll EVERY limited access highway?! No other state does that.

This study took a couple years to complete. This is separate from Ned Lamont and his truck tolls.

Truck tolls could be a fiasco as RI is being sued so why would CT do it then? Then I can see CT being sued over it, then they saying oh sorry to make it legal we have to roll everyone.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: seicer on November 17, 2018, 01:01:42 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on November 17, 2018, 12:07:45 AM
Quote from: seicer on November 16, 2018, 10:47:46 PM
Regarding the analogy of the business trip: when is that ever an issue? I rented a vehicle when I was in Texas recently, used TxTag, and had three co-workers in the vehicle. On our individual expense report, we listed out transportation outlays. Because the car was in my name, the car expenses were listed on my report. That simple.

As for the busway: 504,085 (october 2018). Not 10 riders. I can't take your entire statement to be anywhere near factual if you have never submitted an expense report or have actually used the Busway.

Not everybody plays by the rules like you do.  And some people at DAS who process the reports are so inept that they will either let the fraudulent actions slip by, or they'll just be too incompetent to sniff it out.  It's not like they're going to get fired if they do something like that because the union will make sure they keep their job unless they commit a Class A felony.

And for the cost of the busway (the cost to build it was about $1000 per inch), plus with empty buses running every 10 minutes even during off-peak hours, it's a boondoggle.  And I'm sure that figure does not account for repeat riders, and for commuters it probably counts round trips as two separate trips.  Personally, I'd scale the service back, and even float the idea of opening up the roadway to private passenger vehicles whose owners are willing to pay a monthly fee to use it to avoid rush hour traffic.

I dunno. I was on it on a Friday morning/evening and on a Saturday and had plenty of other riders. And I surmise 504,085 would amount to other riders on those "empty" busses.

And as for expense reports, yes, you do play by the rules. Most good employees and employers do. It's just standard practice. I'm not sure where you worked at where 5 employees sharing 1 car all filled out 5 separate expense reports for the automobile/tolls - because that doesn't happen unless you work for a pretty suspect company. If that's true, you might want to reconsider your employer.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on November 17, 2018, 06:38:09 PM
I'll drop it after this, but it's stuff like this why our state is in the shape it's in.

https://www.courant.com/politics/government-watch/hc-pol-lender-legislators-mileage-payments-20181025-story.html
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on November 17, 2018, 08:50:53 PM
For what it's worth, whether someone drives themselves or carpools with someone else is a very difficult thing to audit. Was probably an impossible thing to audit in the days this policy was made, before there were CCTV cameras on the highways and videos on YouTube of everything and so forth. Meanwhile you also have the possibility of one of these legislators taking a taxi or a limo or a bus or a train to get home or whatever, all of which have differing costs than driving your own vehicle does. If you try to go for actual costs, this opens up the can of worms of it being a waste of taxpayer money to reimburse people for the full cost of more expensive modes. It also makes the accounting more complicated and, therefore, more costly because it consumes more of people's time.

So, there is a certain aspect of KISS principle application to "you get reimbursed per mile between your home and the State Capitol, and we don't care how you actually make the journey". This is the same reason why flat per diem reimbursements for meals and incidentals exist.



As for the toll proposal, the map certainly implies there is some intention of making this fairly comprehensive - you won't be able to use I-84, 91, 95, 291, 395, or 691; or the freeway portions of routes 2, 8, 9, and 15, without paying a toll except for some brief local trips. In a sense, it's a rather elegant plan - the toll collection points will be numerous but the toll collected at each will be low, making it not really worthwhile to try and shunpike for the most part.

Meanwhile it should also be noted that Lamont only wants to toll trucks - something which could well make this proposal stick, as that will be a lot more politically palatable than something that will directly hit the wallets of the majority of voters. Classic "tax them, not us" type policy.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on November 17, 2018, 10:44:16 PM
One small problem with the truck only tolls:  they can't use Route 15.  This proposal has them on there.   So if this is the plan, it's for all vehicles.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: seicer on November 17, 2018, 11:17:13 PM
It's not a gimmick or some underhand by the state. The answers were posted above. From one article (https://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-news-toll-study-takeaways-20181115-story.html):

- "The DOT study – separate from a planned $10 million one backed by Gov. Dannel P. Malloy and lambasted by Republicans – modeled a system that tolls all vehicles: cars and trucks, in-state and out-of-state."
- "Governor-elect Ned Lamont campaigned on limited tolling, which he said would extend only to tractor-trailers."

While the original study called for tolls for all classes, the new governor campaigned on tolling for tractor-trailers. And while he campaigned on that, it does not preclude him to imposing tolls on all classes.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on November 18, 2018, 12:18:28 AM
People have to realize that tolls on tractor-trailers only will eventually be subsidized by the people of CT (and even beyond) in the form of higher market prices for goods.  The trucking industry is not just going to absorb the increase in transportation costs to get goods to market.  So it's a Catch-22 for the taxpayers: either pay the tolls on the roads, or pay them in retail establishments, or both X-(. Basically like asking whether you'd prefer a sharp stick in the eye, or under your fingernails.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: SectorZ on November 18, 2018, 08:29:22 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on November 18, 2018, 12:18:28 AM
People have to realize that tolls on tractor-trailers only will eventually be subsidized by the people of CT (and even beyond) in the form of higher market prices for goods.  The trucking industry is not just going to absorb the increase in transportation costs to get goods to market.  So it's a Catch-22 for the taxpayers: either pay the tolls on the roads, or pay them in retail establishments, or both X-(. Basically like asking whether you'd prefer a sharp stick in the eye, or under your fingernails.

Taxpayers are very good with taking the "out of sight, out of mind" route to paying taxes in this country.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on November 18, 2018, 10:09:03 AM
It spreads the cost around though - plenty of trucks pass through CT on the way to other states. So it'll be reflected in the price of goods throughout New England, not just in CT.  Some large trucking companies might even spread the cost around the entire country.

In theory it could also motivate some goods to move by rail instead (which would ease congestion on the roads), although the amount of the toll would likely be too small to really move the needle on that.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on November 19, 2018, 08:59:11 AM
Quote from: ipeters61 on November 16, 2018, 09:49:13 PMI'm surprised it hasn't happened yet (and yes I am aware of the incidents in 1983).
FTFY, let's not forget about the Mianus River Bridge collapse that occurred in the same year.  That (the receiving of federal funds to replace that bridge) was the real reason why tolls were removed from the CT Turnpike prior to such occurring on other CT highways & river crossings.  Such also dismissed the notion that tolled facilities always equal better (maintained) facilities.

Quote from: ipeters61 on November 17, 2018, 10:33:31 AMAnyway, on the discussion about CT roads having the tolls added after the fact, (1) Wasn't the Connecticut Turnpike tolled until the 1980s?  Same for the Merritt?
Yes, but the two fore-mentioned incidents from 1983 triggered the abolishment of all tolls in CT back then.

Quote from: ipeters61 on November 17, 2018, 10:33:31 AM(2) The upgraded Scudder Falls Bridge (I-295 between PA/NJ) is going to have a toll added.
Apples & oranges comparison, one's at least getting a larger, wider bridge as a result.  What's CT actually getting with all these new proposed tolls?

Quote from: Mergingtraffic on November 17, 2018, 12:08:39 PMTruck tolls could be a fiasco as RI is being sued so why would CT do it then? Then I can see CT being sued over it, then they saying oh sorry to make it legal we have to roll everyone.
While RI is currently being sued for such; has the outcome of the suit been yet known?  Those defending the truck tolls can point to the Spring Valley toll plaza along the NY Thruway as an existing example of such tolling.  However, the counterargument there would be that particular toll plaza (which originally collected tolls for all vehicles) existed since the Thruway was built & is only one plaza, not the entire tollway.

Quote from: jp the roadgeek on November 17, 2018, 10:44:16 PMOne small problem with the truck only tolls:  they can't use Route 15.  This proposal has them on there.   So if this is the plan, it's for all vehicles.
I'm hoping that the listing of truck-only tolls for CT 15 was an ignorant oversight; but I'm not necessarily holding my breath on that one.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: seicer on November 19, 2018, 09:06:47 AM
On "what is the state getting out of the tolls," that's a good question and something that I hope the followup study concludes. I kind of like the transparency Kentucky provided with its mass bridge repair/replacement program that's now ongoing - all eligible projects being spent with taxpayer money is being listed in a database, with geocodes and maps, so that the public has the information they need to know that the state isn't hoodwinking them. If the state is going to toll I-95 (as an example), then for transparency, why not provide a list of projects that the tolls will benefit for I-95 travelers?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on November 19, 2018, 10:25:45 AM
Quote from: seicer on November 19, 2018, 09:06:47 AM
Sadly, CT hasn't always been as transparent.  That fact that a ballot referendum (which thankfully passed two weeks ago) which places a proverbial lock-box on gas tax revenue (i.e. no more general fund blackhole that is subject to raiding) came about tells the story right there regarding lack of trust & transparency regarding how CT spends taxpayer money.  Mind you, CT isn't alone on this.  There are probably other states that do similar.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on November 19, 2018, 12:07:24 PM
Quote from: seicer on November 19, 2018, 09:06:47 AMOn "what is the state getting out of the tolls," that's a good question and something that I hope the followup study concludes.

Actually, there are some fairly self-evident goals..although opinions vary as to which one(s) drive(s) the issue:

- A nontrivial portion of the wear-and-tear on the freeways comes from traffic that doesn't pay the fuel taxes that allegedly go to maintaining the highways

- The state has long-term issues with an imbalance between expenditures and revenues, and reducing expenditures is politically unpopular

- The state has some very expensive highway projects on the horizon that will need to be funded...somehow

- Traffic congestion, CO2 emissions. etc. create a desire to shift transportation demand from highways to mass-transit

- The state's tax structure is hostile/uncompetitive as regards the state's largest taxpayers, creating an incentive to find alternative revenue sources in lieu of taxes

- Changes in fuel efficiency / the rise of hybrid or electric vehicles raise questions of the sustainability of fuel taxes as a proxy for user fees to support highway maintenance
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on November 19, 2018, 01:47:39 PM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on November 19, 2018, 12:07:24 PM
Mike, the mere fact that CT's gas tax revenue was going into a general (non-transportation) fund is a classic indicator as towards why there's a natural distrust towards any initiative where increasing gas taxes and/or reinstating tolls becomes a recommendation.  I.e., such became a robbing Peter to pay Paul scenario. 

The fore-mentioned 1983 bridge collapse while tolls were still in place, at the very least & in the eyes of the general public; gave the impression (be it justly or unjustly) that toll revenue collected wasn't being wisely spent. 

This newly-passed referendum regarding the gas tax lock-box, as long as it's not molested, is intended to allow for all the collected gas tax revenue to be allocated towards transportation/roadway projects not just a percentage.

Will such solve CT's transportation revenue shortfalls completely?  Such remains to be seen; but as I mentioned many posts back, this level of revenue accountability (i.e. good-faith effort) needs to come first before there's any additional talk of raising gas taxes and/or placing tolls along highways.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on November 22, 2018, 06:01:38 PM
Why would you add tools to highways that weren't built as toll-road highways?  Toll highways have fewer exits and are meant to feed through traffic to major cities.  Our highways are more like intra-state connectors acting as bypasses of secondary roads.  What sense does it make to put tolls on highways that handle both intra-state and interstate (and truck) traffic? Fewer people in the state will drive meaning more will use public transportation and overcrowd those systems. If there's to be any tolls at all they should be on point-to-point highways like CT 8 or CT 2, roads that link two destinations and don't really serve as a bypass route.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on November 23, 2018, 08:57:44 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on November 22, 2018, 06:01:38 PM
Why would you add tools to highways that weren't built as toll-road highways?  Toll highways have fewer exits and are meant to feed through traffic to major cities.  Our highways are more like intra-state connectors acting as bypasses of secondary roads.  What sense does it make to put tolls on highways that handle both intra-state and interstate (and truck) traffic? Fewer people in the state will drive meaning more will use public transportation and overcrowd those systems. If there's to be any tolls at all they should be on point-to-point highways like CT 8 or CT 2, roads that link two destinations and don't really serve as a bypass route.

You touch upon a good point in that toll roads work in most other states because they were designed as long-haul routes, and operated under quasi-government agencies where toll revenues were legally limited to use on said toll facilities to repay construction bonds, and perform routine maintenance and capital investment to those roads. Tolls didn't work in Connecticut because 1) the Connecticut Turnpike was not disigned as a long-haul route, having closely spaced exits and mainline barrier tolls set up in a way that folks familiar with the Turnpike could easily exit before each toll and get back on after the toll, effectively getting a free ride; and 2) that toll revenues were placed into the state's General Fund so they were used to pay for non-highway expenditures. The latter item was a byproduct of the State of Connecticut having to provide a predetermined number of access points to each of the towns the Connecticut Turnpike goes through in order to get each town to support construction of the Turnpike. Since towns in Connecticut wield a great deal of power under the state's constitution, opposition from any one town along the route would have effectively derailed the Turnpike from being built.

Now getting back to the idea of tolling Connecticut's highways: it would work if a set of express lanes with fewer interchanges and a higher speed limit for long-haul travel were constructed along key segments of I-84, I-91 and I-95. In reality, such a concept would probably never come to fruition because there are a lot of people opposed to the idea of such a major highway expansion--people with deep enough pockets to hire a dream team of lawyers to tie something like this up in the courts for generations.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on November 26, 2018, 09:37:00 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on November 23, 2018, 08:57:44 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on November 22, 2018, 06:01:38 PM
Both of you need to keep in mind that NJ's Garden Sate Parkway has & still collects its tolls at mainline barriers.  The reasons for why CT's older toll roads failed while the GPS' succeeded were likely due to that CT's toll barriers were much more frequent than those along the GSP & (you touched on this abqtraveler) CT's toll revenue may not have stayed within the system and/or dispersed properly.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on November 28, 2018, 03:29:51 PM
Sad to report with the new Exit 23 signage westbound on I-84 in Waterbury this is no longer up.  I'm guessing this was installed around 1978 the time Exit 23 was last reconfigured based on the old bridge dates. 1978(?)-2018. The last non-reflective button copy sign on the I-84 mainline.

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4384/36822897045_e83bd9cbb4_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Y6UYpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jon daly on November 28, 2018, 04:08:52 PM
That's a pretty good looking sign. I don't know how old that pic is, but a lot of the button copy signs that I see are showing their age.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on November 28, 2018, 04:11:23 PM
Quote from: jon daly on November 28, 2018, 04:08:52 PM
That's a pretty good looking sign. I don't know how old that pic is, but a lot of the button copy signs that I see are showing their age.
I took it in 2016 I think.  The button copy still reflected at night, the shield wasn't as bright but you could make it out.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on November 28, 2018, 04:18:39 PM
I have seen a couple of these boxes lately in Berlin, CT. They all say CONNDOT with a handwritten phone number on it. I don't think it's for traffic counting, since that would have two thin tubes attached and laid across the road.  :hmmm:

(https://i.postimg.cc/ZBFB6jTd/1128181136-2.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/ZBFB6jTd)

This one was under the Amtrak/CT Rail bridge on Farmington Avenue (CT Route 372).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on November 28, 2018, 09:54:35 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on November 28, 2018, 04:18:39 PM
I have seen a couple of these boxes lately in Berlin, CT. They all say CONNDOT with a handwritten phone number on it. I don't think it's for traffic counting, since that would have two thin tubes attached and laid across the road.  :hmmm:

(https://i.postimg.cc/ZBFB6jTd/1128181136-2.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/ZBFB6jTd)

This one was under the Amtrak/CT Rail bridge on Farmington Avenue (CT Route 372).
Did you look up? They could be counting via image or radar.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on November 29, 2018, 04:22:34 AM
Quote from: Alps on November 28, 2018, 09:54:35 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on November 28, 2018, 04:18:39 PM
I have seen a couple of these boxes lately in Berlin, CT. They all say CONNDOT with a handwritten phone number on it. I don't think it's for traffic counting, since that would have two thin tubes attached and laid across the road.  :hmmm:

(https://i.postimg.cc/ZBFB6jTd/1128181136-2.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/ZBFB6jTd)

This one was under the Amtrak/CT Rail bridge on Farmington Avenue (CT Route 372).
Did you look up? They could be counting via image or radar.
I'm going to guess it's one of those devices that scans license plates and checks for unpaid tickets or expired/suspended registrations. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on November 29, 2018, 07:03:00 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on November 29, 2018, 04:22:34 AM
I'm going to guess it's one of those devices that scans license plates and checks for unpaid tickets or expired/suspended registrations. 

Is it a sealed case, or is there some aperture?

(From the picture, it looks like a Pelican Case that's been attached to a sign post.  Discovering whether there are any openings or cables would give some sort of a clue to its function.)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on November 29, 2018, 02:21:20 PM
@ALPS: No, there was nothing else next to or above that box. There were two other ones I went by: south end of New Britain Road (CT Route 71) and Deming Road, just west of the Berlin Turnpike (US 5/CT 15). It definitely said CONNDOT on it. None of them were there before Thanksgiving.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on November 29, 2018, 02:22:14 PM
I-95 web cams in Groton confirm the new signage is in place on the Gold Star Bridge, or at least the easternmost signs/gantry.  I'm assuming the others on the bridge were replaced SB.  This simplifies the Exit 83 signage to just "1 / Frontage Rds" and breaks down Exit 84S-N-E into "32 Norwich / New London / Hodges Sq".  I'll try to get some photos in the next week or so.  NB signs on the bridge won't be replaced until that span is reconstructed in a much more lengthy project than the SB span took.

Also, the I-84 web cams in the New Britain/Plainville area are STILL showing the old gantries for Exit 36/Slater Rd still up, either in front of or behind the new gantries.  Not sure what's the hold-up there.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: wytout on November 29, 2018, 03:56:05 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on November 29, 2018, 04:22:34 AM
Quote from: Alps on November 28, 2018, 09:54:35 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on November 28, 2018, 04:18:39 PM
I have seen a couple of these boxes lately in Berlin, CT. They all say CONNDOT with a handwritten phone number on it. I don't think it's for traffic counting, since that would have two thin tubes attached and laid across the road.  :hmmm:

(https://i.postimg.cc/ZBFB6jTd/1128181136-2.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/ZBFB6jTd)

This one was under the Amtrak/CT Rail bridge on Farmington Avenue (CT Route 372).
Did you look up? They could be counting via image or radar.
I'm going to guess it's one of those devices that scans license plates and checks for unpaid tickets or expired/suspended registrations. 

Not sure ConnDOT would maintain equipment for the purpose of scanning plates for expired reg/ticket purposes etc. It's really not the dot's jurisdiction or concern. More of a dmv or state/local police usage. More likely traffic count/ speed assessment for data gathering planning/engineering purposes.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on December 01, 2018, 05:36:49 PM
As promised, the new signs on the Gold Star Bridge:

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4902/45223763895_f597f118da_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2bUgBra)DSC01608 (https://flic.kr/p/2bUgBra) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4854/46134973491_a1f2f2b07b_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2dhMNir)DSC01611 (https://flic.kr/p/2dhMNir) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

The overheads were the only signs along the SB span that were replaced.  Secondary signage including I-95 reassurance shields, speed limits, and the New London City Line sign were not replaced, the latter still being button copy.


And on I-95 NB in Groton, some progress on the sign replacement:

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4874/45223764265_af1c06e0cc_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2bUgBxx)DSC01599 (https://flic.kr/p/2bUgBxx) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4866/46134974511_8d687213b0_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2dhMNB2)DSC01600 (https://flic.kr/p/2dhMNB2) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

No other new signs up for Exits 87 or 88, NB.  SB, no new signs observed for Exits 87 or 86. 

Here, at Exit 88, the former signs mounted to the I-95 overpass are gone, replaced with these ... including a 3DI-wide I-95 sign:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4816/45223763925_82d9822738_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2bUgBrF)DSC01601 (https://flic.kr/p/2bUgBrF) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: ipeters61 on December 01, 2018, 07:13:53 PM
Interesting choice of destination for CT-349, considering that it used to be just "Clarence B Sharp Highway."  Also interesting since Groton is the only non-consolidated city in Connecticut (for those who don't know, every other city in Connecticut is coexistent with its town, e.g. look at this "town line" sign for Hartford (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.731255,-72.7150159,3a,15y,72.03h,86.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srToRi9EhnAuANPDfyyn0Dw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jon daly on December 01, 2018, 07:28:20 PM
Quote from: ipeters61 on December 01, 2018, 07:13:53 PM
Interesting choice of destination for CT-349, considering that it used to be just "Clarence B Sharp Highway."  Also interesting since Groton is the only non-consolidated city in Connecticut (for those who don't know, every other city in Connecticut is coexistent with its town, e.g. look at this "town line" sign for Hartford (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.731255,-72.7150159,3a,15y,72.03h,86.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srToRi9EhnAuANPDfyyn0Dw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)).

I think that there are at least five police stations in Groton. One for Groton Town, one for Groton City, one for Groton Long Point, one for the shore patrol on the sub base, and one for Amtrak. UConn-Avery Point might have one, too.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on December 01, 2018, 07:51:59 PM
Yeah, I see the utter confusion of motorists setting in... especially when Exit 85's signs get replaced, they're probably going to say "1 North/Groton Waterfront/Downtown Groton", given a new auxillary sign for Exit 87 SB, which states the same "towns", in addition to what the BGSs will say (Groton City).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on December 02, 2018, 02:59:38 PM
Stonington as a control city? I probably would've used Warwick and Providence together.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: ipeters61 on December 02, 2018, 04:42:14 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on December 02, 2018, 02:59:38 PM
Stonington as a control city? I probably would've used Warwick and Providence together.
That Stonington sign is older button copy, so it probably goes back to an older time.  Though bear in mind that Mystic is technically in Stonington.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on December 02, 2018, 05:08:16 PM
The signs that the current project are replacing are mid-1980s vintage "Phase III" button copy.  I don't remember what the pull-thrus at Exit 87 stated before those signs were replaced, but I do remember Exit 87 was "349/Clarence B Sharp Hwy/Industrial Area" and Exit 88 was "117 North Road/Noank/Groton Long Point".  And southbound the Exit 88 signs added an I-95 shield to them, which I believe was some sort of business route/spur and was only posted SB.  I wished I had taken pictures back then, but that was in the early 80s-1985 timeframe. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on December 03, 2018, 12:17:32 AM
Quote from: ipeters61 on December 02, 2018, 04:42:14 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on December 02, 2018, 02:59:38 PM
Stonington as a control city? I probably would've used Warwick and Providence together.
That Stonington sign is older button copy, so it probably goes back to an older time.  Though bear in mind that Mystic is technically in Stonington.
I believe Mystic is partly in Groton and Stonington. The only boundaries in CT that really matter are the town lines which divide tax towns as the state calls them.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: DJ Particle on December 03, 2018, 02:46:50 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on November 18, 2018, 12:18:28 AM
People have to realize that tolls on tractor-trailers only will eventually be subsidized by the people of CT (and even beyond) in the form of higher market prices for goods.  The trucking industry is not just going to absorb the increase in transportation costs to get goods to market.  So it's a Catch-22 for the taxpayers: either pay the tolls on the roads, or pay them in retail establishments, or both X-(. Basically like asking whether you'd prefer a sharp stick in the eye, or under your fingernails.

Not to mention costs being passed down to the entire LI Sound/Narragansset Bay/Cape Cod Bay areas...as I-95 would still be the fastest way to get goods to those areas from points south.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jon daly on December 03, 2018, 10:02:58 AM
Quote from: connroadgeek on December 03, 2018, 12:17:32 AM
Quote from: ipeters61 on December 02, 2018, 04:42:14 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on December 02, 2018, 02:59:38 PM
Stonington as a control city? I probably would've used Warwick and Providence together.
That Stonington sign is older button copy, so it probably goes back to an older time.  Though bear in mind that Mystic is technically in Stonington.
I believe Mystic is partly in Groton and Stonington. The only boundaries in CT that really matter are the town lines which divide tax towns as the state calls them.

This is correct. The river is the border and the village is on both sides.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: ipeters61 on December 03, 2018, 11:55:04 AM
Quote from: connroadgeek on December 03, 2018, 12:17:32 AM
Quote from: ipeters61 on December 02, 2018, 04:42:14 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on December 02, 2018, 02:59:38 PM
Stonington as a control city? I probably would've used Warwick and Providence together.
That Stonington sign is older button copy, so it probably goes back to an older time.  Though bear in mind that Mystic is technically in Stonington.
I believe Mystic is partly in Groton and Stonington. The only boundaries in CT that really matter are the town lines which divide tax towns as the state calls them.
I am aware.  But isn't that Exit 87 sign already in Groton?  No point in using Groton as the control city for I-95 since it's already there.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on December 06, 2018, 11:11:20 AM
So what's going on with the state shields in the sign replacement project, and for that matter, overall with sign replacements?  The ones on the Groton side of the Gold Star have the black borders around them, and look like someone just took a reassurance shield and applied it to a BGS.  Meanwhile, the New London signage (specifically the CT 32 shield) does not have a black border, nor do the ones in the Southington-Farmington I-84 replacement project (btw, going on 5 1/2 months now since the new signage for Exit 36 EB was installed and the old signage is still there.  Plus, the overhead signage and enhanced mile markers have yet to be completed).  CTDOT is quite inconsistent with their looks.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: ipeters61 on December 06, 2018, 12:19:54 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on December 06, 2018, 11:11:20 AM
So what's going on with the state shields in the sign replacement project, and for that matter, overall with sign replacements?  The ones on the Groton side of the Gold Star have the black borders around them, and look like someone just took a reassurance shield and applied it to a BGS.  Meanwhile, the New London signage (specifically the CT 32 shield) does not have a black border, nor do the ones in the Southington-Farmington I-84 replacement project (btw, going on 5 1/2 months now since the new signage for Exit 36 EB was installed and the old signage is still there.  Plus, the overhead signage and enhanced mile markers have yet to be completed).  CTDOT is quite inconsistent with their looks.
If I remember correctly, when they did the I-395 sign replacement/renumbering, all the new signs had a black border, as well.  Maybe the black bordering was an experiment, but they ultimately decided against it?

For a while I didn't really like the lack of border on the non-button copy signs (I've always been partial to the shield outlines on the button copy, but it would look weird on a non-button copy sign, I feel), but I think I've seen some with rounded corners on the state shields and I like that a lot better.  The ones with the border just feel like the border is too thick.  I get that CT's shield just has the thick border with black on the fringes, but I think Massachusetts shields make for a better border for a BGS (with a thinner border and white fringes).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: southshore720 on December 06, 2018, 05:09:53 PM
Quote from: ipeters61 on December 06, 2018, 12:19:54 PM

If I remember correctly, when they did the I-395 sign replacement/renumbering, all the new signs had a black border, as well.  Maybe the black bordering was an experiment, but they ultimately decided against it?
I think it depends on the contractor.  I prefer the use of the black border because it is the accurate shield for the State of CT that distinguishes itself from MA and RI.  I'm also proud when they get it right on RI's BGS by adding the "R.I." onto the shield as that is the accurate shield for RI.  I cringe when the contractor cheapens out and sticks a plain MA shield on there for either CT or RI.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jon daly on December 06, 2018, 08:13:18 PM
Quote from: southshore720 on December 06, 2018, 05:09:53 PM
Quote from: ipeters61 on December 06, 2018, 12:19:54 PM

If I remember correctly, when they did the I-395 sign replacement/renumbering, all the new signs had a black border, as well.  Maybe the black bordering was an experiment, but they ultimately decided against it?
I think it depends on the contractor.  I prefer the use of the black border because it is the accurate shield for the State of CT that distinguishes itself from MA and RI.  I'm also proud when they get it right on RI's BGS by adding the "R.I." onto the shield as that is the accurate shield for RI.  I cringe when the contractor cheapens out and sticks a plain MA shield on there for either CT or RI.

I-95 southbound near the CT line has a BGS for CT exit 93 with RI-216 and RI-184 signs. Sure, you go a little south of there on 216 and you're in Ashaway, RI. But 184 never crosses the state line.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on December 06, 2018, 10:08:13 PM
SR shields with the thicker black outline (IIRC) are official ConnDOT spec signs.  Thin-border ones are contract errors, probably due to laziness on their part ("hmmm, we have some leftover MassDOT sheets left...")

No one would confuse a ConnDOT shield for a WVDOT shield.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: ipeters61 on December 06, 2018, 10:15:43 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on December 06, 2018, 10:08:13 PM
SR shields with the thicker black outline (IIRC) are official ConnDOT spec signs.  Thin-border ones are contract errors, probably due to laziness on their part ("hmmm, we have some leftover MassDOT sheets left...")
But isn't that what the standalone shields are supposed to be like?  Can't there be variation (especially regarding borders) on a BGS?  It appears that historically (pre-button copy outline), CT has used no border on a BGS. http://alpsroads.net/roads/ct/i-84/e2.html (note Exit 23 Exit Only signs and Exit 26 1/2 mile sign)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: roadman on December 07, 2018, 10:15:21 AM
Quote from: ipeters61 on December 06, 2018, 10:15:43 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on December 06, 2018, 10:08:13 PM
SR shields with the thicker black outline (IIRC) are official ConnDOT spec signs.  Thin-border ones are contract errors, probably due to laziness on their part ("hmmm, we have some leftover MassDOT sheets left...")
But isn't that what the standalone shields are supposed to be like?  Can't there be variation (especially regarding borders) on a BGS?  It appears that historically (pre-button copy outline), CT has used no border on a BGS. http://alpsroads.net/roads/ct/i-84/e2.html (note Exit 23 Exit Only signs and Exit 26 1/2 mile sign)

The "no border on a BGS shield" issue goes back to fabricators interpretation of the MUTCD.  Section 2E.27 of the 2009 MUTCD states:

QuoteGuidance:
Route signs (see Figure 2E-17) should be incorporated as cut-out shields or other distinctive shapes on large
directional guide signs.

Similar language has appeared in previous editions of the MUTCD, starting with the 1971 edition.  However, the phrase "cut-out" was not added until the 2000 MUTCD.

Because the black border on the CT shield is not inset, many fabricators would (and still do) omit it on shields for BGS panels to satisfy the MUTCD guidance.  MA shields on BGS panels were similar (no border) until the mid-1990s, when MassHighway directed all fabricators to include the border on these shields.  As the MA border is inset, including it on BGS shields does not contradict the MUTCD guidance.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: AMLNet49 on December 07, 2018, 11:45:44 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on December 06, 2018, 11:11:20 AM
So what's going on with the state shields in the sign replacement project, and for that matter, overall with sign replacements?  The ones on the Groton side of the Gold Star have the black borders around them, and look like someone just took a reassurance shield and applied it to a BGS.  Meanwhile, the New London signage (specifically the CT 32 shield) does not have a black border, nor do the ones in the Southington-Farmington I-84 replacement project (btw, going on 5 1/2 months now since the new signage for Exit 36 EB was installed and the old signage is still there.  Plus, the overhead signage and enhanced mile markers have yet to be completed).  CTDOT is quite inconsistent with their looks.

Neither design is the actual state design. However ConnDOT officially sanctions the thicker outline BGS plates (since 2009) because at least its closer. Before that it was just a white background with no outline, but any time new signs have no outline today it's contractor error.

Connecticut's state route shields are like Texas F&M roads: one design for the shield, separate design for the BGS plate, although again the newer BGS plates with the thick outlines are ConnDOT's attempt to get it as close as possible to the shield version.

That actually brings up a good point, how many states which don't use elongated interstate/US/SR shields carry this policy over to BGS plates too?  New Hampshire still doesn't use elongated standalone shields I believe, but I think they now do use elongated BGS plates for Interstates and US Routes. State routes though I think continue to use "squashed"  plates. I certainly remember back in the day NH having BGSs with narrow "squished"  BGS plates for I-293 or US 202.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Pete from Boston on December 08, 2018, 12:31:29 PM
What's going on with the disused I-291 ramps in Rocky Hill?  I briefly saw what looks like the beginnings of an elevated structure being erected along 91 southbound there today.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on December 08, 2018, 12:38:23 PM
Perhaps work related to the replacement of the Route 160 overpass there?  The overpass is where the I-91 NB ramp to I-291 WB began. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on December 08, 2018, 02:19:46 PM
I thought the beginning of that ramp or bridge was removed several years ago?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on December 08, 2018, 03:38:45 PM
The bridge being replaced is the Route 160/Elm St bridge, shown here:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6600456,-72.6699186,488m/data=!3m1!1e3

A portion of the Rt 160 bridge spanned the former ramp from I-91 NB to I-291 WB, as seen here
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6591906,-72.6698392,3a,75y,343.66h,70.47t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sH4pu70WVZDVdvGwmh7FKHA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

When I-91 was widened from 3 to 4 lanes through the area years ago, the "bridge" which carried I-91 SB over I-291 WB was filled in and all concrete patches of the ramps removed, EXCEPT what would have been the I-291 EB ramp to I-91 SB.  Since that time, the remaining concrete ramp there has been used as a staging area for various highway projects. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on December 08, 2018, 04:05:58 PM
Pan your linked image a wee bit north. Two old ramps become visible.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on December 08, 2018, 04:31:44 PM
Yup, and a little further north, the other half of the interchange, completely removed:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6706327,-72.6624563,438m/data=!3m1!1e3

Before the I-91 widening I described above, the far right lane of I-91 NB ended before Exit 23, and I-91 had 3 lanes up to the image linked in this post, where a 4th lane began on the left.  This would've served the I-291 EB to I-91 NB connection.  Southbound, there never was a direct ramp at Exit 25 so the 4th lane that is inherited there never existed.  Instead, a 4th lane appeared just before Exit 23, about where the overpass is being replaced and where I-291 EB would have met I-91 SB, on the ramp that still exists.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on December 08, 2018, 09:30:15 PM
Because it was built to accommodate the I-291 ghost ramps merging into the I-91 mainline beneath it, the Rt 160 overpass has a particularly long center span. IIRC, the Rt 160 overpass includes a pin-and-hanger assembly, which would be plenty enough reason to get that thing replaced as quickly as possible just to eliminate that fracture-critical component.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on December 08, 2018, 09:35:06 PM
Do we have a project start date for I-91 Exit 29 reconstruction?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on December 09, 2018, 10:07:31 AM
Bids are now due 1/9/2019 for the project, after being pushed back 3 times already.  So my guess is sometime in the spring, we should start seeing construction begin.  DOT has combined the Exit 29 project with a resurfacing/safety improvement project that goes south to the area of Exit 25 in Wethersfield. The actual Exit 29 project begins in vic. Exit 27 and continues north to just past present Exit 29.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on December 09, 2018, 02:08:18 PM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on December 07, 2018, 11:45:44 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on December 06, 2018, 11:11:20 AM
So what's going on with the state shields in the sign replacement project, and for that matter, overall with sign replacements?  The ones on the Groton side of the Gold Star have the black borders around them, and look like someone just took a reassurance shield and applied it to a BGS.  Meanwhile, the New London signage (specifically the CT 32 shield) does not have a black border, nor do the ones in the Southington-Farmington I-84 replacement project (btw, going on 5 1/2 months now since the new signage for Exit 36 EB was installed and the old signage is still there.  Plus, the overhead signage and enhanced mile markers have yet to be completed).  CTDOT is quite inconsistent with their looks.

Neither design is the actual state design. However ConnDOT officially sanctions the thicker outline BGS plates (since 2009) because at least its closer. Before that it was just a white background with no outline, but any time new signs have no outline today it's contractor error.

Connecticut's state route shields are like Texas F&M roads: one design for the shield, separate design for the BGS plate, although again the newer BGS plates with the thick outlines are ConnDOT's attempt to get it as close as possible to the shield version.

This slightly leaning sign in Berlin is fairly recent. It replaced a matching shield which got knocked down by a driver the winter before or so.

(https://thumbs2.imgbox.com/c7/34/Oh6yTFNe_t.jpg) (http://imgbox.com/Oh6yTFNe)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeCL on December 09, 2018, 06:23:54 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on October 24, 2018, 12:18:05 PM
Quote from: tckma on October 23, 2018, 05:08:33 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on October 23, 2018, 02:37:18 PM
Page 11 mentioned people want a direct expressway between I-84 and I-95.  Hmmm but if you read the media you'd think everyone is against it (Super 7).  It'll never be built, but people DO want it.

I-91 isn't?  CT-8 isn't? 

[edit] Oh, just noticed this is for Danbury.  What about I-684 in New York State?  It's not direct in that you need to jump over using I-287, but it's pretty close.

Oh man, I-684 is already congested as it it.  Ever try going from I-84 W to I-684 S on a weekday?  Always a one-mile backup for the ramp.  Plus, 684 is a longer route to I-95 than you think.  A compromise for US 7 would be to widen it to a Jersey freeway (50-55mph limit) and eliminate petty left turns.
God I remember I used to take that way man it's still hasn't changed I see..
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on December 10, 2018, 07:34:09 PM
Went hunting for a Christmas tree with my Dad, so I convinced him to take the Wilbur Cross so I could get some pics.  The afternoon sun glare contributed some unnecessary effects, but was able to get most signs from Meriden down to the Yale Bridge (CT 34), then returning back to the homestead via I-95.  It's amazing how many of the signs are deteriorating already... they were installed around the 2001 time frame.  So they're about 18 years old, give or take, and a lot of them seem to be falling apart. 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/

Next, weather and work schedule permitting, I plan to check on the I-84 sign replacement project in Southington-Farmington and the substantial completion of the widening in Waterbury.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on December 10, 2018, 10:54:23 PM
I find it odd how CT Route 34 traffic is now directed via Exit 44 at the West Haven town line. Why all the effort to make the big flyover ramp at Exit 47 in New Haven, only to downgrade the state highway it leads to?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on December 10, 2018, 11:50:47 PM
Don't think they have officially, but is CTDOT considering truncating CT 34 back to CT 10?  You would think the move would be in the cards with the signage mentioned above.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on December 11, 2018, 10:31:28 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on December 10, 2018, 10:54:23 PM
I find it odd how CT Route 34 traffic is now directed via Exit 44 at the West Haven town line. Why all the effort to make the big flyover ramp at Exit 47 in New Haven, only to downgrade the state highway it leads to?

Well for one thing, ConnDOT had no intention of removing the Oak Street Connector until the project that included upgrading that flyover was already under construction.

Even without the full connector though, downtown itself is enough of a destination to warrant a decently powerful ramp. The old configuration was a left exit for 95 NB traffic, which there are safety reasons for fixing... and with the 95/91 interchange getting (justifiably) rebuilt, something had to happen there.

Even if the interchange rebuild were planned with an Oak Street Connector removal in mind, the exit 47 ramps probably would have had basically the same thing done to them
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: AMLNet49 on December 11, 2018, 11:01:31 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on December 11, 2018, 10:31:28 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on December 10, 2018, 10:54:23 PM
I find it odd how CT Route 34 traffic is now directed via Exit 44 at the West Haven town line. Why all the effort to make the big flyover ramp at Exit 47 in New Haven, only to downgrade the state highway it leads to?

Well for one thing, ConnDOT had no intention of removing the Oak Street Connector until the project that included upgrading that flyover was already under construction.

Even without the full connector though, downtown itself is enough of a destination to warrant a decently powerful ramp. The old configuration was a left exit for 95 NB traffic, which there are safety reasons for fixing... and with the 95/91 interchange getting (justifiably) rebuilt, something had to happen there.

Even if the interchange rebuild were planned with an Oak Street Connector removal in mind, the exit 47 ramps probably would have had basically the same thing done to them

It's being put on the overpowered interchanged watch list
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on December 20, 2018, 10:30:38 AM
Looks like there's some potential bait & switch action taking place regarding proposed tolls with respect to the incoming Lamont Administration.

Lamont Transition Committee Recommends Gas Tax hike and Tolls on Cars and Trucks (https://www.wtnh.com/news/politics/lamont-transition-committee-recommends-gas-tax-hike-and-tolls-on-cars-and-trucks/1666837260)

Quote from: Opening Paragraph from News 8/WTNH linkTolls for all trucks and cars must be on the table as the new Lamont Administration takes over next month.  That's the conclusion of his transition transportation policy committee today.   It comes despite the fact that Lamont has said he only supports tolls on trucks.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on December 20, 2018, 04:16:21 PM
Shocking......NOT :eyebrow: :angry: :angry:   Did you really think CT drivers wouldn't get screwed any which way they could? No blood on my hands.

In other news, drove by the storage area for the I-84 Southington-Farmington signing project today between the bridges off Woodford Ave in Plainville on the 72 curve, and whole bunch of new signage lay on the ground, so we might finally see some movement after 6 months of absolutely nothing, including the removal of the 2 Slater Rd EB BGS's that still stand near the new signage already installed.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on December 20, 2018, 05:23:05 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on December 20, 2018, 04:16:21 PMShocking......NOT :eyebrow: :angry: :angry:   Did you really think CT drivers wouldn't get screwed any which way they could?
Two things:

1.  I'm assuming that above-question was rhetorical & not directed towards me per se.
2.  Since CT is a pass-through state; all drivers are getting screwed not just ones w/CT plates.

If one looks/scrolls through past pages on this thread; I have been one of the more outspoken critics of any plan that places tolls on CT highways.  The simple reason being that if they couldn't be trusted to utilize toll revenue effectively when they had such (1983 Mianus River Bridge Collapse along the CT Turnpike/I-95); what would be different today?

Additionally, I have also stated that if the gas tax revenue didn't get placed into a general fund where it would be subject to raiding for other non-road/transportation uses; more transportation revenue would be available without placing/charging tolls.  Given that a recent referendum that prohibits such raiding was recently passed (coincidentally if not ironically depending on one's point of view) on the same ballot that elected Lamont as governor; this proposed gas tax increase is likely a sneaky way to restore money to the so-called raiders of the gas-tax fueled general fund.  Lamont's transition team may have found a loophole in that referendum in that the current gas tax is subject to the "lock-box" restriction but not additional gas taxes placed on top of such.  Is such indeed true?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on December 20, 2018, 07:49:28 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 20, 2018, 05:23:05 PMAdditionally, I have also stated that if the gas tax revenue didn't get placed into a general fund where it would be subject to raiding for other non-road/transportation uses; more transportation revenue would be available without placing/charging tolls.  Given that a recent referendum that prohibits such raiding was recently passed (coincidentally if not ironically depending on one's point of view) on the same ballot that elected Lamont as governor; this proposed gas tax increase is likely a sneaky way to restore money to the so-called raiders of the gas-tax fueled general fund.  Lamont's transition team may have found a loophole in that referendum in that the current gas tax is subject to the "lock-box" restriction but not additional gas taxes placed on top of such.  Is such indeed true?

The amendment actually specifies that the Special Transportation Fund shall only be used for transportation purposes.  The amendment doesn't specify what revenues are supposed to go into the STF.

Funds that are supposed to go to the STF are leislatively described here:  https://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_243.htm#sec_13b-61   There's also a CGA Research document on the subject here: https://www.cga.ct.gov/2018/rpt/pdf/2018-R-0088.pdf

The second document suggests that all motor vehicle fuel taxes AND the gross earnings tax on fuel sales are supposed to go to the STF, so Lamont's folks would have to fabricate some kind of new tax (or change the existing law) to get that done.

However, if I follow that particularly ugly bit of legislative language...I'm not sure that the CGA Research folks are correct.   243-13b-61(a)(1) seems to say that only one cent of the fuel tax goes to the STF; the balance would go to the General Fund.  If that is the case, any increase to the fuel tax would go to the General Fund.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on December 21, 2018, 01:43:21 PM
Over the years, I've become of the opinion that everyone should just "get over it" when it comes to tolls.  The arguments for and against are tiresome. Let's see some actual highway and public transit improvements, please.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: roadman on December 21, 2018, 02:23:22 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on December 21, 2018, 01:43:21 PM
Over the years, I've become of the opinion that everyone should just "get over it" when it comes to tolls.  The arguments for and against are tiresome. Let's see some actual highway and public transit improvements, please.
I agree.  The focus of discussion should be on where the money is going, not how it is raised.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeCL on December 26, 2018, 07:56:23 AM
The ongoing bridge replacement in Stamford I-95 NB they took down the highway advisory transmitter so if you happen to listen at 1670 AM it's static now.

Also the state border 95 NB they put a VMS up on a concrete block looks to be fixed in place I'm not sure if it's temporary until they replace the gantry for the larger VMS.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on December 27, 2018, 06:16:12 PM
I-84 Hartford Project published a few alternatives for 84/91 interchange construction:
http://i84hartford.com/documents/newsletters/I-84%20Newsletter_Print_FINAL_English_ADA_121918.pdf

1. No-build (leave as is)
2. Modernize in-place: no left exits; additional ramps and widened Bulkeley Bridge
3. Southern tunnel across Hartford; 84 uses COB across river; CT 2 shifted eastward
4. I-84 realigned to the north; Bulkeley Bridge reverts to US 6/44 boulevard
5. I-91 uses COB to hop across river. New interchanges at 84/91 and 91/2/15.
6. John Larson's $50 billion double tunnel with new 84/91 interchange underground
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on December 27, 2018, 08:31:10 PM
Knowing CT, I'm guessing it will end up being modernize in-place, if anything happens at all.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: southshore720 on December 27, 2018, 08:36:17 PM
My stack of poker chips is going to "No Build (Leave As Is)," because it's Connecticut... I need not say any more.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on December 28, 2018, 12:18:24 AM
Quote from: kurumi on December 27, 2018, 06:16:12 PM
I-84 Hartford Project published a few alternatives for 84/91 interchange construction:
http://i84hartford.com/documents/newsletters/I-84%20Newsletter_Print_FINAL_English_ADA_121918.pdf (http://i84hartford.com/documents/newsletters/I-84%20Newsletter_Print_FINAL_English_ADA_121918.pdf)

1. No-build (leave as is)
2. Modernize in-place: no left exits; additional ramps and widened Bulkeley Bridge
3. Southern tunnel across Hartford; 84 uses COB across river; CT 2 shifted eastward
4. I-84 realigned to the north; Bulkeley Bridge reverts to US 6/44 boulevard
5. I-91 uses COB to hop across river. New interchanges at 84/91 and 91/2/15.
6. John Larson's $50 billion double tunnel with new 84/91 interchange underground
Concept 4 has been favored internally for awhile (not to mention has the most plaudits in the writeup), so if they have the money for it, that's the one that I expect to happen.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on December 28, 2018, 04:44:20 AM
Quote from: Alps on December 28, 2018, 12:18:24 AM
Quote from: kurumi on December 27, 2018, 06:16:12 PM
I-84 Hartford Project published a few alternatives for 84/91 interchange construction:
http://i84hartford.com/documents/newsletters/I-84%20Newsletter_Print_FINAL_English_ADA_121918.pdf (http://i84hartford.com/documents/newsletters/I-84%20Newsletter_Print_FINAL_English_ADA_121918.pdf)

1. No-build (leave as is)
2. Modernize in-place: no left exits; additional ramps and widened Bulkeley Bridge
3. Southern tunnel across Hartford; 84 uses COB across river; CT 2 shifted eastward
4. I-84 realigned to the north; Bulkeley Bridge reverts to US 6/44 boulevard
5. I-91 uses COB to hop across river. New interchanges at 84/91 and 91/2/15.
6. John Larson's $50 billion double tunnel with new 84/91 interchange underground
Concept 4 has been favored internally for awhile (not to mention has the most plaudits in the writeup), so if they have the money for it, that's the one that I expect to happen.
You get a new 3DIs out of it also. Old I-84 could become I-484.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: ipeters61 on December 28, 2018, 08:34:14 AM
Quote from: Alps on December 28, 2018, 12:18:24 AM
Quote from: kurumi on December 27, 2018, 06:16:12 PM
I-84 Hartford Project published a few alternatives for 84/91 interchange construction:
http://i84hartford.com/documents/newsletters/I-84%20Newsletter_Print_FINAL_English_ADA_121918.pdf (http://i84hartford.com/documents/newsletters/I-84%20Newsletter_Print_FINAL_English_ADA_121918.pdf)

1. No-build (leave as is)
2. Modernize in-place: no left exits; additional ramps and widened Bulkeley Bridge
3. Southern tunnel across Hartford; 84 uses COB across river; CT 2 shifted eastward
4. I-84 realigned to the north; Bulkeley Bridge reverts to US 6/44 boulevard
5. I-91 uses COB to hop across river. New interchanges at 84/91 and 91/2/15.
6. John Larson's $50 billion double tunnel with new 84/91 interchange underground
Concept 4 has been favored internally for awhile (not to mention has the most plaudits in the writeup), so if they have the money for it, that's the one that I expect to happen.
Would this mean that there would be a new bridge over the Connecticut River?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on December 28, 2018, 09:04:16 AM
Quote from: Alps on December 28, 2018, 12:18:24 AM
Concept 4 has been favored internally for awhile (not to mention has the most plaudits in the writeup), so if they have the money for it, that's the one that I expect to happen.

The financing element is why I would expect Concept 1 or Concept 2 to be what's actually chosen.  They'll continue to maintain the existing facilities until it becomes blatantly too expensive to do so...and then they'll do the minimum to address that problem.

I think they're probably on the right track with Concept 4, but I wonder about the price tag and I wonder about the wisdom of adding more curves to I-84.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kefkafloyd on December 28, 2018, 12:06:46 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on December 28, 2018, 04:44:20 AM

You get a new 3DIs out of it also. Old I-84 could become I-484.


The old route and the Bulkeley bridge would be converted to a local access boulevard in that scenario, not a 3DI.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on December 28, 2018, 03:31:38 PM
Quote from: kefkafloyd on December 28, 2018, 12:06:46 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on December 28, 2018, 04:44:20 AM
You get a new 3DIs out of it also. Old I-84 could become I-484.
The old route and the Bulkeley bridge would be converted to a local access boulevard in that scenario, not a 3DI.

So, perhaps it's time for sone of these in downtown Hartford?

(https://farm5.static.flickr.com/4515/26959829789_6ddd1ab427_m.jpg)

:D
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on December 28, 2018, 05:57:51 PM
Quote from: kefkafloyd on December 28, 2018, 12:06:46 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on December 28, 2018, 04:44:20 AM

You get a new 3DIs out of it also. Old I-84 could become I-484.


The old route and the Bulkeley bridge would be converted to a local access boulevard in that scenario, not a 3DI.
I honestly don't think it should.  I'd rather them cap out the rest of the section between I-91 and High St. and get some extra volume out of the bypass.  An urban park in that space would be cool to have.  The northbound flyover ramp and the I-91 S to I-84 E ramp could be taken down and Chapel St. could be two lanes eastbound over the Bulkley instead of one.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on December 30, 2018, 10:04:49 PM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on December 28, 2018, 09:04:16 AM
Quote from: Alps on December 28, 2018, 12:18:24 AM
Concept 4 has been favored internally for awhile (not to mention has the most plaudits in the writeup), so if they have the money for it, that's the one that I expect to happen.

The financing element is why I would expect Concept 1 or Concept 2 to be what's actually chosen.  They'll continue to maintain the existing facilities until it becomes blatantly too expensive to do so...and then they'll do the minimum to address that problem.

I think they're probably on the right track with Concept 4, but I wonder about the price tag and I wonder about the wisdom of adding more curves to I-84.

I dunno, I don't see the appeal of Concept 4. You're not only adding curves to I-84, you're making it longer, so even if traffic continues flowing at the same speeds you're increasing travel times.

Meanwhile this allows a few blocks' worth of I-84 immediately adjacent to downtown to be removed, but at the expense of creating new neighborhood disruption to the north... and part of the section which could be removed already has a cap on it.

Seems to me the degree to which this concept is actually a net improvement is overstated.


Concept 5 looks more worthwhile in terms of improving downtown Hartford while also keeping traffic flowing along smooth paths. The report claims "impacts to East Hartford would be considerable" but the realigned I-91 in this concept would involve less new ROW than the realigned I-84 in Concept 4...

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on December 30, 2018, 10:17:15 PM
Why isn't building I's 284 and 484 in the cards?

Do that and also build a Jennings Rd. bridge over the river and send US 44 over that. Beef up Prospect St. to connect to it
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on December 30, 2018, 10:50:26 PM
How about my option #7:  Construct I-291 from Farmington to Windsor for all thru traffic.  Existing I-84 would be downgraded to a surface route/boulevard from Sisson Ave to East Hartford.  As part of the plan, the existing I-91/I-291 interchange would be rebuilt to include all movements between the two interstates.  The Bissel Bridge would be widened and existing I-291 from I-91 to I-84 would be widened.  Straight-line the east end of I-291 to enter existing I-84 at Buckland Street.  Potential straight-line I-84 at present CT 4/Exit 38. 

Odds of happening:  1 in 1 billion (or so).  But still, too bad it wasn't an option.  If I-291 had been built when it was intended, it could have served as a good alternate route to thru traffic, and also to mitigate traffic delays during construction of a new route, the replacing of the Aetna viaduct, etc. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on December 30, 2018, 11:54:42 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on December 30, 2018, 10:04:49 PM
I dunno, I don't see the appeal of Concept 4. You're not only adding curves to I-84, you're making it longer, so even if traffic continues flowing at the same speeds you're increasing travel times.

Meanwhile this allows a few blocks' worth of I-84 immediately adjacent to downtown to be removed, but at the expense of creating new neighborhood disruption to the north... and part of the section which could be removed already has a cap on it.

Seems to me the degree to which this concept is actually a net improvement is overstated.


Concept 5 looks more worthwhile in terms of improving downtown Hartford while also keeping traffic flowing along smooth paths. The report claims "impacts to East Hartford would be considerable" but the realigned I-91 in this concept would involve less new ROW than the realigned I-84 in Concept 4...

One of the less-than-obvious bits of Concept 4 is that the realigned 84 would generally follow an existing rail corridor.  The neighborhood disruption that would be created by realigning 84 has, in one sense, already happened.  You also pick up a new bridge across the river, and give the city a few more options to redevelop the wasteland north of downtown.

Concept 5...you're just shifting I-91 across the river, and replacing the existing mess of the 84/91 interchange with an addition to the mess in East Hartford.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on December 31, 2018, 12:55:50 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on December 30, 2018, 10:50:26 PM
How about my option #7:  Construct I-291 from Farmington to Windsor for all thru traffic.  Existing I-84 would be downgraded to a surface route/boulevard from Sisson Ave to East Hartford.  As part of the plan, the existing I-91/I-291 interchange would be rebuilt to include all movements between the two interstates.  The Bissel Bridge would be widened and existing I-291 from I-91 to I-84 would be widened.  Straight-line the east end of I-291 to enter existing I-84 at Buckland Street.  Potential straight-line I-84 at present CT 4/Exit 38. 

Odds of happening:  1 in 1 billion (or so).  But still, too bad it wasn't an option.  If I-291 had been built when it was intended, it could have served as a good alternate route to thru traffic, and also to mitigate traffic delays during construction of a new route, the replacing of the Aetna viaduct, etc.

Completing I-291 fron I-91 to the I-84/Route 9 stack interchange would go over like a lead brick. That section was cancelled in the 1970s because it would have cut through the reservoirs that supply the region with its drinking water. The courts blocked the northwest leg of I-291 from being built for that reason, and there is no feasible alternative that avoids the reservoirs without taking a lot of existing development.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on December 31, 2018, 01:11:10 PM
I'm guessing the main appeal of option 4 isn't anything related to making traffic flow better but rather providing an additional option for pedestrians and cyclists to cross the river.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on December 31, 2018, 05:57:26 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 31, 2018, 01:11:10 PM
I'm guessing the main appeal of option 4 isn't anything related to making traffic flow better but rather providing an additional option for pedestrians and cyclists to cross the river.

While that is mentioned in the document, the Founders Bridge (CT 2) is already a viable pedestrian/bike crossing.

The big attraction for #4 is the development opportunity from removing I-84 as a perceived barrier to integrating the near-wasteland north of 84 to downtown, without having the expense or ancillary headaches from putting 84 underground.

I still think that while the urban planners want 4, the state is going to go with option 1 or 2.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kefkafloyd on January 01, 2019, 09:45:06 PM
Rerouting 84 will also allow them to cap off I-91 in that area and eliminate all that complex ramps and such from the current 91/84 interchange. Making a larger (but simpler to maintain) interchange north of downtown is a big part of it. Not just the wasteland north of 84 but the actual riverfront area would get a big boost from 4.

In terms of a cost/benefit ratio 4 is the absolute winner, but it remains to be seen whether it'll get built.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on January 02, 2019, 09:16:17 AM
Quote from: roadman on December 21, 2018, 02:23:22 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on December 21, 2018, 01:43:21 PM
Over the years, I've become of the opinion that everyone should just "get over it" when it comes to tolls.  The arguments for and against are tiresome. Let's see some actual highway and public transit improvements, please.
I agree.  The focus of discussion should be on where the money is going, not how it is raised.
I would suggest asking the CT politicians regarding what/which projects would funded by this "new" revenue.  They're the ones that are talking more about tolls and/or raising gas prices rather than the actual projects themselves.  Given CT's past history regarding how previous revenue has been spent/allocated; the fore-mentioned arguments regarding tolls & taxes are warranted regardless of how repetitive it seems.

Simply put: if you give your kids school lunch money and they spend it on something else instead (for sake of argument, let's assume the diverted spending was not for a necessary item); are you going to give them additional money to compensate for such?  I don't think so.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Ben114 on January 02, 2019, 09:36:36 AM
With option 4, the former 84 could be an extension of CT 15.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: DJStephens on January 02, 2019, 02:15:46 PM
Quote from: kurumi on December 27, 2018, 06:16:12 PM
I-84 Hartford Project published a few alternatives for 84/91 interchange construction:
http://i84hartford.com/documents/newsletters/I-84%20Newsletter_Print_FINAL_English_ADA_121918.pdf

1. No-build (leave as is)
2. Modernize in-place: no left exits; additional ramps and widened Bulkeley Bridge
3. Southern tunnel across Hartford; 84 uses COB across river; CT 2 shifted eastward
4. I-84 realigned to the north; Bulkeley Bridge reverts to US 6/44 boulevard
5. I-91 uses COB to hop across river. New interchanges at 84/91 and 91/2/15.
6. John Larson's $50 billion double tunnel with new 84/91 interchange underground

What about trench in place?  Recall there was a section - downtown that was already depressed / and or decked over.   Seems possible? that depressed/cut and cover alignment could be extended to the W.  Maybe no room?, or more possibly - political climate to reroute alongside while trench is dug.   
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on January 02, 2019, 02:53:14 PM
Option 7: build every planned secondary Interstate and SR and you wouldn't have had this problem to begin with.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Ben114 on January 02, 2019, 03:00:20 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on January 02, 2019, 02:53:14 PM
Option 7: build every planned secondary Interstate and SR and you wouldn't have had this problem to begin with.
Let's try and get I-184 to Providence.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on January 02, 2019, 06:35:43 PM
Quote from: Ben114 on January 02, 2019, 03:00:20 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on January 02, 2019, 02:53:14 PM
Option 7: build every planned secondary Interstate and SR and you wouldn't have had this problem to begin with.
Let's try and get I-184 to Providence.


I'd make it an eastern I-82, which would start at the I-84/I-691 junction, take over I-691 and follow the formerly proposed CT 66 expressway to Willimantic and take the old I-84 to Providence path.  It would then take over I-195 and MA 25, with a new section to end at the US 6/MA 3 junction near the Sagamore Bridge.  I-384 would be extended to meet it near the Columbia/Mansfield line.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: AMLNet49 on January 02, 2019, 07:24:38 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on January 02, 2019, 06:35:43 PM
Quote from: Ben114 on January 02, 2019, 03:00:20 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on January 02, 2019, 02:53:14 PM
Option 7: build every planned secondary Interstate and SR and you wouldn't have had this problem to begin with.
Let's try and get I-184 to Providence.

I'd make it an eastern I-82, which would start at the I-84/I-691 junction, take over I-691 and follow the formerly proposed CT 66 expressway to Willimantic and take the old I-84 to Providence path.  It would then take over I-195 and MA 25, with a new section to end at the US 6/MA 3 junction near the Sagamore Bridge.  I-384 would be extended to meet it near the Columbia/Mansfield line.
Yea let's add another confusing double interstate to the bunch we already have. And others (69 and 74) that are effectively that way. Same line of thought that got us a southern I-87 and could be getting us a "western"  I-66. These segments are much closer together than any of the original double interstates.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Roadsguy on January 02, 2019, 09:26:52 PM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on January 02, 2019, 07:24:38 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on January 02, 2019, 06:35:43 PM
Quote from: Ben114 on January 02, 2019, 03:00:20 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on January 02, 2019, 02:53:14 PM
Option 7: build every planned secondary Interstate and SR and you wouldn't have had this problem to begin with.
Let's try and get I-184 to Providence.

I'd make it an eastern I-82, which would start at the I-84/I-691 junction, take over I-691 and follow the formerly proposed CT 66 expressway to Willimantic and take the old I-84 to Providence path.  It would then take over I-195 and MA 25, with a new section to end at the US 6/MA 3 junction near the Sagamore Bridge.  I-384 would be extended to meet it near the Columbia/Mansfield line.
Yea let's add another confusing double interstate to the bunch we already have. And others (69 and 74) that are effectively that way. Same line of thought that got us a southern I-87 and could be getting us a "western"  I-66. These segments are much closer together than any of the original double interstates.

Except this second I-82 is more than 2000 miles from the existing one, which is already a shorter and less important Interstate like this one will be. I definitely agree that the southern I-87 is a stupid number when not only would an east-west number make more sense, but there are loads of unused even numbers between 40 and 64 to use there.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on January 02, 2019, 09:37:21 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on January 02, 2019, 09:26:52 PM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on January 02, 2019, 07:24:38 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on January 02, 2019, 06:35:43 PM
Quote from: Ben114 on January 02, 2019, 03:00:20 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on January 02, 2019, 02:53:14 PM
Option 7: build every planned secondary Interstate and SR and you wouldn't have had this problem to begin with.
Let's try and get I-184 to Providence.

I'd make it an eastern I-82, which would start at the I-84/I-691 junction, take over I-691 and follow the formerly proposed CT 66 expressway to Willimantic and take the old I-84 to Providence path.  It would then take over I-195 and MA 25, with a new section to end at the US 6/MA 3 junction near the Sagamore Bridge.  I-384 would be extended to meet it near the Columbia/Mansfield line.
Yea let's add another confusing double interstate to the bunch we already have. And others (69 and 74) that are effectively that way. Same line of thought that got us a southern I-87 and could be getting us a "western"  I-66. These segments are much closer together than any of the original double interstates.

Except this second I-82 is more than 2000 miles from the existing one, which is already a shorter and less important Interstate like this one will be. I definitely agree that the southern I-87 is a stupid number when not only would an east-west number make more sense, but there are loads of unused even numbers between 40 and 64 to use there.

This would give an incentive to switch the western I-82 to an odd north-south interstate like it should be (I-7, I-9, or I-13).  This one would be a little under 140 miles (67 in CT, 27 in RI, and 54 in MA), which makes it longer than quite a few 2DI's.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on January 02, 2019, 11:14:18 PM
This is an incentive to stop straying into Fictional, non-Connecticut territory.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on January 02, 2019, 11:20:43 PM
Quote from: DJStephens on January 02, 2019, 02:15:46 PM
What about trench in place?  Recall there was a section - downtown that was already depressed / and or decked over.   Seems possible? that depressed/cut and cover alignment could be extended to the W.  Maybe no room?, or more possibly - political climate to reroute alongside while trench is dug.

In an earlier incarnation of the big project plan, they examined different variations of maintaining the same/similar alignment, including a tunnel-in-place.   The tunnel was rejected, mostly due to cost; while there was local appeal to getting 84 out of sight, the details of how to handle the magnitude of traffic originating from / destined to downtown Hartford were a problem.  (It's a problem for all of the current concepts, tbh).  Also, I recall that most of the viable same-alignment options involved significant impacts to Union Station and/or the busway.

If there were the political appetite for the expense of a tunnel, concepts 3 and 6 are probably the better underground options.  They'd cost more, but probably not a huge amount more than tunnel-in-place, and they'd open the door to less disruptive answers to the questions of how to handle traffic during construction, how to reduce/avoid the complication of tunneling around the (buried) Park River, etc.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: mroad860 on January 03, 2019, 06:43:32 PM
I think option 3 would be best, I've thought of an option 3-like idea before these options came out. The tunnel could short enough to just go under Trinity college to save costs. Outside of the tunnel, you can place an exit to the west, an exit or two to the east before the Charter Oak Bridge. Charter Oak Bridge could be widened to fit 10-12 lanes. Bulkeley Bridge could be turned into a boulevard type road. The current 84 viaduct could then be dismantled with no rush after the realignment is finished.

Positives: Construction could happen with little impact to current I-84 traffic. It would be a straight, direct route with less curves.  It would make it easier for ambulances to get to Hartford Hospital. Space where 84 was would be freed up.

Negative: Cost, issues with tunneling, many houses would be demolished.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: The Ghostbuster on January 03, 2019, 08:03:25 PM
I have a prediction: The DOT will pick an option. The locals will howl and protest the option picked. Nothing will be done, and the existing viaduct will stay up until it collapses.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on January 03, 2019, 08:08:34 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 03, 2019, 08:03:25 PM
I have a prediction: The DOT will pick an option. The locals will howl and protest the option picked. Nothing will be done, and the existing viaduct will stay up until it collapses.
It's all such a stupid argument to begin with. DPT is full of smart engineers. You are not one of them. Take their advice.

And I'll say it again, the same NIMBYS who stopped the freeway boom are the same ones who constantly complain about traffic.  Get over it.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: ipeters61 on January 03, 2019, 09:39:29 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on January 03, 2019, 08:08:34 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 03, 2019, 08:03:25 PM
I have a prediction: The DOT will pick an option. The locals will howl and protest the option picked. Nothing will be done, and the existing viaduct will stay up until it collapses.
It's all such a stupid argument to begin with. DPT is full of smart engineers. You are not one of them. Take their advice.

And I'll say it again, the same NIMBYS who stopped the freeway boom are the same ones who constantly complain about traffic.  Get over it.
And the same ones who complain that roadway construction takes too long.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on January 03, 2019, 09:45:06 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 03, 2019, 08:03:25 PM
I have a prediction: The DOT will pick an option. The locals will howl and protest the option picked. Nothing will be done, and the existing viaduct will stay up until it collapses.

This does seem to be the  most likely outcome.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kefkafloyd on January 04, 2019, 06:28:46 PM
To be clear, these options are about replacing the I-91/I-84 interchange, not about what to do with the Aetna viaduct. They are two separate, concurrent projects. One can be completed without the other (though both need to be done).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on January 04, 2019, 06:36:35 PM
I couldn't readily find any pictures, so I will ask:

Did the original Charter Oak Bridge stand immediately north or south of the current one? I seem to think there was an off ramp from the COB South to I-91 North. Also...was CT Route 15 always intended to be the movement from I-91 North to I-84 East and vice versa?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on January 04, 2019, 06:50:52 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on January 04, 2019, 06:36:35 PM
I couldn't readily find any pictures, so I will ask:

Did the original Charter Oak Bridge stand immediately north or south of the current one? I seem to think there was an off ramp from the COB South to I-91 North. Also...was CT Route 15 always intended to be the movement from I-91 North to I-84 East and vice versa?
I would say CT 3 was intended to be the movement as part of... check me on the number, but that may have been I-491.


EDIT: http://www.kurumi.com/roads/ct/i491.html
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on January 04, 2019, 07:18:20 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on January 04, 2019, 06:36:35 PM
I couldn't readily find any pictures, so I will ask:

Did the original Charter Oak Bridge stand immediately north or south of the current one? I seem to think there was an off ramp from the COB South to I-91 North. Also...was CT Route 15 always intended to be the movement from I-91 North to I-84 East and vice versa?

The old bridge was located to the north of the current bridge.  Indeed, there was an exit from 15 South to 91 North, and I seem to recall a left exit (29) from 91 South to the bridge. There also used to be ramps from 91 North to the Founders Bridge, as well as a ramp from the Founders Bridge WB to 91 SB.  The COB replaced these movements.  I-84 WB signage for Exit 54 used to say I-91 South/Downtown Hartford.  Even made it into a music video (look about a second in).

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on January 04, 2019, 08:52:50 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on January 04, 2019, 06:36:35 PM
I couldn't readily find any pictures, so I will ask:

Did the original Charter Oak Bridge stand immediately north or south of the current one? I seem to think there was an off ramp from the COB South to I-91 North. Also...was CT Route 15 always intended to be the movement from I-91 North to I-84 East and vice versa?
Not sure. I always thought a truck ban for Exit 29 would cut down on the backups.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on January 04, 2019, 08:55:29 PM
Part of the removal of the movements 91NB->84EB and 84WB->91SB via the Founders Bridge was to allow access to the riverfront to be created, which was being spearheaded by Riverfront Recapture.  There was also a left exit from I-91 NB that lead to "State Street" but in reality led to Kinsley St.  That's what happened to missing I-91 NB exits 30 & 31. 

Yes, there was a ramp from 91SB to 15/COB NB.  It was a loop ramp, though I don't remember seeing signage for it, but it did exist.  One reason was that in the days before I-91, that interchange was a trumpet, with the primary roadway being CT 15.  I-91 did not exist south of there, and north of there was "Connecticut River Blvd", which later became part of the Conland-Whitehead Highway (and was signed CT 9).  So you had what is today's Whitehead Highway from Pulaski Circle, meeting present I-91 at Exit 29A, going past the Colt building, and ending at CT 15.  SB traffic at that point could either take the ramp to 15NB to reach points north or east, or take the ramp to 15SB, Then, CT 9/15 ran multiplexed down to Exit 85, where CT 9 ran south on what is now CT 99. 

With the completion of I-91 through Hartford and other connections available, there isn't much of a need for the 91SB->15NB ramp. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on January 05, 2019, 04:07:12 PM
Anyone see the new small "Welcome to Connecticut" signs? There's a new one on Rt 1 in Greenwich. They replaced the standard sign with a much smaller one that just says "Welcome to Connecticut" with no real design, and the governor plate is also smaller and now is just a picture of something that I couldn't make out as I passed it.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Ben114 on January 05, 2019, 04:14:16 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on January 05, 2019, 04:07:12 PM
Anyone see the new small "Welcome to Connecticut" signs? There's a new one on Rt 1 in Greenwich. They replaced the standard sign with a much smaller one that just says "Welcome to Connecticut" with no real design, and the governor plate is also smaller and now is just a picture of something that I couldn't make out as I passed it.
Sounds very basic. I'm a big fan of the very welcoming sign coming into CT on I-84 from Mass.

I also like CT's town line signage on their highways, much better than MA (at least MA's older ones, the newer ones are better).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: ipeters61 on January 05, 2019, 05:50:15 PM
Quote from: Ben114 on January 05, 2019, 04:14:16 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on January 05, 2019, 04:07:12 PM
Anyone see the new small "Welcome to Connecticut" signs? There's a new one on Rt 1 in Greenwich. They replaced the standard sign with a much smaller one that just says "Welcome to Connecticut" with no real design, and the governor plate is also smaller and now is just a picture of something that I couldn't make out as I passed it.
Sounds very basic. I'm a big fan of the very welcoming sign coming into CT on I-84 from Mass.

I also like CT's town line signage on their highways, much better than MA (at least MA's older ones, the newer ones are better).
Do they only have these smaller signs on non-expressways?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on January 05, 2019, 06:27:03 PM
Quote from: ipeters61 on January 05, 2019, 05:50:15 PM
Quote from: Ben114 on January 05, 2019, 04:14:16 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on January 05, 2019, 04:07:12 PM
Anyone see the new small "Welcome to Connecticut" signs? There's a new one on Rt 1 in Greenwich. They replaced the standard sign with a much smaller one that just says "Welcome to Connecticut" with no real design, and the governor plate is also smaller and now is just a picture of something that I couldn't make out as I passed it.
Sounds very basic. I'm a big fan of the very welcoming sign coming into CT on I-84 from Mass.

I also like CT's town line signage on their highways, much better than MA (at least MA's older ones, the newer ones are better).
Do they only have these smaller signs on non-expressways?
Probably not. Maybe they are only going to be used on local roads? The only one I've seen is the one on the post rd. in Greenwich coming in from Port Chester NY. Perhaps the old normal one that was there yesterday (I think) got mowed down in an accident and that was all they had to replace it? Time will tell. The new smaller one is like one of those brown signs with two lines of text (i.e. ROCKY NECK STATE PARK // NEXT RIGHT) except it's blue and says WELCOME TO // CONNECTICUT.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on January 05, 2019, 07:34:35 PM
Here's the new "Welcome" sign on I-95 SB coming from Rhode Island, installed Spring 2018:

(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1745/40604473080_3fb2b502fb_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/24S5xd5)95NB-CTstateline (https://flic.kr/p/24S5xd5) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: danthecatrafficlightfan on January 06, 2019, 02:27:39 AM
i found that in 2017 google streetview caught the wrrs mini bell crossing with the hand crank wishbone gates at the conneticut trolley museum in action!

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9299429,-72.5880126,3a,75y,195.81h,81.76t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPDdhqJ2gfNaM71E4qekw2A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on January 07, 2019, 07:22:47 PM
Took a little drive today to check a few things out:

On CT 8 in Torrington, CT 202 shields have been replaced with US 202 shields, a la NJ style:
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7900/46652417141_67647ea15d_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2e5vQgF)DSC08003 (https://flic.kr/p/2e5vQgF) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

On I-84 in Waterbury, the widening project is substantially complete:
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7808/31710843677_41da5e174d_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Qjbn36)DSC07983 (https://flic.kr/p/Qjbn36) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4808/45927621504_ba8ac9cc6b_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2cYt4Mb)DSC08039 (https://flic.kr/p/2cYt4Mb) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

But, alas, it's still status quo on the sign replacement project from Southington to Farmington...

(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7890/46599815452_62a3bd4990_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2dZSeC1)DSC08073 (https://flic.kr/p/2dZSeC1) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

Foundations for new sign supports were observed, but no supports installed yet.  ConnDOT web site now gives 2020 as a completion date.  Hopefully it won't take that long, but there's been little progress in the past 6 months, so...?

More photos from today's drive on my FLICKR (PRO!) page, link in sig.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Ben114 on January 07, 2019, 08:16:28 PM
I'm a fan of these new signs being installed around the state, but why are the exit tabs so wide? It could possibly be for mile post based numbers, but MassDOT has narrower tabs for their new signs.

Looking at shadyjay's photos, it looks like ConnDOT realized what their state route shield actually looks like, and also the pulled an NJDOT with the US route shields.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Magical Trevor on January 07, 2019, 09:08:27 PM
I'm a fan of the blue services icons being integrated with the mile advance signs. The big question is, what will those annoying temporary Speed Limits be replaced with? 65 to the mixmaster would be great.

The difference in "Exit Only" arrows in the above signs, erected in the same year, is bothersome. My only preference is for uniformity.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on January 07, 2019, 10:16:45 PM
To be honest, it looks a little odd to see the service symbols posted on overhead signs.  As before, if there was an overhead sign, the symbols were mounted on a ground sign.  The "first generation" service bar had the symbols on a blue background, now its whatever the primary sign color is.  The symbols themselves are still blue.

I would assume that the speed limit from the mixmaster, out to Exit 25A would become 55 MPH once the work zone speed limit is removed.  45 MPH is the current temporary limit, and not one vehicle I saw was going anywhere close to that speed. 

It also just dawned on me why the delay in the I-84 sign replacement project.... there is a highway illumination replacement project taking place in Farmington, from vic. Exit 37 to Exit 39A.  Within this area, existing lighting is being powered by above-ground cables, mounted lightpost to lightpost, one of which can be seen in the last of my 3 photos linked above.  It is possible this project is suspending any lifting of existing gantries or installation of new gantries due to "overhead wires".  I noticed new foundations for the final Exit 39A sign already installed, just waiting for a gantry.  Now this illumination project does not appear to be in place down in New Britain/Plainville, so the lack of progress in that area is unknown.  I'll continue to watch the web cams for any changes. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Magical Trevor on January 07, 2019, 10:41:00 PM
I do think the blue background of the "first generation" was a more consistent and cleaner appearance but unfortunately they've clearly made the decision to move away from that. Separate signs can sometimes be easier to actively look out for but at the same time it's more attention paid searching for another sign rather than keeping eyes on the road (and then one must make sure they keep track of which exit number the sign applies to).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on January 08, 2019, 03:27:03 PM
The 65 mile zones that were implemented earlier this year are from 25A to just before the 72 interchange, and then after the 72 interchange to 39A.  You won't see 65 through the city of Waterbury.  I agree that it will be 55 from just east of the Mixmaster once construction is complete, but I have a feeling the Mixmaster limit will remain 50. 

CTDOT needs to swap the 202 and 4 shields on the sign to be MUTCD compliant.  The US route usually comes first (ie goes on the left).  The NJ look is interesting, but it looks like more of a temporary fix.  Now, if only they'd fix the CT 6 signage on 84 between 39A and 43.

Some of the wider exit tabs would indeed be for future mile-based exits.  For example: the one for Crooked St (current Exit 34) would be to accompany the new number: 49B.  Then again, the wide one for 39A would actually need a diet, as it would become 55.  I didn't notice any wide tabs for 38 and 39 westbound, which would be 54A and 54B.  Also: I'm surprised they replaced the oblong BGS for Exit 39 WB that used to be on the unused bridge tha would have been the mainline carriageway of I-291 in-kind, and just slapped the new one on a four chord truss gantry.  I did see a couple of the piers have been installed in the Plainville area for new overhead gantries, but does a lighting project preclude them from removing the old signage for Exit 36 EB, where there are two instances of duplicate signage (old in front of new, and new on 4 chord truss in front of bridge mounted)? 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on January 08, 2019, 04:35:29 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on January 08, 2019, 03:27:03 PMI did see a couple of the piers have been installed in the Plainville area for new overhead gantries, but does a lighting project preclude them from removing the old signage for Exit 36 EB, where there are two instances of duplicate signage (old in front of new, and new on 4 chord truss in front of bridge mounted)? 

Honestly, I have no idea if the replacement of illumination, Exits 37-39A, has anything to do with the lack of progress on this sign replacement project.  I just happened to notice the temporary wires going to existing lighting, and a light bulb went off in my head.  I bet it has something else to do with either a contractor delay, shortage of supplies (ie - new gantries/supports?), or something else. 

I have noticed that the 2017 version of the state's spot overhead sign replacement project has not yielded any new signs in many of the sites.  While I haven't gotten a chance to view them all in the time I've been back in the state (only been by half of the sites), I have seen zero progress to the naked eye of the motorist traveling by at highway speed.

Seeing the slow motion progress of these projects makes me wonder how the Merritt Parkway or CT 8 sign projects are going, if at all.  Though if its anything, the Merritt project consists of mostly ground-mounted signs, so in theory, that should go quicker.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on January 08, 2019, 05:51:03 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on January 08, 2019, 04:35:29 PM

Seeing the slow motion progress of these projects makes me wonder how the Merritt Parkway or CT 8 sign projects are going, if at all.  Though if its anything, the Merritt project consists of mostly ground-mounted signs, so in theory, that should go quicker.

Same as nothing is going on.  The foundations for most signs on CT-8 are done except for a few and no progress.

The Merritt has a lot of new side sigange such as warning, regulatory, route shields.  Some new LGS town line signs with the "wood triangles on the border" are up (they are not extruded aluminum) BUTTTT they still have that awful font and is NOT highway gothic.  WTF

Only new foundations I see are for the US-7 button copy signs on the Merritt SB just before Exit 40A-B.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on January 08, 2019, 07:15:16 PM
Honestly, I've liked the distinctive style of the Merritt's signage.  When I first started traveling the Merritt in the late 90s, it had unique signage, with many route markers featuring the outline of the state.  Backroads onramp signage also was unique.  The mainline, however, was a hodgepodge of Phase II, III, and IV signage.  It was nice to see it get a (mostly) uniform look c 2000, except for Exits 39-40, 'cause the US 7 interchange completion "was real close".  Eighteen years later, no progress on that front!

Still a shame that they couldn't take this opportunity to fix the exit numbers and make it mile-based.  Boy, it would've been perfect.  But, alas... 

I am surprised that the FHWA is letting them use the unique font/design, given how everyone is MUTCD happy lately. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on January 09, 2019, 07:50:13 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on January 08, 2019, 04:35:29 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on January 08, 2019, 03:27:03 PMI did see a couple of the piers have been installed in the Plainville area for new overhead gantries, but does a lighting project preclude them from removing the old signage for Exit 36 EB, where there are two instances of duplicate signage (old in front of new, and new on 4 chord truss in front of bridge mounted)? 

Honestly, I have no idea if the replacement of illumination, Exits 37-39A, has anything to do with the lack of progress on this sign replacement project.  I just happened to notice the temporary wires going to existing lighting, and a light bulb went off in my head.  I bet it has something else to do with either a contractor delay, shortage of supplies (ie - new gantries/supports?), or something else. 

I have noticed that the 2017 version of the state's spot overhead sign replacement project has not yielded any new signs in many of the sites.  While I haven't gotten a chance to view them all in the time I've been back in the state (only been by half of the sites), I have seen zero progress to the naked eye of the motorist traveling by at highway speed.

Seeing the slow motion progress of these projects makes me wonder how the Merritt Parkway or CT 8 sign projects are going, if at all.  Though if its anything, the Merritt project consists of mostly ground-mounted signs, so in theory, that should go quicker.
Drove through there today.  The new light poles are going up EB.  They had made it from Exit 37 to about a quarter mile before Exit 39. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jon daly on January 09, 2019, 09:34:04 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on January 05, 2019, 07:34:35 PM
Here's the new "Welcome" sign on I-95 SB coming from Rhode Island, installed Spring 2018:





I drove by that on my way home from work tonight. Lamont's name is already on it.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on January 10, 2019, 07:06:38 AM
I wonder how much it's going to cost to change all of them at the RI, MA and NY borders? At least we don't have any of the big "Cuomo" signs here! :D
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: ipeters61 on January 10, 2019, 08:19:37 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on January 08, 2019, 03:27:03 PM
Also: I'm surprised they replaced the oblong BGS for Exit 39 WB that used to be on the unused bridge tha would have been the mainline carriageway of I-291 in-kind, and just slapped the new one on a four chord truss gantry.  I did see a couple of the piers have been installed in the Plainville area for new overhead gantries, but does a lighting project preclude them from removing the old signage for Exit 36 EB, where there are two instances of duplicate signage (old in front of new, and new on 4 chord truss in front of bridge mounted)?
I think I read something a while back that said that ConnDOT was averse to installing BGS's mounted on overpasses because it causes more wear to the bridge, so they'd prefer to either ground mount or mount signs on a separate gantry nowadays (sorry, I cannot remember the source).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on January 10, 2019, 09:09:06 AM
Quote from: ipeters61 on January 10, 2019, 08:19:37 AMI think I read something a while back that said that ConnDOT was averse to installing BGS's mounted on overpasses because it causes more wear to the bridge, so they'd prefer to either ground mount or mount signs on a separate gantry nowadays (sorry, I cannot remember the source).
ConnDOT's not the only agency that's moving away from overpass-mounted BGS'.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on January 10, 2019, 12:44:28 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 10, 2019, 09:09:06 AM
Quote from: ipeters61 on January 10, 2019, 08:19:37 AMI think I read something a while back that said that ConnDOT was averse to installing BGS's mounted on overpasses because it causes more wear to the bridge, so they'd prefer to either ground mount or mount signs on a separate gantry nowadays (sorry, I cannot remember the source).
ConnDOT's not the only agency that's moving away from overpass-mounted BGS'.
NJ Turnpike Authority has moved all of their new signs off of overpasses.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jon daly on January 10, 2019, 08:43:52 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on January 10, 2019, 07:06:38 AM
I wonder how much it's going to cost to change all of them at the RI, MA and NY borders? At least we don't have any of the big "Cuomo" signs here! :D

There's 6 signs on the interstates, 1 at BDL, 1 on the Merritt, and 10 (?) on US routes?, (I'm guessing.) Are there any other welcome signs that mention the governor?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: DJStephens on January 10, 2019, 09:40:40 PM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on January 03, 2019, 09:45:06 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 03, 2019, 08:03:25 PM
I have a prediction: The DOT will pick an option. The locals will howl and protest the option picked. Nothing will be done, and the existing viaduct will stay up until it collapses.

This does seem to be the  most likely outcome.

Just like Syracuse.   
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on January 10, 2019, 10:54:06 PM
Quote from: jon daly on January 10, 2019, 08:43:52 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on January 10, 2019, 07:06:38 AM
I wonder how much it's going to cost to change all of them at the RI, MA and NY borders? At least we don't have any of the big "Cuomo" signs here! :D

There's 6 signs on the interstates, 1 at BDL, 1 on the Merritt, and 10 (?) on US routes?, (I'm guessing.) Are there any other welcome signs that mention the governor?

In addition to the ones above; a look at GSV shows that CT 220, CT 159, CT 75, CT 8, CT 343, CT 116, CT 35, CT 137, CT 78, CT 165, CT 14, CT 101, CT 12, CT 131, CT 32, and CT 83 all have blue signage mentioning the governor.  Most are small; slightly larger than the standard town line sign.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jon daly on January 11, 2019, 06:24:27 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on January 10, 2019, 10:54:06 PM
Quote from: jon daly on January 10, 2019, 08:43:52 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on January 10, 2019, 07:06:38 AM
I wonder how much it's going to cost to change all of them at the RI, MA and NY borders? At least we don't have any of the big "Cuomo" signs here! :D

There's 6 signs on the interstates, 1 at BDL, 1 on the Merritt, and 10 (?) on US routes?, (I'm guessing.) Are there any other welcome signs that mention the governor?

In addition to the ones above; a look at GSV shows that CT 220, CT 159, CT 75, CT 8, CT 343, CT 116, CT 35, CT 137, CT 78, CT 165, CT 14, CT 101, CT 12, CT 131, CT 32, and CT 83 all have blue signage mentioning the governor.  Most are small; slightly larger than the standard town line sign.

Thanks. I wasn't sure if those routes had those signs.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jon daly on January 11, 2019, 07:42:59 PM
Quote from: ipeters61 on January 10, 2019, 08:19:37 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on January 08, 2019, 03:27:03 PM
Also: I'm surprised they replaced the oblong BGS for Exit 39 WB that used to be on the unused bridge tha would have been the mainline carriageway of I-291 in-kind, and just slapped the new one on a four chord truss gantry.  I did see a couple of the piers have been installed in the Plainville area for new overhead gantries, but does a lighting project preclude them from removing the old signage for Exit 36 EB, where there are two instances of duplicate signage (old in front of new, and new on 4 chord truss in front of bridge mounted)?
I think I read something a while back that said that ConnDOT was averse to installing BGS's mounted on overpasses because it causes more wear to the bridge, so they'd prefer to either ground mount or mount signs on a separate gantry nowadays (sorry, I cannot remember the source).

This explains why the BGS hanging off of the Pequot Trail overpass on I-95 S in Stonington was removed this week.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on January 13, 2019, 06:01:47 PM
Quote from: jon daly on January 11, 2019, 07:42:59 PM
Quote from: ipeters61 on January 10, 2019, 08:19:37 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on January 08, 2019, 03:27:03 PM
Also: I'm surprised they replaced the oblong BGS for Exit 39 WB that used to be on the unused bridge tha would have been the mainline carriageway of I-291 in-kind, and just slapped the new one on a four chord truss gantry.  I did see a couple of the piers have been installed in the Plainville area for new overhead gantries, but does a lighting project preclude them from removing the old signage for Exit 36 EB, where there are two instances of duplicate signage (old in front of new, and new on 4 chord truss in front of bridge mounted)?
I think I read something a while back that said that ConnDOT was averse to installing BGS's mounted on overpasses because it causes more wear to the bridge, so they'd prefer to either ground mount or mount signs on a separate gantry nowadays (sorry, I cannot remember the source).

This explains why the BGS hanging off of the Pequot Trail overpass on I-95 S in Stonington was removed this week.

Funny part is CT DOT recently installed about 5 new BGSs on the CT-8 overpass bridge over CT-34 in Derby.  Inconsistency strikes again.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on January 13, 2019, 06:11:39 PM
Also CT DOT is putting up the new logo service signs with ATTRACTIONS everywhere even inside interchanges.  The other service ones FOOD, GAS, LODGING, CAMPING have stricter rules for placement.  Is it b/c ATTRACTIONS have tourism dollars attached to it?

Overall, the standards have been updated for the logo service BBSs.....The newer service signs now have a horizontal line between the service/exit number and the logos.  All ATTRACTIONS have them.   There's a recent FOOD one on CT-8 for Exit 12 with the line. Any others that have the newer standard across the state?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jon daly on January 13, 2019, 08:25:17 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on January 13, 2019, 06:11:39 PM
Also CT DOT is putting up the new logo service signs with ATTRACTIONS everywhere even inside interchanges.  The other service ones FOOD, GAS, LODGING, CAMPING have stricter rules for placement.  Is it b/c ATTRACTIONS have tourism dollars attached to it?

Overall, the standards have been updated for the logo service BBSs.....The newer service signs now have a horizontal line between the service/exit number and the logos.  All ATTRACTIONS have them.   There's a recent FOOD one on CT-8 for Exit 12 with the line. Any others that have the newer standard across the state?

I see blank ATTRACTIONS sides on my rides through eastern Connecticut and assume my corner of the state is as boring as people say.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: zzyzx on January 13, 2019, 08:52:15 PM
Quote from: jon daly on January 13, 2019, 08:25:17 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on January 13, 2019, 06:11:39 PM
Also CT DOT is putting up the new logo service signs with ATTRACTIONS everywhere even inside interchanges.  The other service ones FOOD, GAS, LODGING, CAMPING have stricter rules for placement.  Is it b/c ATTRACTIONS have tourism dollars attached to it?

Overall, the standards have been updated for the logo service BBSs.....The newer service signs now have a horizontal line between the service/exit number and the logos.  All ATTRACTIONS have them.   There's a recent FOOD one on CT-8 for Exit 12 with the line. Any others that have the newer standard across the state?

I see blank ATTRACTIONS sides on my rides through eastern Connecticut and assume my corner of the state is as boring as people say.

Most of them along I-95 have been up since the summer and they're still blank:
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190114/1c93fff40b3ad5ddeebf41dc50a0e1e0.jpg)


iPhone
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on January 14, 2019, 03:51:56 PM
I like the horizontal line under the service/exit number.  I didn't see that in the MUTCD I don't think. Are there any other new ones like this with wider design and the horizontal line besides ATTRACTIONS up? (This is on CT-8)

(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7915/33055429688_929670264a_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/SmZHBw)

Are there any CAMPING signs up?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on January 15, 2019, 12:08:31 AM
I think it would be better if the "exit 12" part was moved to a blue exit tab. Same for those attractions signs where the exit number feels like it's squeezed in and barely fits.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: ipeters61 on January 15, 2019, 08:08:29 AM
Quote from: connroadgeek on January 15, 2019, 12:08:31 AM
I think it would be better if the "exit 12" part was moved to a blue exit tab. Same for those attractions signs where the exit number feels like it's squeezed in and barely fits.
Delaware has some interesting signs for attractions/services:

DE-1 Exit 91 (attractions): https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0968439,-75.4550266,3a,75y,13.04h,89.1t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1siVY1lnVvt-jnL348KHEoiw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

DE-1 Exit 95 (lodging, attractions): https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1250602,-75.4862418,3a,18y,338.79h,91.07t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1szNR96Sa16AQ6qThkVHqgvA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on January 18, 2019, 02:10:01 AM
In December 2018, ConnDOT announced the opening of a "new" ramp at I-84 exit 43 (SR 501, Park Road, West Hartford). Buh?

I found a diagram here: https://www.westhartfordct.gov/gov/departments/engineering/park_road_i_84_project/project_overview.asp

It's similar to the treatment of the east end of SR 597 in Southington -- moving the exit ramp terminus closer to the entrance, to improve traffic operations and admit to yourself that no, you're not going to extend that freeway as once planned long ago. At SR 501, there's still some pavement hinting at how Park Road would have been the first interchange on the short freeway leading to West Hartford Center.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jon daly on January 18, 2019, 08:14:47 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on January 13, 2019, 06:01:47 PM
Quote from: jon daly on January 11, 2019, 07:42:59 PM
Quote from: ipeters61 on January 10, 2019, 08:19:37 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on January 08, 2019, 03:27:03 PM
Also: I'm surprised they replaced the oblong BGS for Exit 39 WB that used to be on the unused bridge tha would have been the mainline carriageway of I-291 in-kind, and just slapped the new one on a four chord truss gantry.  I did see a couple of the piers have been installed in the Plainville area for new overhead gantries, but does a lighting project preclude them from removing the old signage for Exit 36 EB, where there are two instances of duplicate signage (old in front of new, and new on 4 chord truss in front of bridge mounted)?
I think I read something a while back that said that ConnDOT was averse to installing BGS's mounted on overpasses because it causes more wear to the bridge, so they'd prefer to either ground mount or mount signs on a separate gantry nowadays (sorry, I cannot remember the source).

This explains why the BGS hanging off of the Pequot Trail overpass on I-95 S in Stonington was removed this week.

Funny part is CT DOT recently installed about 5 new BGSs on the CT-8 overpass bridge over CT-34 in Derby.  Inconsistency strikes again.

IANAE, so I have no idea how much stress those signs put on bridges, but is this much ado about nothing?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on January 18, 2019, 08:53:23 PM
Quote from: jon daly on January 18, 2019, 08:14:47 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on January 13, 2019, 06:01:47 PM
Quote from: jon daly on January 11, 2019, 07:42:59 PM
Quote from: ipeters61 on January 10, 2019, 08:19:37 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on January 08, 2019, 03:27:03 PM
Also: I'm surprised they replaced the oblong BGS for Exit 39 WB that used to be on the unused bridge tha would have been the mainline carriageway of I-291 in-kind, and just slapped the new one on a four chord truss gantry.  I did see a couple of the piers have been installed in the Plainville area for new overhead gantries, but does a lighting project preclude them from removing the old signage for Exit 36 EB, where there are two instances of duplicate signage (old in front of new, and new on 4 chord truss in front of bridge mounted)?
I think I read something a while back that said that ConnDOT was averse to installing BGS's mounted on overpasses because it causes more wear to the bridge, so they'd prefer to either ground mount or mount signs on a separate gantry nowadays (sorry, I cannot remember the source).

This explains why the BGS hanging off of the Pequot Trail overpass on I-95 S in Stonington was removed this week.

Funny part is CT DOT recently installed about 5 new BGSs on the CT-8 overpass bridge over CT-34 in Derby.  Inconsistency strikes again.

IANAE, so I have no idea how much stress those signs put on bridges, but is this much ado about nothing?
Kinda sorta. It degrades bridge life but it's not like a sign is going to take down the bridge.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on January 18, 2019, 11:56:58 PM
Quote from: jon daly on January 18, 2019, 08:14:47 PM
IANAE, so I have no idea how much stress those signs put on bridges, but is this much ado about nothing?

The issue isn't stress on the structure directly, it's that vibrations of the sign will cause cracks in the concrete near where they're attached. This in turn gets moisture towards the rebar which leads to it corroding, and so forth.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeCL on January 23, 2019, 01:51:31 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on January 05, 2019, 04:07:12 PM
Anyone see the new small "Welcome to Connecticut" signs? There's a new one on Rt 1 in Greenwich. They replaced the standard sign with a much smaller one that just says "Welcome to Connecticut" with no real design, and the governor plate is also smaller and now is just a picture of something that I couldn't make out as I passed it.
Wow must be in the area lol that's the first thing i saw when i was trying to get to Pemberwick rd Did they change the whole sign?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeCL on January 23, 2019, 01:59:02 PM
Caught a picture of it while in slow traffic I hope this is just temporary.. are they going to replace it to a mast type sign?(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190123/ea2a61fd7ca0ab98d982313cbbc59d9d.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on January 26, 2019, 09:09:38 PM
Took a little drive today to the Big E.  No road photos, but found a couple goodies on street view showing some of the more interesting I-91 onramp signage north of Hartford I'd like to share. 

Jennings Rd to I-91 SB at Exit 33/Hartford: 
Help!  A tree is eating a guide sign!  It ate the one on the other side of the road... just a couple shields suffice.  Obviously, ConnDOT doesn't believe that well-visible signage in this area is important, even though the onramps see a heck of a lot of traffic during the summer, with the Meadows...errr...xFinity Theater 1/2 mile away.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7882189,-72.6600344,3a,50y,135.68h,83.23t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgboo-Nd1X1mQb1AnU4w5Lw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Kennedy Rd/Archer St to I-91 NB at Exit 39&41/Windsor: 
Potentially a candidate for the "worst of road signs".  Everything is patched/added, except the shield and "Springfield"...
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8905535,-72.6481321,3a,15y,139.24h,91.23t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skb5Oik3QlFTGcGnsqAsxVQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on January 28, 2019, 03:05:38 PM
Will the spring see an uptick in road sign projects finally getting off the ground? This one is in the current CT-8 sign replacement contract.  Nothing being done since last fall with new foundations going in.

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4539/37513839024_7cbd460c5e_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Z9Yeo1)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on January 28, 2019, 09:10:30 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on January 28, 2019, 03:05:38 PM
Will the spring see an uptick in road sign projects finally getting off the ground?

Let's hope so! 

So here's what we've got, either in progress or about to start:

I-84, Exits 29-39A, already in progress, est completion moved to 6/2020*
I-95, Exits 85-93, already in progress, est completion 3/2019* (I may get a field update for this project next weekend)
CT 8, Exits 15-30, already in progress
CT 8, Exits 1-14, to start in the spring?
CT-statewide, random, 2017, in past 2 weeks I've checked 9 of the 14 locations, with no work done yet.  No supports, signs, stakes, etc.
CT-statewide, random, 2018, to start in the spring?

*  estimated completions based off CT Travel Map construction project box on CT.GOV/DOT.  only two sign projects listed.


Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on January 28, 2019, 10:06:48 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on January 28, 2019, 09:10:30 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on January 28, 2019, 03:05:38 PM
Will the spring see an uptick in road sign projects finally getting off the ground?

Let's hope so! 

So here's what we've got, either in progress or about to start:

I-84, Exits 29-39A, already in progress, est completion moved to 6/2020*
I-95, Exits 85-93, already in progress, est completion 3/2019* (I may get a field update for this project next weekend)
CT 8, Exits 15-30, already in progress
CT 8, Exits 1-14, to start in the spring?
CT-statewide, random, 2017, in past 2 weeks I've checked 9 of the 14 locations, with no work done yet.  No supports, signs, stakes, etc.
CT-statewide, random, 2018, to start in the spring?

*  estimated completions based off CT Travel Map construction project box on CT.GOV/DOT.  only two sign projects listed.
Random spot improvements include replacement on I-84 from Exit 59 to 57.

Sign replacements as part of the I-91 Hartford resurfacing and the Exit 29 project (they are considered two distinct projects) will start sometime next year through 2022.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on January 29, 2019, 02:19:32 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on January 28, 2019, 10:06:48 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on January 28, 2019, 09:10:30 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on January 28, 2019, 03:05:38 PM
Will the spring see an uptick in road sign projects finally getting off the ground?

Let's hope so! 

So here's what we've got, either in progress or about to start:

I-84, Exits 29-39A, already in progress, est completion moved to 6/2020*
I-95, Exits 85-93, already in progress, est completion 3/2019* (I may get a field update for this project next weekend)
CT 8, Exits 15-30, already in progress
CT 8, Exits 1-14, to start in the spring?
CT-statewide, random, 2017, in past 2 weeks I've checked 9 of the 14 locations, with no work done yet.  No supports, signs, stakes, etc.
CT-statewide, random, 2018, to start in the spring?

*  estimated completions based off CT Travel Map construction project box on CT.GOV/DOT.  only two sign projects listed.
Random spot improvements include replacement on I-84 from Exit 59 to 57.

Sign replacements as part of the I-91 Hartford resurfacing and the Exit 29 project (they are considered two distinct projects) will start sometime next year through 2022.

and don't forget the CT-15 signing project from the state line to the Milford Connector.  All side signage is up and some foundations for the BGSs are in too, mostly around US-7.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Ben114 on January 29, 2019, 04:09:32 PM
Quote
and don't forget the CT-15 signing project from the state line to the Milford Connector.
finally those ugly LGS's around the state line area can go (assuming the project includes those)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeCL on February 04, 2019, 01:57:27 PM
Can't remember if it's been posted or not(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190204/077d988a5d74776a334a2055dca172bc.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on February 04, 2019, 04:42:01 PM
Quote from: Ben114 on January 29, 2019, 04:09:32 PM
Quote
and don't forget the CT-15 signing project from the state line to the Milford Connector.
finally those ugly LGS's around the state line area can go (assuming the project includes those)

The ones for Exit 27S on the state line?  Yup, those will be going.  But honestly, since the ramp is so abrupt and NY lacks any signage for that ramp (except a gore EXIT sign), the CT ramp (presently Exit 27N) should just be modified to service both directions of NY 120A and the NY ramp closed.  Same with the NB side. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on February 04, 2019, 05:51:18 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on February 04, 2019, 04:42:01 PM
Quote from: Ben114 on January 29, 2019, 04:09:32 PM
Quote
and don't forget the CT-15 signing project from the state line to the Milford Connector.
finally those ugly LGS's around the state line area can go (assuming the project includes those)

The ones for Exit 27S on the state line?  Yup, those will be going.  But honestly, since the ramp is so abrupt and NY lacks any signage for that ramp (except a gore EXIT sign), the CT ramp (presently Exit 27N) should just be modified to service both directions of NY 120A and the NY ramp closed.  Same with the NB side. 

New town line LGS ("Stratford Town Line") have went up with the "wood borders" but it still has that awful font. I hope when the BGS signs go up they have highway gothic like they did in the contract plans I saw.  Unless there has been a revision or something.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on February 04, 2019, 08:41:50 PM
Maybe someday they'll also get rid of the WC Parkway button copy and properly acknowledge that it is, indeed, the Wilbur Cross Parkway. Same goes for the Wilbur Cross Highway in Hartford/E. Hartford.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: AMLNet49 on February 05, 2019, 06:50:22 PM
I think it would be cool to have the entire length of Route 15 as a historic corridor with those faux-wooden signs all the way from the NYS state line to I-84, including surface versions developed for the Berlin Turnpike, with the Berlin Turnpike becoming signed as an Exit off of CT-15 at the south end of the overlap (the north end of the overlap is already signed as an exit from CT 15, albeit without an exit number).  This would unify the entire CT 15 corridor in its various forms.  I’d consider putting them on the Milford Parkway too but that’s not part of CT 15 despite being part of the same system, plus it just got new signage anyway. I’d also restore references to the Milford from US 1 and add them on I-95

As for the font, I wouldn’t mind if they kept the font they currently use (“Adobe… something”, the second word of the font’s name escapes me).  I remember when they first put up those signs with that font, it was right around the time that Clearview was first coming out, so we weren’t so familiar with the glyphs. At any rate, AA Roads had the Merritt listed as using Clearview for several years before it was corrected, we all just assumed it was Clearview when it first came out.

But if they are switching back to highway gothic, and hopefully extruding the signs this time, then there’s even more of a reason to apply them to the whole 15 corridor.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on February 05, 2019, 07:42:22 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on February 04, 2019, 08:41:50 PM
Maybe someday they'll also get rid of the WC Parkway button copy and properly acknowledge that it is, indeed, the Wilbur Cross Parkway. Same goes for the Wilbur Cross Highway in Hartford/E. Hartford.
Most of the button copy is gone from the Wilbur Cross.  Only spot you'll se it is in Milford around the connector.  Everything else from 56 north is Phase IV reflective signage.  There have been a couple of spot replacement signs on the 5/15 connector, including one NB that eliminates the reference to US 5. 

(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7869/46948308332_27339fd38d.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on February 05, 2019, 09:31:27 PM
Quote from: MikeCL on February 04, 2019, 01:57:27 PM
Can't remember if it's been posted or not(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190204/077d988a5d74776a334a2055dca172bc.jpg)
That one used to be a full sized welcome sign like you'd see on the highways. Not sure why it had to be replaced if there was no problem with it.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeCL on February 06, 2019, 02:10:28 AM
Quote from: connroadgeek on February 05, 2019, 09:31:27 PM
Quote from: MikeCL on February 04, 2019, 01:57:27 PM
Can't remember if it's been posted or not(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190204/077d988a5d74776a334a2055dca172bc.jpg)
That one used to be a full sized welcome sign like you'd see on the highways. Not sure why it had to be replaced if there was no problem with it.
I know I deliver for ups in the area so I noticed right away it changed not sure as well why it needed to be changed.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on February 06, 2019, 07:38:17 AM
Which roadway are we looking at here? I'll assume the driver was entering Greenwich?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeCL on February 06, 2019, 08:53:26 AM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on February 06, 2019, 07:38:17 AM
Which roadway are we looking at here? I'll assume the driver was entering Greenwich?
The Post Rd US 1 from Port Chester
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on February 06, 2019, 10:16:29 AM
I wonder if those smaller welcome signs are used in back country too, though now that I think of it, I don't think Connecticut signs the border on lesser roads like New York does. I don't think Connecticut has a welcome sign on NY-120A for example whereas NY does with full Westchester county line sign once it crosses into NY for good. On local roads crossing the state line it seems only NY signs their side, and there's no welcome sign on 684, just the non-standard ones telling you you're in another state for that one mile stretch.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: ipeters61 on February 06, 2019, 10:20:44 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on February 05, 2019, 07:42:22 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on February 04, 2019, 08:41:50 PM
Maybe someday they'll also get rid of the WC Parkway button copy and properly acknowledge that it is, indeed, the Wilbur Cross Parkway. Same goes for the Wilbur Cross Highway in Hartford/E. Hartford.
Most of the button copy is gone from the Wilbur Cross.  Only spot you'll se it is in Milford around the connector.  Everything else from 56 north is Phase IV reflective signage.  There have been a couple of spot replacement signs on the 5/15 connector, including one NB that eliminates the reference to US 5. 

(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7869/46948308332_27339fd38d.jpg)
Interesting lack of the use of "To" on the diagrammatic and the loss of the destinations for CT-15 North (East Hartford) and I-84 West (Waterbury).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on February 06, 2019, 01:59:00 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on February 05, 2019, 07:42:22 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on February 04, 2019, 08:41:50 PM
Maybe someday they'll also get rid of the WC Parkway button copy and properly acknowledge that it is, indeed, the Wilbur Cross Parkway. Same goes for the Wilbur Cross Highway in Hartford/E. Hartford.
Most of the button copy is gone from the Wilbur Cross.  Only spot you'll se it is in Milford around the connector.  Everything else from 56 north is Phase IV reflective signage.  There have been a couple of spot replacement signs on the 5/15 connector, including one NB that eliminates the reference to US 5. 

(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7869/46948308332_27339fd38d.jpg)
There is still button copy to the north and south of those assemblies. And the ones on the Charter Oak are not slated for replacement for the upcoming Exit 29 rebuild. Only their supports will be changed.

I think CTDOT just wanted to remind everyone of the simpler times when CT 15 really did go to I-90.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on February 06, 2019, 06:31:03 PM
What is odd about that sign is that it was a one-off replacement (similar to the state's yearly replacement of random overhead supports/signs).   Usually in those cases, the new sign is a carbon copy of the existing sign, even if they don't conform to full present standards.  An example is on I-95 South where the Exit 87 "exit now" gantry was replaced, retaining the "Clarence B. Sharp Highway" destination.  Now with the present sign contract, it's becoming "Groton City".  Seems like a waste, as the sign is only about 2-3 years old.

But...

The old signs at this location were two separate bridge-mounted signs.  So what we've got is a totally-redesigned sign, vs a carbon copy.  Since its a diagrammatic, it was most likely simplified. 

And to top it all off...

It really should be an APL... but maybe a future sign replacement project for the rest of this exit's signs will cure that.  I like diagrammatics better, however.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeCL on February 08, 2019, 11:25:47 AM
Quote from: connroadgeek on February 06, 2019, 10:16:29 AM
I wonder if those smaller welcome signs are used in back country too, though now that I think of it, I don't think Connecticut signs the border on lesser roads like New York does. I don't think Connecticut has a welcome sign on NY-120A for example whereas NY does with full Westchester county line sign once it crosses into NY for good. On local roads crossing the state line it seems only NY signs their side, and there's no welcome sign on 684, just the non-standard ones telling you you're in another state for that one mile stretch.
No they don't I have to deliver to American lane sometimes and crossing the bridge you can see down on 284 the entering Greenwich CT but on the return to King street you have the entering Westchester..

Now on lake Ave in the 1000 block you have no sign at all just a white BG with red letterings for town of New Castle. About your only warning you are in NY.. same on North St the border is with Banksville one of the roads (forgot the name) Banksville is to the right half of the street and Greenwich to the left.

Same with King St it's really interesting how it's split I never have any deliveries until after I cross the bridge that crosses over the parkway.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on February 10, 2019, 09:50:37 PM
FINALLY saw the first sign of progress since June today on the I-84 Southington-Farmington sign replacement project.  A new overhead gantry with a new at exit sign for Exit 33 (LEFT Exit to CT 72 West) was installed sometime between yesterday morning and this afternoon.  I'll have to see tomorrow morning if a new 1/4 mile sign for Exit 34 (CT 372) is installed next to it tonight.  All of the new signage is sitting in the EB ghost ramp area on Woodford Ave under the 84 overpasses, which you can see WB if you look to your left rounding the curve.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on February 10, 2019, 10:43:45 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on February 10, 2019, 09:50:37 PM
FINALLY saw the first sign of progress since June today on the I-84 Southington-Farmington sign replacement project.  A new overhead gantry with a new at exit sign for Exit 33 (LEFT Exit to CT 72 West) was installed sometime between yesterday morning and this afternoon.  I'll have to see tomorrow morning if a new 1/4 mile sign for Exit 34 (CT 372) is installed next to it tonight.  All of the new signage is sitting in the EB ghost ramp area on Woodford Ave under the 84 overpasses, which you can see WB if you look to your left rounding the curve.
Meanwhile they continue to let the original signs and gantries east of Hartford rot away.  Its some of the most weathered and battered in the state, I swear.  All the signs from Exit 59 to 66 are in horrible shape and date back to the Great Widening.  Everything east of Exit 66 was redone on a contract in the late 90s.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on February 11, 2019, 09:45:20 AM
And here is the new gantry:

(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7843/46147816555_23c2a74846.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on February 11, 2019, 09:52:13 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on February 11, 2019, 09:45:20 AM
And here is the new gantry:

(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7843/46147816555_23c2a74846.jpg)
Wiil a pull-through BGS be ultimately erected on that gantry as well?  If not, it seems like a waste of a full-width gantry.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: ipeters61 on February 11, 2019, 10:24:42 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on February 10, 2019, 10:43:45 PM
Meanwhile they continue to let the original signs and gantries east of Hartford rot away.  Its some of the most weathered and battered in the state, I swear.  All the signs from Exit 59 to 66 are in horrible shape and date back to the Great Widening.  Everything east of Exit 66 was redone on a contract in the late 90s.
I think I've mentioned this before, but I always think of the Exit 57/CT-15 sequence, where each sign has a different error.

Quote from: PHLBOS on February 11, 2019, 09:52:13 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on February 11, 2019, 09:45:20 AM
And here is the new gantry:

(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7843/46147816555_23c2a74846.jpg)
Wiil a pull-through BGS be ultimately erected on that gantry as well?  If not, it seems like a waste of a full-width gantry.
The best part of this is that the exit tab is almost the same size as the guide sign!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on February 11, 2019, 11:29:59 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 11, 2019, 09:52:13 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on February 11, 2019, 09:45:20 AM
And here is the new gantry:

(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7843/46147816555_23c2a74846.jpg)
Wiil a pull-through BGS be ultimately erected on that gantry as well?  If not, it seems like a waste of a full-width gantry.

Pretty sure there's gonna be a 1/4 mile advance for Exit 33 on that gantry.   Also the wide tab is probably for an "A" for mile based exit numbering. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on February 11, 2019, 12:37:18 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on February 11, 2019, 11:29:59 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 11, 2019, 09:52:13 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on February 11, 2019, 09:45:20 AM
And here is the new gantry:

Wiil a pull-through BGS be ultimately erected on that gantry as well?  If not, it seems like a waste of a full-width gantry.

Pretty sure there's gonna be a 1/4 mile advance for Exit 33 on that gantry.   Also the wide tab is probably for an "A" for mile based exit numbering.
I could see a pull through in the middle, then the 1/4 mile advance for Exit 34 on the right.  Future exit numbers will be 49 A and 49 B.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on February 11, 2019, 01:02:28 PM
I just had to run over to Farmington for a work errand, and I noticed that they're in the process of replacing the streetlights on I-84 just west of the CT9 interchange, replacing the old incandescent lights with the new nasty LED's.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on February 11, 2019, 05:27:45 PM
I just checked the plans.  For this overhead, there will be a Exit 35/1 mile in the middle and a Exit 34 1/4 mile on the right. No pull-throughs. 

The next overhead in the distance will have a Exit 35-3/4 mile, curve/50 mph, and Exit 34/exit now sign. 

Pullthroughs don't appear until the Exit 35/1/2 mile advance. 

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on February 11, 2019, 10:39:45 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on February 10, 2019, 09:50:37 PM
FINALLY saw the first sign of progress since June today on the I-84 Southington-Farmington sign replacement project.  A new overhead gantry with a new at exit sign for Exit 33 (LEFT Exit to CT 72 West) was installed sometime between yesterday morning and this afternoon.  I'll have to see tomorrow morning if a new 1/4 mile sign for Exit 34 (CT 372) is installed next to it tonight.  All of the new signage is sitting in the EB ghost ramp area on Woodford Ave under the 84 overpasses, which you can see WB if you look to your left rounding the curve.
EB ghost ramp area where? I see nothing that looks abandoned over or under Woodford.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on February 12, 2019, 08:38:22 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on February 11, 2019, 05:27:45 PM
I just checked the plans.  For this overhead, there will be a Exit 35/1 mile in the middle and a Exit 34 1/4 mile on the right. No pull-throughs. 

The next overhead in the distance will have a Exit 35-3/4 mile, curve/50 mph, and Exit 34/exit now sign. 

Pullthroughs don't appear until the Exit 35/1/2 mile advance.
Good to know.  If not a pull-through sign; it would make sense for that particular gantry to have at least one other sign on it.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on February 12, 2019, 03:25:35 PM
There was a time when there were several gantries that had lots of extra space for many years. 

Case in point:  3 gantries on I-84 East near Exit 39A.  These are currently in the process of being replaced, but the full-width truss gantries for Exits 39A 3/4, 1/4 mile, and exit now signs for many years just had the small "EAST/84" pullthrough mounted on the left side.  It wasn't until 1992 when Exit 39A signs were added.  Reason being:  those gantries were put up to anticipate construction of I-291 around Hartford (although they may have just been intended for Route 9, since the "Phase III" signage was installed through there probably in the mid/late 1980s).  When Route 9 was extended to I-84 in 1992, those gantries finally went into a more productive use.

Another case:  another truss gantry at Exit 24 on I-91 South.  The current gantry has an Exit 24 "exit now" sign, and a small "SOUTH/91" pullthrough on the far left, with plenty of room in the middle, for an unbuilt Exit 23A (which would've been the southern end of I-291, had it been fully constructed.  I remember seeing this gantry back in the 1980s with older versions of the present signs, but with the extra space. 

And finally, on I-91 North.  The 1/4 mile advance for Exit 23 used to be a truss gantry standing on the south side of the Cromwell Ave (Route 3) overpass.  That sign featured a pull-through on the left (3 down arrows for 91) plus the 1/4 mile advance for Exit 23.  The "exit now" sign for Exit 23 for years was a ground mount, until the present "angled support in yellow" structure went up.  Why was a pullthrough for the 1/4 mile advance?  Most likely it served as a placeholder for a future Exit 23A 1 mile advance.  Years later, the pullthrough was removed and the sign/truss remained intact, before being removed and replaced with a proper 1/2 mile advance as part of the state's random overhead support replacement project.

On I-84, when I-291 was completed around 1994, there were no new gantries put up on I-84 itself that I recall.  There was already space provided, and the signs that went up were the same generation as those that were up already in the area (complete with large I-shields).  This is odd, seeing as how this was in the heart of the "Phase III button copy" era.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on February 12, 2019, 08:46:56 PM
Quote from: Alps on February 11, 2019, 10:39:45 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on February 10, 2019, 09:50:37 PM
FINALLY saw the first sign of progress since June today on the I-84 Southington-Farmington sign replacement project.  A new overhead gantry with a new at exit sign for Exit 33 (LEFT Exit to CT 72 West) was installed sometime between yesterday morning and this afternoon.  I'll have to see tomorrow morning if a new 1/4 mile sign for Exit 34 (CT 372) is installed next to it tonight.  All of the new signage is sitting in the EB ghost ramp area on Woodford Ave under the 84 overpasses, which you can see WB if you look to your left rounding the curve.
EB ghost ramp area where? I see nothing that looks abandoned over or under Woodford.
Before the CT 72 expressway opened west of I-84 in 1980, there used to be an eastbound entrance to I-84 under the overpasses on Woodford Ave.  It used to enter I-84 where CT 72 does now.  It was closed when CT 72 opened, and for 20+ years, traffic had to backtrack across town to Hooker St to get on CT 72 East to get to I-84 East.  It was finally replaced in spirit by the new ramp from Crooked St in the early 2000's.  I remember getting on that old ramp as a very young kid. 

UPDATE:  The 1 mile advance (with a LEFT Exit tab) for Exit 35 and the 1/4 mile advance for Exit 34 were installed on the new gantry Monday night (obviously not last night because of the weather).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on February 14, 2019, 04:14:02 PM
Just checked the cams in the area and noticed another new gantry put up, this would be the exit now gantry for Exit 34, barely visible in the above photos. 

https://cttravelsmart.org/map#camera-404324--1

Cams are still showing the old truss cantilevers for Exit 36 still up in the eastbound direction, however.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on February 15, 2019, 01:45:37 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on February 14, 2019, 04:14:02 PM
Just checked the cams in the area and noticed another new gantry put up, this would be the exit now gantry for Exit 34, barely visible in the above photos. 

https://cttravelsmart.org/map#camera-404324--1

Cams are still showing the old truss cantilevers for Exit 36 still up in the eastbound direction, however.


Drove through there this morning (roads were wet and my windshield was a little dirty, so I couldn't get a good pic).  The gantry replaced the old one, which CTDOT actually removed (yet they still can't remove the Slater Rd ones).  Has the 3/4 mi Exit 35 LEFT Exit sign for 72 East on the left, the 50 MPH advisory in the middle, and the at exit sign for Exit 34.  New signage for Exit 34 is MUTCD compliant and removed "Plainville" so it now says CT 372/ Crooked St (really should say TO CT 372, since Crooked St is actually SR 536 and it's about a 1/2 mile to CT 372/New Britain Ave).

UPDATE: Got a couple shots of the new gantries, and the old gantry for Slater Rd is finally gone.  However, the sign on the North Mountain Rd Bridge is still there.  Also noticed the erroneous CT 6 sign on the Exit 39 eastbound entrance has been corrected with a US shield.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on February 16, 2019, 09:16:31 PM
/r/Connecticut is in melt-down mode after Lamont's announcement for electronic tolling support.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on February 16, 2019, 09:56:08 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on February 16, 2019, 09:16:31 PM
/r/Connecticut is in melt-down mode after Lamont's announcement for electronic tolling support.
Not surprised at all about Lamont reneging on his campaign promise to toll trucks only.  When I saw a map of 82 proposed tolling locations and several were on the parkway, I  knew he was full of it.  Won't go any further into politics lest I get purple fonted, but I warned people this was coming.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on February 16, 2019, 11:02:21 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on February 16, 2019, 09:56:08 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on February 16, 2019, 09:16:31 PM
/r/Connecticut is in melt-down mode after Lamont's announcement for electronic tolling support.
Not surprised at all about Lamont reneging on his campaign promise to toll trucks only.  When I saw a map of 82 proposed tolling locations and several were on the parkway, I  knew he was full of it.  Won't go any further into politics lest I get purple fonted, but I warned people this was coming.
I'll eat my lunch if even half of those get built.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on February 17, 2019, 03:14:33 PM
Meanwhile, on the I-95 sign replacement project, several new signs are up, including this one (the left one) which wasn't up a couple of weeks ago:

http://(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7896/47127074061_3875b2baae_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2eNszeF)95SB-Exit87 (https://flic.kr/p/2eNszeF) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

And a gantry awaiting installation:

http://(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7866/47127073871_c5937f4d8a_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2eNszbp)349NB-Exit03-2 (https://flic.kr/p/2eNszbp) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

And a few more from the area:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/with/47127073871/
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: ipeters61 on February 17, 2019, 07:34:56 PM
^ Regarding that Exit 86/87 assembly, has ConnDOT figured out yet how they want to represent state shields on their new signs?  Outline, square, rounded square...
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on February 17, 2019, 08:51:39 PM
The sign on the right was a "carbon copy" replacement, which I've found does not get the thick black border.  The sign on the left was replaced as part of the larger I-95 sign replacement contract and therefore got the thick black borders.  Other large scale sign replacement projects have state route shields getting the thick border treatment.  These can be found on CT 8 from Thomaston to Winsted and I-395 from East Lyme to Thompson.  Now, with I-84 from Southington to Farmington, state routes do not get the thick border treatment and look more like the sign on the right. 

So to answer your question, no, no they have not yet figured it out.

I'm still waiting for the day the square gets replaced with a state outline.  I figure I'm going to be waiting a'while. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on February 18, 2019, 09:11:05 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on February 16, 2019, 09:16:31 PMConnecticut is in melt-down mode after Lamont's announcement for electronic tolling support.
Source (https://www.wtnh.com/news/connecticut/governor-changes-stance-says-he-will-consider-wider-tolling/1787469725?fbclid=IwAR1v9B21P1UdAIQDoZ0eORDyhYHiEH1PclpeyGqUG9LfTJlo_kUL21L-U84)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on February 18, 2019, 11:12:24 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 18, 2019, 09:11:05 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on February 16, 2019, 09:16:31 PMConnecticut is in melt-down mode after Lamont's announcement for electronic tolling support.
Source (https://www.wtnh.com/news/connecticut/governor-changes-stance-says-he-will-consider-wider-tolling/1787469725?fbclid=IwAR1v9B21P1UdAIQDoZ0eORDyhYHiEH1PclpeyGqUG9LfTJlo_kUL21L-U84)
Yes, be "angry".  Never mind that others pay to ride the train or bus to work. Muh roads should be free.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on February 18, 2019, 01:56:43 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on February 18, 2019, 11:12:24 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 18, 2019, 09:11:05 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on February 16, 2019, 09:16:31 PMConnecticut is in melt-down mode after Lamont's announcement for electronic tolling support.
Source (https://www.wtnh.com/news/connecticut/governor-changes-stance-says-he-will-consider-wider-tolling/1787469725?fbclid=IwAR1v9B21P1UdAIQDoZ0eORDyhYHiEH1PclpeyGqUG9LfTJlo_kUL21L-U84)
Yes, be "angry".  Never mind that others pay to ride the train or bus to work. Muh roads should be free.
There's already a 25¢ a gallon gas tax, plus a gross receipts tax on gas that substitutes for bus and train fares.  Plus train stations charge you for parking (Berlin station, which once offered free parking, now charges for parking since CTRail started).   And not everyone has convenient access to trains; I'm 15 minutes from the nearest station, and bus service is spotty at best.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on February 18, 2019, 03:12:04 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on February 18, 2019, 01:56:43 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on February 18, 2019, 11:12:24 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 18, 2019, 09:11:05 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on February 16, 2019, 09:16:31 PMConnecticut is in melt-down mode after Lamont's announcement for electronic tolling support.
Source (https://www.wtnh.com/news/connecticut/governor-changes-stance-says-he-will-consider-wider-tolling/1787469725?fbclid=IwAR1v9B21P1UdAIQDoZ0eORDyhYHiEH1PclpeyGqUG9LfTJlo_kUL21L-U84)
Yes, be "angry".  Never mind that others pay to ride the train or bus to work. Muh roads should be free.
There's already a 25¢ a gallon gas tax, plus a gross receipts tax on gas that substitutes for bus and train fares.  Plus train stations charge you for parking (Berlin station, which once offered free parking, now charges for parking since CTRail started).   And not everyone has convenient access to trains; I'm 15 minutes from the nearest station, and bus service is spotty at best.
Oh and I forgot to add that we all pay to OWN our cars too.  Some of us exorbitant amounts.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on February 18, 2019, 09:20:12 PM
Getting back to the I-84 project for a minute,

So am I correct in assuming the following gantries still need to be put up in the eastbound direction:
Exit 33 1/2 mile (including an advance for Exit 34) (or is it up already?  seems odd they did Exit 33 and Exit 34 but skipped the 1/2 mile advance)
Exit 35 1/2 mile
Exit 35 1/4 mile
Exit 35 "exit now"
Exit 36 "exit now" (which plans show a bridge-mount, contrary to ConnDOT standards)
Exit 39 1 mile (also a bridge-mount)
Exit 39 1/2 mile (including an advance for Exit 39A)
Exit 39A "exit now"
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on February 18, 2019, 11:55:55 PM
I'm tempted to post in purple text but for now I'll say, please let's not get off tangent on discussions of what should or shouldn't be tolled. Keep it to road news plz.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on February 19, 2019, 02:51:50 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on February 18, 2019, 09:20:12 PM
Getting back to the I-84 project for a minute,

So am I correct in assuming the following gantries still need to be put up in the eastbound direction:
Exit 33 1/2 mile (including an advance for Exit 34) (or is it up already?  seems odd they did Exit 33 and Exit 34 but skipped the 1/2 mile advance)
Exit 35 1/2 mile
Exit 35 1/4 mile
Exit 35 "exit now"
Exit 36 "exit now" (which plans show a bridge-mount, contrary to ConnDOT standards)
Exit 38 39 1 mile (also a bridge-mount)
Exit 38 39 1/2 mile (including an advance for Exit 39A)
Exit 39A "exit now"

FTFY.  No Exit 38 EB.  Otherwise, pretty accurate.  I do see a 35 sign and the 39A Exit Now sign in the Woodford Ave holding area as I drive by WB.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeCL on February 20, 2019, 01:25:32 PM
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190220/7cc2490c35e5b07ef79a0efcd27b9417.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: The Ghostbuster on February 20, 2019, 01:38:48 PM
Does anyone know which highway in Connecticut will have a sequential-to-milepost based exit conversion. On Wikipedia, it was said that State Highway 8 was the next one to recieve mileage-based exits. However, when I checked the entry today, it showed the exit numbers with their existing sequential numbers (a reversal from what the entry said previously), with no indications that a conversion was upcoming. Does anyone know the status of State Highway 8's mileage-based conversion? Or when other highways might convert?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: bob7374 on February 20, 2019, 11:20:20 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 20, 2019, 01:38:48 PM
Does anyone know which highway in Connecticut will have a sequential-to-milepost based exit conversion. On Wikipedia, it was said that State Highway 8 was the next one to recieve mileage-based exits. However, when I checked the entry today, it showed the exit numbers with their existing sequential numbers (a reversal from what the entry said previously), with no indications that a conversion was upcoming. Does anyone know the status of State Highway 8's mileage-based conversion? Or when other highways might convert?
The exit renumbering of CT 8 has been postponed to 2022. See earlier post #3032 for details, an excerpt:
"Originally, they had planned for Routes 8 and 25 to be the next highways in line to be converted to mile-based exits starting next year [2019].  According to the e-mail I received below from Mr. Barry Schilling at CONNDOT, Routes 9 and 72 will be converted to mile-based exits in the 2020-2022 timeframe, followed by Routes 8 and 25 around 2022."
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on February 21, 2019, 04:17:19 AM
I wish that NYSDOT renumbering its section of I-84 would light a fire under CTDOT to do its section.  NY and PA will have done, so why not be consistent?  There are a lot of minor highways that would require little or no effort to do, like US 6 in Willimantic, US 7, CT 20, CT 40, the Milford Connector, and the rest of the 3di's (384, 291, and 691).  Plus you could give numbers to the pair of CT 17 expressway pieces, and SR 571 (will the exit get a number as part of CT 9 renumbering?) 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on February 21, 2019, 10:09:44 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on February 21, 2019, 04:17:19 AM
I wish that NYSDOT renumbering its section of I-84 would light a fire under CTDOT to do its section.  NY and PA will have done, so why not be consistent?  There are a lot of minor highways that would require little or no effort to do, like US 6 in Willimantic, US 7, CT 20, CT 40, the Milford Connector, and the rest of the 3di's (384, 291, and 691).  Plus you could give numbers to the pair of CT 17 expressway pieces, and SR 571 (will the exit get a number as part of CT 9 renumbering?)
Does it really need it?  The exit numbers would be in the low 30s.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on February 21, 2019, 12:13:38 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on February 21, 2019, 10:09:44 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on February 21, 2019, 04:17:19 AM
I wish that NYSDOT renumbering its section of I-84 would light a fire under CTDOT to do its section.  NY and PA will have done, so why not be consistent?  There are a lot of minor highways that would require little or no effort to do, like US 6 in Willimantic, US 7, CT 20, CT 40, the Milford Connector, and the rest of the 3di's (384, 291, and 691).  Plus you could give numbers to the pair of CT 17 expressway pieces, and SR 571 (will the exit get a number as part of CT 9 renumbering?)
Does it really need it?  The exit numbers would be in the low 30s.

Actually, CT 32 would be Exit 89 and the 195 exits would be Exit 91 if you used US 6 mileposts. CT 3, CT 17, and CT 20 would also be roads with seemingly random numbers. For CT 3, NB exits for the freeway section would be 11, 13A, and 13 B-C; SB would be 13, 11B, and 11A.   The exits on 17 in Middletown would be 21 for Main St Ext, and 22 (NB Only) for CT 9 South.  In Glastonbury, you'd have 35 NB for New London Tpke, while the exits SB would be 35B and 35A.  On CT 20, Bradley would be 28A, Hamilton Rd South 28B, CT 75 29, County Rd 30, and I-91 31 A-B
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: AMLNet49 on February 21, 2019, 12:33:56 PM
Quote from: ipeters61 on February 17, 2019, 07:34:56 PM
^ Regarding that Exit 86/87 assembly, has ConnDOT figured out yet how they want to represent state shields on their new signs?  Outline, square, rounded square...

Exactly what you see here is the current ConnDOT BGS Plate design: A rounded rectangle with a thick black outline

Some signs, in error, do not have the outline on the BGS Plate.

ConnDOT's state route shields are square with a thick black outline and do not have a 3-digit variant.

Three digit numbers on state route shields are written in Series B or C.

To avoid using the narrow Series B and C on BGS assemblies, for 3-digit state routes, ConnDOT uses a rectangular BGS plate with Series D or E, with the signature thick black outline.

Believe it or not, this is a step up for ConnDOT. Prior to the late 2000s, ConnDOT went full-on Texas Farm-To-Market Road and didn't even attempt to represent the state route design on BGS', simply using the Caltrans-style "outline" BGS plates or the then-MassHighway style borderless white rectangles (which are sometimes still used in error if the contractor forgets the thick black border).

I find this ConnDOT desperation to avoid using Series B or C on BGS plates kind of funny because for this entire time period, states like New Hampshire and Iowa were keeping all elongated 3-digit width BGS plates (even for US Routes and Interstates) out of those states completely.  They were happy to use series B or C if it meant being able to use the same exact BGS plates on every single sign regardless of route.

And in the end both approaches make little logical sense from a lay man's perspective, but I'm sure ConnDOT and NHDOT had plenty of fights about it back in the day
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on February 21, 2019, 09:01:04 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on February 21, 2019, 12:13:38 PM
The exits on 17 in Middletown would be 21 for Main St Ext, and 22 (NB Only) for CT 9 South.

Lets hope that by the time this happens, 17 won't be signed that way anymore.  Reason being: the removal of the traffic signals in Middletown.  Both proposals offer left exits that are 1/2 to 3/4 mile away from the present 17 onramp onto 9NB.  So if any of those proposals came to pass, I'd hope that 17 got rerouted onto Main Street instead of going onto Route 9, only to exit 1/2 mile later.  And both proposals would dump 17 onto city streets, with more than one light to pass through before hitting the Arrigoni.


EDIT:  What was I thinking?  This is Connecticut, and it'll likely be many more years of studies and alternatives before the lights get taken out and proper interchanges get constructed.  So, yeah, the Route 17 mile-based exits in Middletown would work... at least until the next sign replacement around 2060.  By then...maybe...just maybe... nah, that's still too soon.  :-)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on February 22, 2019, 12:48:19 AM
@MIKECL: I was just about to ask about the location of your picture...until I saw WWE's headquarters in the background. The answer, of course, is Exit 9 of I-95 in Stamford! WWE is at 1241 East Main Street (US Route 1).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on February 22, 2019, 11:10:07 AM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on February 22, 2019, 12:48:19 AM
@MIKECL: I was just about to ask about the location of your picture...until I saw WWE's headquarters in the background. The answer, of course, is Exit 9 of I-95 in Stamford! WWE is at 1241 East Main Street (US Route 1).

Yeah, the girders looked like new roadway construction (in Connecticut???) but it's the structure of the replacement US 1 overpass that will be moved into place later this year. From the plans, it looked like the interchange would be modified; but instead they're building temp bypass roadways to carry I-95 traffic around the bridge site.
* https://darienite.com/rt-1-bridge-over-i-95-at-exit-9-to-be-replaced-by-november-2019-34234
* https://www.stamfordct.gov/sites/stamfordct/files/u120/pr_135-325_pim_handout.pdf
* http://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/documents/dpublicmeetingsminutes/project_135-325_public_info_meeting_presentation.pdf
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on February 24, 2019, 07:05:06 PM
Looks like the stoplight ramp proposals have made the cut into the final design options.  How that even got that far is beyond me.  This project is the poster child for what's wrong with CT.

http://7-15norwalk.com/

http://7-15norwalk.com/documents/20181219-Boards-Lowres.pdf
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on February 24, 2019, 07:15:21 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on February 24, 2019, 07:05:06 PM
Looks like the stoplight ramp proposals have made the cut into the final design options.  How that even got that far is beyond me.  This project is the poster child for what's wrong with CT.

http://7-15norwalk.com/

http://7-15norwalk.com/documents/20181219-Boards-Lowres.pdf
No one has any idea what good engineering is. At least 12A is grade separated.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Roadsguy on February 24, 2019, 07:38:24 PM
Inb4 CT just replaces the interchange with a single roundabout and calls it a day.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: noelbotevera on February 24, 2019, 11:01:58 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on February 24, 2019, 07:38:24 PM
Inb4 CT just replaces the interchange with a single roundabout and calls it a day.
You're giving CT too much credit. I'm betting it'll be replaced with stop signs, and it'll take 50 years of study to wonder how they'll design the stop signs.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on February 25, 2019, 10:18:35 AM
Quote from: noelbotevera on February 24, 2019, 11:01:58 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on February 24, 2019, 07:38:24 PM
Inb4 CT just replaces the interchange with a single roundabout and calls it a day.
You're giving CT too much credit. I'm betting it'll be replaced with stop signs, and it'll take 50 years of study to wonder how they'll design the stop signs.

Now you're thinking like a Nutmegger :biggrin:  3 years to perform a sign replacement project that would take less than 2 weeks in RI.  And the lone ramp meter on the NB ramp from CT 17 to CT 9 hasn't worked in 30 years. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on February 25, 2019, 03:38:07 PM
What about using ramp meters?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on February 26, 2019, 06:45:21 AM
Looks like at least one more sign needs to be replaced by ConnDOT after yesterday's wind.

https://youtu.be/iikJH4GCrJQ

Not my video; looks to be westbound I-291 at I-91.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on February 26, 2019, 03:11:41 PM
A "JCT 173" sign was down on the Berlin Turnpike (US 5/CT 15) southbound this morning in Newington.

Also noticed something while walking on the Christian Lane bridge over CT Route 9 this morning. It looks like a new support was poured in front of the bridge heading north. Perhaps a new ground-mounted Exit 24 sign in the future? (The current sign is bridge mounted.)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on February 26, 2019, 05:35:56 PM
Looks like the piers are in place in the 84/72 interchange for new gantries to be erected.  I also see some more signage in the storage area for another new Exit 29 LEFT exit sign WB, as well as WB signage for 39A. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on February 26, 2019, 09:30:08 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on February 26, 2019, 03:11:41 PM
Also noticed something while walking on the Christian Lane bridge over CT Route 9 this morning. It looks like a new support was poured in front of the bridge heading north. Perhaps a new ground-mounted Exit 24 sign in the future? (The current sign is bridge mounted.)

Hmmm...interesting.  There is no mention of a new sign for Exit 24 northbound mentioned in either the 2017 or 2018 spot replacement projects.  I do know that in the southbound direction on that bridge, there used to be an Exit 21 and Exit 22 sign mounted, but the Exit 22 sign was removed (perhaps due to failure or to reduce load on the bridge?). 

In the past 2 months, I've driven past the location of 12 of the 16 sign supports due to be replaced in the 2017 contract, and there was no work observed at any of those sites.  Its possible that work is starting at site #16 (on the Mohegan-Pequot Cnct'r in Montville, which I have not yet field-checked).  And of the 11 2018 sites, I've driven past 6 of them and no work observed either.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on February 26, 2019, 10:12:49 PM
The pictures are grainy and cropped some. Took them with my cell phone in the late afternoon. Both of them are from the Christian Lane bridge over CT Route 9. You can see the sign support foundation in the shadow of the first picture, too. Also, there was a Conn-DOT survey crew in this vicinity a couple of weeks ago. I don't know if that work was related to this or not.

(https://i.imgur.com/ldrBPPZ.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/gERfXfy.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on February 26, 2019, 11:38:46 PM
Quote from: Alps on February 24, 2019, 07:15:21 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on February 24, 2019, 07:05:06 PM
Looks like the stoplight ramp proposals have made the cut into the final design options.  How that even got that far is beyond me.  This project is the poster child for what's wrong with CT.

http://7-15norwalk.com/

http://7-15norwalk.com/documents/20181219-Boards-Lowres.pdf
No one has any idea what good engineering is. At least 12A is grade separated.

Alt 26 I'm sure is in there for political reasons. Probably the alternative favored by some folks in Wilton, who love it specifically because it drives a stake through the heart of any possibility of extending the 7 freeway northward.

Meanwhile any apparent lack of "good engineering" in the other designs is all appeasement of prior complaints. Any interchange which involves ramps rising in elevation above the parkway is a nonstarter for aesthetic reasons, which means no flyovers and any ramp braiding needs to be creative rather than straightforward. And because the last preferred alternative got killed by residents directly west of the interchange complaining that the rebuild would bring ramps too close to their homes, the current proposals all work to avoid this - but avoiding that requires either tight, substandard geometry or signals.

No "good" design would be acceptable to all of the public stakeholders in this process, so what gets built will be either a mediocre design or (more likely) nothing.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on February 27, 2019, 09:56:07 AM
You know, if the nimbys are blocking every effort to have safe, usable interchanges along the Merritt, perhaps an alternative tactic would be to simply remove all of the interchanges from the parkway.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: ipeters61 on February 27, 2019, 10:02:54 AM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on February 27, 2019, 09:56:07 AM
You know, if the nimbys are blocking every effort to have safe, usable interchanges along the Merritt, perhaps an alternative tactic would be to simply remove all of the interchanges from the parkway.
But then we wouldn't have the typical Connecticut access to every street corner from an expressway!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on February 27, 2019, 04:44:43 PM
Honestly, at this point, is it even worth upgrading the Merritt/US 7 interchange to a full interchange?  Is access from 15SB to 7NB via a proposed interchange worth it at this point, considering "Super 7" ends a mile or so north of the Merritt and dumps back onto Main Ave?  What * SHOULD * have happened was when the expressway was extended north of CT 123, it should've ended at the CT 33 South intersection in Wilton.  It could've morphed right into existing US 7/CT 33 surface road just like how the Brookfield Bypass does. It would've removed traffic from busy Main Ave and would've eliminated the dogleg over Grist Mill Road and not end at a rock cliff. 

Seems like at this point it would just be better to improve/eliminate some ramps at the Main Ave interchange instead.  I mean, really, does Main Ave need a full cloverleaf?  Cut out some ramps, improve others, and bada-bing, a project done in half the time for half the cost (study time may vary).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on February 27, 2019, 04:46:02 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on February 26, 2019, 10:12:49 PM
The pictures are grainy and cropped some. Took them with my cell phone in the late afternoon. Both of them are from the Christian Lane bridge over CT Route 9. You can see the sign support foundation in the shadow of the first picture, too. Also, there was a Conn-DOT survey crew in this vicinity a couple of weeks ago. I don't know if that work was related to this or not.
(https://i.imgur.com/gERfXfy.jpg)

The more I look at this shot, it seems more of a foundation for perhaps a traffic camera, vs a sign support post.  That could be whats going on there.  I tried looking up the project number but couldn't find one that matched that location.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on February 27, 2019, 05:48:20 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on February 27, 2019, 04:46:02 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on February 26, 2019, 10:12:49 PM
The pictures are grainy and cropped some. Took them with my cell phone in the late afternoon. Both of them are from the Christian Lane bridge over CT Route 9. You can see the sign support foundation in the shadow of the first picture, too. Also, there was a Conn-DOT survey crew in this vicinity a couple of weeks ago. I don't know if that work was related to this or not.
(https://i.imgur.com/gERfXfy.jpg)

The more I look at this shot, it seems more of a foundation for perhaps a traffic camera, vs a sign support post.  That could be whats going on there.  I tried looking up the project number but couldn't find one that matched that location.
Maybe it's one of the first foundations for a toll gantry.  :bigass:
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on March 01, 2019, 08:32:58 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on February 26, 2019, 10:12:49 PM
The pictures are grainy and cropped some. Took them with my cell phone in the late afternoon. Both of them are from the Christian Lane bridge over CT Route 9. You can see the sign support foundation in the shadow of the first picture, too. Also, there was a Conn-DOT survey crew in this vicinity a couple of weeks ago. I don't know if that work was related to this or not.

(https://i.imgur.com/ldrBPPZ.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/gERfXfy.jpg)

I was thinking a VMB, as there is one SB just before the overpass. It would have to be one of those single pole ones like on I-691 West near Exit 3, as the footprint for one similar to the SB one is much too small.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5567531,-72.8869597,0a,75y,276.6h,90.22t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1smgDkAyITelxoubjxfOR63Q!2e0
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on March 01, 2019, 09:19:36 PM
I wonder if that reference on the road referencing 7 feet out could mean anything?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on March 01, 2019, 11:32:23 PM
Perhaps install post 7' from that mark? 

I just thought of another possible use... could be for the RWIS project.  (road weather information system/service).  Its the project where they install cameras and weather stations along highways statewide.  Next time I pass the one recently installed in Haddam on CT 9 at Exit 8, I'll try to take a look.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on March 02, 2019, 08:23:18 PM
There was night work Thursday on I-84 E just past Exit 59.  Looked sign-related. They had a bucket truck and the left two lanes were closed.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on March 07, 2019, 09:45:42 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 02, 2019, 08:23:18 PM
There was night work Thursday on I-84 E just past Exit 59.  Looked sign-related. They had a bucket truck and the left two lanes were closed.


Drove up as far as Exit 60, and didn't notice any new signage, including for Exit 61 and 62. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on March 07, 2019, 11:20:46 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on March 07, 2019, 09:45:42 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 02, 2019, 08:23:18 PM
There was night work Thursday on I-84 E just past Exit 59.  Looked sign-related. They had a bucket truck and the left two lanes were closed.


Drove up as far as Exit 60, and didn't notice any new signage, including for Exit 61 and 62.
Could have been prep work.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on March 08, 2019, 06:22:23 PM
Lol at all these people on r/Connecticut using the word "crumbling" to describe the state of our roads.  As if CONNDOT sits on its laurels all day.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: ipeters61 on March 08, 2019, 07:05:21 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 08, 2019, 06:22:23 PM
Lol at all these people on r/Connecticut using the word "crumbling" to describe the state of our roads.  As if CONNDOT sits on its laurels all day.
Heaven forbid they see how bad the roads are in Northeastern Pennsylvania.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on March 09, 2019, 08:55:50 AM
Quote from: ipeters61 on March 08, 2019, 07:05:21 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 08, 2019, 06:22:23 PM
Lol at all these people on r/Connecticut using the word "crumbling" to describe the state of our roads.  As if CONNDOT sits on its laurels all day.
Heaven forbid they see how bad the roads are in Northeastern Pennsylvania.

The problem in CT is that CTDOT spends (in my best Ed Rooney voice) NINE TIMES the national average in administrative costs to maintain its roads.  You would think the roads would be as smooth as a baby's bottom, but no, they're just as bad, if not worse, than most states.  I'll avoid my political soapbox, but as far as where the money goes, something is rotten in Denmark.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Rothman on March 09, 2019, 10:32:21 AM
"Nine times" is remarkably specific.  Got a link for that?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on March 09, 2019, 11:32:33 AM
Quote from: Rothman on March 09, 2019, 10:32:21 AM
"Nine times" is remarkably specific.  Got a link for that?
https://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Report-on-state-highway-bridge-costs-disputed-12704295.php
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Rothman on March 09, 2019, 12:25:11 PM
Quote from: Alps on March 09, 2019, 11:32:33 AM
Quote from: Rothman on March 09, 2019, 10:32:21 AM
"Nine times" is remarkably specific.  Got a link for that?
https://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Report-on-state-highway-bridge-costs-disputed-12704295.php
Heh.  So, the stat is not totally accepted as fact. :D
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: SectorZ on March 09, 2019, 08:53:33 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 09, 2019, 12:25:11 PM
Quote from: Alps on March 09, 2019, 11:32:33 AM
Quote from: Rothman on March 09, 2019, 10:32:21 AM
"Nine times" is remarkably specific.  Got a link for that?
https://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Report-on-state-highway-bridge-costs-disputed-12704295.php
Heh.  So, the stat is not totally accepted as fact. :D

Massachusetts is even worst (in fact, the worst). Peruse the state's job website and you can see what some of the administrative funding is spent on in my fair state.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Rothman on March 09, 2019, 09:02:15 PM


Quote from: SectorZ on March 09, 2019, 08:53:33 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 09, 2019, 12:25:11 PM
Quote from: Alps on March 09, 2019, 11:32:33 AM
Quote from: Rothman on March 09, 2019, 10:32:21 AM
"Nine times" is remarkably specific.  Got a link for that?
https://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Report-on-state-highway-bridge-costs-disputed-12704295.php
Heh.  So, the stat is not totally accepted as fact. :D

Massachusetts is even worst (in fact, the worst). Peruse the state's job website and you can see what some of the administrative funding is spent on in my fair state.

The state jobs site?  That may show a misunderstanding of how capital projects are funded.  Any state workers working on program management -- e.g., planners or accountants and the like -- for federal-aid projects their work is reimbursible through the ridiculously underutilized Statewide Planning and Research (SPR) fund, which is totally separate from funds that are used to actually fund the projects themselves (NHP, STP, CMAQ, etc.). 

Anyway, I don't think just perusing the job site leads to the conclusion that there are states that are spending many times an average on administrative costs. 

That said, I have witnessed overstaffing, but not to the extremes that were stated.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: DJ Particle on March 11, 2019, 02:54:43 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on March 09, 2019, 08:53:33 PM
Massachusetts is even worst (in fact, the worst). Peruse the state's job website and you can see what some of the administrative funding is spent on in my fair state.

I can believe it...growing up, during family road trips, I was always puzzled as to why it seemed MA had the oldest BGS's in the northeast.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: roadman on March 11, 2019, 02:11:13 PM
Quote from: DJ Particle on March 11, 2019, 02:54:43 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on March 09, 2019, 08:53:33 PM
Massachusetts is even worst (in fact, the worst). Peruse the state's job website and you can see what some of the administrative funding is spent on in my fair state.

I can believe it...growing up, during family road trips, I was always puzzled as to why it seemed MA had the oldest BGS's in the northeast.

Simple.  Because until the late 1980s, MassDPW practice was to replace signs (even those on Interstates and freeways) only either as one-offs when a sign went missing (or they got a complaint about a sign), or as part of larger road reconstruction projects.  Prior to 1988, Massachusetts did not have any sort of coordinated sign replacement program like they have now for Interstates and freeways, and have just started implementing on secondary state highways.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: DJ Particle on March 13, 2019, 02:03:04 AM
Quote from: roadman on March 11, 2019, 02:11:13 PM
Simple.  Because until the late 1980s, MassDPW practice was to replace signs (even those on Interstates and freeways) only either as one-offs when a sign went missing (or they got a complaint about a sign), or as part of larger road reconstruction projects.  Prior to 1988, Massachusetts did not have any sort of coordinated sign replacement program like they have now for Interstates and freeways, and have just started implementing on secondary state highways.

Ouch!

I remember as a kid in the 1970s/80s, wondering why the BGSs along US-6 Eastbound on Exits 6-9 didn't have exit tabs.  Those likely dated to 1967 when those lanes were built.  The signs didn't get replaced until about 1996.  Now, even those replacement signs have been replaced   :-D
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on March 13, 2019, 07:13:47 AM
Quote from: DJ Particle on March 13, 2019, 02:03:04 AM
Quote from: roadman on March 11, 2019, 02:11:13 PM
Simple.  Because until the late 1980s, MassDPW practice was to replace signs (even those on Interstates and freeways) only either as one-offs when a sign went missing (or they got a complaint about a sign), or as part of larger road reconstruction projects.  Prior to 1988, Massachusetts did not have any sort of coordinated sign replacement program like they have now for Interstates and freeways, and have just started implementing on secondary state highways.

Ouch!

I remember as a kid in the 1970s/80s, wondering why the BGSs along US-6 Eastbound on Exits 6-9 didn't have exit tabs.  Those likely dated to 1967 when those lanes were built.  The signs didn't get replaced until about 1996.  Now, even those replacement signs have been replaced   :-D
The 90s era signs should have stayed. Let people suffer through reading non-reflective signs. Tbh I'm very nostalgic for weathered signs.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MNHighwayMan on March 13, 2019, 07:15:28 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 13, 2019, 07:13:47 AM
The 90s era signs should have stayed. Let people suffer through reading non-reflective signs. Tbh I'm very nostalgic for weathered signs.

:confused: :confused:

I will never understand this mentality. You literally want drivers to have a hard time, just for the sake of nostalgia? That's kind of messed up, IMO.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on March 13, 2019, 03:38:57 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on March 13, 2019, 07:15:28 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 13, 2019, 07:13:47 AM
The 90s era signs should have stayed. Let people suffer through reading non-reflective signs. Tbh I'm very nostalgic for weathered signs.

:confused: :confused:

I will never understand this mentality. You literally want drivers to have a hard time, just for the sake of nostalgia? That's kind of messed up, IMO.
for the sake of button copy
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Rothman on March 13, 2019, 04:22:44 PM
Nobody sleeps in Connecticut.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on March 13, 2019, 04:30:56 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 13, 2019, 04:22:44 PM
Nobody sleeps in Connecticut.

Which is ironic, given the lack of nightlife and the fact that bars and liquor stores close earlier than surrounding states (hey, at least it's still not 8:00 and no Sundays).  Maybe it's the fear of new taxes that keeps us up at night.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on March 13, 2019, 08:04:22 PM
Quote from: Alps on March 13, 2019, 03:38:57 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on March 13, 2019, 07:15:28 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 13, 2019, 07:13:47 AM
The 90s era signs should have stayed. Let people suffer through reading non-reflective signs. Tbh I'm very nostalgic for weathered signs.

:confused: :confused:

I will never understand this mentality. You literally want drivers to have a hard time, just for the sake of nostalgia? That's kind of messed up, IMO.
for the sake of button copy
There were maybe one or two button copy signs on the Cape. They're all gone now.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: DJ Particle on March 14, 2019, 04:55:11 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 13, 2019, 08:04:22 PM
There were maybe one or two button copy signs on the Cape. They're all gone now.

Even the Eastbound US-6 signs for Exit 106 (Pamet Roads)?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on March 14, 2019, 02:05:45 PM
Quote from: DJ Particle on March 14, 2019, 04:55:11 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 13, 2019, 08:04:22 PM
There were maybe one or two button copy signs on the Cape. They're all gone now.

Even the Eastbound US-6 signs for Exit 106 (Pamet Roads)?
I believe so. Exit 106?  There aren't any exit numbers up that way, let alone mileage-based ones.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on March 14, 2019, 02:25:13 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 14, 2019, 02:05:45 PM
Quote from: DJ Particle on March 14, 2019, 04:55:11 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 13, 2019, 08:04:22 PM
There were maybe one or two button copy signs on the Cape. They're all gone now.

Even the Eastbound US-6 signs for Exit 106 (Pamet Roads)?
I believe so. Exit 106?  There aren't any exit numbers up that way, let alone mileage-based ones.
The BGS in question is this one (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9940593,-70.0485721,3a,75y,15.08h,85.42t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sN0nmCEfqzE7xf_6O1vr3kg!2e0!5s20110801T000000!7i13312!8i6656) in Truro.  Yes, such was replaced several years ago (between 2011 and 2015) with this one (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.994038,-70.0485268,3a,75y,15.08h,85.42t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sg7LcWo90PduH9A7LwWGNMg!2e0!5s20181101T000000!7i16384!8i8192).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on March 14, 2019, 06:25:43 PM
Quote from: DJ Particle on March 14, 2019, 04:55:11 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 13, 2019, 08:04:22 PM
There were maybe one or two button copy signs on the Cape. They're all gone now.

Even the Eastbound US-6 signs for Exit 106 (Pamet Roads)?
Emi when did you sneak in here without telling us? LTNmtr!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on March 15, 2019, 10:13:37 PM
Getting back to CT: 2 more new gantries went up in the last couple days on I-84 West near and within the CT 72 junction: the 1  mile sign for 72 West/CT 372, and the 1/2 mile exit only signs for the same.

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4804/46474558215_f972bcf5ee.jpg)

(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7802/46474558225_deda1f809c.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on March 15, 2019, 10:34:18 PM
That new sign might be a problem: CT Route 372 is Exit 2 from CT Route 72. Granted, you do have to take Exit 33 from I-84 to get to that first...
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on March 15, 2019, 10:38:10 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on March 15, 2019, 10:13:37 PM
Getting back to CT: 2 more new gantries went up in the last couple days on I-84 West near and within the CT 72 junction: the 1  mile sign for 72 West/CT 372, and the 1/2 mile exit only signs for the same.

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4804/46474558215_f972bcf5ee.jpg)

(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7802/46474558225_deda1f809c.jpg)

Second assembly looks mighty fine.  That first sign is confusing, almost like they tacked on a reassurance sign at the last minute.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: ipeters61 on March 16, 2019, 12:24:19 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on March 15, 2019, 10:34:18 PM
That new sign might be a problem: CT Route 372 is Exit 2 from CT Route 72. Granted, you do have to take Exit 33 from I-84 to get to that first...
I was thinking the same thing.

Also, the second sign looks like it's begging for a "1/2 mile" to the right of the rightmost arrow, like ConnDOT did in the button copy days:

(https://i.ibb.co/WtV58k2/Route-91-Exit-25-and-26.jpg) (https://ibb.co/xHFL917)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on March 16, 2019, 06:45:21 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on March 15, 2019, 10:13:37 PM
Getting back to CT: 2 more new gantries went up in the last couple days on I-84 West near and within the CT 72 junction: the 1  mile sign for 72 West/CT 372, and the 1/2 mile exit only signs for the same.

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4804/46474558215_f972bcf5ee.jpg)

(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7802/46474558225_deda1f809c.jpg)

I think the signs look great. CT’s only 3-lane exit only. The formatting and wording is fine to me.

I don’t like the new gantries pole style look as it seems like whenever they’re used, the signs look like they’re hanging sloppy and uneven. Plus the pole going across looks like it’s bending.



Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: DJ Particle on March 18, 2019, 05:13:40 AM
Quote from: Alps on March 14, 2019, 06:25:43 PM
Emi when did you sneak in here without telling us? LTNmtr!

I haven't been on Usenet for over a decade now.  *heh*

As for my use of "Exit 106"...just a personal preference for unnumbered exits.  :-D
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on March 18, 2019, 09:06:05 AM
Quote from: DJ Particle on March 18, 2019, 05:13:40 AMAs for my use of "Exit 106"...just a personal preference for unnumbered exits.  :-D
That's just it, this stretch of US 6 is not an expressway/freeway; so its intersections, whether such resemble interchange ramps or not, are not numbered. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: AMLNet49 on March 19, 2019, 04:59:23 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 18, 2019, 09:06:05 AM
Quote from: DJ Particle on March 18, 2019, 05:13:40 AMAs for my use of "Exit 106"...just a personal preference for unnumbered exits.  :-D
That's just it, this stretch of US 6 is not an expressway/freeway; so its intersections, whether such resemble interchange ramps or not, are not numbered.

Under proper mileage-based numbering they should be numbered. However, no such proposals were made during the proposed conversion to mileage-based exits. This seems to indicate that with all of the difficulty getting the Cape to accept the new numbers, it wasn't considered worth the potential PR hassle to throw a couple of random 3-digit exit numbers on an otherwise numberless stretch of US 6.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on March 19, 2019, 05:25:21 PM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on March 19, 2019, 04:59:23 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 18, 2019, 09:06:05 AM
Quote from: DJ Particle on March 18, 2019, 05:13:40 AMAs for my use of "Exit 106"...just a personal preference for unnumbered exits.  :-D
That's just it, this stretch of US 6 is not an expressway/freeway; so its intersections, whether such resemble interchange ramps or not, are not numbered.
Under proper mileage-based numbering they should be numbered.
This is way OT but, US 6 in MA let alone Cape Cod isn't just the Mid-Cape Highway.  If one numbers the intersections east/north of the Mid-Cape Highway; the same would apply for the non-freeway/expressway stretches west of such along the MA mainland... would such not?

Aside from the rogue 1962-era* intersection numbering of MA 128 in Gloucester/Cape Ann (Exits 11, 10 & 9); there's no other roadway in MA I'm aware that formally numbers its intersections as interchanges.  I don't believe such is done in CT... the main focus/topic of this thread.

*Prior to 1962, MA 128's sequential interchange numbering started at MA 127/Grant Circle (current Exit 11/Old Exit 1) and increased heading south/west.  The change from 1 to 11 was in anticipation of a possible & ill-advised plan to extend the highway further east into Cape Ann that never materialized.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on March 19, 2019, 06:15:09 PM
I figured the last numbered exit on Route 6 would be Exit 89 just before the Orleans rotary.  If we were to number intersections east of there, then we would need to number ramps on roads like US 20 and MA 9 between Worcester and Boston, the US 202 mini-freeway section between Holyoke and South Hadley, and MA 79 in Fall River.  The equivalent of this in CT would be numbering the exits on the Berlin Turnpike.  The missing exits 69-84 (future 67-78) were planned as part of a Parkway extension that never came to be.  Nowadays, the only intersections I could see getting numbers are the CT 9 and CT 175 junctions, and the CT 314 exit to continue on the turnpike.  In MA, the roads with unnumbered exits that should be numbered are the US 1 limited access portion between I-93 and Revere, MA 1A from I-93 to MA 145, US 5 from I-91/MA 83 to US 20, MA 57 in Agawam, and the 2 Greenfield exits on MA 2 (MA 2 West to I-91 North, and US 5/MA 10).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Ben114 on March 19, 2019, 07:03:23 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on March 19, 2019, 06:15:09 PM
then we would need to number ramps on roads like US 20 and MA 9 between Worcester and Boston
If these were to be numbered with mileage based exits, here they are.
MA 9
MA 140 - exit 101
US 20 - exit 103
MA 135 - exit 105
MA 30 - exit 107
Computer Dr / Research Dr - exit 108
I-495 - exit 109
MA 85 - exit 111
to MA 30 - exit 112
I-90 - exit 113
MA 30 west (west end of concurrency) - exit 116
MA 30 east (east end of concurrency)  / to MA 126 - exit 117
Speen St - exit 118
MA 27 - exit 119
Weston Rd - exit 122
MA 16 - exit 124
Cedar St - exit 125
I-95 - exit 126
Chestnut St - exit 126
Centre St - exit 127
Parker St - exit 128
Hammond Pond Pkwy - exit 129

US 20
MA 12 - exit 107
I-395 / I-290 - exit 108
MA 146 / I-90 - exit 112
MA 122 - exit 115
MA 140 - exit 117
MA 9 - exit 120
MA 135 - exit 123
I-495 - exit 127
MA 85 - exit 129
MA 27 / MA 126 - exit 139
I-95 - exit 144
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Beeper1 on March 19, 2019, 10:00:00 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on March 19, 2019, 06:15:09 PM
I figured the last numbered exit on Route 6 would be Exit 89 just before the Orleans rotary.  If we were to number intersections east of there, then we would need to number ramps on roads like US 20 and MA 9 between Worcester and Boston, the US 202 mini-freeway section between Holyoke and South Hadley, and MA 79 in Fall River.  The equivalent of this in CT would be numbering the exits on the Berlin Turnpike.  The missing exits 69-84 (future 67-78) were planned as part of a Parkway extension that never came to be.  Nowadays, the only intersections I could see getting numbers are the CT 9 and CT 175 junctions, and the CT 314 exit to continue on the turnpike.  In MA, the roads with unnumbered exits that should be numbered are the US 1 limited access portion between I-93 and Revere, MA 1A from I-93 to MA 145, US 5 from I-91/MA 83 to US 20, MA 57 in Agawam, and the 2 Greenfield exits on MA 2 (MA 2 West to I-91 North, and US 5/MA 10).

Also the short MA-116 freeway north of MA-9 in Hadley/Amherst.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Rothman on March 19, 2019, 11:26:14 PM
Quote from: Beeper1 on March 19, 2019, 10:00:00 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on March 19, 2019, 06:15:09 PM
I figured the last numbered exit on Route 6 would be Exit 89 just before the Orleans rotary.  If we were to number intersections east of there, then we would need to number ramps on roads like US 20 and MA 9 between Worcester and Boston, the US 202 mini-freeway section between Holyoke and South Hadley, and MA 79 in Fall River.  The equivalent of this in CT would be numbering the exits on the Berlin Turnpike.  The missing exits 69-84 (future 67-78) were planned as part of a Parkway extension that never came to be.  Nowadays, the only intersections I could see getting numbers are the CT 9 and CT 175 junctions, and the CT 314 exit to continue on the turnpike.  In MA, the roads with unnumbered exits that should be numbered are the US 1 limited access portion between I-93 and Revere, MA 1A from I-93 to MA 145, US 5 from I-91/MA 83 to US 20, MA 57 in Agawam, and the 2 Greenfield exits on MA 2 (MA 2 West to I-91 North, and US 5/MA 10).

Also the short MA-116 freeway north of MA-9 in Hadley/Amherst.
And the consequences of not numbering the sole exit for UMass would be...?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on March 20, 2019, 06:26:34 PM
So if you want the exits for the highways that I suggested

US 1
Exit 47 (SB ONLY): Rutherford St Charlestown//TO I-93 North
Exit 49 (NB ONLY): Beacon St
Exit 50: Fourth St (NB); Carter Ave Chelsea/East Boston (SB)
Exit 51A (NB): Webster Ave Chelsea/Everett
Exit 51B (NB): MA 16 EAST TO MA 1A Revere Beach/Lynn
Exit 51 (SB): MA 16 WEST Everett/Somerville
Exit 52 (NB ONLY): Sargent St West Revere
Exit 53: MA 60 Malden/Revere
Exit 54 A/B: Lynn St Saugus/Malden

MA 1A
Exit 49: Havre St (NB); Porter St (SB) East Boston
Exit 50A: Logan Airport (NB); I-90 (Mass Pike) WEST TO I-93 SOUTH Ted Williams Tunnel/South Boston (Logan is I-90 Exit 137)
Exit 50B: MA 145 NORTH Bennington  St (NB); Saratoga St/Chelsea St (SB)


MA 2 in Greenfield:
Exit 50A (WB ONLY): I-91 NORTH Brattleboro
Exit 50 (B WB): US 5/MA 10 Greenfield/Bernardston

US 5:
Exit 3A (SB ONLY): MA 83 SOUTH East Longmeadow
Exit 3B (SB ONLY): I-91 NORTH Holyoke/Greenfield
Exit 4: MA 57 WEST Agawam/Southwick
Exit 5: MA 147 WEST Memorial Ave
Exit 7: US 20 Westfield/Springfield

MA 57:
Exit 41 (WB ONLY): Garden St
Exit 42 (WB ONLY): Mill St WEST Feeding Hills
Exit 43: MA 75 West Springfield/Suffield CT
Exit 44 B/A (WB ONLY) : MA 159 NORTH West Springfield; MA 159 SOUTH Agawam Center/Windsor Locks CT
Exit 45: US 5 SOUTH TO I-91 Springfield/Hartford CT (EB); Editha Ave (WB)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: DJ Particle on March 21, 2019, 02:15:17 AM
Oh jeez....I didn't intend to turn this into another "Massachusetts" thread!   :paranoid:
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on March 21, 2019, 02:25:07 AM
I'll steer it back to CT.  The new sign is probably being hung as I type.(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7856/46515700065_1257da2144.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: bob7374 on March 21, 2019, 11:09:28 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on March 20, 2019, 06:26:34 PM
So if you want the exits for the highways that I suggested

US 1
Exit 47 (SB ONLY): Rutherford St Charlestown//TO I-93 North
Exit 49 (NB ONLY): Beacon St
Exit 50: Fourth St (NB); Carter Ave Chelsea/East Boston (SB)
Exit 51A (NB): Webster Ave Chelsea/Everett
Exit 51B (NB): MA 16 EAST TO MA 1A Revere Beach/Lynn
Exit 51 (SB): MA 16 WEST Everett/Somerville
Exit 52 (NB ONLY): Sargent St West Revere
Exit 53: MA 60 Malden/Revere
Exit 54 A/B: Lynn St Saugus/Malden

MA 1A
Exit 49: Havre St (NB); Porter St (SB) East Boston
Exit 50A: Logan Airport (NB); I-90 (Mass Pike) WEST TO I-93 SOUTH Ted Williams Tunnel/South Boston (Logan is I-90 Exit 137)
Exit 50B: MA 145 NORTH Bennington  St (NB); Saratoga St/Chelsea St (SB)


MA 2 in Greenfield:
Exit 50A (WB ONLY): I-91 NORTH Brattleboro
Exit 50 (B WB): US 5/MA 10 Greenfield/Bernardston

US 5:
Exit 3A (SB ONLY): MA 83 SOUTH East Longmeadow
Exit 3B (SB ONLY): I-91 NORTH Holyoke/Greenfield
Exit 4: MA 57 WEST Agawam/Southwick
Exit 5: MA 147 WEST Memorial Ave
Exit 7: US 20 Westfield/Springfield

MA 57:
Exit 41 (WB ONLY): Garden St
Exit 42 (WB ONLY): Mill St WEST Feeding Hills
Exit 43: MA 75 West Springfield/Suffield CT
Exit 44 B/A (WB ONLY) : MA 159 NORTH West Springfield; MA 159 SOUTH Agawam Center/Windsor Locks CT
Exit 45: US 5 SOUTH TO I-91 Springfield/Hartford CT (EB); Editha Ave (WB)
Of the above, only MA 57 was considered for exit numbers under the postponed milepost exit number conversion project, the numbers are mostly the same as above, and are still posted on my MA 57 Exit List:
http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/MA25213exits.html#mass57 (http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/MA25213exits.html#mass57)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: robby2161 on March 21, 2019, 01:13:11 PM
Seems that the contractor(s) CT is using to paint road markings in District 3 is really off.  Crooked centerlines, poor use of space at intersections with turn lanes, bad geometry, and inconsistent lane widths are all common around here, after recent resurfacing projects.  I have a collection of pictures I will share when I pull them from my external later.

For now, check out this egregious example of the ramp from US-7 south to CT-15 south.  The Connector (US-7) bends to the left slightly before the ramp begins.  When the exit lane does begin, instead of paralleling the curb to the right like it used to, the ramp bends left with US-7 into what should be the exit gore point, then abruptly shifts right.

It's a huge pet peeve of mine, and also happens on the CT-15 north to US-7 north ramp.  It's even more of a nuisance there because the contractor started the rumble strip far too early, forcing you to merge into traffic prematurely!

Can anyone shed light on why this is so poorly done?  I know CT is broke but come on..

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on March 21, 2019, 03:50:13 PM
While on the topic of lane markings, I did notice where SSR 695 meets I-395 SB in Plainfield, the lane markings have been changed to favor I-395.  Previously, I-395's right end ended just past the merge, so thru traffic had to move over one lane left.  Now, traffic entering I-395 SB from SSR 695 (from US 6 West from RI) has to merge over to the right, instead of an entrance lane becoming the I-395 fast lane.  This was a holdover from when the Connecticut Turnpike was the thru route.  Its not a huge problem with the new setup, but kind of caught me off guard as I was coming west from RI and entering I-395.  I had to merge over to the right, as my lane now ends.  No widening/road reconfiguration was required... just a mere restriping.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on March 21, 2019, 06:14:10 PM
Sure enough (and they even took down the old gantry too):
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7925/47384471092_125e300181.jpg)[/url]
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on March 21, 2019, 06:38:51 PM
My big issue is when you have 2-lanes going to three exclusive turn lanes at a signal. CT always tends to stripe the option lane to favor the movement with less traffic forcing most drivers to merge into another lane.

For example if two lanes transition into two exclusive right turn lanes and one exclusive left turn lane (most vehicles turn right at this location) you'd think the left lane would be an option lane so cars can either use the left turn lane or the leftern most right turn lane w/o having to "change lanes"  (cross over the center line)

CTDOT will have the right lane be the option lane for both exclusive right turn lanes. So card in the left lane wishing to turn right have to cross over the line to turn right which creates confusion and queues.

Think CT-34 EB at the CT-115 intersection in Derby. And CT-34 WB at the end of Frontage Rd turning right into CT-10/CT-34 multiplex in New Haven.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on March 22, 2019, 04:32:35 PM
Quote from: DJ Particle on March 21, 2019, 02:15:17 AM
Oh jeez....I didn't intend to turn this into another "Massachusetts" thread!   :paranoid:

Or another mileage based exit numbers thread. My god.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on March 22, 2019, 05:45:32 PM
It's not the line painting, it's the paving seams.  ConnDOT doesn't put emphasis on making them  straight.  The lines are painted with a laser-guided machine attached to a truck.  What you're seeing is an optical illusion.

What does drive me crazy is their inconsistency with striping gore areas.  Some get it, some don't.  And I wish they would go back to the old method of striping exit/entrance lanes; dotted, broken, solid or solid, broken, dotted.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on March 22, 2019, 10:48:24 PM
Quote from: robby2161 on March 21, 2019, 01:13:11 PM
Seems that the contractor(s) CT is using to paint road markings in District 3 is really off.  Crooked centerlines, poor use of space at intersections with turn lanes, bad geometry, and inconsistent lane widths are all common around here, after recent resurfacing projects.  I have a collection of pictures I will share when I pull them from my external later.

For now, check out this egregious example of the ramp from US-7 south to CT-15 south.  The Connector (US-7) bends to the left slightly before the ramp begins.  When the exit lane does begin, instead of paralleling the curb to the right like it used to, the ramp bends left with US-7 into what should be the exit gore point, then abruptly shifts right.

It's a huge pet peeve of mine, and also happens on the CT-15 north to US-7 north ramp.  It's even more of a nuisance there because the contractor started the rumble strip far too early, forcing you to merge into traffic prematurely!

Can anyone shed light on why this is so poorly done?  I know CT is broke but come on..



So looking at the video, my immediate question is that an interim lane striping that will be replaced after resurfacing is finished, or is what I see the final striping for that stretch of road? My guess is it would be that it's interim striping based on the thickness of the lines marking the gore area, and also the fact that Connecticut has been trending toward striping its exit ramp gores with chevrons after resurfacing projects. Wait a few more weeks until the weather gets warmer, and see whether or not crews go back and place final striping on this section of highway.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on March 22, 2019, 11:42:15 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on March 21, 2019, 06:14:10 PM
Sure enough (and they even took down the old gantry too):
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7925/47384471092_125e300181.jpg)[/url]

Seems like good progress is being made on this project... in both directions, and there's hope that the project will be completed sooner than 6/2020.  By my counts, based on JP's photos, I count 7 gantries-EB and 4-WB still to be installed. 

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on March 23, 2019, 12:57:02 AM
I just noticed GSV of recent widening/signing work on CT 34 between CT 8 and CT 115 in Derby, and it's... pretty good. Overhead signs with lane assignments, making things pretty clear.

https://goo.gl/maps/mnBw11W2VkS2
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on March 23, 2019, 03:57:27 PM
Quote from: kurumi on March 23, 2019, 12:57:02 AM
I just noticed GSV of recent widening/signing work on CT 34 between CT 8 and CT 115 in Derby, and it's... pretty good. Overhead signs with lane assignments, making things pretty clear.

https://goo.gl/maps/mnBw11W2VkS2

true but the lane markings are reversed.  The left lane turns into a left-turn only lane for CT-115 and makes people have to change lanes to stay on CT-34.  Most people turn right onto CT-34 than CT-115. It creates more of a slow down now b/c of the merging issue.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3192493,-73.0838011,3a,75y,107.43h,77.07t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sG52Gk2Gz7zajtZ0UEZC4Vg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

and WB when CT-34 is made to two thru-lanes east of here in Derby will they replace or modify the sign to be two lanes or false advertise it?
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3194204,-73.0836792,3a,75y,303.76h,81.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sxr5L4edVeQLc_DCrFOONLA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on March 23, 2019, 08:29:29 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on March 23, 2019, 03:57:27 PM
Quote from: kurumi on March 23, 2019, 12:57:02 AM
I just noticed GSV of recent widening/signing work on CT 34 between CT 8 and CT 115 in Derby, and it's... pretty good. Overhead signs with lane assignments, making things pretty clear.

https://goo.gl/maps/mnBw11W2VkS2

true but the lane markings are reversed.  The left lane turns into a left-turn only lane for CT-115 and makes people have to change lanes to stay on CT-34.  Most people turn right onto CT-34 than CT-115. It creates more of a slow down now b/c of the merging issue.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3192493,-73.0838011,3a,75y,107.43h,77.07t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sG52Gk2Gz7zajtZ0UEZC4Vg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

You're right. Lane continuity has never been a big thing. They might have been able to stripe the thru lanes to move to the right, opening the left lane for CT 115 as a "new" lane instead of a lane drop. As it is, the bridge is like I-84 between 394 and CT 15 but on a smaller scale. Add to one side, take from the other.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on March 23, 2019, 10:39:56 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on March 22, 2019, 11:42:15 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on March 21, 2019, 06:14:10 PM
Sure enough (and they even took down the old gantry too):
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7925/47384471092_125e300181.jpg)[/url]

Seems like good progress is being made on this project... in both directions, and there's hope that the project will be completed sooner than 6/2020.  By my counts, based on JP's photos, I count 7 gantries-EB and 4-WB still to be installed.


I traveled it today both ways between 32 and 39A.  Here's what I found:


EB: The JCT 72 2 Mi Phase IV sign is still there. For Exit 33, the 1/2 mile CT 72 West needs to be replaced (I saw the new sign in the maintenance area.  There is still an old (Phase IV, center tab) ground mounted 1/2 mile sign for Exit 34. Exit 35 still needs the 1/2 mile and at exit signage replaced. Slater Rd still needs the at exit signage replaced and the old 1/2 mile sign removed from the WB ramp overpass.  Fienemann Rd is all set.  The 1 mile signage for CT 4 and the 1/2 mile CT 4/ 1 1/4 mile signage for CT 9 are still Phase III, and the famed misaligned left exit tab on the LGS has yet to be corrected.  The at exit signage for CT 4 is done, as are the 3/4 and 1/4 mile signs for CT 9, both on chorded trusses.  The old gantry with the solitary I-84 single lane pull through is gone, but the button copy at-exit gantry and signage for 39A is still there.

WB: The 39A at exit sign is still button copy, the 1 mile Exit 39 sign is off The Stack, but still takes on the same shape as the old sign that was elongated to fit the overpass.  All the new Exit 38 signage is up. The 1/2 mi Exit 39/ 3/4 mi Exit 38 button copy gantry is still there.  The at exit Exit 39/ 1/4 mi Exit 38 gantry is up, but the old signage is still on the South Rd overpass, as is the old at exit sign for Fienemann Rd.  The button copy JCT 72 2 mi/ Slater Rd 1 1/2 mi signage is still there.  The old 1/2 mile button copy  Slater Rd/ 1 Mile Phase IV center tab Exit 35 gantry still stands.  The new at exit Slater Rd sign is there, but the old one still is mounted on the Long Swamp Rd overpass.  Other than the 1 1/2 mile Phase IV center tab 1 1/2 mile sign for CT 72 West on the Slater Rd ramp overpass and an empty single pipe gantry behind the new at exit Exit 35 chorded truss, everything down to 32 is now new signage. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on March 25, 2019, 10:15:56 PM
Checked out the progress of the I-95 sign replacement project on Sunday:

New Exit 85 ramp signage is up:
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7916/46544295845_2ae2713fb9_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2dUXFzp)95NB-Exit85-ramp (https://flic.kr/p/2dUXFzp) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr
Motorists will see different destinations for a few more years, as the Gold Star Bridge signs for this exit won't be replaced until the northbound bridge's rehab is complete. 

The Exit 86-exit now sign has not yet been replaced, but supports are being installed.  The Exit 87 signage has already been replaced, but the old gantries are still up, with pullthroughs remaining.

Speaking of old gantries and pull-throughs remaining, we're southbound now at a new sign:
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7843/46544295735_8f8dccdf0d_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2dUXFxv)95SB-Exit87 (https://flic.kr/p/2dUXFxv) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr
This wasn't up a month or so ago. 

The Exit 87-1/2 mile sign and the Exit 86-exit now sign southbound have yet to be replaced.  Passing by Exit 87, I did observe at least one new overhead on CT 349.  I didn't travel that route this time around, so can't report on the other signs along that route.

More photos from Sunday's drive-around can be found on my FLICKR page.  It was a roundabout trip to Wallingford, via Groton, Windham, and Windsor, covering portions of I-95, CT 12, CT 2A, I-395, CT 32, CT 203, US 6, I-384, I-291, I-91, CT 15, CT 9, and I-691/CT 66.


I didn't get a shot because I was travelling the wrong direction, but I did notice at some point recently, new Exit 85 tabs were put up on the CT 99 South signs in Wethersfield on CT 15 North.  Previously, only southbound signage denoted this exit as 85, while northbound signage had no tabs.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: amroad17 on March 26, 2019, 02:23:03 AM
^ Both signs look excellent!  A mix of "new" and "classic".  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: zzyzx on March 26, 2019, 02:37:48 PM
This would be a first for the state if this ever gets completed: ConnDOT is proposing to rebuild Exit 16 in Norwalk as a diverging diamond interchange (https://www.thehour.com/news/article/East-Norwalk-interchange-eyed-for-innovative-new-13653067.php#photo-17016018)

Who else thinks the idea will get shot down by the public because driving temporality on the opposite side of the road will be "confusing" "cause a lot of accidents" and/or the interchange "will look ugly?"

The last time I spoke to ConnDOT engineers about DDIs in the state was about 2 years ago during the I-95 Exit 74 meeting, and they told me that they look at DDIs as possible alternatives when rebuilding interchanges, but the topography and ROW required make it challenging for most areas of the state.  I'm curious to see how they will pull this off in Fairfield County.

I'd never thought I'd see a DDI built in CT in the near future...so I really hope this moves forward.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on March 26, 2019, 06:23:33 PM
Quote from: zzyzx on March 26, 2019, 02:37:48 PM
This would be a first for the state if this ever gets completed: ConnDOT is proposing to rebuild Exit 16 in Norwalk as a diverging diamond interchange (https://www.thehour.com/news/article/East-Norwalk-interchange-eyed-for-innovative-new-13653067.php#photo-17016018)

Who else thinks the idea will get shot down by the public because driving temporality on the opposite side of the road will be "confusing" "cause a lot of accidents" and/or the interchange "will look ugly?"

The last time I spoke to ConnDOT engineers about DDIs in the state was about 2 years ago during the I-95 Exit 74 meeting, and they told me that they look at DDIs as possible alternatives when rebuilding interchanges, but the topography and ROW required make it challenging for most areas of the state.  I'm curious to see how they will pull this off in Fairfield County.

I'd never thought I'd see a DDI built in CT in the near future...so I really hope this moves forward.

Read the comments at the bottom of the article...one idiot wrote "stop looking to the midwest to solve our northeast traffic problems" and that right there is why we don't have anything nice in CT when it comes to roads.  Um the midwest is where all the wide roads with lots of capacity are due to good traffic engineering!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeCL on March 26, 2019, 07:12:42 PM
I'm trying to figure out how a DDI is going to fit in at exit 16 is it going to be elevated?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on March 26, 2019, 09:09:49 PM
Some DDIs are fairly compact, like this one (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.107493,-77.575715,466m/data=!3m1!1e3) that fit in the footprint of the original diamond.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jon daly on March 27, 2019, 06:30:29 AM
Quote from: amroad17 on March 26, 2019, 02:23:03 AM
^ Both signs look excellent!  A mix of "new" and "classic".  :thumbsup:

RIP Clarence B. Sharp.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on March 27, 2019, 05:03:01 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on March 25, 2019, 10:15:56 PM
I didn't get a shot because I was travelling the wrong direction, but I did notice at some point recently, new Exit 85 tabs were put up on the CT 99 South signs in Wethersfield on CT 15 North.  Previously, only southbound signage denoted this exit as 85, while northbound signage had no tabs.
Those tabs had to have gone up in the last week or so.  Don't remember seeing them last Monday when I traveled in that direction, but I saw the new numbered gore sign and the center tab exit numbers.  From a quick glance, it looks like a larger 85 was slapped on an old Exit tab that was laying around the CTDOT sign shop.

Also see the piers are up EB on I-84 between Fienemann Rd and Route 4 for the gantry for the 3/4 mile Route 4 and 1 1/2 mile Route 9 signage that will replace the gantry 1/4 mile ahead.

Interesting article about and a nice pictorial history about the No Exit Zone and the Sherwood Island Parkway.
https://m.ctpost.com/news/article/Why-is-there-no-Exit-43-on-the-Merritt-Parkway-13717306.php
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeCL on March 28, 2019, 06:49:56 PM
Quote from: vdeane on March 26, 2019, 09:09:49 PM
Some DDIs are fairly compact, like this one (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.107493,-77.575715,466m/data=!3m1!1e3) that fit in the footprint of the original diamond.
Thanks!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on March 28, 2019, 09:04:33 PM
Slight update to images I posted back in February:

(https://i.imgur.com/ldrBPPZ.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/gERfXfy.jpg)

To refresh...this is from the Christian Lane overpass of CT Route 9 in Berlin. The concrete pour in picture #2 appears to be for a future light post installation. There are at least 4 more like it going a few hundred feet south of it on that side. They seem to be recessed more than this one is. Also, the nearby on ramp from Christian Lane to CT Route 9 North looks to have a few now also.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on April 01, 2019, 09:31:47 AM
While driving back to PA from a weekend visit w/family from MA; I noticed (I couldn't really stop & take pictures) some new BGS' laid out on the ground in the wide I-84 median at the CT 72 West (Exit 33) interchange.  Such can be seen just along I-84 westbound just after one passes the Exit 33 ramp while going through that left curve.  I saw at least four BGS panels including one for Left-Exit 39/CT 4/Farmington intended for I-84 eastbound.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on April 01, 2019, 04:50:28 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 01, 2019, 09:31:47 AM
While driving back to PA from a weekend visit w/family from MA; I noticed (I couldn't really stop & take pictures) some new BGS' laid out on the ground in the wide I-84 median at the CT 72 West (Exit 33) interchange.  Such can be seen just along I-84 westbound just after one passes the Exit 33 ramp while going through that left curve.  I saw at least four BGS panels including one for Left-Exit 39/CT 4/Farmington intended for I-84 eastbound.

Yup, that's the staging area for the Exits 30-39A signing project.  Observations from my drive through the area over the weekend showed new foundations up for the Exit 39 3/4 mile/Exit 39A 1 1/4? mile assembly, still awaiting the support structure to be put up.  (I got some pics of the signs in the area at my FLICKR page linked below).

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on April 02, 2019, 01:36:25 PM
CT-8 signing project update....poles are up for most signs.  Except the original non-reflective button copy on the SB side by Exits 25-24 where it's just the foundations so far.  I think the sign in this pic is from 1980 or before as in 1981 they used date stamps on signs and used demountable copy.  That's based on signs I saw for CT-25 back in the day.

(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7889/46794988754_fc932bdea8_z.jpg)[/url]

off topic now....But the reflective signs in the area are from 1990 according to their stamps.  So I'm guessing some signs were only up for 10 years or so?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeCL on April 02, 2019, 01:38:41 PM
Wow I'm wondering how the bridge is going to be moved in place.. remote control crawler? They tore the center jersey barrier up.(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190402/3b60165ea1dadffe6563e082128f4c77.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: sharkyfour on April 02, 2019, 04:46:24 PM
Looks like the sign project on I-95 in the Groton area hit a snag...  Literally.

https://www.wfsb.com/news/crews-to-shut-down-i--in-groton-tuesday-evening/article_81c99060-552e-11e9-9147-672095a6d804.html

That contractor is in for quite the repair bill...
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on April 02, 2019, 08:54:09 PM
How convenient that they got in two plugs for the precious app during that traffic report. They go way overboard with that. Trust me! :(
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on April 03, 2019, 01:59:35 PM
Couple of shout outs to CTDOT.  First one is that those roadside assistance trucks are a godsend.  Blew a tire this morning and not even 3 minutes after pulling over an orange truck pulled up and changed my tire.  Saved me a major headache(can't say the same about the cost of the tires).  The second shout out is that the CT 6 error signs on I-84 East in West Hartford have finally been replaced with corrected US 6 shields. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on April 03, 2019, 08:32:22 PM
Do we have a definite construction start date for the I-91 resurfacing and Exit 29 redesign?  DOT site says it was 4/1 but IDK.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on April 03, 2019, 09:05:07 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on April 02, 2019, 08:54:09 PM
How convenient that they got in two plugs for the precious app during that traffic report. They go way overboard with that. Trust me! :(

Now they're pushing their new Alexa flash briefings ad nauseum.


Managed to get a couple of shots of the now numbered exit signage for Exit 85 NB on CT 15


(https://live.staticflickr.com/7832/47546923231_faecb89547_n.jpg)(https://live.staticflickr.com/7812/47546916151_f6d0c77522_n.jpg)

(https://flic.kr/p/2frynEp)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on April 07, 2019, 01:53:03 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on April 03, 2019, 09:05:07 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on April 02, 2019, 08:54:09 PM
How convenient that they got in two plugs for the precious app during that traffic report. They go way overboard with that. Trust me! :(

Now they're pushing their new Alexa flash briefings ad nauseum.


Managed to get a couple of shots of the now numbered exit signage for Exit 85 NB on CT 15


(https://live.staticflickr.com/7832/47546923231_faecb89547_n.jpg)(https://live.staticflickr.com/7812/47546916151_f6d0c77522_n.jpg)


(https://flic.kr/p/2frynEp)
Is this going to number back onto the parkways or is it only the easternmost freeway?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: ipeters61 on April 07, 2019, 03:38:13 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on April 03, 2019, 09:05:07 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on April 02, 2019, 08:54:09 PM
How convenient that they got in two plugs for the precious app during that traffic report. They go way overboard with that. Trust me! :(

Now they're pushing their new Alexa flash briefings ad nauseum.


Managed to get a couple of shots of the now numbered exit signage for Exit 85 NB on CT 15


(https://live.staticflickr.com/7832/47546923231_faecb89547_n.jpg)(https://live.staticflickr.com/7812/47546916151_f6d0c77522_n.jpg)
(https://flic.kr/p/2frynEp)
Interesting that they didn't right align the exit tabs.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on April 07, 2019, 05:41:51 PM
Quote from: ipeters61 on April 07, 2019, 03:38:13 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on April 03, 2019, 09:05:07 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on April 02, 2019, 08:54:09 PM
How convenient that they got in two plugs for the precious app during that traffic report. They go way overboard with that. Trust me! :(

Now they're pushing their new Alexa flash briefings ad nauseum.


Managed to get a couple of shots of the now numbered exit signage for Exit 85 NB on CT 15


(https://live.staticflickr.com/7832/47546923231_faecb89547_n.jpg)(https://live.staticflickr.com/7812/47546916151_f6d0c77522_n.jpg)
(https://flic.kr/p/2frynEp)
Interesting that they didn't right align the exit tabs.

CT The Land of Steady Habits
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on April 07, 2019, 09:36:27 PM
I'm assuming they were replaced in-kind based on the older specs, so it explains the center tabs.  There have been a couple of spot sign replacements on the northern part of 15 with right aligned tabs, but they'll probably wait till the full sign is replaced to right align the tabs  (and convert to mileage based numbers; Exit 85 would then be Exit 79).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on April 08, 2019, 08:51:47 AM
Quote from: ipeters61 on April 07, 2019, 03:38:13 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on April 03, 2019, 09:05:07 PM
Managed to get a couple of shots of the now numbered exit signage for Exit 85 NB on CT 15

(https://live.staticflickr.com/7832/47546923231_faecb89547_n.jpg)(https://live.staticflickr.com/7812/47546916151_f6d0c77522_n.jpg)
(https://flic.kr/p/2frynEp)
Interesting that they didn't right align the exit tabs.
Such is not the first time I've seen retrofitted centered Exit tabs & not just in CT.  When I-95 north of MA 128 first received its current exit numbers circa 1988; only newly installed signs had right-mounted Exit tabs.  All existing, 70s-vintage signs were retrofitted with centered Exit tabs.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on April 08, 2019, 02:53:24 PM
New BGSs are starting to make their appearances on CT-8 between Derby and Waterbury. 

SB SO FAR:

Exit 22 1/2 mile BGS SB is up with blue service symbol panels at the bottom with a green background of course.


NB SO FAR:
Beacon Falls Town Line/Exit 23

Exit 23 Bethany

Exit 25 Cross St 1 Mile

Saw the truck with the new signs on the NB side.  I just saw an Exit 30 exit tab sticking out of it.  IDK where the staging area is though.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on April 08, 2019, 06:26:10 PM
Quote from: ipeters61 on April 07, 2019, 03:38:13 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on April 03, 2019, 09:05:07 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on April 02, 2019, 08:54:09 PM
How convenient that they got in two plugs for the precious app during that traffic report. They go way overboard with that. Trust me! :(

Now they're pushing their new Alexa flash briefings ad nauseum.


Managed to get a couple of shots of the now numbered exit signage for Exit 85 NB on CT 15


(https://live.staticflickr.com/7832/47546923231_faecb89547_n.jpg)(https://live.staticflickr.com/7812/47546916151_f6d0c77522_n.jpg)
(https://flic.kr/p/2frynEp)
Interesting that they didn't right align the exit tabs.
That might be temporary, I think those signs are up for replacement during the construction.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on April 09, 2019, 08:25:43 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on April 03, 2019, 09:05:07 PM
(https://live.staticflickr.com/7832/47546923231_faecb89547_n.jpg)(https://live.staticflickr.com/7812/47546916151_f6d0c77522_n.jpg)
(https://flic.kr/p/2frynEp)
I meant to chime on this earlier.  Is it me or does those 85s on the Exit tabs look to be Series F?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on April 09, 2019, 04:42:02 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 08, 2019, 06:26:10 PM
That might be temporary, I think those signs are up for replacement during the construction.

The I-91 reconstruction/Exit 29 relocation plans don't show the northbound Exit 85 signs changing.  In fact, not all the signs on CT 15 within the project limits are being changed.  Not sure why that is... I would've taken this opportunity to replace all signs on CT 15 from the Berlin Tpke split up to East Hartford, but that's not happening this time 'round.

Perhaps the addition was so that when motorists see traffic building, their GPS can direct them to Exit 85, and there will now be more signs than just the exit gore sign saying that.  Exit 85 goes only south from Route 15, but you could take CT 99 South to CT 3 North to get to either I-91 or I-84, the latter via CT 3/2. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on April 09, 2019, 05:59:35 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on April 09, 2019, 04:42:02 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 08, 2019, 06:26:10 PM
That might be temporary, I think those signs are up for replacement during the construction.

The I-91 reconstruction/Exit 29 relocation plans don't show the northbound Exit 85 signs changing.  In fact, not all the signs on CT 15 within the project limits are being changed.  Not sure why that is... I would've taken this opportunity to replace all signs on CT 15 from the Berlin Tpke split up to East Hartford, but that's not happening this time 'round.

Perhaps the addition was so that when motorists see traffic building, their GPS can direct them to Exit 85, and there will now be more signs than just the exit gore sign saying that.  Exit 85 goes only south from Route 15, but you could take CT 99 South to CT 3 North to get to either I-91 or I-84, the latter via CT 3/2.


I can only guess that it's cost related. Plus a full sign replacement would have to be done on a separate contract. It would be out of the way on the current one to go down to the Turnpike and replace all the signs.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on April 11, 2019, 03:54:25 PM
The latest on tolling: https://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Here-s-how-much-CT-highway-tolls-could-cost-13757566.php

The article makes it sound like the US DOT would be on-board with tolling existing interstates under certain circumstances (specifically, congestion-based pricing

I thought it was presumed that once federal funds had been used for "free" interstates, those funds would need to be paid back before highways could be [re-]tolled, barring special circumstances or new construction (e.g. tolling newly-constructed lanes).

Has there been an announced change that I missed?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on April 11, 2019, 04:35:46 PM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on April 11, 2019, 03:54:25 PM
The article makes it sound like the US DOT would be on-board with tolling existing interstates under certain circumstances
IIRC, the feds did approve three slots of sorts to allow full-tolling of existing free Interstates as part of their TEA-21 program many years ago.  However, no state has presently taken any of those slots (not sure if RI's new federally-approved truck tolls counts as one of those slots).  As a result, such slots are indeed still open for any other state (including CT) to use.  However, those slots I believe are subject to only one road per state as opposed to several. 

If such is still the case, CT will have to twist the fed's arms to get what it wants.  Additionally, the feds can & hopefully still will apply the same condition/caveat it did w/PA over a decade ago when PA (under then-Gov. Rendell) tried to toll I-80.  Such condition/caveat being that the tolls can only be used for the roads being tolled and nothing else.

Towards the end of the article (bold emphasis added):
Quote from: CTPost ArticleLamont said he needs the legislature to approve an electronic tolling bill before he can ask the federal government for approval.
Without going into partisan, tug-of-war talking points of the article; a tolling bill plan on the state level still needs to be approved first.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on April 11, 2019, 05:51:04 PM
The following is fact and not opinion:  CT is a heavily controlled Democrat state thanks to Hartford, New Haven, Bridgeport, and Waterbury controlling the electorate.  Most of the suburbs lean to the right.  The ones most affected would be those in the suburbs, so there is almost a revolt-like movement against these tolls.  The majority of those that vote Democrat are those that will be affected by these tolls the least: the Fairfield County commuters who use Metro-North, and those that don't own a vehicle.  That being said, Lamont will probably get his way despite the outcry of the constituents who will be affected the most.  The original plan was for 82 locations, but that has been scaled back to 50, and would only be on the 3 2di's and CT 15.  Still, it is quite punitive compared to MA, who only tolls the Pike and the Boston area bridges and tunnels; and NY, who only tolls the Thruway system and the Hudson, MTA, and PANYNJ bridges.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Rothman on April 11, 2019, 06:11:25 PM
So, those in CT's cities don't use interstates to travel, especially in a city like Hartford, where you can't get anywhere except on one.

Some fact.

The idea that the tolling plan is purely a partisan issue doesn't seem true to me.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on April 11, 2019, 06:14:38 PM
Lamont says he would not want to charge out of state drivers more for tolls b/c he wouldn't want states to charge more for CT drivers than they already do.

Hartford Courant article below:
QuoteHe also said that he was not interested in raising extra money by gouging drivers from Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and New York because those states could then counter-attack by hiking rates on Connecticut drivers.

"I've got to work with Charlie Baker,'' Lamont said, referring to the Massachusetts governor and his colleagues from Rhode Island and New York. "I've got to work with Gina Raimondo. I've got to work with Andrew Cuomo."

UMMMMM Lamont is clueless.

So he's worried about those CT drivers that are driving out of state in MA or NY more so than the CT drivers that drive EVERY DAY in the state,  (b/c if out of state drivers are charged the same as CT drivers, it means we CT drivers will pay MORE to get to the magic number of $800 Million annually) If NY or MA drivers paid a higher toll than CT drivers then the burden on CT drivers wouldn't be as much

https://www.courant.com/politics/hc-pol-lamont-transportation-priorities-20190410-ssfn7yruhnaz7hnliv4s7k5vl4-story.html
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on April 11, 2019, 06:18:02 PM
Also the Feds are ok with tolling without having to lose federal funds:

QuoteLamont met recently with Elaine Chao, secretary of transportation, who he said provided that reassurance that Connecticut could collect revenue, and not jeopardize the ability to rely on the federal government to help the state complete projects like rail improvements, highway widening, and bridge replacement.

Connecticut, according to the Department of Transportation in Washington, currently holds one of the spots available through the agency's Value Pricing Pilot Program. That program would allow Connecticut to install tolls on existing roadways, so long as the prices are based on congestion levels and time of day.

https://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/Lamont-Feds-OK-with-Connecticut-Tolls-508339401.html
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on April 11, 2019, 08:46:04 PM
Quote from: Rothman on April 11, 2019, 06:11:25 PM
The idea that the tolling plan is purely a partisan issue doesn't seem true to me.

It certainly is.  Not one Republican supports tolls.  The Republican proposal is mostly bonding along with spending cuts.  The swing votes will be the Democrats who represent districts that are mostly commuters, and whether or not they will listen to the voice of their constituents, or pander to party leadership. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on April 11, 2019, 11:17:02 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on April 11, 2019, 08:46:04 PM
Quote from: Rothman on April 11, 2019, 06:11:25 PM
The idea that the tolling plan is purely a partisan issue doesn't seem true to me.

It certainly is.  Not one Republican supports tolls.  The Republican proposal is mostly bonding along with spending cuts.  The swing votes will be the Democrats who represent districts that are mostly commuters, and whether or not they will listen to the voice of their constituents, or pander to party leadership. 
Not one? Literally zero? Citation needed.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on April 11, 2019, 11:17:16 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on April 11, 2019, 06:14:38 PM
Lamont says he would not want to charge out of state drivers more for tolls b/c he wouldn't want states to charge more for CT drivers than they already do.

Hartford Courant article below:
QuoteHe also said that he was not interested in raising extra money by gouging drivers from Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and New York because those states could then counter-attack by hiking rates on Connecticut drivers.

"I've got to work with Charlie Baker,'' Lamont said, referring to the Massachusetts governor and his colleagues from Rhode Island and New York. "I've got to work with Gina Raimondo. I've got to work with Andrew Cuomo."

UMMMMM Lamont is clueless.

So he's worried about those CT drivers that are driving out of state in MA or NY more so than the CT drivers that drive EVERY DAY in the state,  (b/c if out of state drivers are charged the same as CT drivers, it means we CT drivers will pay MORE to get to the magic number of $800 Million annually) If NY or MA drivers paid a higher toll than CT drivers then the burden on CT drivers wouldn't be as much

https://www.courant.com/politics/hc-pol-lamont-transportation-priorities-20190410-ssfn7yruhnaz7hnliv4s7k5vl4-story.html
UMMM... that's exactly his point.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on April 12, 2019, 12:50:16 AM
Quote from: Alps on April 11, 2019, 11:17:02 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on April 11, 2019, 08:46:04 PM
Quote from: Rothman on April 11, 2019, 06:11:25 PM
The idea that the tolling plan is purely a partisan issue doesn't seem true to me.

It certainly is.  Not one Republican supports tolls.  The Republican proposal is mostly bonding along with spending cuts.  The swing votes will be the Democrats who represent districts that are mostly commuters, and whether or not they will listen to the voice of their constituents, or pander to party leadership. 
Not one? Literally zero? Citation needed.
No Republican voted in favor in the bill that cleared committee.
https://fox61.com/2019/03/20/legislative-committee-votes-to-send-bill-on-tolls-to-the-house-and-senate/

Title of the article says it all (love the erroneous MA 20 sign in the photo)
https://m.ctpost.com/politics/article/Republicans-stand-united-against-tolls-13664878.php

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on April 12, 2019, 12:52:22 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on April 12, 2019, 12:50:16 AM
Quote from: Alps on April 11, 2019, 11:17:02 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on April 11, 2019, 08:46:04 PM
Quote from: Rothman on April 11, 2019, 06:11:25 PM
The idea that the tolling plan is purely a partisan issue doesn't seem true to me.

It certainly is.  Not one Republican supports tolls.  The Republican proposal is mostly bonding along with spending cuts.  The swing votes will be the Democrats who represent districts that are mostly commuters, and whether or not they will listen to the voice of their constituents, or pander to party leadership. 
Not one? Literally zero? Citation needed.
No Republican voted in favor in the bill that cleared committee.
https://fox61.com/2019/03/20/legislative-committee-votes-to-send-bill-on-tolls-to-the-house-and-senate/

Title of the article says it all (love the erroneous MA 20 sign in the photo)
https://m.ctpost.com/politics/article/Republicans-stand-united-against-tolls-13664878.php


Oh, legislators, not the people.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on April 12, 2019, 08:54:26 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on April 11, 2019, 06:14:38 PM
Lamont says he would not want to charge out of state drivers more for tolls b/c he wouldn't want states to charge more for CT drivers than they already do.
Such seems to contradict what was mentioned in this WTNH, News 8 story (https://www.wtnh.com/news/connecticut/what-tolls-could-cost-you-and-your-family-every-day-each-month-and-every-year/1915580760?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook_WTNH_News_8&fbclid=IwAR01Dfw62iTrU3IC_BVgdzL9ZG1Qc4NuTbrR-YE8ObRvI1HF5T9MTqFhvGM).
Quote from: WTNH, News 8Tolls for out of state cars with out of state transponders would pay about double that price.
Okay, so which is it?

Interestingly, the tolling plan appears somewhat scaled back from what was proposed just a few months ago.  I.e. 50 AET gantries instead of 82 and not every single highway in CT will be tolled.

Quote from: Alps on April 12, 2019, 12:52:22 AMOh, legislators, not the people.
Given that a legislative vote is all that's needed to approve whatever tolling plan is decided upon prior to going to the feds; such is all that matters at this particular point.  The only thing that the people/constituents can do on this matter is notify their state rep. & senator their views on the plan prior to the above coming to a vote.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Verlanka on April 12, 2019, 09:01:53 AM
Quote from: Rothman on April 11, 2019, 06:11:25 PM
So, those in CT's cities don't use interstates to travel, especially in a city like Hartford, where you can't get anywhere except on one.

You got me confused on that one :confused:
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on April 12, 2019, 06:47:32 PM
Never trust a politician with traffic engineering. Let the professionals take care of it.

That having been said, why not just toll SRs and not Interstates? They can do that at any time.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on April 14, 2019, 03:18:16 PM
(https://live.staticflickr.com/7825/32666480557_9ee73c3d8a_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/RLCfA2)

Part of the new signage cropping up on CT-8 between Derby and Waterbury.


Interesting of note in this new signing project will be a change of wording for the SB Exit 25 signs:

On CT-8 Exit 26 is for CT-63 and Exit 25 south of there is for Cross St. 

A lot of NB drivers on CT-8 use Exit 25 as a cut thru to CT-63.  SB CT-8 drivers do not as it's out of the way and you'd have to back track like a "V."  Look at the map in the link.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4769401,-73.052122,15.79z

What I find dumb is that the NEW Exit 25 signage calls for "Cross St / TO CT-63" for the southbound direction only. It makes no sense as you're already passing CT-63 and going down to Cross St and back again makes no sense. It's not even more direct, you're making a "V."  Northbound Exit 25 signs remain with just "Cross St" and no CT-63 mention.  Shouldn't the NB Exit 25 signs have the "TO CT-63" in addition to "Cross St?"  Thoughts?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on April 15, 2019, 09:22:33 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 12, 2019, 06:47:32 PMThat having been said, why not just toll SRs and not Interstates? They can do that at any time.
Two reasons why tolling non-Interstates in CT are non-starters:

1.  Not one of CT's non-Interstates freeways are continuous from state line to state line whereas I-84, 91 & 95 are.

2.  The Merritt/Wilbur Cross Parkways (CT 15) are in close proximity to I-91 & 95.  As previously mentioned up-thread; tolling one but not the other is an automatic no-go due to shunpiking reasons.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on April 15, 2019, 11:18:00 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 15, 2019, 09:22:33 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 12, 2019, 06:47:32 PMThat having been said, why not just toll SRs and not Interstates? They can do that at any time.
Two reasons why tolling non-Interstates in CT are non-starters:

1.  Not one of CT's non-Interstates freeways are continuous from state line to state line whereas I-84, 91 & 95 are.

2.  The Merritt/Wilbur Cross Parkways (CT 15) are in close proximity to I-91 & 95.  As previously mentioned up-thread; tolling one but not the other is an automatic no-go due to shunpiking reasons.

And Routes 8 and 9 don't carry as much traffic as 84, 91, 95 and Route 15, so there is the question of whether tolling those routes would generate a return on investment, factoring in the up-front cost of installing toll gantries on Routes 8 and 9.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on April 16, 2019, 01:24:12 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on April 15, 2019, 11:18:00 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 15, 2019, 09:22:33 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 12, 2019, 06:47:32 PMThat having been said, why not just toll SRs and not Interstates? They can do that at any time.
Two reasons why tolling non-Interstates in CT are non-starters:

1.  Not one of CT's non-Interstates freeways are continuous from state line to state line whereas I-84, 91 & 95 are.

2.  The Merritt/Wilbur Cross Parkways (CT 15) are in close proximity to I-91 & 95.  As previously mentioned up-thread; tolling one but not the other is an automatic no-go due to shunpiking reasons.

And Routes 8 and 9 don't carry as much traffic as 84, 91, 95 and Route 15, so there is the question of whether tolling those routes would generate a return on investment, factoring in the up-front cost of installing toll gantries on Routes 8 and 9.
It depends on the toll rate. MassPike put in 17 gantries for $250 million, which included an overhaul of their existing toll infrastructure. CDM Smith estimated $372 million for the entire system in CT*, which is clearly a lowball. Since CT would be putting in the infrastructure new, the added costs for 8 and 9 would be minimal. So let's say it's around $10 million per gantry. CT 8 would have roughly 30 gantries, CT 9 would have... let's say 30 gantries if we include CT 72. So 60 gantries, $600 million to install. CDM Smith had operating costs around $100 million/year. I'm again assuming that's a lowball, but I figured around $500k/gantry plus the overall operations (revenue processing etc.), so maybe it's ballpark. So let's say $500k * 60 = $30 million yearly cost to maintain the CT 8/9 system. Amortizing $600 million over 30 years gives me roughly $33.4 million/year at a 4% discount rate. Let's say $35 million yearly cost to build spread out over 30 years. (That's just a value. Bonds could be 25 or 50 or 40 years.) So roughly $65 million annually total. I will even round that up to $100 million for you.
From the Traffic Log**, I see a wide range of AADT (20K to 60K with plenty of outliers), so let's say 40,000 at each gantry seems reasonable. Let's say each gantry charges 15 cents, so a full trip on either road would cost you $4.50. That means every day, each gantry is pulling in $6,000, or a total of $360,000 for all 60 gantries. Multiply by 365 days and: $131,400,000. So even when I rounded way up, I'm still making $31,400,000 per year.
Conclusion: Tolling CT 8 and 9 would be profitable.

*https://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/documents/dcommunications/press_release/ctdot_tolling_report_11142018.pdf
**https://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/documents/dpolicy/traflog/TRAFFICLOG2015.pdf
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on April 16, 2019, 01:13:01 PM
CT also seems to be looking to make out of state drivers pay, and I imagine CT 8 and CT 9 have significantly less out of state traffic than the interstates.  That may well be a factor.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: roadman on April 16, 2019, 01:29:16 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on April 14, 2019, 03:18:16 PM
(https://live.staticflickr.com/7825/32666480557_9ee73c3d8a_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/RLCfA2)

Part of the new signage cropping up on CT-8 between Derby and Waterbury.

Shouldn't the backer panel for the service pictographs be blue instead of green?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on April 16, 2019, 07:54:10 PM
Quote from: roadman on April 16, 2019, 01:29:16 PM
Shouldn't the backer panel for the service pictographs be blue instead of green?

In my opinion, yes.  And up until a few contracts ago, it was (I-95 east of Madison, the Merritt & WCP, I-84 from Southbury to Waterbury), but then, with the I-395 resigning project, it was changed to the primary color of the sign (in most cases blue, but there is a case of the symbols being mounted on a brown background on I-395 in Norwich, as they're on the same sign as one for Dodd Stadium). 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on April 16, 2019, 10:45:01 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on April 16, 2019, 07:54:10 PM
Quote from: roadman on April 16, 2019, 01:29:16 PM
Shouldn't the backer panel for the service pictographs be blue instead of green?

In my opinion, yes.  And up until a few contracts ago, it was (I-95 east of Madison, the Merritt & WCP, I-84 from Southbury to Waterbury), but then, with the I-395 resigning project, it was changed to the primary color of the sign (in most cases blue, but there is a case of the symbols being mounted on a brown background on I-395 in Norwich, as they're on the same sign as one for Dodd Stadium).

They are blue on the I-84 Southington-Farmington sign project.  I'm starting to think that it  varies by DOT district.  No black borders on the state shields either for the Route 8 project, but there are on I-395 and on the Groton-RI project on I-95.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on April 24, 2019, 12:09:52 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on April 16, 2019, 10:45:01 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on April 16, 2019, 07:54:10 PM
Quote from: roadman on April 16, 2019, 01:29:16 PM
Shouldn't the backer panel for the service pictographs be blue instead of green?

They are blue on the I-84 Southington-Farmington sign project.  I'm starting to think that it  varies by DOT district.  No black borders on the state shields either for the Route 8 project, but there are on I-395 and on the Groton-RI project on I-95.

Are they? The Exit 31 signs I thought had green background with the blue symbol signs.

Drove down the Merritt and thought where are the new BGSs?  Well, I think some have been up for awhile and I never noticed.
I noticed the back of some of the BGSs NB are now extruded (I was going SB), before they weren't, which leaves me to believe some signs are new but they look exactly the same and have the same crappy font.  NO Highway gothic.  It also seems they are using the same poles as before....no new foundations.  I only saw new foundations for the old US-7 button copy signage at Exit 39-40.

I have noticed the town line signs (Westport Town Line) and exit gore signs also have the crappy font...so I guess no highway gothic for the new signs even though the plans I have show the signs with it.

I-84 Hartford area signing contract up for bid:
https://biznet.ct.gov/SCP_Search/BidDetail.aspx?CID=49509
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on April 24, 2019, 01:22:20 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on April 24, 2019, 12:09:52 PM
I-84 Hartford area signing contract up for bid:
https://biznet.ct.gov/SCP_Search/BidDetail.aspx?CID=49509

Was just going to mention this!  A few observations/notes/comments:

*  Not all signs Exits 40-42 are in this contract.  Work to add operational lanes in this area will replace those signs not replaced in this contract.
*  Exits 46-50 (the heart of the I-84 viaduct, future project) are getting new signs, but they'll all be mounted on existing overhead supports. 
*  Exit 53 (EB) will remain "44 East/Conn Blvd/E Hartford and Exit 56 (WB) will remain "Governor St/Downtown East Hartford"
*  Exit 56 in the westbound direction is getting one up arrow, a la arrow per lane, which I'm not a fan of in this case.
*  Only noticed one ATTRACTIONS logo sign to be put up, those EB approaching Exit 46 will remain a hodgepodge of standalone individual signs (for now).
*  No "service bar" installations noted within this project.  Perhaps its because of the urban-ness of the area. 

This project basically removes the last of the Phase III button copy signage from I-84.  It stops when the signs get even older than the ones in this project getting replaced (Exits 58-64), so hopefully that'll come at some point in the near future.  There are lots of old support structures in that area, including several old trusses and cantilevers that can't be in the best of shape, but they can't be too bad if they keep getting overlooked in the state's spot overhead sign structure replacement projects.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: roadman on April 24, 2019, 01:47:24 PM
The new sign for Exit 43 eastbound (Sheet TR-06) illustrates one of my pet peeves:  Stating "Low Clearance" without noting the actual clearance.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on April 24, 2019, 01:53:25 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on April 24, 2019, 01:22:20 PMIt stops when the signs get even older than the ones in this project getting replaced (Exits 58-64), so hopefully that'll come at some point in the near future.  There are lots of old support structures in that area, including several old trusses and cantilevers that can't be in the best of shape, but they can't be too bad if they keep getting overlooked in the state's spot overhead sign structure replacement projects.
Some of the route shields in those signs (Exit 58-64 stretch) are in bad shape as well.

The numerals on the CT 30 shield on this BGS (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8086657,-72.528343,3a,75y,71.33h,80.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8nMdXb96RDvjJzbh-XpPQA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) are pretty much gone.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on April 24, 2019, 05:44:08 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 24, 2019, 01:53:25 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on April 24, 2019, 01:22:20 PMIt stops when the signs get even older than the ones in this project getting replaced (Exits 58-64), so hopefully that'll come at some point in the near future.  There are lots of old support structures in that area, including several old trusses and cantilevers that can't be in the best of shape, but they can't be too bad if they keep getting overlooked in the state's spot overhead sign structure replacement projects.
Some of the route shields in those signs (Exit 58-64 stretch) are in bad shape as well.

The numerals on the CT 30 shield on this BGS (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8086657,-72.528343,3a,75y,71.33h,80.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8nMdXb96RDvjJzbh-XpPQA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) are pretty much gone.
Those date to either the redesignation from I-86 or when the HOV lane opened.  Oddly enough, I-84s oldest remaining pavement (excl concrete) section is between Exits 64 and halfway to 66 on the Eastbound side.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on April 24, 2019, 09:20:03 PM
That faded sign on the Google Maps link was still there in early to mid March. Another sign which needs replacement ASAP is both sides of the Tolland/Vernon town line sign in the median. The lettering is even falling off parts of it.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on April 24, 2019, 11:15:53 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on April 24, 2019, 12:09:52 PM
I-84 Hartford area signing contract up for bid:
https://biznet.ct.gov/SCP_Search/BidDetail.aspx?CID=49509

This... could have been the time to acknowledge CT 173 at Exit 41 ("S. Main St"). Oh well.

(For sign diagrams, skip to page 197 in Contract_Special_Provisions.pdf)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on April 24, 2019, 11:43:41 PM
Quote from: kurumi on April 24, 2019, 11:15:53 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on April 24, 2019, 12:09:52 PM
I-84 Hartford area signing contract up for bid:
https://biznet.ct.gov/SCP_Search/BidDetail.aspx?CID=49509

This... could have been the time to acknowledge CT 173 at Exit 41 ("S. Main St"). Oh well.

Agreed.

A couple of thoughts:

1. I like how New Park Ave finally gets some respect.  However, I would have included it with Flatbush Ave WB as you'd be backtracking by taking the Prospect Ave ramp to Kane St (I would've left Oakwood WB).

2. I hope the signs in the vicinity of the tunnel are fabricated wide enough for suffixed exits.  Future Exit numbers EB would be 61 A-B (Capitol/Asylum), 62A (Ann Uccello), 62B (Main St), and to fall in MUTCD alignment, 62D (91 North) would come before 62C (91 South). The 3 East Hartford exits would be 63A (which should read US 44 EAST Connecticut Blvd/East River Dr). 63B (CT 2), and 63C (Governor St Downtown EH)  Also wish there would have been a TO US 44 West on the Main St EB exit, much as there is a TO US 6 West Sign on Fienemann Rd signage EB. Capitol would have to switch to 61A so that Asylum would be 61B in both directions.

3. I can't stand the remaining redundancy of putting TO I-91 South on the Main St WB exit sign.  Traffic for 91 South would have already taken the CT 15 Exit over the Charter Oak Bridge to get there.  I understand it was put there to replace the connection from the Founders Bridge, but the ramp has been closed for almost 30 years.  Also need wider tabs for future suffixes.  The exits WB from Governor St to Flatbush Ave would go 63C, 63B, 63A, 62D, 62B, 61B, 61A, 60B, 60A.     
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: ipeters61 on April 25, 2019, 12:26:47 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on April 24, 2019, 11:43:41 PM
I can't stand the remaining redundancy of putting TO I-91 South on the Main St WB exit sign.  Traffic for 91 South would have already taken the CT 15 Exit over the Charter Oak Bridge to get there.  I understand it was put there to replace the connection from the Founders Bridge, but the ramp has been closed for almost 30 years.  Also need wider tabs for future suffixes.  The exits WB from Governor St to Flatbush Ave would go 63C, 63B, 63A, 62D, 62B, 61B, 61A, 60B, 60A.   
What about traffic coming from East Hartford (west of CT-15, e.g. on US-5, US-44, Governor St, etc) taking I-84 WB to get to I-91 SB?  There's still quite a distance between Exit 57 and Exit 50.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on April 25, 2019, 12:35:58 PM
Quote from: ipeters61 on April 25, 2019, 12:26:47 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on April 24, 2019, 11:43:41 PM
I can't stand the remaining redundancy of putting TO I-91 South on the Main St WB exit sign.  Traffic for 91 South would have already taken the CT 15 Exit over the Charter Oak Bridge to get there.  I understand it was put there to replace the connection from the Founders Bridge, but the ramp has been closed for almost 30 years.  Also need wider tabs for future suffixes.  The exits WB from Governor St to Flatbush Ave would go 63C, 63B, 63A, 62D, 62B, 61B, 61A, 60B, 60A.   
What about traffic coming from East Hartford (west of CT-15, e.g. on US-5, US-44, Governor St, etc) taking I-84 WB to get to I-91 SB?  There's still quite a distance between Exit 57 and Exit 50.

It's only about 2 miles (Exit 57 would be new Exit 64).  It would be easier for most traffic to go down to the Route 15 South entrance on East River Dr and go over the Charter Oak Bridge than to negotiate Hartford city streets. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on May 01, 2019, 09:13:34 PM
I-91 Project updates:

-CBYD has been marked
-some signs have been marked with pink tape
-Portable VMSs have been delivered and placed.
-Access road cleared leading from CT 15 S to Airport Rd.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on May 01, 2019, 09:50:04 PM
Lighting at Exit 23 of CT Route 9 (Christian Lane) in Berlin may soon change. Bases are in around the whole interchange, clearly for new light posts.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on May 02, 2019, 08:30:51 AM
Just took a look at a DOT traffic cam of a car fire, and it seems the new 3/4 mile CT 4 and 1 1/2 mi CT 9 gantry is now up on I-84 EB just past the erroneous right aligned left Exit supplemental signage for Exit 39. Haven't been going that way every day lately, so I've kind of fallen behind on updates.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: roadman65 on May 03, 2019, 10:34:55 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/DEK2t8L9mHnLibJ77
I see CT has adopted the yellow border back plates and is using a box assembly span wire instead of the diagonal. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on May 05, 2019, 06:19:49 PM
https://www.courant.com/business/hc-i91-traffic-headaches-charter-oak-bridge-20190503-2x5iwonwube35ht2frzdc7kk4e-story.html

I-91 widening and a new left exit for I-91.
I get the left exit idea but just don't like the idea of a left exit.  I didn't know the current Exit 29 was only constructed in the late 1980s...just never thought of it.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on May 05, 2019, 08:04:09 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on May 05, 2019, 06:19:49 PM
https://www.courant.com/business/hc-i91-traffic-headaches-charter-oak-bridge-20190503-2x5iwonwube35ht2frzdc7kk4e-story.html

I-91 widening and a new left exit for I-91.
I get the left exit idea but just don't like the idea of a left exit.  I didn't know the current Exit 29 was only constructed in the late 1980s...just never thought of it.
This isn't a left exit in the traditional sense. According to the plans, at the split you'll have the two left lanes for CT 15 (to I-84) and the three right lanes through to I-91.  You won't have traffic queueing up for the Charter Oak Bridge.  It will be a high-speed ramp with no crossover from I-91.  On the bridge, the left two lanes will be through to I-84, the right two lanes will be coming from CT 15 with the furthest right lane being exit only for Exit 90.  After exit 90 its the same as it is now except with one additional lane past Exit 91.

Funny thing is in all the drawings I've seen when the project is done there will be a stub on the northbound side of the bridge where the old ramp was.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on May 05, 2019, 08:33:36 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on May 05, 2019, 08:04:09 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on May 05, 2019, 06:19:49 PM
https://www.courant.com/business/hc-i91-traffic-headaches-charter-oak-bridge-20190503-2x5iwonwube35ht2frzdc7kk4e-story.html

I-91 widening and a new left exit for I-91.
I get the left exit idea but just don't like the idea of a left exit.  I didn't know the current Exit 29 was only constructed in the late 1980s...just never thought of it.
This isn't a left exit in the traditional sense. According to the plans, at the split you'll have the two left lanes for CT 15 (to I-84) and the three right lanes through to I-91.  You won't have traffic queueing up for the Charter Oak Bridge.  It will be a high-speed ramp with no crossover from I-91.  On the bridge, the left two lanes will be through to I-84, the right two lanes will be coming from CT 15 with the furthest right lane being exit only for Exit 90.  After exit 90 its the same as it is now except with one additional lane past Exit 91.

Funny thing is in all the drawings I've seen when the project is done there will be a stub on the northbound side of the bridge where the old ramp was.

Actually I was thinking it'll be like I-84 at US-7 in Danbury in a few years....back ups bc of cars changing lanes to get off the exit. But we shall see.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: ipeters61 on May 05, 2019, 09:11:37 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on May 05, 2019, 08:33:36 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on May 05, 2019, 08:04:09 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on May 05, 2019, 06:19:49 PM
https://www.courant.com/business/hc-i91-traffic-headaches-charter-oak-bridge-20190503-2x5iwonwube35ht2frzdc7kk4e-story.html

I-91 widening and a new left exit for I-91.
I get the left exit idea but just don't like the idea of a left exit.  I didn't know the current Exit 29 was only constructed in the late 1980s...just never thought of it.
This isn't a left exit in the traditional sense. According to the plans, at the split you'll have the two left lanes for CT 15 (to I-84) and the three right lanes through to I-91.  You won't have traffic queueing up for the Charter Oak Bridge.  It will be a high-speed ramp with no crossover from I-91.  On the bridge, the left two lanes will be through to I-84, the right two lanes will be coming from CT 15 with the furthest right lane being exit only for Exit 90.  After exit 90 its the same as it is now except with one additional lane past Exit 91.

Funny thing is in all the drawings I've seen when the project is done there will be a stub on the northbound side of the bridge where the old ramp was.

Actually I was thinking it'll be like I-84 at US-7 in Danbury in a few years....back ups bc of cars changing lanes to get off the exit. But we shall see.
Isn't the problem with I-84 at US-7 that US-7 enters 84 on the right and then exits on the left? (in both directions)  Isn't that how they fixed I-84 at CT-72?  By at least ensuring that traffic staying on the same route number wouldn't have to switch lanes?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on May 05, 2019, 11:50:52 PM
The I-84/CT 72 interchange has its own set of problems with sharp curves and more dangerous weaving, plus at certain times of year, blinding sunlight during rush hour.  There have been several fatal accidents on the I-84 EB curve with the Crooked St exit ramp, the 72 East downhill curve just before joining the concurrency, and the 72 West uphill curve just before the concurrency.  Then there's the weaving.  The number of cars switching roadways is ridiculous, and was even worse before the EB entrances from Crooked St opened and all traffic from Plainville bound for 84 and 72 East had to use the Hooker St entrance almost halfway across town.  There is the potential for a rear end or sideswipe collision both EB just past the Crooked St overpass and WB at the top of the 72 West approach, not to mention traffic entering from 72 West can't see traffic approaching in the 84 lanes until they're actually in the concurrency, and it becomes a race/game of chicken as to which car switching routes gets to move over first; that is, if the vehicles in the left lane of 72 or right lane of 84 is switching roads, or is a thru vehicle, which means the switching vehicle will have to suddenly slow down and yield to the thru vehicle.  Having negotiated the junction thousands of times, I'm familiar with it.  But I've seen many an out of town cowboy on 84 pull into the 72 lanes to pass slower traffic, then realize at the last second they're going to be on 72 and then pull across 2 lanes in 50 feet to get back in the 84 lanes.   
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: ipeters61 on May 06, 2019, 10:15:22 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on May 05, 2019, 11:50:52 PM
But I've seen many an out of town cowboy on 84 pull into the 72 lanes to pass slower traffic, then realize at the last second they're going to be on 72 and then pull across 2 lanes in 50 feet to get back in the 84 lanes.   
I had a situation like that one on 84 WB in East Hartford.  I was doing about 70 about to get off at the exit for Downtown Hartford/Founders Bridge (Exit 54) for an interview.  This woman behind me is blaring her horn at me and tailgating me, as she proceeds to continue down 84 (bear in mind, this was in the middle of rush hour).  Don't blame me for the left exit!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on May 06, 2019, 01:11:50 PM
There won't be much weaving for Exit 29 since CT 15 doesn't even join I-91. I-91 NB will gradually add two more lanes to the left.  There will be a crossover for traffic on CT 15 NB on the bridge since the extreme right lane will be only for Exit 90.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on May 06, 2019, 06:53:43 PM
Quote from: ipeters61 on May 05, 2019, 09:11:37 PM
Isn't the problem with I-84 at US-7 that US-7 enters 84 on the right and then exits on the left? (in both directions)  Isn't that how they fixed I-84 at CT-72?  By at least ensuring that traffic staying on the same route number wouldn't have to switch lanes?

The main difference between the CT 72 and the US 7 jumping on I-84 in Plainville and Danbury, respectively, is that CT 72 only hitches a ride for 1/2 mile and US 7 hitches a ride on I-84 for about 3 miles or so.  That gives motorists plenty of time to make the proper lane changes to stay on US 7, even if it enters from the right and exits from the left (in both directions).  The main traffic delay in Danbury isn't caused by the fact that US 7 traffic is trying to merge, but rather the fact that one lane of I-84 is lost in the shuffle and I-84 thru traffic must use the right 2 lanes, while US 7 gets the far left lane, turning into 2 lanes at the gore point, or just slightly before.  Removing the left exits to have I-84 traffic stay left at these interchanges would require some pretty substantial flyovers.  The "easy" solution would be to add a lane on the right, giving I-84 thru traffic another thru lane, especially eastbound. 

The eastbound merge from US 7 south, which enters on the left, is another choke point, and just past Exit 8, the right lane of I-84 becomes a slow vehicle lane, which later ends.  A flyover from US 7 South to I-84 East to enter on the right side of I-84 would be preferred, then you won't have traffic entering I-84 East from US 7 South trying to cross over to Exit 8 in 1/4 mile. 

The whole route of I-84 from Danbury to Waterbury could definitely use another lane, no question about it.  Way too much truck traffic.  The climbing lanes help, but then when those big trucks merge back in to the main 2 lanes, it often comes before the crest of the hill, as some climbing lanes don't crest the top.  And its not just on I-84, some climbing lanes statewide stop short of their "summits".
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on May 06, 2019, 07:24:28 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on May 06, 2019, 06:53:43 PM
Quote from: ipeters61 on May 05, 2019, 09:11:37 PM
Isn't the problem with I-84 at US-7 that US-7 enters 84 on the right and then exits on the left? (in both directions)  Isn't that how they fixed I-84 at CT-72?  By at least ensuring that traffic staying on the same route number wouldn't have to switch lanes?

The main difference between the CT 72 and the US 7 jumping on I-84 in Plainville and Danbury, respectively, is that CT 72 only hitches a ride for 1/2 mile and US 7 hitches a ride on I-84 for about 3 miles or so.  That gives motorists plenty of time to make the proper lane changes to stay on US 7, even if it enters from the right and exits from the left (in both directions).  The main traffic delay in Danbury isn't caused by the fact that US 7 traffic is trying to merge, but rather the fact that one lane of I-84 is lost in the shuffle and I-84 thru traffic must use the right 2 lanes, while US 7 gets the far left lane, turning into 2 lanes at the gore point, or just slightly before.  Removing the left exits to have I-84 traffic stay left at these interchanges would require some pretty substantial flyovers.  The "easy" solution would be to add a lane on the right, giving I-84 thru traffic another thru lane, especially eastbound. 

The eastbound merge from US 7 south, which enters on the left, is another choke point, and just past Exit 8, the right lane of I-84 becomes a slow vehicle lane, which later ends.  A flyover from US 7 South to I-84 East to enter on the right side of I-84 would be preferred, then you won't have traffic entering I-84 East from US 7 South trying to cross over to Exit 8 in 1/4 mile. 

The whole route of I-84 from Danbury to Waterbury could definitely use another lane, no question about it.  Way too much truck traffic.  The climbing lanes help, but then when those big trucks merge back in to the main 2 lanes, it often comes before the crest of the hill, as some climbing lanes don't crest the top.  And its not just on I-84, some climbing lanes statewide stop short of their "summits".

Unfortunately I can see I-91 still backing up as people merge left to exit on Exit 29, although most traffic will probably go left rather than stay onto I-91 north.  We shall see.

I noticed since I-84 WB was widened thru Waterbury, it now backs up at the Exit 22 on-ramp before CT-8 and it never did before.  The same with I-95 SB in Norwalk, Exit 15 was the choke point, it was widened and now the new choke point is Exit 13.

So I guess the point is, unless they do really large scale widening like the Q-Bridge there will be a backup somewhere.  What they're doing to I-91 is still better than nothing so I'll take it.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on May 06, 2019, 08:56:41 PM
Interesting to wonder if I-86/I-491 had been built from CT 2 in Glastonbury up to I-84/I-384 in East Hartford/Manchester, and if it had been signed properly, and with proper upgrades to the Putnam Bridge and connections, it could have been a nice direct alternate route to I-84 East.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on May 06, 2019, 09:08:02 PM
Pro-tolls lobbying group launches $900K advertising campaign

https://www.courant.com/politics/hc-pol-pro-tolls-lobbying-20190506-plxkouvajnaadoulu4d44imecm-story.html

Flashback to about 1991, to when the current Charter Oak Bridge (right with incomplete on-ramp from I-91 North) was close to opening. East Hartford is at the top. The ramp from the old bridge south to I-91 North is also gone now.
(https://i.imgur.com/Y48Yzju.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on May 07, 2019, 12:00:30 AM
Saw that pic yesterday on the Courant website.  Would love to see a pic of the old ramp from 91 South to the bridge NB.

Love how they spend $900k of taxpayer money on something that 90% of said taxpayers oppose :angry:

Got a shot of the new gantry I mentioned last week, along with the new EB 1/2 mile Exit 33 / 3/4 mile Exit 34 gantry.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/33919898578_3de810120a_n.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/33897731748_b3cc7a09ef_n.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on May 07, 2019, 07:25:03 PM
Remaining guide signs (BGSs) to be installed in this project:

84EB:
Exit 35 1/2 mile
Exit 35 1/4 mile
Exit 35 "exit now"
Exit 36 "exit now" (bridge-mount?)
Exit 39 1 mile (bridge-mount?)
Exit 39A "exit now"

84WB:
Exit 39A "exit now"
Exit 39 1/2 mile / Exit 38 3/4 mile
Exit 36 1/2 mile / Exit 35 3/4 or 1 mile
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on May 09, 2019, 02:17:51 PM
And we now have all mainline overheads installed on I-95 as part of the Groton-North Stonington project.  Here are just a few:

I-95 Northbound at Exit 86:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/47760443172_2da59e4ea6_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2fLqKNL)95NB-Exit86 (https://flic.kr/p/2fLqKNL) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

CT 349 Northbound at Exit 3A:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/40846109223_303218d195_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/25eqZdt)CT349NB-Exit03-2 (https://flic.kr/p/25eqZdt) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

I-95 Southbound at Exit 86:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/40846107943_17facd6299_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/25eqYQp)95SB-Exit86 (https://flic.kr/p/25eqYQp) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

All of the signs formerly mounted on overpasses have been removed, so this project appears "essentially complete"... with the exception of the installation of logo signs on the new blue ATTRACTIONS signs. 

See all the photos I took on my FLICKR page... link in the sig. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on May 09, 2019, 06:33:54 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on May 09, 2019, 02:17:51 PM
And we now have all mainline overheads installed on I-95 as part of the Groton-North Stonington project.  Here are just a few:

All of the signs formerly mounted on overpasses have been removed, so this project appears "essentially complete"... with the exception of the installation of logo signs on the new blue ATTRACTIONS signs. 

See all the photos I took on my FLICKR page... link in the sig. 

Was this sign replaced on the ramp to US-1 from CT-349?
(https://live.staticflickr.com/4578/27129687019_5371c7697b_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/HkmJLt)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on May 09, 2019, 06:35:24 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on May 07, 2019, 12:00:30 AM
Saw that pic yesterday on the Courant website.  Would love to see a pic of the old ramp from 91 South to the bridge NB.

Love how they spend $900k of taxpayer money on something that 90% of said taxpayers oppose :angry:

Got a shot of the new gantry I mentioned last week, along with the new EB 1/2 mile Exit 33 / 3/4 mile Exit 34 gantry.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/33919898578_3de810120a_n.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/33897731748_b3cc7a09ef_n.jpg)

I'm just not a fan of the monotube gantries.  To me, they look sloppy and crooked with the signs on them.  Trusses and cantilever styles seem more sturdy.  I even like the monotube curved pipe gantries that CT used in the mid 2000s. 

https://s-steel.com/overhead-sign-structures/
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on May 09, 2019, 07:23:15 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on May 09, 2019, 06:33:54 PM
Was this sign replaced on the ramp to US-1 from CT-349?
(https://live.staticflickr.com/4578/27129687019_5371c7697b_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/HkmJLt)

As I drove by the ramp, I looked up it and didn't see the old signs in question.  I didn't take the ramp itself, having already back-tracked on Route 1, so I can't be certain, but the plans did call for their removal.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on May 09, 2019, 08:37:33 PM
I-91 construction update 5/9:

-Looks like drainage work is in progress
-Trees along the I-91 NB flyover of CT 15 are all gone
-Nite work is closing the right lane past Exit 89.
-Im very surprised there isn't super advance warning signage on I-84 WB and I-91 NB. Something to the effect of "Effective 6/19, CT 15/I-91 road work. Expect delays and closures. Use I-291 or CT 3 as alternate routes.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on May 09, 2019, 11:29:29 PM
Getting back to the I-95 project, are the signs for the exit on CT 184 done (and now numbered)?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on May 09, 2019, 11:37:35 PM
Not sure about westbound, but from what I saw on I-95 North at CT 184 EB, the first overhead is still from the project which added a signal with the merge from 12S/1S (an advance for the 12 N exit and a "STOP AHEAD" flasher).  I also glimpsed what appeared to be a temporary "exit now" sign.  So it does look like there's a couple signs still to be installed here.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: zzyzx on May 11, 2019, 12:23:48 PM
CONNDOT is moving forward with their plans (https://www.ct.gov/dot/ical/eventDetail_page.asp?date_ID=C8CECECAC883CDC9CE) to widen and reconstruct the Exit 74 interchange on I-95.  Construction is scheduled to start around 2021. The plan differs slightly from the one I saw back in 2017 in that it keeps 95 as a 4 lane highway with auxiliary lanes instead of 6 + 1 aux.  It looks like only the bridge above Route 161 will be widened to accommodate an additional lane in each direction at this point.

High Res PDF (https://eltownhall.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/2019-05-09-Roll-Plan-Public-Info-Meeting.pdf)

Details from CONNDOT:

"The purpose of the project is to address vehicular safety on I-95 at Interchange 74 and address traffic operational concerns between Interchanges 74 and 75 in East Lyme.  In addition, this project will address traffic operational concerns and improve safety for all roadway users (motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists) on Route 161 in the vicinity of the exit 74 interchange ramps.  It is also proposed to replace the I-95 bridge over Route 161 due to its poor condition and to accommodate the widening on Route 161.

The proposed improvements on I-95 include full reconstruction and widening to accommodate the revised ramp configurations, auxiliary lanes between exits 74 & 75 in each direction and the full replacement of the bridge over Route 161.  As a result of the I-95 widening, the bridge over Pattagansett River will be extended and retaining walls will be constructed.  At various locations within the project limits, the proposed improvements on I-95 will accommodate a future project to add a third lane. 

The proposed southbound ramps will be realigned to terminate on a new frontage road to form a signalized "T"  type intersection.  This new frontage road will form a signalized "T"  type intersection with a three-lane approach to Route 161 consisting of one left-turn lane and two right-turn lanes.  Route 161 northbound at this new intersection will have a four-lane approach consisting of two exclusive left-turn lanes and two through lanes.  The southbound Route 161 approach to this intersection will consist of two through lanes and exclusive turn lanes.

The terminus of the northbound I-95 exit 74 ramp will be relocated southerly to form a new signalized intersection with Route 161 and the Burger King Driveway.  Vehicles on southbound Route 161 will be accessing I-95 northbound on a new entrance "loop"  ramp approximately 500 feet south of its current location.  The entrance ramp to I-95 northbound for vehicles on northbound Route 161 will be realigned slightly at its present location.

To address safety and traffic operations on Route 161, improvements include full reconstruction and widening to provide turn lanes, wider shoulders, and sidewalk connectivity within the project limits.

The right-of-way impacts associated with the proposed improvements include total and partial property acquisitions, permanent easements, and temporary easements during construction.  The existing non-access lines will be revised to accommodate the new proposed ramps.

Construction is anticipated to begin in summer 2021, based on the availability of funding, acquisition of rights of way, and approval of permits.  The estimated total construction cost for this project is approximately $140 million.  This project is anticipated to be undertaken with 80 percent (80%) Federal Funds and 20 percent (20%) State funds."

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Magical Trevor on May 16, 2019, 06:59:57 AM
Color me impressed that the road markings/signage diagram on page two of this update from the I-84 Waterbury widening project (https://t.co/wsIJUYbMmE) utilizes metric.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on May 16, 2019, 04:49:36 PM
Quote from: Magical Trevor on May 16, 2019, 06:59:57 AM
Color me impressed that the road markings/signage diagram on page two of this update from the I-84 Waterbury widening project (https://t.co/wsIJUYbMmE) utilizes metric.

Speaking of I-84 Waterbury...this sign is now gone:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/822/39633354100_98aff8d73d_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/23ogino)


CT-8 sign updates:
NB:
Exit 23:
Beacon Falls (Exit 23) Town Line
Exit 23 Bethany Aux Sign


Exit 25:
All of Exit 25 signs are up. 

Exit 26:
Exit 26 Half mile,
Naugatuck Bus Dist

Exit 30:
Exit 30 "exit now" sign

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on May 17, 2019, 04:38:10 PM
The Charter Oak Bridge Project Website is live at https://i-91charteroakbridge.com/en/home

Among the alerts posted is one about the I-91 NB Exit 28 ramp closing, starting 5/29/19, until 2021.  What bugs me is the detour route that's posted... take Exit 29 to CT 15 NB Exit 90, reverse direction, etc etc.  Not that a lot of motorists use this ramp (when compared to other ramps), but this closure/detour route will throw even more traffic into the existing Exit 29 ramp headache.  Seems to make more sense to detour this traffic via Exit 27 and to the CT 15 SB ramp via Brainard and Airport Rds. 

Also, had to laugh, the tree clearing project scheduled to start next week will now take place next year (??!!). 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on May 18, 2019, 08:50:57 AM
Some details of the Democrats plan for tolling have been released. It includes installing no more than 50 toll gantries on I-95, I-91, I-84 and portions of Route 15 at a peak rate of 4.4 cents per mile and an off peak rate of 3.5 cents. It also establishes a bipartisan Transportation Commission to administer the funds and set priorities much like the Transportation Strategy Commission used to do before it was eliminated. The most interesting part of their plan is to lower the gas tax. That actually could lower what some drivers in our state pay for transportation.

https://www.ctinsider.com/local/ctpo...x-13854535.php

(The article is behind a paywall though.)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on May 18, 2019, 10:45:30 AM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on May 18, 2019, 08:50:57 AM
Some details of the Democrats plan for tolling have been released. It includes installing no more than 50 toll gantries on I-95, I-91, I-84 and portions of Route 15 at a peak rate of 4.4 cents per mile and an off peak rate of 3.5 cents. It also establishes a bipartisan Transportation Commission to administer the funds and set priorities much like the Transportation Strategy Commission used to do before it was eliminated. The most interesting part of their plan is to lower the gas tax. That actually could lower what some drivers in our state pay for transportation.

https://www.ctinsider.com/local/ctpo...x-13854535.php

(The article is behind a paywall though.)
Given the length of CT, $5 or less to cross a state isn't a terrible deal.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on May 18, 2019, 04:38:15 PM
Got some pics of the new signage contract on CT-8 between Derby and Waterbury. 

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/40910063673_f6f095d2e2_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/25k5LDp)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/33999244438_838403c389_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/TNp1RC)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/47876513341_a96e0d98fa_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2fWFDqz)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/40910063513_e9d2d47642_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/25k5LAD)

and some original concrete poking thru:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/40908667223_d858463dd6_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/25jXBwF)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on May 19, 2019, 09:55:07 AM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on May 18, 2019, 08:50:57 AM
Some details of the Democrats plan for tolling have been released. It includes installing no more than 50 toll gantries on I-95, I-91, I-84 and portions of Route 15 at a peak rate of 4.4 cents per mile and an off peak rate of 3.5 cents. It also establishes a bipartisan Transportation Commission to administer the funds and set priorities much like the Transportation Strategy Commission used to do before it was eliminated. The most interesting part of their plan is to lower the gas tax. That actually could lower what some drivers in our state pay for transportation.

https://www.ctinsider.com/local/ctpo...x-13854535.php

(The article is behind a paywall though.)
Still would prefer tolls only on secondary highways. Read: CT 2, CT 8, CT 9 and I-395.  The first three can get them without any Federal approval.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: roadman on May 20, 2019, 09:59:42 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on May 18, 2019, 04:38:15 PM
Got some pics of the new signage contract on CT-8 between Derby and Waterbury. 

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/40910063673_f6f095d2e2_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/25k5LDp)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/33999244438_838403c389_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/TNp1RC)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/47876513341_a96e0d98fa_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2fWFDqz)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/40910063513_e9d2d47642_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/25k5LAD)

and some original concrete poking thru:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/40908667223_d858463dd6_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/25jXBwF)
Looks like their sign designer needs a refresher in the requirements for inter-word spacing.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on May 20, 2019, 11:21:05 PM
Quote from: roadman on May 20, 2019, 09:59:42 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on May 18, 2019, 04:38:15 PM
Got some pics of the new signage contract on CT-8 between Derby and Waterbury. 

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/40910063673_f6f095d2e2_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/25k5LDp)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/33999244438_838403c389_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/TNp1RC)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/47876513341_a96e0d98fa_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2fWFDqz)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/40910063513_e9d2d47642_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/25k5LAD)

and some original concrete poking thru:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/40908667223_d858463dd6_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/25jXBwF)
Looks like their sign designer needs a refresher in the requirements for inter-word spacing.
CT always seems to have issues with sizing and spacing. It's bizarre how routinely this is screwed up on literally every sign contract. I would have thought making a sign is done with software in some automated/standard fashion instead of what appears to be a very manual process.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on May 24, 2019, 08:27:40 PM
Another oddity with I-91: Who's bright idea was it to put TWO I-291 highways so close to each other? One starts in Springfield, heading east then northeast towards Exit 6 of I-90/Massachusetts Turnpike in Chicopee. The other starts in Windsor and heads southeast towards Exit 61 of I-84 in Manchester. These two roads DO NOT connect to each other. One of them should be changed to I-491. (It would make sense, since I-291 would be to the north in MA and I-691 would be to the south between Meriden and I-84 at the Southington/Cheshire town line.)

Does that actually occur anywhere? A sequence of shield numbers like that? Such as 291, 491 and 691 when traveling in the same direction?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on May 24, 2019, 10:26:17 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on May 24, 2019, 08:27:40 PM
Another oddity with I-91: Who's bright idea was it to put TWO I-291 highways so close to each other? One starts in Springfield, heading east then northeast towards Exit 6 of I-90/Massachusetts Turnpike in Chicopee. The other starts in Windsor and heads southeast towards Exit 61 of I-84 in Manchester. These two roads DO NOT connect to each other. One of them should be changed to I-491. (It would make sense, since I-291 would be to the north in MA and I-691 would be to the south between Meriden and I-84 at the Southington/Cheshire town line.)

Does that actually occur anywhere? A sequence of shield numbers like that? Such as 291, 491 and 691 when traveling in the same direction?
CT 291 existed before I-291 (CT) and the Bissell Bridge was built before I-91.  I-291 (MA) was pure new construction.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on May 24, 2019, 11:15:53 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on May 24, 2019, 10:26:17 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on May 24, 2019, 08:27:40 PM
Another oddity with I-91: Who's bright idea was it to put TWO I-291 highways so close to each other? One starts in Springfield, heading east then northeast towards Exit 6 of I-90/Massachusetts Turnpike in Chicopee. The other starts in Windsor and heads southeast towards Exit 61 of I-84 in Manchester. These two roads DO NOT connect to each other. One of them should be changed to I-491. (It would make sense, since I-291 would be to the north in MA and I-691 would be to the south between Meriden and I-84 at the Southington/Cheshire town line.)

Does that actually occur anywhere? A sequence of shield numbers like that? Such as 291, 491 and 691 when traveling in the same direction?
CT 291 existed before I-291 (CT) and the Bissell Bridge was built before I-91.  I-291 (MA) was pure new construction.

And I-491 was already proposed for the CT 3 expressway (but cancelled) prior to the proposal of I-691 for the CT 66 (formerly the US 6A expressway)in 1976.  Also makes me wonder why I-184 was never considered for I-384 (although it would have required CT 184 to be renumbered), or I-191 was never considered for I-391 in MA (there is no MA 191).  I-195 was skipped in CT because it enters MA where there is one already, so that's understandable.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on May 24, 2019, 11:37:12 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on May 24, 2019, 08:27:40 PM
Does that actually occur anywhere? A sequence of shield numbers like that? Such as 291, 491 and 691 when traveling in the same direction?

Michigan I-75 northbound (275, 475, 675)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on May 24, 2019, 11:39:35 PM
Quote from: kurumi on May 24, 2019, 11:37:12 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on May 24, 2019, 08:27:40 PM
Does that actually occur anywhere? A sequence of shield numbers like that? Such as 291, 491 and 691 when traveling in the same direction?

Michigan I-75 northbound (275, 475, 675)

You also have that in NY state with the I-90's except for I-990 (used by necessity).  190 and 290 in Buffalo, 390-590 in Rochester, 690 in Syracuse, 790 in Utica, and 890 in Schenectady.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on May 25, 2019, 04:09:32 PM
NY has I-990 too.  It's in Buffalo and starts at I-290.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on May 26, 2019, 12:10:47 AM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on May 24, 2019, 08:27:40 PM
Another oddity with I-91: Who's bright idea was it to put TWO I-291 highways so close to each other? One starts in Springfield, heading east then northeast towards Exit 6 of I-90/Massachusetts Turnpike in Chicopee. The other starts in Windsor and heads southeast towards Exit 61 of I-84 in Manchester. These two roads DO NOT connect to each other. One of them should be changed to I-491. (It would make sense, since I-291 would be to the north in MA and I-691 would be to the south between Meriden and I-84 at the Southington/Cheshire town line.)

Does that actually occur anywhere? A sequence of shield numbers like that? Such as 291, 491 and 691 when traveling in the same direction?
I-395 Baltimore and DC. make one 995?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Rothman on May 26, 2019, 12:21:58 AM
Having grown up in western MA, there was no confusion between the two I-291s whatsoever (of course, the CT one come along a later on, especially with the new intersection with I-91...I liked seeing the tall overpasses being built).  The two highways are short and serve very distinct purposes.

That said, my brother-in-law took his first road trip between New England and DC and got off on I-695 thinking it was THE Beltway (BGSes on I-95 did indeed mark I-695 as "Beltway" back then...can't remember if they changed that when they updated the interchanges or not).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on May 27, 2019, 07:33:12 AM
I will assume near Baltimore and was heading south?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on June 01, 2019, 08:41:31 PM
https://www.wtnh.com/news/traffic/construction-project-to-shut-down-interstate-95-in-stamford-may-31june-3-june-7june-10/2038579551

I-95 in Stamford, right at WWE's front door at Exit 9. A two-weekend bridge replacement project. I remember when they did a different accelerated bridge replacement a few years ago. That was at Exit 30 of I-84 in Southington.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: ipeters61 on June 01, 2019, 09:16:15 PM
I'm home in Connecticut this weekend for a wedding.  I came across this interesting assembly on CT-372 at CT-3.  Has CT used series E(?) in standalone state shields before?

(https://i.ibb.co/xJ4H6Xd/IMG-6121.jpg) (https://ibb.co/PwSQgF0)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on June 01, 2019, 10:19:19 PM
Quote from: ipeters61 on June 01, 2019, 09:16:15 PM
I'm home in Connecticut this weekend for a wedding.  I came across this interesting assembly on CT-372 at CT-3.  Has CT used series E(?) in standalone state shields before?

(https://i.ibb.co/xJ4H6Xd/IMG-6121.jpg) (https://ibb.co/PwSQgF0)
How did they manage not to replace those shields? I better go check that out. No, they're not an E state at all. There could be an E-series US 1 somewhere, but who'd know?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: DrSmith on June 02, 2019, 10:13:10 AM
At least one other is on 91 in the Route 20 interchange
https://goo.gl/maps/pagtjTECRMDkxHFTA
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on June 02, 2019, 01:59:13 PM
Quote from: DrSmith on June 02, 2019, 10:13:10 AM
At least one other is on 91 in the Route 20 interchange
https://goo.gl/maps/pagtjTECRMDkxHFTA

That's not the only one of those - I think 691 has or had one. Not sure how those came about.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: ipeters61 on June 02, 2019, 06:40:39 PM
Quote from: Alps on June 02, 2019, 01:59:13 PM
Quote from: DrSmith on June 02, 2019, 10:13:10 AM
At least one other is on 91 in the Route 20 interchange
https://goo.gl/maps/pagtjTECRMDkxHFTA

That's not the only one of those - I think 691 has or had one. Not sure how those came about.
I also saw some series E I-91 shields heading northbound in the area of the CT-9 interchange.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: wanderer2575 on June 02, 2019, 07:02:29 PM
Quote from: kurumi on May 24, 2019, 11:37:12 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on May 24, 2019, 08:27:40 PM
Does that actually occur anywhere? A sequence of shield numbers like that? Such as 291, 491 and 691 when traveling in the same direction?

Michigan I-75 northbound (275, 475, 675)

Also in Michigan is I-96 eastbound:  I-196 and then I-296 (unsigned) in Grand Rapids, I-496 in Lansing, and I-696 in Detroit northern suburbs.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: mrsman on June 02, 2019, 07:53:45 PM
Quote from: wanderer2575 on June 02, 2019, 07:02:29 PM
Quote from: kurumi on May 24, 2019, 11:37:12 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on May 24, 2019, 08:27:40 PM
Does that actually occur anywhere? A sequence of shield numbers like that? Such as 291, 491 and 691 when traveling in the same direction?

Michigan I-75 northbound (275, 475, 675)

Also in Michigan is I-96 eastbound:  I-196 and then I-296 (unsigned) in Grand Rapids, I-496 in Lansing, and I-696 in Detroit northern suburbs.

You get that luxury when all the 3dis are planned in advance.  Obviously if a new interstate freeway were built it would be I-891 and it may not necessarily fit in the pattern.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on June 03, 2019, 09:27:43 AM
With regards to E-style numerals on route shields in CT, and there are a fair amount of them out there:

The ones on the Interstate shields, E-Modified BTW, were likely mimicking the old-school button-copy design/style.

The ones on the black-and-white US and/or state shields were likely independent installs and/or fabrication errors.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on June 03, 2019, 09:41:31 AM
Exit 28 on I-91 N is now closed for the next two years.  Other updates to the project:

-Grading and utility relocation has started where the new flyover ramp will be located
-Temporary traffic cams are set up. Clearly forward thinking for when the backups start
-An excavator is at the end of CT 15 N, I presume to begin clearing for the widening there.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on June 04, 2019, 04:53:47 PM
Quote from: Alps on June 02, 2019, 01:59:13 PM
Quote from: DrSmith on June 02, 2019, 10:13:10 AM
At least one other is on 91 in the Route 20 interchange
https://goo.gl/maps/pagtjTECRMDkxHFTA

That's not the only one of those - I think 691 has or had one. Not sure how those came about.

There's an overhead one on I-691 West just prior to Exit 4, then there's this one as you approach I-691 on CT 322
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48002867086_bb796f9257_m.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: roadman on June 07, 2019, 11:52:44 AM
I-95 Closure in Stamford this weekend   https://www.i95exit9.com/
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on June 08, 2019, 01:18:24 PM
Quote from: roadman on June 07, 2019, 11:52:44 AM
I-95 Closure in Stamford this weekend   https://www.i95exit9.com/
Second and final weekend of it. You can watch the action live on the DOT camera. With this process none of the concrete is being replaced. The bridge is something like 60 years old, so I guess this means the concrete supports will live on to be at least 100? I figured when you replace a bridge you should replace all of it. Also wish the DOT would lengthen the bridges when they replace them in case they ever want to add lanes without having to demolish bridges to do it.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on June 10, 2019, 09:30:57 PM
https://www.courant.com/community/rocky-hill/hc-news-rocky-hill-elm-street-bridge-20190610-tifrjknyaff4pdfxexafq5akx4-story.html?fbclid=IwAR3f9aGyatNBgg0nPWGOUHAaNbrj2ce5su56A2dh0ANV4gb0I24vkXaE9Fk

Major bridge work this summer for where Elm Street passes over I-91 in Rocky Hill.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on June 10, 2019, 10:21:53 PM
I have to say, I'm 25 years old and I've never seen such a larger proliferation of road work over the summer than I have this one.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on June 11, 2019, 12:05:04 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on June 10, 2019, 10:21:53 PM
I have to say, I'm 25 years old and I've never seen such a larger proliferation of road work over the summer than I have this one.

You need to visit Montréal, just to put things in perspective.  :)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on June 28, 2019, 02:35:36 PM
Looks like, effective 1-July-2019, the state will once again have its non-commercial rest areas open 24 hours a day.  These include I-84 East/Danbury, I-84 East/Southington, I-84 E/W/Willington, I-91 South/Wallingford, I-91 North/Middletown, and I-95 South/N Stonington.  For now, the dept of economic and community development will keep the I-95 NB Westbrook info center closed.  No word on the restaffing of welcome center portions of the Danbury, N. Stonington, Darien, and Greenwich facilities. 

With the reopening of the rest areas 24 hours a day, this will most likely mean the removal of portable toilets in place since 2016 when the buildings were only open during a single 8-hour shift. 

If it was my decision, I'd have the buildings open an extra shift (7am-11pm, on par with most of the rest of New England), and restore the welcome center staffing.  But, you can't win 'em all, and having them open 24/7 is a step in the right direction.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on June 28, 2019, 08:45:42 PM
https://ctmirror.org/2019/06/28/highway-bathrooms-to-reopen-heres-why-they-really-closed/

A Connecticut Mirror story on the above subject. Connecticut's fiscal year starts on Monday, July 1st.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on July 02, 2019, 02:45:01 PM
Sign replacement updates:

I-84 WB, there was a "Southbury Training School, State Police, Tourist Info" BGS for Exit 14 that was knocked down by a storm a year ago and it was replaced recently.  I have never seen that sign in a spot improvement sign contract.  Usually CT DOT will just put up temp signs until the next spot improvement signing contract comes up.  Not in this case tho.

CT-8 has had some logo service signs knocked down and they've never been replaced.  FOOD for exit 12 SB and GAS for Exit 29 SB. 

on CT-15 some button copy for US-7 have been replaced NB.  The Main Ave signs still remain for now NB.  Others have been replaced if I'm not mistaken but they didn't replace the hideous 1980's gantries that aren't level and are ugly.  New signs are not highway gothic, just extruded aluminum.

CT-8 at CT-34 there's a truck detour for trucks over 7 tons over the Stevenson Dam Bridge.  Not really signed that well except for small warning signs saying to use Exit 14 CT-110.  You'd think those signs would be bigger or maybe extruded aluminum considering the importance.

CT-8 SB:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48174329502_7a355e02b2_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2gp12MY)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: DJStephens on July 04, 2019, 08:32:11 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on May 07, 2019, 12:00:30 AM
Saw that pic yesterday on the Courant website.  Would love to see a pic of the old ramp from 91 South to the bridge NB.

Love how they spend $900k of taxpayer money on something that 90% of said taxpayers oppose :angry:

Got a shot of the new gantry I mentioned last week, along with the new EB 1/2 mile Exit 33 / 3/4 mile Exit 34 gantry.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/33919898578_3de810120a_n.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/33897731748_b3cc7a09ef_n.jpg)

in a state with such high costs, and a budget shortfall, why replace the overhead gantries at all?  Just place the new extruded signs on the old gantries.  Eliminates the expense of replacing the whole thing.   Obviously, in rare cases of widening, or a new installation, a new gantry could be required.   But don't old gantries get saved at the sign shop??   Don't know whole story, and haven't lived in New England in twenty five years, but there just seems to be a cost savings being missed here.   
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on July 04, 2019, 10:04:56 PM
Quote from: DJStephens on July 04, 2019, 08:32:11 PM
in a state with such high costs, and a budget shortfall, why replace the overhead gantries at all?

I'm guessing the gantries are being replaced since they are at the end of their usable life, don't meet current standards for wind/weather/etc, etc.  You don't want a poorly maintained gantry crashing down on some unsuspecting motorist(s).  Many of the gantries date back to the 1980s.  Some gantries are even being replaced with ground-mounted signage. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on July 05, 2019, 12:43:34 AM
The ones in those pics that I took replaced the lattice gantries that dated back to the 1980's.  However, some of the gantries that are being replaced, surprisingly, are the tube gantries that date back to the early 2000's.  The 84 WB single overhead tube gantry for the 72 EB sign at exit was replaced by a chord gantry.    The cement piers have already been poured for the 2 Exit 35 EB tube gantries (the 1/2 mile and the one right at the 84/72 split); it's just a matter of the signs being fabricated, and then the install will take place.  Haven't seen any new signage go up since May on the Southington-Farmington stretch, plus the old signage behind the new signage for Slater Rd on 84 EB is still there on the overpass of the 84 WB ramp to 72 EB more than a year after the replacement sign install.  I've looked in the storage area on the ghost ramp from Woodford Ave in Plainville, and no new signage is on the ground.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on July 06, 2019, 06:51:12 PM
It will be interesting to see what gets replaced when they do Exit 59-74. The gantries in Manchester and Vernon are quite deteriorated. The signs from 59 to 66 I think are now the oldest on the whole highway now that the Waterbury project is done.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on July 06, 2019, 07:17:58 PM
Yes, some of those are quite old as are the signs attached to them.  What I would've liked to have seen is the soon-to-start Exits 40-56 sign replacement project extended to Exits 40-65 (that would cover the worst of the old signage) and let Exits 46-52 be for now.  Part of that stretch includes the Aetna viaduct that is scheduled for some sort of modification, replacement, etc.  Gantries Exits 46-52 are not being replaced as part of the upcoming project... just the signs.  Still, it seems like a waste if in a few years they're going to get replaced again anyway.  But thats ConnDOT for ya.  (At least they did convert to aligned exit tabs and slowly converting to mile-based exits)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on July 07, 2019, 07:52:10 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on July 02, 2019, 02:45:01 PM


CT-8 at CT-34 there's a truck detour for trucks over 7 tons over the Stevenson Dam Bridge.  Not really signed that well except for small warning signs saying to use Exit 14 CT-110.  You'd think those signs would be bigger or maybe extruded aluminum considering the importance.


The Route 34 truck detour around Stevenson Dam is a byproduct of 40+ years of Monroe and Oxford residents fighting against a new bridge to replace the existing span that runs over the dam.  Now with the official detour rerouting truck traffic up 110 from Shelton to 111, right through the middle of Monroe, maybe the residents of Monroe will re-think their long-standing opposition to a new bridge slightly upstream from the Stevenson Dam to replace the current span that runs atop the dam, is 100 years old, and is in an advanced state of deterioration.

Up until now, Shelton never really had a dog in the fight over a replacement bridge for the Stevenson Dam crossing, since the Stevenson Dam is miles upstream from Shelton, with the main source of opposition being from residents of Monroe and Oxford.  But now, Shelton has been thrown right into the middle of that food fight with the official detour sending trucks right through that town's central business district, not to mention the steep hill and sharp curve on Route 110 near Indian Well State Park having been the site of numerous fatal wrecks in the past.  I don't think it'll be long until the pain factor drives Shelton officials to press the state and the towns of Oxford and Monroe to come up with a solution, and fast.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on July 07, 2019, 08:25:03 PM
Back when I started land surveying, the Stevenson Dam replacement project was the first job they sent me on.  That was in 1999.  Twenty years later and not a shovel has been thrown for that project.  My first time over that dam was in the mid 80s and it seemed sketchy back then. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on July 07, 2019, 08:34:40 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on July 07, 2019, 07:52:10 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on July 02, 2019, 02:45:01 PM


CT-8 at CT-34 there's a truck detour for trucks over 7 tons over the Stevenson Dam Bridge.  Not really signed that well except for small warning signs saying to use Exit 14 CT-110.  You'd think those signs would be bigger or maybe extruded aluminum considering the importance.


The Route 34 truck detour around Stevenson Dam is a byproduct of 40+ years of Monroe and Oxford residents fighting against a new bridge to replace the existing span that runs over the dam.  Now with the official detour rerouting truck traffic up 110 from Shelton to 111, right through the middle of Monroe, maybe the residents of Monroe will re-think their long-standing opposition to a new bridge slightly upstream from the Stevenson Dam to replace the current span that runs atop the dam, is 100 years old, and is in an advanced state of deterioration.

Up until now, Shelton never really had a dog in the fight over a replacement bridge for the Stevenson Dam crossing, since the Stevenson Dam is miles upstream from Shelton, with the main source of opposition being from residents of Monroe and Oxford.  But now, Shelton has been thrown right into the middle of that food fight with the official detour sending trucks right through that town's central business district, not to mention the steep hill and sharp curve on Route 110 near Indian Well State Park having been the site of numerous fatal wrecks in the past.  I don't think it'll be long until the pain factor drives Shelton officials to press the state and the towns of Oxford and Monroe to come up with a solution, and fast.

I drove up there and signage on CT-34 isn't well marked pertaining to the weight limit.  (It's 15 tons, not 7 like I erroneously stated before) Only a 2 mile ahead sign heading NB and I think a small one right at the bridge. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on July 07, 2019, 08:37:19 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on July 05, 2019, 12:43:34 AM
  However, some of the gantries that are being replaced, surprisingly, are the tube gantries that date back to the early 2000's. 

I noticed that too...I wonder why but CT keeps the ugly 1980's gantries up.  The "newer" monotube gantries look ugly and the signs don't even look straight whenever the newer monotubes are installed.

The "Utah tube" gantries I liked.  The ones that you mentioned that were installed in the early-mid-2000s.  They look sleek and sturdy.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: ipeters61 on July 08, 2019, 09:00:29 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on July 07, 2019, 08:37:19 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on July 05, 2019, 12:43:34 AM
  However, some of the gantries that are being replaced, surprisingly, are the tube gantries that date back to the early 2000's. 

I noticed that too...I wonder why but CT keeps the ugly 1980's gantries up.  The "newer" monotube gantries look ugly and the signs don't even look straight whenever the newer monotubes are installed.

The "Utah tube" gantries I liked.  The ones that you mentioned that were installed in the early-mid-2000s.  They look sleek and sturdy.
I feel the exact opposite.  I always thought the one at I-84 EB Exit 35 (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6698218,-72.8373343,3a,31.1y,82.19h,100.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQYfLepfKQKWVNHnnwHNUuw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) looked ugly, it just looked oversized/way too big.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on July 20, 2019, 04:59:51 PM
I-91 southbound to be closed tonight from 1 AM to 5 AM  between Exit 23 (West St) and Exit 24 (CT 99) to install the new CT 160 bridge over the highway.

https://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/I-91-South-in-Rocky-Hill-to-Shut-Down-for-Hours-Sunday-Morning-512990441.html?abc=233&_osource=SocialFlowFB_CTBrand
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: DJStephens on July 20, 2019, 08:35:02 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on July 04, 2019, 10:04:56 PM
Quote from: DJStephens on July 04, 2019, 08:32:11 PM
in a state with such high costs, and a budget shortfall, why replace the overhead gantries at all?

I'm guessing the gantries are being replaced since they are at the end of their usable life, don't meet current standards for wind/weather/etc, etc.  You don't want a poorly maintained gantry crashing down on some unsuspecting motorist(s).  Many of the gantries date back to the 1980s.  Some gantries are even being replaced with ground-mounted signage.

Guess have to say can't really buy that argument.  Haven't these gantry structures been galvanized steel for at least forty years?   Galvanized steel has a greater resistance to de-icing chemicals than plain mild steel tube.   Do the bases or the mounting bolts rot out??   
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: DrSmith on July 22, 2019, 06:16:41 PM
A lot of salt/de-icing and cycling through wet/dry cycles can accelerate corrosion and at a structure that has been exposed to New England winters for 30-40 years. These structures are also expected to last another 20-40 years before the next replacement, which makes it necessary to ensure the life. 

It's possible that the bolts and support corrode because different alloys are used between the bolts and structure from galvanic corrosion. More likely, I would suspect though that the base is the issue. Water seeps into the structure and corrosion of the steel used for reinforcement that weakens the base.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on July 22, 2019, 10:26:09 PM
The re-bar on the median barrier on I-84 from East Hartford to Manchester is starting to show.  Maybe when they do the signs there they can rebuild the median.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on July 24, 2019, 03:41:53 PM

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48174329447_736632657b_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2gp12M2)

This sign above on the SB side of CT-8 in Naugatuck, which has just been replaced.  The new sign says "Exit 25, TO CT-63, Cross St" even though the ramp on the right of this photo is for Exit 26, CT-63.  It doesn't make sense because local drivers would have to go farther out of their way to get to 63 by using Exit 25.  However, NB drivers DO use Cross Street to get to CT-63 a lot.  But the newly installed signs in the NB direction just say "Cross St." I did point it out in my comments to the DOT but nothing was done.


(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48174556607_c5744cd1ca_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2gp2ciz)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on July 24, 2019, 04:04:37 PM
I've also noticed the metal CT uses for larger two-pole signs, like warning or regulatory, don't last that long.  The signs themselves start to curve or the poles they're on tend to lean after awhile.  I was thinking even though wood rots it does seem more sturdy for signs.  Maybe CT should apply Z-bars behind the signs or start using wooden poles?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on July 24, 2019, 04:30:37 PM
Whoops!

https://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?A=2135&Q=609528

QuoteNighttime Bridge Maintenance on Merritt Parkway in New Haven, Hamden, and North Haven

Of course, the Merritt ends at Exit 54/Milford Parkway.  Its amazed how many people think the Merritt goes up to Meriden.  The straight-thru route does (15), but the name change is in Milford.  Southbound in Meriden from I-91 and I-691, its proudly listed as "15 South/W Cross Pkwy". 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: roadman on July 24, 2019, 05:00:36 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on July 24, 2019, 04:04:37 PM
I've also noticed the metal CT uses for larger two-pole signs, like warning or regulatory, don't last that long.  The signs themselves start to curve or the poles they're on tend to lean after awhile.  I was thinking even though wood rots it does seem more sturdy for signs.  Maybe CT should apply Z-bars behind the signs or start using wooden poles?

Sounds like the sheet aluminum used for the sign panels isn't thick enough, causing the panels to eventually distort in the wind.  Mounting larger signs on twin telescopic posts doesn't help matters either.  MassDOT has been slowly phasing in the use of single steel beam posts for larger regulatory, warning, and route marker signs to minimize this problem.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on July 25, 2019, 12:58:55 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on July 24, 2019, 04:30:37 PM
Whoops!

https://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?A=2135&Q=609528

QuoteNighttime Bridge Maintenance on Merritt Parkway in New Haven, Hamden, and North Haven

Of course, the Merritt ends at Exit 54/Milford Parkway.  Its amazed how many people think the Merritt goes up to Meriden.  The straight-thru route does (15), but the name change is in Milford.  Southbound in Meriden from I-91 and I-691, its proudly listed as "15 South/W Cross Pkwy".
The WCP isn't well signed from on-ramps, that's why.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: DrSmith on July 26, 2019, 07:07:12 PM
I think snow plowing is a big impact on signage and there isn't sufficient support from U-channel posts to take the blasts from snow plows, particularly on the highways where more passes are made and potentially at a decent speed.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on July 28, 2019, 05:05:51 PM
So, I was driving back from the Berkshires and then... pow... this came out of left field:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48391690331_3a7a3bdc5f_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2gJd4At)CT8SB-Exit32 (https://flic.kr/p/2gJd4At) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48391690196_95cd4cf771_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2gJd4y9)CT8SB-Exit31 (https://flic.kr/p/2gJd4y9) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

It appears the former single lane ramp from 8SB to 84EB has been restriped for 2 lanes, perhaps to accomodate this ramp now serving 8NB traffic as well (via a reverse direction u-turn on the 8NB to 73 offramp).

And then, having the camera ready in case there were any chances to the pull-through at Exit 23....

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48391690146_d9617f6d16_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2gJd4xh)84EB-Exit23-2 (https://flic.kr/p/2gJd4xh) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

POW... the pull-through is gone.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on July 28, 2019, 05:24:51 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on July 28, 2019, 05:05:51 PM
So, I was driving back from the Berkshires and then... pow... this came out of left field:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48391690331_3a7a3bdc5f_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2gJd4At)CT8SB-Exit32 (https://flic.kr/p/2gJd4At) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48391690196_95cd4cf771_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2gJd4y9)CT8SB-Exit31 (https://flic.kr/p/2gJd4y9) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

It appears the former single lane ramp from 8SB to 84EB has been restriped for 2 lanes, perhaps to accomodate this ramp now serving 8NB traffic as well (via a reverse direction u-turn on the 8NB to 73 offramp).



Yes that's temp for construction.  It just goes to show ya that the ramp was really built for two-lanes originally. I think they should keep it two lanes permanently.  Also, if you drive the U-turn temp ramp for CT-8 NB to I-84 EB via CT-73, it is a really big set up.  Flashing lights on warning signs, VMSs that show your speed leading up to the hairpin turn, chevrons with lights on it, a huge jersey barrier.  It all looks permanent but it's just for the detour.  No expense was spared it seemed. 

As for the Exit 25 BGS in your pic, IDK why they took down the 3-lane pull thru.  Or that they attached a new different BGS to an overpass when the DOT is taking down signs from overpasses.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on July 29, 2019, 03:01:52 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/nbrdKRA.jpg)(https://i.imgur.com/aATEUnz.jpg)

They've now got the newer LED streetlight poles up in Berlin, CT. They're mostly along CT Route 9 north from before Exit 23 in Berlin up to Exit 24 (To CT Route 71 and 372). There's also a couple going up on the Willow Brook Connector itself to it's lone exit (for CT Route 71 - New Britain Road in Berlin/South Main Street in New Britain).

The CT Route 9 button copy sign has likely been there since the road was changed from 72 to 9 around 1990.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on July 29, 2019, 06:26:51 PM
The onramp sign (right) most likely dates back way before CT 9 was routed that way (1990).  The "9 NORTH" portion is button copy, but the rest is not, so there was most likely a "72 WEST" in that portion.  There's a few signs throughout this portion of CT 9 (Berlin/New Britain) which date back to the CT 72 days.  I'd say they date back to the early 1980s time frame. 

I remember the opening of CT 9 between I-91 and the Berlin Turnpike, in December 1989.  There was a brief period ( a couple months ) where CT 9 ended/CT 72 began at the Berlin Tpke overpass (there was even a sign saying just that).  It wasn't until the spring of 1990 when CT 9 was extended and replaced CT 72 up to New Britain, thence on the Shevchenko to CT 175 in Newington. 
If that left sign (Exit 24 1 mile) was installed at that time, I'm not sure why the route markers weren't outline shields.  This exit did exist prior to CT 9 being signed this way (and in fact even the exit carried the "72" designation before the curve into New Britain proper was built).  Exit numbers weren't added until CT 9 was signed past the Berlin Tpke, again, around the spring of 1990.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on July 29, 2019, 08:11:37 PM
If it's button-copy, its from ~1986-~1997.  Signs that I know to exist before 1986 are all non-reflective.

From 1997 to today everything's been reflective non-button copy.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on July 30, 2019, 03:00:08 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on July 29, 2019, 08:11:37 PM
If it's button-copy, its from ~1986-~1997.  Signs that I know to exist before 1986 are all non-reflective.

From 1997 to today everything's been reflective non-button copy.

I'd say 1984 to 1996-97 is reflective button copy.  The I-78 BGS on CT-2 has a 1984 date on it and this one had a 1985 date. It's gone now.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/1800/43762647372_89ab01f24a_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/29Fa1oY)


CT did use reflective demountable copy from around 1981-1984. The CT-25 Expwy had it and those signs had a 1981 date on the back I remember.
Before that they used non-reflective button copy.

This one is from around 1980 or so. It was original to the CT-8 Expwy conversion.  It was JUST replaced this week on CT-8 for the current signing contract.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/7826/40553803883_e2399f7035_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/24MAR2e)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Rothman on July 30, 2019, 03:08:48 PM
I-78 on CT-2? :D
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on July 30, 2019, 03:20:47 PM
Quote from: Rothman on July 30, 2019, 03:08:48 PM
I-78 on CT-2? :D

DOH!  CT-78 LOL
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on July 30, 2019, 03:24:29 PM
Demountable copy, what I call Phase II, still exists on I-84 from Exits 57-64 and most likely dates back to the completion of I-384 to I-84 and the subsequent widening and complete reconstruction of the Wilbur Cross Highway in that area.  It also still exists on the mid 80s extension of I-691 from Exit 4 in Southington to I-84 in Cheshire/Southington. 

Still hard to believe how much of those old signs still exist.  And that's not to mention all the Phase III reflective button copy that exists in large portions on CT 2, CT 9, CT 11, and I-91 north of Hartford. 

IIRC, the signs that were replaced on I-395 (the original Conn Tpke portion) in the Norwich area were reflective button copy with a "born on date" of 1985.  They most likely replaced the original 1959-vintage all text blue signs.  Some of those survived on the I-95 portion, Branford-Guilford, until 1993.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on July 30, 2019, 03:26:24 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on July 30, 2019, 03:20:47 PM
Quote from: Rothman on July 30, 2019, 03:08:48 PM
I-78 on CT-2? :D

DOH!  CT-78 LOL


You mean this one, I take it, as the one on CT 2 EB was replaced with a SGS (small green sign):

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.392172,-71.8450394,3a,21y,1.75h,91.39t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swNisIzqC8sfr_1zuq9DDoA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on July 31, 2019, 06:16:18 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on July 30, 2019, 03:24:29 PM
Demountable copy, what I call Phase II, still exists on I-84 from Exits 57-64 and most likely dates back to the completion of I-384 to I-84 and the subsequent widening and complete reconstruction of the Wilbur Cross Highway in that area.  It also still exists on the mid 80s extension of I-691 from Exit 4 in Southington to I-84 in Cheshire/Southington. 

Still hard to believe how much of those old signs still exist.  And that's not to mention all the Phase III reflective button copy that exists in large portions on CT 2, CT 9, CT 11, and I-91 north of Hartford. 

IIRC, the signs that were replaced on I-395 (the original Conn Tpke portion) in the Norwich area were reflective button copy with a "born on date" of 1985.  They most likely replaced the original 1959-vintage all text blue signs.  Some of those survived on the I-95 portion, Branford-Guilford, until 1993.
I-291 still has all its original signage from 1994, except for the last pull-through signs at the eastern terminus.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on August 01, 2019, 01:05:01 AM
On a related note, CONNDOT is scheduled to advertise sign replacement contracts for Routes 9 and 72 next week. Looking forward to seeing if the plans included with the bid advertisement will have mile-based exit numbers or retain sequential numbers.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on August 01, 2019, 01:40:21 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on August 01, 2019, 01:05:01 AM
On a related note, CONNDOT is scheduled to advertise sign replacement contracts for Routes 9 and 72 next week. Looking forward to seeing if the plans included with the bid advertisement will have mile-based exit numbers or retain sequential numbers.
Another thing to consider with 72 is that CTDOT logs it as a north-south route but signs it east-west everywhere except at the northern/western terminus at Route 4.  If mileage based, will the exits start with 1 in New Britain and head west, or start with 14 at CT 177 and head east?  Several of the signs near the western I-84 junction have already been replaced as part of spot projects.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 01, 2019, 07:11:38 AM
I did not know that about CT 72, being a logged north/south route.  Come to think of it, when it did extend south to CT 66 in Middletown, it was largely more of a N/S routing.  I'd assume (or can I?) that it will get mile markers and thus, we'll know what it will get as far as exit numbering.  Since all signs are being replaced/modified at the same time, that is generally the candidate for an exit number conversion.  CT 9, on the other hand, will most likely be set up as "mileage-ready" on the new signs (wide enough to accommodate "##A" or "##B), but won't be converted since the southern 25 miles isn't having its signs replaced yet (but really should, as those date to the mid 80s). 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: bob7374 on August 01, 2019, 11:41:50 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on August 01, 2019, 01:05:01 AM
On a related note, CONNDOT is scheduled to advertise sign replacement contracts for Routes 9 and 72 next week. Looking forward to seeing if the plans included with the bid advertisement will have mile-based exit numbers or retain sequential numbers.
IIRC A ConnDOT spokesman was quoted in an earlier post to this thread last September that CT 9/72 would be the next routes getting mileage based exit numbers sometime in 2020.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on August 01, 2019, 04:04:56 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on August 01, 2019, 07:11:38 AM
I did not know that about CT 72, being a logged north/south route.  Come to think of it, when it did extend south to CT 66 in Middletown, it was largely more of a N/S routing.  I'd assume (or can I?) that it will get mile markers and thus, we'll know what it will get as far as exit numbering.  Since all signs are being replaced/modified at the same time, that is generally the candidate for an exit number conversion.  CT 9, on the other hand, will most likely be set up as "mileage-ready" on the new signs (wide enough to accommodate "##A" or "##B), but won't be converted since the southern 25 miles isn't having its signs replaced yet (but really should, as those date to the mid 80s).

There is a second sign replacement contract for Route 9 between I-91 and Middletown that us scheduled to be let later this fall, so renumbering exits with the first contract may not be entirely out of the picture.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 01, 2019, 04:33:31 PM
For CT 9, I see two projects, both being advertised on 8/7... one from Exit 18 to Exit 24 and another from Exit 25 to Exit 31.  That still leaves some 25 miles of old signage to remain.  Now, if the project to remove the traffic lights gets off the ground, that'll take care of signs in Middletown, south down to around Exit 12.  That still leaves 20 miles.  Sure, the numbers could be changed on the old signs, but I doubt that would happen (I could see that happening if signs south of Exit 12 get replaced before the traffic light removal project gets going... this is the most likely scenario).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on August 02, 2019, 08:31:59 AM
It is interesting how in a few cases, CTDOT logs its highways differently from the posted directions on signs.  In addition to CT 72, CT 31 and CT 67 are logged east-west but are posted north-south.  Meanwhile, like CT 72, I-691 is also logged north-south but is posted east-west and has sequential exit numbers that go west to east.  It's a long read, but it's a handy reference.
https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOT/documents/dpolicy/hwylog/HighwayLogpdf.pdf?la=en

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on August 03, 2019, 10:24:33 PM
Looks like CT is quietly upgrading the rest area signage.  A couple weeks ago, I noticed new signs in place of the button copy at the Stonington rest area on I-95. The replacements were BBS that said pretty much what the button copy signs said.

This one had a CBYD mark just behind it.  So it's days are numbered.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48252910066_72ab7d82f5.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2gvWM4h)

This is gone:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/8288/29196783266_3ab60100f8.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Lu29sW)

Then tonight, I saw at the Southington rest area on I-84 all the button copy and older brown directional signs were replaced with smaller white lettered on blue signs saying "Trucks/Campers" or "Car Parking." Other spots just had I-84 trailblazers.

RIP to this as it's gone:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/4533/38174960951_34006134cd.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/21aoDTV)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/4368/36591159692_af2fb1fcbe.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/XKrfXE)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 04, 2019, 11:30:14 AM
Noticed some new signage at the North Stonington rest area/welcome center on I-95 South yesterday.  It is nice to see the areas spruced up a bit (though we mourn the loss of the button copy).  Also nice to see the welcome center rooms at the state line-vicinity areas restaffed and reopened. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on August 07, 2019, 02:36:03 AM
Found this on the Town of Newington website.  CT 72 will indeed be getting mileage based exits, and they will start at CT 9 and head west.  CT 9 will retain sequential exit numbers for now. Interesting note: the CT 72 WB exit to New Britain Ave is shown as Exit 33 B in the plans.  Additionally, heading eastbound as the numbers go down, the Downtown New Britain exit is 1A, and CT 71 is 1B, which is backwards.  Also, it looks like the 84 ramps at the northern terminus of CT 9 will no longer be numbered, and Farmington will no longer be a control on the 72 WB ramp to 84 EB, nor will West Hartford on the CT 9 NB pull thrus at the 72 exit.  Finally, looks like all references to Ellis St have been removed from Exit 25 SB signage.

https://www.newingtonct.gov/DocumentCenter/View/5481/Project-No-171-425-Plans
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on August 07, 2019, 11:02:28 AM
CT 174 is one of those obscure routes for which there's an exit (CT 9, Exit 28A ("Downtown New Britain")), but no mention of the route, even on the new plans. Another is CT 173 on I-84.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 07, 2019, 11:16:32 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on August 07, 2019, 02:36:03 AM
Found this on the Town of Newington website.

The Final plans were released today, with several changes, but they do show mileage based exits for Route 72.   They're on the ConnDOT site. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on August 07, 2019, 12:33:40 PM
Quote from: kurumi on August 07, 2019, 11:02:28 AM
CT 174 is one of those obscure routes for which there's an exit (CT 9, Exit 28A ("Downtown New Britain")), but no mention of the route, even on the new plans. Another is CT 173 on I-84.

Unless you turn LEFT (east), CT Route 174's western end is by that ramp. CT Route 173 would be accessed from Exit 41 (South Main Street) in West Hartford. CT Route 71's northern terminus is at the same intersection. However, 71 is already signed just west of there for Exit 40 (Corbin's Corner).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 07, 2019, 05:29:53 PM
As I stated above, the project to replace signs on CT 9, 15, & 72 was put out to bid today.  They are available for download here:
https://biznet.ct.gov/scp_search/BidDetail.aspx?CID=50648

The CT 9 project starts just south of Exit 18 in Cromwell and continues to the end of CT 9 at I-84, in two separate projects.  The Exits 18-24 contract includes replacement of signs on 5/15 within the town of Berlin, as well as the Willow Brook Connector (SR 571) (which will have its sole exit get a #).  The Exits 25-31 project includes replacement of signs on CT 72 from CT 9 out to CT 372 in Plainville.  CT 72 exits will be renumbered according to mileage, beginning with Exit 1 in New Britain and numbers increasing as you head west.  This is resulting from the fact that ConnDOT route logs list Route 72 mileage as a north/south highway (as we discussed earlier).

The projects eliminate all bridge-mounted signs.  Town line signs are identified with a second line which says "INCORPORATED ----" between the town name and "TOWN LINE".  This seems very similar to the typical two-lane town line signs.  All overhead support structures will be replaced, if they haven't already in a recent contract (only a couple gantries on CT 72 will remain).  Since all the gantries on CT 9 are from the 1980s-1993 time frame, they will all get replaced, most likely with 4-chord cantilevers or monotube bridge structures.  A lot of overheads are being removed in favor of ground-mount signage.  Also, the 3rd lane of CT 9 South which ended just a few hundred feet past Exit 25, will now end at Exit 25, turning that lane into an "exit only" lane.  New "lane ends" signs throughout CT 9 mounted overhead will be accompanied by the symbol and "LANE ENDS" text. 

Overall, I think the project signage looks good.  We'll lose the diagrammatic on CT 9 North just before I-91, one of a few post-exit mileage signs in the state (just past Exit 19), "THIS LANE ENDS" signs, and the I-84 ramps will lose their numbers (goodbye Exits 31/32).  Also, the unique (to CT) ramp signage around Exit 22 will be taken down, replaced with traditional individual route markers and town signs.  No ATTRACTIONS signs noted for installation on CT 9 either, which kind of struck me as odd. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on August 07, 2019, 05:54:41 PM
I see the SR 571 exit getting a number.  Technically, we can call it mileage based because it's less than a mile from either end of the route.  I also noticed the NYC 2nd control removed from Exit 20S (should've  just changed the I-91 exits to 20A and 20B; wouldn't have been that hard to do).  Interesting that Hartford was added as a control to Exit 21 NB.  And still no love for Meriden either on Exit 20S NB or Exit 22 in each direction.  Personally, I would've added an ALT TO 5/15 SOUTH on the Exit 22 SB signage, as it's much easier to take that shortcut, and it was the only option prior to the Route 9 extension.  A couple of items that would drive MUTCD crazy that still exist on the new signs: the use of Berlin on the Christian Lane exit signage (street and town when you're already in that town; should just be Christian Lane), and Exit 19 SB with a route number, town, and street name on the sign (I also would've included a CT 3 reference, as it's right next to the exit). 

Back to the 9/72 plans; I see that Ella Grasso no longer gets any love on Exit 29 SB (just as Ellis St won't on 25 SB signage) as it will now only reference the TO 175 part that currently is located on the bottom half of current signage.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on August 07, 2019, 07:02:25 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on August 07, 2019, 05:54:41 PM
I see the SR 571 exit getting a number.  Technically, we can call it mileage based because it's less than a mile from either end of the route.  I also noticed the NYC 2nd control removed from Exit 20S (should've  just changed the I-91 exits to 20A and 20B; wouldn't have been that hard to do).  Interesting that Hartford was added as a control to Exit 21 NB.  And still no love for Meriden either on Exit 20S NB or Exit 22 in each direction.  Personally, I would've added an ALT TO 5/15 SOUTH on the Exit 22 SB signage, as it's much easier to take that shortcut, and it was the only option prior to the Route 9 extension.  A couple of items that would drive MUTCD crazy that still exist on the new signs: the use of Berlin on the Christian Lane exit signage (street and town when you're already in that town; should just be Christian Lane), and Exit 19 SB with a route number, town, and street name on the sign (I also would've included a CT 3 reference, as it's right next to the exit). 

Back to the 9/72 plans; I see that Ella Grasso no longer gets any love on Exit 29 SB (just as Ellis St won't on 25 SB signage) as it will now only reference the TO 175 part that currently is located on the bottom half of current signage.

So the project plans keep Route 9's numbers sequential...for now. I surmise that exit numbers on Route 9 will be converted to mile-based when they replace signage from Middletown to I-95. But right now, that's not even on ConnDOT's radar screen, looking at the advertising outlook. Those are some old signs, so I wonder when they will let a contract to replace them.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 07, 2019, 07:04:31 PM
Why was Exit 19 SB allowed to keep both "Cromwell" and "West St", but Exit 19 NB is now just "West St"?  Perhaps because southbound, Exit 19 is the only Cromwell exit?  Yes, CT 3 should've been added to the signs both ways. 

For Exit 21 NB, it makes sense for "Hartford" to be listed, as that's what's currently listed on the secondary signage for "TO 5/15 NORTH".  Personally, I think "Berlin Tpke" or "Newington" would make better sense.  And definitely for Exit 21 SB, "Berlin Tpke" would've been nice to see. 

I want to say that "Meriden" was originally used on a sign for Exit 20S years ago, back when CT 9 ended at I-91, so sometime before 1989.  Actually it would've been a couple years before then, because signs south of I-91 were replaced before the extension west of I-91.  The signs for Exit 20-NB were then modified to include pull-throughs for CT 9. 

As far as signs to the south, my guess is that a project would tackle I-95 up to Exit 12 (Middletown).  Existing button copy signs could get overlays with new numbers through the traffic light zone if a reconstruction there is imminent. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on August 08, 2019, 01:29:40 AM
I'm not sure whether to hate or love that CT 72's new exit numbers will be "backwards".

On the one hand, it violates standard convention. On the other hand, it sort of reveals some history about CT 72... and would be a neat vestige if the exits had always been numbered in that direction.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on August 08, 2019, 01:13:44 PM
I think the third lane at Exit 25 (Ellis Street) for CT Route 9 already ends at the exit. Just walked over that bridge yesterday and should've looked.

The only number we could have for the Willow Brook Connector is 1 (CT Route 71). It would just cause confusion to call that Exit 24A.

Would the newer section of CT Route 72 in Bristol get numbers? I'm guessing no, since that's not quite an expressway. Would the exits merged with I-84 only see the interstate's exit numbers?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 08, 2019, 05:38:48 PM
The third lane southbound continues just a tad bit past the exit.  It's essentially an "exit only" lane, but not signed as such.  See here:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6583148,-72.773252,3a,24.7y,157.19h,86.45t/data=!3m5!1e1!3m3!1sdZEyr7CcxdProwIz1xbKCw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DdZEyr7CcxdProwIz1xbKCw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D56.577244%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100

The new section of CT 72 through (almost) Bristol has no interchanges... just intersections.  What is now CT 72 Exit 2 (to CT 372) will become Exit 33B. 


Regarding the exit sequence on CT 72, prior to CT 9 replacing CT 72 through Berlin/New Britain, CT 72 had no exit numbers.  The portion west of CT 9 didn't get numbers until sometime in the late 1990s. 

What will be interesting is whether I-691's exits will be renumbered that way as well (when its signs are replaced at some point in the future), given that route is "backwards mile'd" as well.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 08, 2019, 05:40:24 PM
I can now confirm the Rest Area/Info Center on I-95 NB in Westbrook is definitely reopening soon.  Drove by it this afternoon.  The windows are no longer boarded up and ConnDOT was seen sprucing up the grounds.  The guardrail through the pavement on the ramp has been removed, replaced with temporary barrels. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on August 08, 2019, 07:11:13 PM
My notes and amusings:


1) What I don't get is why does CT DOT not put extruded aluminum warning signs up ahead of the Middletown traffic lights?  Instead they prefer to just install "two-pole" signal ahead warning diamond signs.  I mention that because SB that would fall into this contract as there is an Exit 16 1/2 mile sign.  (There isn't even a 1 Mile advance sign listed!)

The wimpy signal ahead signs that are in the contract will be knocked down the next time they mow.  Currently there's a signal ahead sign with a small "1 Mile" banner underneath southbound.  Now they're be changed to just "AHEAD"   However, the ones on CT-72 are improved and on CT-9 NB after CT-72 the warning signs are improved.  I would just like to see more warning for something that could actually cause an accident such as the traffic lights in the middle of an expressway.  Hopefully they'll be removed sooner than expected.


2) CT-72 West the exits will go from Exit 3 to Exit 33B to Exit 6.  LOL 

3) Also,  notice the "Robinson Airport" sign which was put up this past year will be replaced.  And it'll be returned to the town of Plainville.  It's not even a year old.


4) On projects like on CT-8, if they added the service symbols they would replace the whole sign (Exit 19 1/2 Mile advance NB) but on this project they add them on a separate sign.

5) Nice inclusion of Woodford Ave on the CT-72 signs.

6) I was hoping a BGS would come back to this spot. https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6475829,-72.7912887,3a,75y,126.47h,85.27t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1stlgITxr7fu5-gj--INyt0g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656


7) US-5/CT-15  SB it looks like the CT-9 South 1/2 Mile BGS will be removed? The same with the BGS on the ramp from CT-9 SB to CT-15/US-5.  https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6228516,-72.7422263,3a,75y,193.36h,85.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqW82gmKeIbW9c4uvHcesAA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

8) What about the BGS signage on CT-372 at CT-572? 





Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 08, 2019, 08:39:39 PM
RE:#1
What they're putting up is better than what we have now (faded signs).  But I agree, something like "EXPRESSWAY ENDS / SIGNAL AHEAD' would be nice.  I suggested this years ago.  But maybe, just maybe, the lights will go away at some point in the not-to-distant future. 

The Exit 16 1/2 mile sign is shown with an aligned exit tab, but with the label "NOT IN CONTRACT".  Most likely any elimination of the lights would result in this exit serving both directions of CT 66 (and perhaps lead to a reroute of CT 17) and at that time, a suitable 1 Mile sign may be added.  The distance between the existing sign and actual exit may change.  We just don't know yet. 



RE:  #7 and #8
According to the plans, the BGSs formerly located in these locations is being replaced with individual route shields/arrows.  A BGS, however, will replace existing individual route shields at the CT 372 onramp to 5/15 North. 

Typical 2-lane standalone shields and placques for "JCT" "9" "372" will be installed to replace existing BGSs on either side of the CT 9/372 intersections on 5/15.  Kind of strange that there will be no "9 SOUTH 1/2 mile" BGS posted.  The existing bridge-mounted overhead for "9 SOUTH" on 5/15 South is being replaced as part of the state's random statewide overhead sign replacement project and will become a ground-mount sign.
 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on August 08, 2019, 09:23:09 PM
I was thinking that the backwards numbering of CT 72 based on the CT highway log now sets precedent for I-691 to be numbered heading west from I-91.  The only question is how the exits on CT 66 will be numbered.  Will they just be a plain Exit 1 for both Preston Ave EB and East Main St WB, or will they each be an Exit 0 to avoid confusion with the exits for I-91 and CT 15?  As for I-691 itself, I can see it looking like this:

Exit 1A: I-91 NORTH Hartford/Springfield
Exit 1B: I-91 SOUTH TO CT 15 (WCP) SOUTH  New Haven/NYC (WB); CT 15 (WCP) SOUTH TO I-91 SOUTH New Haven/NYC (EB)
Exit 1C: CT 15 NORTH Berlin
Exit 2A: US 5 (TO CT 15 NORTH EB) Broad St
Exit 2B: State St/Downtown Meriden (WB); Colony St/Downtown Meriden (EB)
Exit 3: TO CT 71 Lewis Ave (WB); CT 71 Chamberlain Hwy (EB)
Exit 5: CT 322 WEST Southington (WB); West Main St (EB)
Exit 7: CT 10 Cheshire/Milldale

Based on CT 9's removal of exit numbers at its northern terminus, I'm going to guess the I-84 ramps will no longer be numbered.  I upped the Broad St exit to 2A to avoid a major alphabet city for the 1 MP, and  I upped the CT 71 exits on the either side of Westfield Meriden Meriden Square to 3 to avoid another logjam within the 2's. plus the 3 MP would fall within the interchange (prior to the start of the EB off ramp).  I kept both Downtown Meriden exits as 2B, even though the WB exit is before the 2 MP.  Also rounded up on the CT 322 exit, as it is almost 2 miles from CT 71.

The other options would be to make the 66 exits Exit 1 and make the 691/91/15 junction 0 A-B-C.  Then you'd make Broad St and Downtown 1A and 1B, the "Square" exits 2, and the 322/West Main exit would remain as is.     
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on August 08, 2019, 11:23:02 PM
CT-8 signing update: most ground mounted BGS signs are up. I noticed an error today. The "Exit 29 Park and Ride"  BGS is up on CT-8 NB just before Exit 25. Oops.
No overhead signage yet. Also no warning or regulatory signage up  yet either. 

No new foundations or anything for the ramp BGSs.

Spacing issues:
The Exit 24 SB "Exit now"  sign has the arrow too close to the CT-42 shield. And the NB "Naugatuck Town Line"  BGS has a lot of headroom above the word Naugatuck.

The CT-334 shields on the Exit 19 BGSs is a two-digit shield,  not a 3-digit shield. All route shields in the signs have no border on them.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on August 09, 2019, 12:42:23 AM
I searched for this and didn't find it; hopefully not a repost: a 5-minute time-lapse video of the I-95 exit 9 bridge replacement. It's also on https://www.i95exit9.com/, posted July 3. Took place June 2019.

https://youtu.be/Vean-1BFFUg
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 09, 2019, 07:23:09 PM
Here's a story WTNH, our local ABC affiliate, did today on the reopening of the Rest Area/Welcome Center on I-95 North in Westbrook...

https://www.wtnh.com/news/connecticut/middlesex/a-welcome-site-for-travelers-in-westbrook/

So, this sign has been modified to say "COMING SOON"....
(https://live.staticflickr.com/8683/29321212052_f31b45e62f_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/LF1SNQ)95NB-Exit65 (https://flic.kr/p/LF1SNQ) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

Update 8/10:
I can confirm all signs for the Rest Area at this location have been modified to say "COMING SOON".  Much better than "CLOSED"!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on August 11, 2019, 02:45:39 AM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on August 07, 2019, 12:33:40 PM
Quote from: kurumi on August 07, 2019, 11:02:28 AM
CT 174 is one of those obscure routes for which there's an exit (CT 9, Exit 28A ("Downtown New Britain")), but no mention of the route, even on the new plans. Another is CT 173 on I-84.

Unless you turn LEFT (east), CT Route 174's western end is by that ramp. CT Route 173 would be accessed from Exit 41 (South Main Street) in West Hartford. CT Route 71's northern terminus is at the same intersection. However, 71 is already signed just west of there for Exit 40 (Corbin's Corner).

According to the CT Route Log, CT 173 turns from New Britain Ave onto South Main St, and ends just north of Hooker Dr, which is the first intersection north of the I-84 interchange.  So when you exit I-84 onto South Main St, you are within the confines of CT 173.  If I had my druthers, I would have CT 173 end at New Britain Ave in Elmwood near the CVS, and extend CT 218 down North Main and South Main and down Fenn Rd to CT 175 in Newington.  Of course, I would take US 6 off I-84 and put it on New Britain Ave, but that's another story.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on August 11, 2019, 12:43:08 PM
I've always found it odd how Newington has CT Routes 173, 174, 175 and 176. All back to back. (177 is in Plainville and Farmington.)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: ipeters61 on August 11, 2019, 01:58:42 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on August 11, 2019, 12:43:08 PM
I've always found it odd how Newington has CT Routes 173, 174, 175 and 176. All back to back. (177 is in Plainville and Farmington.)
If you're talking about the pattern, Enfield has 190, 191, and 192.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on August 11, 2019, 03:23:08 PM
Quote from: ipeters61 on August 11, 2019, 01:58:42 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on August 11, 2019, 12:43:08 PM
I've always found it odd how Newington has CT Routes 173, 174, 175 and 176. All back to back. (177 is in Plainville and Farmington.)
If you're talking about the pattern, Enfield has 190, 191, and 192.

And 181, 182, and 183 are all in the same general area
185, 187, and 189 all lead into Hartford from the northwest

77, 79, and 81 are parallel routes that pass north-south in 3 adjacent towns from west to east, all lead to the shore, and all end at or near Route 1 (77 is the only one that crosses Route 1 and ends at 146)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on August 11, 2019, 04:04:31 PM
New Britain has parts of 71, 71A and 72. Does that count? :)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 11, 2019, 11:09:51 PM
Took a drive today on most of I-91 and CT 9 and parts of I-84 and CT 72 today.  No progress on any of the 2017 spot sign replacement projects I drove past (on I-91) and little, if any progress being made on I-84 Southington-Farmington project.  While exiting onto CT 72 EB, I did observe the new Exit 36 "exit now" sign for Slater Road, which is remounted on the overpass. 

Lots of clearing on I-91 around the Middletown rest stop, and the old button copy brown signs for CARS/BUSES/TRUCKS/TRAILERS signs are gone, replaced with small sheet panels.  Did not get a chance to stop and check out the rest stop since its 24/7 reopening. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on August 12, 2019, 01:22:57 AM
The ConnDOT site was recently re-skinned (new CSS, fonts, layout) but behind the front pages much of it is the same.

I did notice a few things I hadn't before:

* Maps page (https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/PP_Bureau/Documents/Maps):
** Town maps are easier to find, and revised to Dec. 2018
** State Highway System map (PDF (https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOT/documents/dpolicy/policymaps/ref/hwymap18ps-Final.pdf?la=en)) with all town outlines, signed routes, and unsigned routes (899 and below) on one sheet

* Studies page (https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/PP_Bureau/Transportation-Studies-Share-this-pages-direct-link-with-a-friend-or-coworker-wwwctgovdotstudies/PP_Bureau):
** I-95 East of New Haven Study Update 2018. In the appendix (IIRC) are new diagrams for the proposed I-95/395 interchange. Route 11 is gone, so I-95/395 would be a complete semidirectional 3-way interchange
** I-95 West of New Haven: spot improvement recommendations include 2-lane ramp from 95N to 25/8N; flyover from 796S to 95N; and replace US 1 cloverleaf with diamond or SPUI.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on August 12, 2019, 02:21:23 PM
Quote from: kurumi on August 12, 2019, 01:22:57 AM
** I-95 West of New Haven: spot improvement recommendations include 2-lane ramp from 95N to 25/8N; flyover from 796S to 95N; and replace US 1 cloverleaf with diamond or SPUI.


Not a big fan of the SPUI as it takes away free movements. They need to make the I-95 loop ramp to CT-8 a flyover.  That loop is terrible, tight and almost a 360.  There's a down grade and then an upgrade and back down again during the loop.  Not enough signage either.  Just a small ramp speed-warning sign with a loop arrow.

Also, CT-15 SB to CT-34 WB ramp will lose a free movement as they make the ramp a two-lane ramp but with a traffic signal.

Quote from: shadyjay on August 11, 2019, 11:09:51 PM
Took a drive today on most of I-91 and CT 9 and parts of I-84 and CT 72 today.  No progress on any of the 2017 spot sign replacement projects I drove past (on I-91) and little, if any progress being made on I-84 Southington-Farmington project.

Foundations going in for an overhead gantry finally on US-7 SB at I-95 for a spot improvement project

Other updates:

Some button copy has disappeared on CT-15 for the US-7/CT-15 interchange.  main Ave button copy signs all gone at the ramps.  New signage elsewhere on CT-15 as the signs look exactly the same except they are now extruded aluminum.  The font is NOT highway gothic that was showed in the plans. Boo! Ramp signs have the "No Trucks" symbol and black on yellow "Passenger Cars Only" at the bottom.

Here's the last button copy sign going NB.  You can see the new ones in the distance...barely.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48533290567_546bdc866e_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2gWHNpR)

CT-8 project picking up speed, new ground mounted signs are appearing almost daily.  Most are up except for the overheads. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 14, 2019, 05:01:21 PM
Thanks for the updates regarding CT 8 and CT 15 projects.  Gonna have to head "downstate" at some point to lens them. 

The ConnDOT "Projects Scheduled for Advertising" has been updated, and it shows, on the very last page, "CT 9/17 - Replace Highway Signs & Sign Supports", with an advertising date of 7/22/2020.  Now, this could include CT 9 all the way from Middletown south to Old Saybrook, in which case, we could see mile-based exits coming to CT 9 sometime around 2021-2022.  It has a project cost code of up to $10mil, so whether that covers the whole distance to OSB or not, remains to be seen.  The distance would be 25 miles, and for the first few miles in Middletown south to Exit 13, those signs may not even be in the contract.  Most signs from Exit 12 down to I-95 would be ground-mounts anyways, with just overheads at I-95 interchange itself.  We will see.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on August 14, 2019, 08:03:37 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on August 11, 2019, 11:09:51 PM
While exiting onto CT 72 EB, I did observe the new Exit 36 "exit now" sign for Slater Road, which is remounted on the overpass. 
That is still the old sign mounted on the South Mountain Rd overpass EB.  Can still see the buttons within the lettering, plus there's no LEFT above the Exit 36.  Plus the old sign is STILL on the 84W/72E ramp overpass  behind the 1/4 mile cantilever sign.  It's been almost 14 months.  Last new signage for 39 and 39A was installed in April.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 14, 2019, 09:32:59 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on August 14, 2019, 08:03:37 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on August 11, 2019, 11:09:51 PM
While exiting onto CT 72 EB, I did observe the new Exit 36 "exit now" sign for Slater Road, which is remounted on the overpass. 
That is still the old sign mounted on the South Mountain Rd overpass EB.  Can still see the buttons within the lettering, plus there's no LEFT above the Exit 36.  Plus the old sign is STILL on the 84W/72E ramp overpass  behind the 1/4 mile cantilever sign.  It's been almost 14 months.  Last new signage for 39 and 39A was installed in April.

Could'a sworn I saw a LEFT EXIT 36 tab on that sign while on the overpass, though I could be wrong.  Maybe I wanted to see it... I wanted to see progress being made.  But, alas...none.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on August 18, 2019, 09:06:56 PM
Quick update on the I-91 projects in Hartford:

-Drainage work and utility relocation continues at Exit 86.
-Rumble strips in various locations have been paved over
-CT 15 NB lanes at the split to I-91 N have been shifted to accommodate work at the gore point.  Grading has also begun there.
- Resurfacing is nearing completion from exit 26-28.  Bridges have not been done yet because they are being refurbished.
- Cranes have been delivered to the site.
-Nightime closures of 15 SB Exit 86 has ended for now.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 25, 2019, 06:10:30 PM
A couple signing project updates:

Merritt Parkway:
only travelled from Exit 54 down to Exit 52, and the replacement signage is up.  The signs are almost identical to the old ones.  The main difference is the back, which was sheets connected together on the old signs, and extruded aluminum on the new ones.  If it wasn't a Sunday in the summer, I would have travelled farther south, but traffic was building right where I got off.

Route 8:
No progress to report on the Bridgeport-Shelton resigning project.  For the Derby-Waterbury project, most ground-based signs are in place.  No new overheads yet, and in areas where a ground-mount has replaced an overhead, the overhead signage remains.  Also, I found interesting, no new sheet signs yet (speed limits, mile markers, etc).  In fact, I didn't see a single mile marker within project limits (not even an old one).  I found this odd, since most sign replacement projects start with replacement of sheet/regulatory signs.  Also, the temporary Route 8 NB roadway is open in Waterbury, which bypasses the upper level viaduct.  It opened last night.

Other news:
Signs for the Rest Area/Info Center in Westbrook on I-95 NB have had "COMING SOON" placques removed.  So I'm guessing this area has reopened.  I did not get a chance to stop at the area to confirm or not.  Local news a couple weeks ago has reported the building will be open 24/7, with the info center open 9am-6pm.  Not sure if this will be year-round, because in the past, during the late fall->spring period, the building was only open Thu-Sun.  I'll try to confirm this week.

CT 8 NB Exit 29 1/2 mile (this overhead will be taken down as both signs are ground-mounts now):
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48619987621_d6c3089d9b_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2h5o9qD)DSC00141 (https://flic.kr/p/2h5o9qD) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

Start of the temporary CT 8 NB roadway in Waterbury:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48619637788_b6c2ec3b9e_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2h5mmr3)DSC00146 (https://flic.kr/p/2h5mmr3) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

Rest of the shots on my FLICKR page, link in the sig below.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on August 25, 2019, 10:07:38 PM
CT always seems to drag its feet when it comes to mile marker signage.  I-84 mile markers are spotty at best east of the Rochambeau Bridge all the way to the MA border, and the ones between there and Route 8 aren't standard MUTCD enhanced markers.   That includes the Southington-Farmington project, and it's been almost 2 years since new signage started going up.  Meanwhile, most of I-91 BGS signage is button copy or 2000 era Phase IV, but the entire highway has MUTCD enhanced markers.  The same can be said of I-95 with the mile markers, even though you have older signage between East Haven and Groton.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: ipeters61 on August 25, 2019, 11:19:02 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on August 25, 2019, 06:10:30 PM
Start of the temporary CT 8 NB roadway in Waterbury:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48619637788_b6c2ec3b9e_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2h5mmr3)DSC00146 (https://flic.kr/p/2h5mmr3) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr
Generally I've been okay with CT's new signage, but this I'm not happy with.  I like the idea of the pull through sign for CT-8, but it's too cramped and I don't like the off center CT-8 (though I get why).

The I-84 sign...just no.  The arrow is too small, the left should be on top nowadays (I get that CT's old practice was "LEFT EXIT" in that yellow background, which I would have preferred to what they have there).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: roadman on August 26, 2019, 10:57:24 AM
Quote from: ipeters61 on August 25, 2019, 11:19:02 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on August 25, 2019, 06:10:30 PM
Start of the temporary CT 8 NB roadway in Waterbury:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48619637788_b6c2ec3b9e_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2h5mmr3)DSC00146 (https://flic.kr/p/2h5mmr3) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr
Generally I've been okay with CT's new signage, but this I'm not happy with.  I like the idea of the pull through sign for CT-8, but it's too cramped and I don't like the off center CT-8 (though I get why).

The I-84 sign...just no.  The arrow is too small, the left should be on top nowadays (I get that CT's old practice was "LEFT EXIT" in that yellow background, which I would have preferred to what they have there).


NORTH           EAST
   8        TO      84
         Hartford
   (down arrows)

is how I would have formatted the pull-thru sign


It appears that both signs were deliberately downsized so the existing sign support could be re-used.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on August 26, 2019, 11:16:30 AM
Quote from: roadman on August 26, 2019, 10:57:24 AM
Quote from: ipeters61 on August 25, 2019, 11:19:02 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on August 25, 2019, 06:10:30 PM
Start of the temporary CT 8 NB roadway in Waterbury:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48619637788_b6c2ec3b9e_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2h5mmr3)DSC00146 (https://flic.kr/p/2h5mmr3) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr
Generally I've been okay with CT's new signage, but this I'm not happy with.  I like the idea of the pull through sign for CT-8, but it's too cramped and I don't like the off center CT-8 (though I get why).

The I-84 sign...just no.  The arrow is too small, the left should be on top nowadays (I get that CT's old practice was "LEFT EXIT" in that yellow background, which I would have preferred to what they have there).


NORTH           EAST
   8        TO      84
         Hartford
   (down arrows)

is how I would have formatted the pull-thru sign

It appears that both signs were deliberately downsized so the existing sign support could be re-used.
I think that the legend on that pull-through could've been formatted per your description without increasing the sign panel size.  Granted, the spacing between the Hartford listing and the down-arrows would be somewhat limited/compromised.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on August 26, 2019, 12:01:14 PM
Totally agree with Roadman's formatting, except I would include Torrington as a second control for people staying on CT 8.  The Exit 33 sign should read

LEFT
Exit 33

            WEST
       84

     Danbury
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: roadman on August 26, 2019, 12:55:00 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 26, 2019, 11:16:30 AM
I think that the legend on that pull-through could've been formatted per your description without increasing the sign panel size.  Granted, the spacing between the Hartford listing and the down-arrows would be somewhat limited/compromised.

Could possibly work, if you used a maximum of 8 inches vertical space between all lines/shields/arrows.  The sign would definitely have a squeezed look to it though.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 26, 2019, 04:37:14 PM
Let's keep in mind that the Exit 33 sign pic I posted above is TEMPORARY.  So I see no reason to fault a sign that will (hopefully) only be up for a couple years.  Now why its not orange is beyond me. 

Mile markers on I-91 are MUTCD-compliant because they were replaced under a project that was just designed to do that... replace the mile markers along I-91 from New Haven to Enfield.  I-95 has them from Bridgeport to Branford, as that section has had its signs replaced in recent years, as a result of either sign projects or larger projects (Q Bridge).  The project from Greenwich to Fairfield was done prior to CT adopting the new mile markers.  It also pre-dates exit tabs with borders (but was one of the first roads in CT to get aligned exit tabs) and predates the blue logo signs for Attractions (including colleges). 

Same goes for I-84 from Southbury east to (western) Waterbury.  Those exit tabs are centered and the mile markers are the old style.  Those signs went up c 2002.   But you're right, there are no MUTCD-compliant mile posts on the Southington-Farmington section.  And its not just I-84 to the east that has bad mile markers... many on Rt 9 are more white than green, and then there are the roads that have never had any... I-291, I-691, I-384(?).  Then there's the ones on Rt 11 that count up from a promise that will [most likely] never be fullfilled. 

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on August 26, 2019, 05:06:58 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on August 26, 2019, 04:37:14 PM
Let's keep in mind that the Exit 33 sign pic I posted above is TEMPORARY.  So I see no reason to fault a sign that will (hopefully) only be up for a couple years.  Now why its not orange is beyond me. 

Mile markers on I-91 are MUTCD-compliant because they were replaced under a project that was just designed to do that... replace the mile markers along I-91 from New Haven to Enfield.  I-95 has them from Bridgeport to Branford, as that section has had its signs replaced in recent years, as a result of either sign projects or larger projects (Q Bridge).  The project from Greenwich to Fairfield was done prior to CT adopting the new mile markers.  It also pre-dates exit tabs with borders (but was one of the first roads in CT to get aligned exit tabs) and predates the blue logo signs for Attractions (including colleges). 

Same goes for I-84 from Southbury east to (western) Waterbury.  Those exit tabs are centered and the mile markers are the old style.  Those signs went up c 2002.   But you're right, there are no MUTCD-compliant mile posts on the Southington-Farmington section.  And its not just I-84 to the east that has bad mile markers... many on Rt 9 are more white than green, and then there are the roads that have never had any... I-291, I-691, I-384(?).  Then there's the ones on Rt 11 that count up from a promise that will [most likely] never be fullfilled. 



The I-95 West River bridge project had a nice orange extruded aluminum sign going SB just before the project warning of a road split.

I expected more BOSs in the Mixmaster project tin Waterbury
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on August 26, 2019, 11:05:11 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on August 26, 2019, 05:06:58 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on August 26, 2019, 04:37:14 PM
Let's keep in mind that the Exit 33 sign pic I posted above is TEMPORARY.  So I see no reason to fault a sign that will (hopefully) only be up for a couple years.  Now why its not orange is beyond me. 

Mile markers on I-91 are MUTCD-compliant because they were replaced under a project that was just designed to do that... replace the mile markers along I-91 from New Haven to Enfield.  I-95 has them from Bridgeport to Branford, as that section has had its signs replaced in recent years, as a result of either sign projects or larger projects (Q Bridge).  The project from Greenwich to Fairfield was done prior to CT adopting the new mile markers.  It also pre-dates exit tabs with borders (but was one of the first roads in CT to get aligned exit tabs) and predates the blue logo signs for Attractions (including colleges). 

Same goes for I-84 from Southbury east to (western) Waterbury.  Those exit tabs are centered and the mile markers are the old style.  Those signs went up c 2002.   But you're right, there are no MUTCD-compliant mile posts on the Southington-Farmington section.  And its not just I-84 to the east that has bad mile markers... many on Rt 9 are more white than green, and then there are the roads that have never had any... I-291, I-691, I-384(?).  Then there's the ones on Rt 11 that count up from a promise that will [most likely] never be fullfilled. 



The I-95 West River bridge project had a nice orange extruded aluminum sign going SB just before the project warning of a road split.
And to this day the remnant I-95 shield is still stuck to the lower left corner of the exit 43 advance sign. It will probably outlive me.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on August 27, 2019, 03:39:56 PM
All of I-91 has compliant mile markers.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on August 27, 2019, 11:00:46 PM
I was on ConnDOT's website browsing through their standard traffic markings and signage drawings as of June 20, 2019 (found here:  https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/Office-of-Engineering/CTDOT-CONTRACT-DRAWING-STANDARDS) and here are my observations:

1. The sign drawings specify that interstate shields will include "Connecticut," contrary to the proliferation of neutered interstate shields in other places.

2. Striping exit gores with white chevrons is now a standard requirement that's being phased in with current and future construction and resurfacing projects.  For a long time, Connecticut didn't stripe its ramp gores with any kind of markings. There are still a lot of ramp gores without striping, so ConnDOT is still transitioning to striped ramp gores as construction and resurfacing projects are completed.

3. New signage at town boundaries will state the town name, the year the town was established, and "Town Line" on freeways and non-freeways alike.

4. Intermediate reference markers on freeways are now standard. Additionally mile markers list the direction, route number and mileage.  Standard delineators are 4"x4" diamond-shaped white (right) or yellow (left) plates affixed to a steel post, placed at 400-foot intervals on freeways, with closer spacing around curves based on the curve radius.

All in all, the markings and signage specifications are more in line with what is spelled out in the MUTCD, although some Connecticut-unique signage specs still remain in ConnDOT's standard drawings.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on August 28, 2019, 10:29:08 AM
Chevrons in gores seems like a waste of paint and doesn't really add anything. The gores always had standard lane edge markings from the point of divergence from the main line. Adding year of incorporation to signs is another superfluous standard that adds nothing nor aids the motorist in any way.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on August 28, 2019, 03:32:46 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on August 27, 2019, 11:00:46 PM
I was on ConnDOT's website browsing through their standard traffic markings and signage drawings as of June 20, 2019 (found here:  https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/Office-of-Engineering/CTDOT-CONTRACT-DRAWING-STANDARDS) and here are my observations:

1. The sign drawings specify that interstate shields will include "Connecticut," contrary to the proliferation of neutered interstate shields in other places.

2. Striping exit gores with white chevrons is now a standard requirement that's being phased in with current and future construction and resurfacing projects.  For a long time, Connecticut didn't stripe its ramp gores with any kind of markings. There are still a lot of ramp gores without striping, so ConnDOT is still transitioning to striped ramp gores as construction and resurfacing projects are completed.

3. New signage at town boundaries will state the town name, the year the town was established, and "Town Line" on freeways and non-freeways alike.

4. Intermediate reference markers on freeways are now standard. Additionally mile markers list the direction, route number and mileage.  Standard delineators are 4"x4" diamond-shaped white (right) or yellow (left) plates affixed to a steel post, placed at 400-foot intervals on freeways, with closer spacing around curves based on the curve radius.

All in all, the markings and signage specifications are more in line with what is spelled out in the MUTCD, although some Connecticut-unique signage specs still remain in ConnDOT's standard drawings.



Where's the sign drawings? Somehow I can't find them
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on August 28, 2019, 05:01:23 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on August 28, 2019, 10:29:08 AM
Chevrons in gores seems like a waste of paint and doesn't really add anything. The gores always had standard lane edge markings from the point of divergence from the main line. Adding year of incorporation to signs is another superfluous standard that adds nothing nor aids the motorist in any way.
Chevrons add a tremendous amount of visibility to the highest crash area of a freeway. Don't even.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on August 28, 2019, 10:26:14 PM
Quote from: Alps on August 28, 2019, 05:01:23 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on August 28, 2019, 10:29:08 AM
Chevrons in gores seems like a waste of paint and doesn't really add anything. The gores always had standard lane edge markings from the point of divergence from the main line. Adding year of incorporation to signs is another superfluous standard that adds nothing nor aids the motorist in any way.
Chevrons add a tremendous amount of visibility to the highest crash area of a freeway. Don't even.
Most crashes in this state are due to following too closely and speeding - mostly the former if we are to believe the state police and DOT. Distracted driving is also up there as well, but I've not seen either agency cite gore areas as a contributing factor in crashes or particularly dangerous. Most accidents occur when people are just driving straight ahead and rear end the guy in front of them when traffic suddenly comes to a stop. Are people really driving onto exit gores with enough frequency to cause that many crashes? The only time I ever see someone in the gore area is for an emergency stop (e.g. disabled vehicle) or someone driving through one to make their exit at the last second.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on August 29, 2019, 12:30:02 AM
Quote from: connroadgeek on August 28, 2019, 10:26:14 PM
Quote from: Alps on August 28, 2019, 05:01:23 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on August 28, 2019, 10:29:08 AM
Chevrons in gores seems like a waste of paint and doesn't really add anything. The gores always had standard lane edge markings from the point of divergence from the main line. Adding year of incorporation to signs is another superfluous standard that adds nothing nor aids the motorist in any way.
Chevrons add a tremendous amount of visibility to the highest crash area of a freeway. Don't even.
Most crashes in this state are due to following too closely and speeding - mostly the former if we are to believe the state police and DOT. Distracted driving is also up there as well, but I've not seen either agency cite gore areas as a contributing factor in crashes or particularly dangerous. Most accidents occur when people are just driving straight ahead and rear end the guy in front of them when traffic suddenly comes to a stop. Are people really driving onto exit gores with enough frequency to cause that many crashes? The only time I ever see someone in the gore area is for an emergency stop (e.g. disabled vehicle) or someone driving through one to make their exit at the last second.
And if you mark the gore area, they won't drive through it at the last second, but instead will do it slightly ahead of time. I've seen people stop in gore areas. I've seen people drive right through like butter. All. The. Time. Also I work in the industry so I have a decent idea of where crashes occur. Do you work with crash diagrams?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: wytout on August 29, 2019, 05:31:25 AM
I'm happy to see the return of chevrons in the gores, as I personally feel the do add tremendously to the visibility of the divergence point at a greater distance for easier negotiation, especially at night.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: ipeters61 on August 29, 2019, 10:21:27 AM
Quote from: connroadgeek on August 28, 2019, 10:26:14 PM
Quote from: Alps on August 28, 2019, 05:01:23 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on August 28, 2019, 10:29:08 AM
Chevrons in gores seems like a waste of paint and doesn't really add anything. The gores always had standard lane edge markings from the point of divergence from the main line. Adding year of incorporation to signs is another superfluous standard that adds nothing nor aids the motorist in any way.
Chevrons add a tremendous amount of visibility to the highest crash area of a freeway. Don't even.
Most crashes in this state are due to following too closely and speeding - mostly the former if we are to believe the state police and DOT. Distracted driving is also up there as well, but I've not seen either agency cite gore areas as a contributing factor in crashes or particularly dangerous. Most accidents occur when people are just driving straight ahead and rear end the guy in front of them when traffic suddenly comes to a stop. Are people really driving onto exit gores with enough frequency to cause that many crashes? The only time I ever see someone in the gore area is for an emergency stop (e.g. disabled vehicle) or someone driving through one to make their exit at the last second.
While the frequency of crashes is certainly a concern, the severity of crashes is especially important.  Here's a fatal crash from Delaware last year where a motorcyclist switched lanes at the last second in the middle of the night: https://www.delawareonline.com/story/news/traffic/2018/07/17/motorcyclist-dies-after-striking-barrier-del-1/791130002/
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on August 29, 2019, 01:21:47 PM
Quote from: wytout on August 29, 2019, 05:31:25 AM
I'm happy to see the return of chevrons in the gores, as I personally feel the do add tremendously to the visibility of the divergence point at a greater distance for easier negotiation, especially at night.
I agree they look better and stand out as you're going past it, certainly more than just marking the ramp with standard edge striping, but the bigger improvement IMO is the use of zipper striping that creates the ramp out of the left or right side of the roadway. That thicker shorter spaced dashed line in combination with the exit now guide sign is pretty effective as it provides hundreds of feet of warning versus any other method that's right at the gore.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: billpa on August 30, 2019, 11:13:53 AM
Quote from: connroadgeek on August 29, 2019, 01:21:47 PM
Quote from: wytout on August 29, 2019, 05:31:25 AM
I'm happy to see the return of chevrons in the gores, as I personally feel the do add tremendously to the visibility of the divergence point at a greater distance for easier negotiation, especially at night.
I agree they look better and stand out as you're going past it, certainly more than just marking the ramp with standard edge striping, but the bigger improvement IMO is the use of zipper striping that creates the ramp out of the left or right side of the roadway. That thicker shorter spaced dashed line in combination with the exit now guide sign is pretty effective as it provides hundreds of feet of warning versus any other method that's right at the gore.
Thank goodness we don't have to choose one method over the other. We can have both.
It's nice to see, at least some states, not insist on being cheap about these things.

Pixel 2

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: billpa on September 03, 2019, 02:08:54 PM
About the big blue attraction signs that remain blank:

https://www.theday.com/article/20190901/NWS01/190909923

Also includes some signage guidelines on pdf format...

https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOT/documents/dtrafficdesign/SigningGuidelinespdf.pdf?la=en

Pixel 2

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: SectorZ on September 03, 2019, 07:33:19 PM
Quote from: billpa on September 03, 2019, 02:08:54 PM
About the big blue attraction signs that remain blank:

https://www.theday.com/article/20190901/NWS01/190909923

"Living in southeastern Connecticut, it's supposed to be the mecca for vacationers"

Um, yeah. Norwich is beautiful this time of year.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on September 03, 2019, 07:56:46 PM
They finally filled a spot on the empty one on I-84 in Plainville.  Has Connecticut Commons shopping center as the lone attraction
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on September 03, 2019, 08:46:26 PM
Noticed some new MUTCD-compliant mile markers on I-84 in eastern Connecticut, from about Vernon to Willington.  Not sure why they were put up in just that section.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on September 04, 2019, 01:59:23 PM
The type with the interstate shield on them? One sign which definitely needs replacement is the TOLLAND/WILLINGTON town line sign in the grassy median. It's damaged and one of the letters (at last check) was falling off of it.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: wytout on September 04, 2019, 03:08:32 PM
Yes approx mm 77-84. Interestingly the shield mile markers all have type B mile digits on them, vs Type C or D as on i91 or western I 84
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on September 07, 2019, 12:51:43 PM
Stopped by the Westbrook Rest Area/Info Center on I-95 North today.  Building looks good.  Inside are restrooms, a couple vending machines, and a staffed info center.  Talking with the attendant, the rest area opened 8/26 and is currently open 9am-6pm daily.  She said the building will go to Thurs-Sun operation probably this fall (usually around Columbus Day) and revert to daily ops come springtime.  This is the same hours/operation as it had prior to its closing, 5 years or so ago.  There is a portable toilet in a fenced in section to the west of the building for after-hours needs. 

A couple shots:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48693730403_6ed0579fda_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2hbU6zV)95SB-Westbrook1 (https://flic.kr/p/2hbU6zV) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48693730368_60b0c7ba64_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2hbU6zj)95NB-Westbrook-RestArea (https://flic.kr/p/2hbU6zj) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48693730338_4114f737e1_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2hbU6yN)95NB-Westbrook-RestArea (https://flic.kr/p/2hbU6yN) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48693730358_d88d994736_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2hbU6z9)95NB-Westbrook-RestArea (https://flic.kr/p/2hbU6z9) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

That now makes all of Connecticut's on-highway rest areas and info centers open once again.  In an era where so many states have closed or severely reduced their rest area operations/maintenance (Mass. has boarded up most of their info centers, eliminated maintenance, and just has a string of portolets), it's nice to see Connecticut maintaining and staffing all of their areas once again. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on September 08, 2019, 07:21:59 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on September 03, 2019, 07:33:19 PM
"Living in southeastern Connecticut, it's supposed to be the mecca for vacationers"

Um, yeah. Norwich is beautiful this time of year.

Ever tried to drive through Mystic on a summer weekend?

"Mecca" is an exaggeration but there are places in SE CT that are destinations for people at least regionally.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on September 15, 2019, 03:55:31 PM
Update concerning I-91 Exit 29/bridge rehab/resurfacing project:

-Milling and paving is nearly complete south of the Charter Oak Bridge.  Bridges were not part of this round since they're going to be rehabbed..
-Bridge rehab for the I-91 overpasses over CT 15 has begin.  Lane shift in effect.
-Drainage work is progressing at the flyover site.
-A lane shift is in effect on the Charter Oak Br. in both directions.  This has to be in anticipation of the median barrier being rebuilt.
-Grading has begun in the wedge between the COBr and I-91 S.
-CT 15 Exit 87 will see a long-term closure beginning on the 23rd.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeCL on September 16, 2019, 05:04:37 PM
Quote from: Alps on August 29, 2019, 12:30:02 AM
Quote from: connroadgeek on August 28, 2019, 10:26:14 PM
Quote from: Alps on August 28, 2019, 05:01:23 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on August 28, 2019, 10:29:08 AM
Chevrons in gores seems like a waste of paint and doesn't really add anything. The gores always had standard lane edge markings from the point of divergence from the main line. Adding year of incorporation to signs is another superfluous standard that adds nothing nor aids the motorist in any way.
Chevrons add a tremendous amount of visibility to the highest crash area of a freeway. Don't even.
Most crashes in this state are due to following too closely and speeding - mostly the former if we are to believe the state police and DOT. Distracted driving is also up there as well, but I've not seen either agency cite gore areas as a contributing factor in crashes or particularly dangerous. Most accidents occur when people are just driving straight ahead and rear end the guy in front of them when traffic suddenly comes to a stop. Are people really driving onto exit gores with enough frequency to cause that many crashes? The only time I ever see someone in the gore area is for an emergency stop (e.g. disabled vehicle) or someone driving through one to make their exit at the last second.
And if you mark the gore area, they won't drive through it at the last second, but instead will do it slightly ahead of time. I've seen people stop in gore areas. I've seen people drive right through like butter. All. The. Time. Also I work in the industry so I have a decent idea of where crashes occur. Do you work with crash diagrams?
I'm late to this but like Rt 7 people coming on from the on-ramp and that gore for exit 3 I think it is.. people just don't move over at all.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: zzyzx on September 17, 2019, 02:15:54 AM
Found this on the r/Connecticut (https://www.reddit.com/r/Connecticut/comments/d4pih2/historic_hartford_ct_as_the_i84i91_interchanges/) page...

Anyone have a rough idea when this image was taken?

(https://i.imgur.com/MhSU0yp.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on September 17, 2019, 07:11:10 PM
Quote from: zzyzx on September 17, 2019, 02:15:54 AM
Found this on the r/Connecticut (https://www.reddit.com/r/Connecticut/comments/d4pih2/historic_hartford_ct_as_the_i84i91_interchanges/) page...

Anyone have a rough idea when this image was taken?

(https://i.imgur.com/MhSU0yp.jpg)
This would be early 60's, maybe even late 50s.  I don't believe I-84 was completed through the city until '68 or 69.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on September 18, 2019, 12:19:17 AM
The entire Bulkeley Bridge down to a single lane! That couldn't have been a pretty commute.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on September 18, 2019, 12:59:18 PM
I'm just wondering what the long shed-like buildings are near the bottom right? Near where I-91 is now.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on September 19, 2019, 08:20:13 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on September 18, 2019, 12:59:18 PM
I'm just wondering what the long shed-like buildings are near the bottom right? Near where I-91 is now.
. That looks like a freight depot for the NYNHH railroad.  Today it's a vacant parking lot.  But the connection to the CSO Valley Branch is still there.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on September 19, 2019, 09:35:55 PM
A 1945 topo puts a rail facility there: https://www.flickr.com/photos/uconnlibrariesmagic/4722682236/

Also, WNPR has aerial photos before/after the photo quoted earlier
(https://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/wnpr/files/styles/x_large/public/201403/i84-before-after.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on September 20, 2019, 08:40:47 AM
The picture on the right looks to be from the 1980s, looking at the ramp from the Founders Bridge. Also, no flyover for I-84 East to I-91 north. That opened in October of 1990.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on September 20, 2019, 01:58:52 PM
The right-hand picture would be from the mid 60's to the early 70's.   The Phoenix Boat Building and Constitution Plaza are present (completed 1964), but the Civic Center (now XL Center) Arena is missing (completed 1975).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: DJStephens on September 22, 2019, 07:54:06 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on September 17, 2019, 07:11:10 PM
Quote from: zzyzx on September 17, 2019, 02:15:54 AM
Found this on the r/Connecticut (https://www.reddit.com/r/Connecticut/comments/d4pih2/historic_hartford_ct_as_the_i84i91_interchanges/) page...

Anyone have a rough idea when this image was taken?

(https://i.imgur.com/MhSU0yp.jpg)
This would be early 60's, maybe even late 50s.  I don't believe I-84 was completed through the city until '68 or 69.

Would venture 1964/65.  Remember driving through Connecticut/Hartford on family trips in the seventies and early eighties.  Most of the bridge abutments in greater Hartford on 84 had "1968" on them, this was before the guardrail extensions later covered them.   This picture shows no alignment yet cleared for 84.  West of Downtown.  It must have taken several years to get to the actual construction of the Interstate.   
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on September 23, 2019, 12:29:58 PM
Quick I-91 Exit 29 update:

-Grading has begun for the new CT 15 N Exit 89 ramp.
-Drain culverts are in place for the anticipated widening of I-91 NB
-Drain culverts have been replaced for I-91 N Exit 28
-A crane has been moved in close to the COBr.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: robby2161 on September 23, 2019, 08:16:11 PM
Minor improvements coming to Route 7 in Wilton - from Sept. 17th article on Patch.

"Roadway widening to accommodate northbound and southbound left-turn lanes and a minimum of 4-foot shoulders.

The widening will primarily be on the west side of Route 7 and will include new sidewalk from the termination at Westy Self Storage and continue to the main ASML driveway. Sidewalks will also be installed on the east side of Route 7 from the termination of the existing sidewalk through the entire length of the project. The roadway will also be widened on the east side of Route 7 to allow for vehicle bypass capability in front of 88 Danbury Road.

The traffic signals for the intersection of Route 7 at Grumman Hill Road and Route 7 at Wilton Corporate Park will be replaced to better accommodate the proposed left-turn lanes.

Short, left-turn slots will also be installed on Route 7, south of the Grumman Hill Road intersection, at Hollyhock Lane and the commercial driveway opposite to Hollyhock Lane."

https://patch.com/connecticut/wilton/wilton-updates-timeline-route-7-grumman-hill-road-upgrades (https://patch.com/connecticut/wilton/wilton-updates-timeline-route-7-grumman-hill-road-upgrades)

This intersection has needed dedicated left-turn lanes ever since ASML opened their headquarters - which I think was back in the 80s.  Really wish the entire length of Route 7 in Wilton had a TWCLTL, or at the very least LTLs at all signalized intersections.  The overhaul back in 2009 was typical short-sighted CT.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on September 25, 2019, 01:37:28 PM
More trouble at The Mixmaster (https://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/-Bridge-from-Route-8-North-to-I-84-West-in-Waterbury-Closed-561340731.html?_osource=SocialFlowFB_CTBrand).  Now, the ramp from CT 8 North to I-84 West is closed because of structural problems.  It means all traffic from CT 8 North trying to access I-84 has to use the U-Turn at the CT 73 exit.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on September 25, 2019, 04:00:29 PM
Just when the big project east of there was being wrapped up...THIS! The project in Southington/Cheshire was practically done...then the issue with misaligned sewer grates or whatever cropped up. :(
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on September 27, 2019, 02:30:14 PM
http://7-15norwalk.com/documents/Route%207-15%20Norwalk%20Fall%202019.pdf

How in the world did the traffic light option make the final two options?!?

This project is the poster child for NIMBYism and CT as a whole. WOW
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: SectorZ on September 27, 2019, 06:55:30 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on September 27, 2019, 02:30:14 PM
http://7-15norwalk.com/documents/Route%207-15%20Norwalk%20Fall%202019.pdf

How in the world did the traffic light option make the final two options?!?

This project is the poster child for NIMBYism and CT as a whole. WOW

That second one looks like a non-starter for the Merritt Mental Midgets, so, yeah, traffic signals on an expressway. Smart.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on September 28, 2019, 12:31:53 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on September 27, 2019, 02:30:14 PM
http://7-15norwalk.com/documents/Route%207-15%20Norwalk%20Fall%202019.pdf

How in the world did the traffic light option make the final two options?!?

This project is the poster child for NIMBYism and CT as a whole. WOW
I'm guessing the thought amongst NIMBYs is that the traffic will get so bad people will stop driving.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: DJStephens on September 28, 2019, 08:40:29 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on September 27, 2019, 02:30:14 PM
http://7-15norwalk.com/documents/Route%207-15%20Norwalk%20Fall%202019.pdf

How in the world did the traffic light option make the final two options?!?

This project is the poster child for NIMBYism and CT as a whole. WOW

The average driver does not input their opinion.  The small bike/ped crowd shows up en masse.   So the design becomes tilted towards them, often in a regressive fashion.   Frankly support bike/ped facilities, but not at the expense of proper design.   Regressive design is all over the place in the rio grande valley.   
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on September 28, 2019, 11:34:11 PM
Quote from: DJStephens on September 28, 2019, 08:40:29 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on September 27, 2019, 02:30:14 PM
http://7-15norwalk.com/documents/Route%207-15%20Norwalk%20Fall%202019.pdf

How in the world did the traffic light option make the final two options?!?

This project is the poster child for NIMBYism and CT as a whole. WOW

The average driver does not input their opinion.  The small bike/ped crowd shows up en masse.   So the design becomes tilted towards them, often in a regressive fashion.   Frankly support bike/ped facilities, but not at the expense of proper design.   Regressive design is all over the place in the rio grande valley.

That's not surprising for Connecticut.  They don't do anything that makes sense, so to install a traffic light on what is currently a freeway, I'm not surprised.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on September 29, 2019, 01:32:56 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on September 28, 2019, 11:34:11 PM
Quote from: DJStephens on September 28, 2019, 08:40:29 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on September 27, 2019, 02:30:14 PM
http://7-15norwalk.com/documents/Route%207-15%20Norwalk%20Fall%202019.pdf

How in the world did the traffic light option make the final two options?!?

This project is the poster child for NIMBYism and CT as a whole. WOW

The average driver does not input their opinion.  The small bike/ped crowd shows up en masse.   So the design becomes tilted towards them, often in a regressive fashion.   Frankly support bike/ped facilities, but not at the expense of proper design.   Regressive design is all over the place in the rio grande valley.

That's not surprising for Connecticut.  They don't do anything that makes sense, so to install a traffic light on what is currently a freeway, I'm not surprised.
Im going to disagree with that.  If it were always the case, you wouldnt see them redoing the approaches to the Charter Oak Bridge.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on September 29, 2019, 06:21:36 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on September 29, 2019, 01:32:56 PM

Im going to disagree with that.  If it were always the case, you wouldnt see them redoing the approaches to the Charter Oak Bridge.

With a left hand exit.  It's going to create the same problems currently experienced on I-84 EB at the US-7 split at Exit 7 in Danbury.  Traffic will be changing lanes and putting exiting/slower traffic in the left hand portion of I-91.  Even if it's a high speed exit.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on September 30, 2019, 09:19:11 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on September 29, 2019, 06:21:36 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on September 29, 2019, 01:32:56 PM

Im going to disagree with that.  If it were always the case, you wouldnt see them redoing the approaches to the Charter Oak Bridge.

With a left hand exit.  It's going to create the same problems currently experienced on I-84 EB at the US-7 split at Exit 7 in Danbury.  Traffic will be changing lanes and putting exiting/slower traffic in the left hand portion of I-91.  Even if it's a high speed exit.
Eh.  I'm not so sure about that.  There won't be a need to shift lanes once on the bridge and the grade won't be as steep.  Part of the congestion problem stems from trucks downshifting to climb the ramp.

But, this project won't address any of the congestion problems on the southbound side of the bridge.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on September 30, 2019, 01:25:38 PM
For what it's worth, the last 2 mile segment of today's CT Route 9 opened on this day in 1992. That would be from Exit 29 (CT 175 / Cedar Street - Newington) to the stack at I-84/US Route 6 in Farmington. It would've been nice to have the northwest segment of the beltway built. We've only got this section, CT Route 9 in Berlin/Cromwell (between the Berlin Turnpike and I-91) and I-291 from Windsor to Manchester. Damn West Hartford reservoirs! :(
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on September 30, 2019, 05:00:35 PM
Does anyone know why the state is cutting down so many trees along the interstates? Even some medians are being clear cut.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on September 30, 2019, 07:45:07 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on September 30, 2019, 01:25:38 PM
For what it's worth, the last 2 mile segment of today's CT Route 9 opened on this day in 1992. That would be from Exit 29 (CT 175 / Cedar Street - Newington) to the stack at I-84/US Route 6 in Farmington. It would've been nice to have the northwest segment of the beltway built. We've only got this section, CT Route 9 in Berlin/Cromwell (between the Berlin Turnpike and I-91) and I-291 from Windsor to Manchester. Damn West Hartford reservoirs! :(
I'm surprised they haven't considered extending CT 9 over the Stack to end at CT 4.

Quote from: connroadgeek on September 30, 2019, 05:00:35 PM
Does anyone know why the state is cutting down so many trees along the interstates? Even some medians are being clear cut.
Since 2011, there has been a push to improve sightlines.  We had a bad snowstorm that October and fallen trees kept some highways closed, especially the Parkways.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on September 30, 2019, 08:14:30 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on September 30, 2019, 05:00:35 PM
Does anyone know why the state is cutting down so many trees along the interstates? Even some medians are being clear cut.

https://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-news-dot-tree-clearing-campaign-20190522-pyxoy6njdraahfmibnvt7djlfe-story.html

Too many trees impacted by moths, beetles, and weather.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on September 30, 2019, 09:23:04 PM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on September 30, 2019, 08:14:30 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on September 30, 2019, 05:00:35 PM
Does anyone know why the state is cutting down so many trees along the interstates? Even some medians are being clear cut.

https://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-news-dot-tree-clearing-campaign-20190522-pyxoy6njdraahfmibnvt7djlfe-story.html

Too many trees impacted by moths, beetles, and weather.

Didn't even recognize I-84 in the area of Slater Rd in New Britain when I drove it the other day.  Everything between the ramp overpass and the Farmington town line has been cleared out. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: DrSmith on September 30, 2019, 10:01:22 PM
The state cut way back on mowing too, which allowed trees to grow very close to the roadway. I know plenty of the trees being removed were older; however, there were a bunch of new trees and brush that was encroaching right to the shoulders in many places.

Mass has been doing similar tree work along the Pike at least.  I was up in Maine a few days ago and it was different to see the wide clear regions along the sides of the highways.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on October 02, 2019, 03:34:37 PM
THANK YOU! I saw a lot of this myself and wondered about it, too. One area I noticed was the area of Exit 24 northbound from CT Route 9 in Berlin (S.R. 571, a.k.a. "Willow Brook Connector"). They also cut down a big portion of overgrowth north of there in the summer. It was a slope next to the southbound roadway and the auto dealership below by the Berlin town line.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on October 05, 2019, 12:32:27 AM
Speaking of SR 571 and the whole signing project, I see CTDOT corrected some of the signage plans for CT 72 and labeled the Downtown New Britain (Cedar St/Columbus Blvd) exit as 1B and CT 71 as 1A, and corrected Elm St to Main St (as it is now).  Looked strange having 1A before 1B as the exit numbers descended.  Still don't get why the CT 372 exit westbound in Plainville has an I-84 exit number despite being on CT 72 (should really be Exit 4, or at least make it 34 to match the Crooked St exit it replaced; yes, I know 33 will eventually become 49A and 34/33B will become 49B when I-84 is renumbered). 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on October 06, 2019, 01:51:57 PM
Very near that exit was a grizzly and fatal pedestrian accident southbound on Wednesday morning. The victim turned 54 that day. What the woman was doing on the highway remains a mystery. She was hit multiple times. The rest of it would be graphic. The one key thing which no story has mentioned:

From the Berlin Turnpike (US 5/CT 15) north and west up to Exit 24 northbound, you have a big streetlight replacement project going on. That stretch of nearly two miles is nearly pitch black at night. The lights won't be on until the project is finished.

https://goo.gl/maps/sPGuCqSnHKxdxhnn7
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: odditude on October 06, 2019, 05:08:01 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on October 06, 2019, 01:51:57 PM
grizzly [...] accident
"grisly" is the word you're looking for - at first, i thought you were going to say someone got mauled by a bear there!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on October 07, 2019, 10:39:57 AM
No...but the poor woman was hit more than once. Some people thought it was a deer in the low light. Nope!  :-( :paranoid:
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on October 07, 2019, 02:30:27 PM
Just curious...are there any CAMPING logo signs in the state besides the one I saw recently for I-95 SB at Exit 92?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on October 07, 2019, 09:09:19 PM
I hate that they are cutting down all of these trees. I can understand taking down the weaker, older, and sick trees along the parkway because those are real hazards, but along the other highways doesn't make sense. The trees along 95 and 84 weren't bothering anybody. If they were planning on widening the highway, then fine, but it appears they are cutting most of these trees down for no good reason.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on October 07, 2019, 09:40:51 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on October 07, 2019, 09:09:19 PM
I hate that they are cutting down all of these trees. I can understand taking down the weaker, older, and sick trees along the parkway because those are real hazards, but along the other highways doesn't make sense. The trees along 95 and 84 weren't bothering anybody. If they were planning on widening the highway, then fine, but it appears they are cutting most of these trees down for no good reason.
They're cutting it down for clear zone design so that there's nothing that can be struck within 30' of the traveled way.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on October 08, 2019, 07:07:06 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on October 07, 2019, 02:30:27 PM
Just curious...are there any CAMPING logo signs in the state besides the one I saw recently for I-95 SB at Exit 92?

Yup...

CT 11 Exit 5 in Salem, for one:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5004331,-72.3004553,3a,23.9y,36.53h,85.41t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1stFdONUifL30we8hmvBmOnQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656


I-95 Exit 74 in East Lyme:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3594594,-72.2107517,3a,30.3y,52.84h,90.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjEd0Aq9lEBSoNbwXUAYtcw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

I-95 Exit 72 in East Lyme:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3177403,-72.2457045,3a,19.7y,198.07h,83.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRF5FolpU3t8nANWkUiylMQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Most likely some more on I-395. 

I believe "CAMPING" is one of those exit services that is usually shown on ramp signage with a logo, vs text.  Hospitals are another.   I-95 Exit 72 example linked above shows what I mean. 


Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on October 08, 2019, 10:38:38 PM
Quote from: Alps on October 07, 2019, 09:40:51 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on October 07, 2019, 09:09:19 PM
I hate that they are cutting down all of these trees. I can understand taking down the weaker, older, and sick trees along the parkway because those are real hazards, but along the other highways doesn't make sense. The trees along 95 and 84 weren't bothering anybody. If they were planning on widening the highway, then fine, but it appears they are cutting most of these trees down for no good reason.
They're cutting it down for clear zone design so that there's nothing that can be struck within 30' of the traveled way.
How many cars are driving into trees in this state? Plus Connecticut is practically bankrupt and should not be wasting money on this project. If they won't give us extra lanes, at least they can let us have something nice to look at like the trees while sitting in traffic.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on October 09, 2019, 12:43:31 AM
Quote from: connroadgeek on October 08, 2019, 10:38:38 PM
Quote from: Alps on October 07, 2019, 09:40:51 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on October 07, 2019, 09:09:19 PM
I hate that they are cutting down all of these trees. I can understand taking down the weaker, older, and sick trees along the parkway because those are real hazards, but along the other highways doesn't make sense. The trees along 95 and 84 weren't bothering anybody. If they were planning on widening the highway, then fine, but it appears they are cutting most of these trees down for no good reason.
They're cutting it down for clear zone design so that there's nothing that can be struck within 30' of the traveled way.
How many cars are driving into trees in this state? Plus Connecticut is practically bankrupt and should not be wasting money on this project. If they won't give us extra lanes, at least they can let us have something nice to look at like the trees while sitting in traffic.
I've seen a ton during snowstorms. It's modern design being applied to old roadways. I-84 was just given extra lanes east of Waterbury. I-95 was given extra lanes through New Haven.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on October 09, 2019, 08:36:11 PM
Tonight on Jeopardy!

http://(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48873080166_9e6a83574b_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2hsKj2d)20191009_192133 (https://flic.kr/p/2hsKj2d) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

http://(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48873080131_1143fdb789_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2hsKj1B)20191009_192133b (https://flic.kr/p/2hsKj1B) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on October 09, 2019, 09:33:53 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on October 09, 2019, 08:36:11 PM
Tonight on Jeopardy!

http://(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48873080166_9e6a83574b_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2hsKj2d)20191009_192133 (https://flic.kr/p/2hsKj2d) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

http://(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48873080131_1143fdb789_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2hsKj1B)20191009_192133b (https://flic.kr/p/2hsKj1B) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr
"America's Oldest Continuously Published Newspaper".
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on October 09, 2019, 10:17:21 PM
Another fun fact: the Main Street Bridge over the Conland Highway was built in 1832.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on October 10, 2019, 12:42:01 AM
Quote from: kurumi on October 09, 2019, 10:17:21 PM
Another fun fact: the Main Street Bridge over the Conland Highway was built in 1832.
That's a generic street name. Which Main Street where?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Magical Trevor on October 10, 2019, 01:38:03 AM
What is Hartford?

This Main Street bridge (https://goo.gl/maps/hqf9v7NjypnsyoAG7), constructed over the Park River which was eventually converted into a giant culvert and capped by the Conland-Whitehead Highway (https://mpetroff.net/2014/08/canoeing-the-park-river-under-hartford/).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on October 10, 2019, 01:08:47 PM
The Hartford Public Library sits over said highway as well. I believe that roadway was supposed to be a portion of an expressway under Bushnell Park and connect to I-84.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on October 11, 2019, 12:47:47 AM
Quote from: Magical Trevor on October 10, 2019, 01:38:03 AM
What is Hartford?

This Main Street bridge (https://goo.gl/maps/hqf9v7NjypnsyoAG7), constructed over the Park River which was eventually converted into a giant culvert and capped by the Conland-Whitehead Highway (https://mpetroff.net/2014/08/canoeing-the-park-river-under-hartford/).
I never knew the Whitehead was the Conland, and Jeopardy made it sound like I-91 itself is the Conland. There you go then.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on October 11, 2019, 05:32:14 PM
If I'm reading this right, according to kurumi.com, the Conduit Highway, when built, was from the Charter Oak Bridge to Pulaski Circle.  This was later renamed the Whitehead Highway, or Conland Highway, hence the Conland-Whitehead Highway.  I have heard reference to the Conland/Whitehead Highway back in old school traffic reports on WFSB in the 80s/90s, but always thought this referred to the "Capitol Area Connector" portion.  I don't believe there is a public naming of the portion of I-91 between Exits 29-29A-32.  The section from Exit 29-29A may internally still be named the Conland-Whitehead Highway.  I do know Veterans Highway runs from Exit 32 up to Exit 34, and the stretch from Exit 27-29 is the Governors Foot Guard Memorial Highway. 

There is a sign at the western end of the Capitol Area connector naming it as the "Whitehead Highway".  I didn't see one on Google Streetview in the western direction where it leaves I-91.  Perhaps because you're already on the Whitehead? 

So if I-91 is actually still named the "Conland-Whitehead Highway" between Exits 29-29A, then it really was a "lesser-known name on the road", for sure. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on October 12, 2019, 10:36:58 AM
I've often heard it referred to as the Whitehead Highway on local traffic reports.  It was the northern piece of the South Meadows Expressway, which comprised this, I-91 to Exit 27, and the CT 15 expressway to the Berlin Turnpike.  In the early to the mid-70's, the highway was proposed to become I-484, and to be extended under Bushnell Park to the Capitol Ave ramps as a de facto highway connection between I-84 and I-91 (which took until 1990 to complete).  It is now known internally as SR 598. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on October 13, 2019, 10:08:39 AM
Update on I-91 Hartford project for the past week;

-Exit 86, CT 15 long term closure has started

-Two distinct areas of clearing have emerged, one between exit 87 and I-91N (where the new Exit 29 flyover will be located, the other in between exit 86 CT 15 NB and I-91 N (where the new CT 15 approach will be)

-Moulding for new bridge underpasses are being installed.

-Grading on 91 NB continues.

I Don't understand, though, why a lane isn't being added to Exit 87 SB off the bridge.  There's nothing about it in the plans.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on October 15, 2019, 03:25:24 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on October 13, 2019, 10:08:39 AM

I Don't understand, though, why a lane isn't being added to Exit 87 SB off the bridge.  There's nothing about it in the plans.

You mean Exit 86 to I-91?  IDK. that's Connecticut for ya. The ship never fully comes in.

PS.

New warning and regulatory signage appearing on CT-8 in the Derby-Waterbury signing contract.  New mileage markers with an 8 shield also appearing. Metal seems flimsy on the merge and speed limit signs as some look like the metal is already warping based the way it looks on the poles.

The curse of signs being constructed on computers strikes again as on the new CT-8 SB pull through sign at Exit 30, the arrows look too thick.  And some signs such as the Exit 30 NB signage, not enough spacing between words.  IDK how things like that can happen with all this new technology to make signs.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on October 15, 2019, 08:40:48 PM
 CTDOT considering a roundabout for the Fenn Rd/Ella Grasso Blvd intersection in Newington (https://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/DOT-Considers-Roundabout-for-Busy-Newington-Intersection--563168081.html?_osource=SocialFlowFB_CTBrand)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on October 15, 2019, 11:04:33 PM
Truculent satire about ConnDOT planning: https://www.ctnewsjunkie.com/archives/entry/20191015_op-ed_the_transportation_plan_we_deserve/
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on October 16, 2019, 06:42:39 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on October 15, 2019, 03:25:24 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on October 13, 2019, 10:08:39 AM

I Don't understand, though, why a lane isn't being added to Exit 87 SB off the bridge.  There's nothing about it in the plans.

You mean Exit 86 to I-91?  IDK. that's Connecticut for ya. The ship never fully comes in.

PS.

New warning and regulatory signage appearing on CT-8 in the Derby-Waterbury signing contract.  New mileage markers with an 8 shield also appearing. Metal seems flimsy on the merge and speed limit signs as some look like the metal is already warping based the way it looks on the poles.

The curse of signs being constructed on computers strikes again as on the new CT-8 SB pull through sign at Exit 30, the arrows look too thick.  And some signs such as the Exit 30 NB signage, not enough spacing between words.  IDK how things like that can happen with all this new technology to make signs.
Oh, man, you need to see some of the ugly temp shields on the I-84 Exit 63 signage.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: wytout on October 17, 2019, 01:26:31 PM
Those shields are current standard. FHWA type D font on 2D shields w conn black border. Bordered shields are showing up on new signing contracts quite often. not sure what's wrong with them, other than the fact that they're absolutely huge to replace the former absolutely huge shields that were worn out.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on October 17, 2019, 02:15:07 PM
Quote from: wytout on October 17, 2019, 01:26:31 PM
Those shields are current standard. FHWA type D font on 2D shields w conn black border. Bordered shields are showing up on new signing contracts quite often. not sure what's wrong with them, other than the fact that they're absolutely huge to replace the former absolutely huge shields that were worn out.

I have yet to figure out why some contracts have the black border on the state shields, and some do not.  The I-395, CT 8, and I-95 between Groton and RI have the borders, but the I-84 Southington/Farmington project, and the plans shown for the CT 9/CT 72 signing projects do not have the black borders, and the 3D route numbers are in 3D shields.  Makes me wonder if it goes by DOT region, with Region 1 using the non-outlined shields and Regions 2 and 4 using it.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on October 18, 2019, 12:42:14 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on October 17, 2019, 02:15:07 PM
Quote from: wytout on October 17, 2019, 01:26:31 PM
Those shields are current standard. FHWA type D font on 2D shields w conn black border. Bordered shields are showing up on new signing contracts quite often. not sure what's wrong with them, other than the fact that they're absolutely huge to replace the former absolutely huge shields that were worn out.

I have yet to figure out why some contracts have the black border on the state shields, and some do not.  The I-395, CT 8, and I-95 between Groton and RI have the borders, but the I-84 Southington/Farmington project, and the plans shown for the CT 9/CT 72 signing projects do not have the black borders, and the 3D route numbers are in 3D shields.  Makes me wonder if it goes by DOT region, with Region 1 using the non-outlined shields and Regions 2 and 4 using it.

No one should be using it, because the black color is not appropriate against the surrounding dark (green) background. The shield should either just be a white square, or if there is a border, it should be inset so that the color contrast of white on green is present.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on October 24, 2019, 02:25:18 AM
More plans for Connecticut's transition from sequential to mile-based exit numbers was the subject of an internal memo from the Capital Region Council of Governments. From that memo, CONNDOT presented the CRCOG with a transition timetable for converting all of the state's freeways to mile-based exit numbers.  Excerpts from the memo are below, with my commentary in blue.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=2ahUKEwjW_Yn5nLTlAhUVGTQIHeOSCqYQFjAAegQIABAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcrcog.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2018%2F12%2FMemo-2019-09-13-Exit-Renumbering.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3vbIA6ODVGZNJ0j1GMfLpC

Conversion projects that have been programmed and scheduled:

Route 72 and SR-571: Late 2020 (Project 7-189/171-425)
Route 9: 2021-2022 (Project 172-473)
I-691: 2022-2023 (Project 79-244)
Route 2: 2023-2024 (Project 172-490)
Route 8: 2024 (Project 15-381) (Probably includes Route 25)

Planned conversions with tentative schedules; not yet programmed or assigned a project number
I-291 = 2026
I-384 = 2026 (might include the US-6 Windham Bypass)
I-91 = 2027
I-84 = 2028 (probably includes US-7)
I-95 = 2029
Route 20 = may be done with I-91, if not then likely 2032



Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on October 24, 2019, 10:00:19 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on October 24, 2019, 02:25:18 AMPlanned conversions with tentative schedules; not yet programmed or assigned a project number
I-291 = 2026
I-384 = 2026 (might include the US-6 Windham Bypass)
I-91 = 2027
I-84 = 2028 (probably includes US-7)
I-95 = 2029
Route 20 = may be done with I-91, if not then likely 2032
Several larger states converted all of their sequential-numbered interchanges to mile-marker based within a 1-to-2 year period.  Why so long, 7-to-13 years, for CT... especially for the shorter-length highways (I-291, I-384 & CT 20)?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on October 24, 2019, 11:27:49 AM
No schedule for the Merritt Parkway, which might be able to celebrate the centennial of Connecticut's first exit numbers in 2047 with the original sequential numbers intact. (Although maybe there is a genuine sentiment in ConnDOT of "don't touch that".)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on October 24, 2019, 06:32:36 PM
Quote from: kurumi on October 24, 2019, 11:27:49 AM
No schedule for the Merritt Parkway, which might be able to celebrate the centennial of Connecticut's first exit numbers in 2047 with the original sequential numbers intact. (Although maybe there is a genuine sentiment in ConnDOT of "don't touch that".)

The Merritt Patkway Conservancy would have an absolute fit and get all their lawyers involved if ConnDOT even thought of renumbering exits on Route 15.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on October 24, 2019, 06:54:07 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on October 24, 2019, 06:32:36 PM
Quote from: kurumi on October 24, 2019, 11:27:49 AM
No schedule for the Merritt Parkway, which might be able to celebrate the centennial of Connecticut's first exit numbers in 2047 with the original sequential numbers intact. (Although maybe there is a genuine sentiment in ConnDOT of "don't touch that".)

The Merritt Patkway Conservancy would have an absolute fit and get all their lawyers involved if ConnDOT even thought of renumbering exits on Route 15.

Def yes...I heard that's why CT DOT originally installed panel BGSs on the pkwy instead of extruded aluminum (which they're now finishing up) b/c the MPC had an issue with it. It's also why the NB Exit 46 service plaza had no on-ramp b/c it would extend the footprint. And yes it's why we don't have the US-7/CT-15 full interchange.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on October 24, 2019, 07:40:15 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 24, 2019, 10:00:19 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on October 24, 2019, 02:25:18 AMPlanned conversions with tentative schedules; not yet programmed or assigned a project number
I-291 = 2026
I-384 = 2026 (might include the US-6 Windham Bypass)
I-91 = 2027
I-84 = 2028 (probably includes US-7)
I-95 = 2029
Route 20 = may be done with I-91, if not then likely 2032
Several larger states converted all of their sequential-numbered interchanges to mile-marker based within a 1-to-2 year period.  Why so long, 7-to-13 years, for CT... especially for the shorter-length highways (I-291, I-384 & CT 20)?
Because you've got people here who memorize exit numbers and aren't smart enough to notice change.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on October 24, 2019, 08:40:33 PM
Plus, how would traffic reporters in Fairfield County refer to the No Exit Zone on the Merritt if numbers were converted :hmmm:

Strange that CTDOT would number CT 175 as Exit 37, seeing that the 38 MP is less than 100 feet beyond the CT 175 overpass.

Not surprised at all that CTDOT is dragging its feet on this, as it does with pretty much any type of government work.  Almost 18 months after new signage was erected on I-84 from Southington to Farmington, and some of the old signage it replaced is still there.  Still have the new chorded truss gantry right in front of the old bridge mounted BGS for the EB 1/4 mile signage for Slater Rd, plus the bridge mounted signage on 84 West in Farmington for Exits 39 and 38 just a couple hundred feet beyond the new gantry.  291, 384 and 691 are less than 10 miles long and could be done in a few weeks.  Will be fun to see Exits 89 and 91 on the Willimantic bypass.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on October 24, 2019, 09:16:49 PM
I thought the No Exit Zone was named for the long distance between exits, not the gap in the numbers?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on October 24, 2019, 11:35:30 PM
Connecticut has no interest in switching exit numbers. It's busy work that costs money for no benefit. Want to know how far to the next exit? Drive for 30 seconds and you'll find out. It's not that the state can't do it faster, they just don't want to. Something planned for 2029 is basically the day after never.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on October 24, 2019, 11:48:40 PM
Quote from: vdeane on October 24, 2019, 09:16:49 PM
I thought the No Exit Zone was named for the long distance between exits, not the gap in the numbers?

It's both.  There was supposed to be an Exit 43 for the proposed northern extension of the Sherwood Island Connector, but it was never completed north of US 1.  Therefore, you have the 5 1/2 mile No Exit Zone.

I'm surprised they're waiting 5 years to do CT 8.  95% of it is new signage.  The only place where signage hasn't been replaced is through The Mixmaster. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on October 25, 2019, 11:56:43 AM
Quote from: connroadgeek on October 24, 2019, 11:35:30 PMSomething planned for 2029 is basically the day after never.
Once upon a time, 1999 and 2000 seemed like a long way off into the future.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on October 25, 2019, 03:21:49 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on October 24, 2019, 11:35:30 PM
Connecticut has no interest in switching exit numbers. It's busy work that costs money for no benefit. Want to know how far to the next exit? Drive for 30 seconds and you'll find out. It's not that the state can't do it faster, they just don't want to. Something planned for 2029 is basically the day after never.

Point in fact, it took ConnDOT two years to complete the sign replacement project and renumber exits on I-395, and they're three years in to replacing signs on Route 8, without renumbering exits.  Relatively speaking, New York is moving at warp speed on replacing signs and renumbering exits on I-84 and it looks like they'll have that finished before the end of the year.  But...New York is also moving at glacial speed to convert all of its highways to mile-base numbering.  The Hutch appears to be the next in line, and after that, who knows what the next route to be converted will be and when that will happen.

Yet another example of how they do things in Connecticut that make absolutely no sense, just like hare-brained idea sticking a traffic light in the middle of a freeway!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on October 30, 2019, 12:21:00 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on October 25, 2019, 03:21:49 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on October 24, 2019, 11:35:30 PM
Connecticut has no interest in switching exit numbers. It's busy work that costs money for no benefit. Want to know how far to the next exit? Drive for 30 seconds and you'll find out. It's not that the state can't do it faster, they just don't want to. Something planned for 2029 is basically the day after never.

Point in fact, it took ConnDOT two years to complete the sign replacement project and renumber exits on I-395, and they're three years in to replacing signs on Route 8, without renumbering exits.  Relatively speaking, New York is moving at warp speed on replacing signs and renumbering exits on I-84 and it looks like they'll have that finished before the end of the year.  But...New York is also moving at glacial speed to convert all of its highways to mile-base numbering.  The Hutch appears to be the next in line, and after that, who knows what the next route to be converted will be and when that will happen.

Yet another example of how they do things in Connecticut that make absolutely no sense, just like hare-brained idea sticking a traffic light in the middle of a freeway!
It makes sense when you view it in the context that they simply don't want to do it. Occam's razor. Could they have a bunch of stickers made to overlay all the existing exit numbers? Of course, and it would probably be pretty cheap and quick to do. This is how Pennsylvania did theirs in the '90s. They just went around with a bunch of stickers, covered the old exit numbers, slapped an "old exit XX" sign underneath and called it a day. ConnDOT for almost two decades now said that they would update the exit numbers upon sign replacement, but as we can all see they have no serious intent to do that except for I-395. Only interstates need to change, and really there's an exit every mile on average, so i can see the state's point that it's not going to markedly improve anything. The state should just say they are already compliant with the standard now except for a few places where it gets a bit out of sync. On 95 for example exit 48 is at mile post 48, exit 56 is at mile post 56, though by the time you get to exit 70 it's 9 miles out of sync, but by that point you're 3/4 of the way to Rhode Island, so you're going to renumber every exit just for that one little section of 95 between the Conn. River and state line? Seems like overkill.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on October 30, 2019, 01:19:11 PM
Where in the MUTCD does it say that only interstates need to convert?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: wytout on October 30, 2019, 05:33:46 PM
Well seems that state roads wouldn't need to convert, but fed $$$ could be withheld for use on those state roads I suppose. I would assume that's the only penalty they could impose.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on October 30, 2019, 09:48:03 PM
The federal government hasn't given money specifically to interstates in a long time.  These days everything is a block grant and the federal aid system is actually pretty expansive.  Those expressways are almost certainly on the NHS as well.  Usually when FHWA wants to assess a penalty they just take out a percentage of the state's total highway money.  That's what would have happened to NY if they hadn't reached an agreement with Cuomo about his tourism signs, for example (well, actually did - they just reached an agreement in time for this to not be permanent for that year's money).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on October 30, 2019, 11:03:13 PM
Quote from: vdeane on October 30, 2019, 01:19:11 PM
Where in the MUTCD does it say that only interstates need to convert?
Non-Interstates aren't required to have exit numbers. But anything with exit numbers needs to be mile based.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: DJ Particle on October 31, 2019, 04:39:40 AM
Quote from: Alps on October 30, 2019, 11:03:13 PM
Non-Interstates aren't required to have exit numbers. But anything with exit numbers needs to be mile based.
Which means hopefully MA needs to shape up and fly right eventually.  Some Cape Cod crybabies put the ENTIRE renumbering project statewide on hold in MA.  Jerks....
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on October 31, 2019, 08:56:51 AM
Quote from: DJ Particle on October 31, 2019, 04:39:40 AM
Quote from: Alps on October 30, 2019, 11:03:13 PM
Non-Interstates aren't required to have exit numbers. But anything with exit numbers needs to be mile based.
Which means hopefully MA needs to shape up and fly right eventually.  Some Cape Cod crybabies put the ENTIRE renumbering project statewide on hold in MA.  Jerks....
MA's mistake IMHO (& I know this is a CT thread) was not converting its Interstates interchange numbers first and save the conversion non-Interstates exit numbers like those along US 6/Mid Cape Highway for last.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on October 31, 2019, 01:29:32 PM
Quote from: Alps on October 30, 2019, 11:03:13 PM
Quote from: vdeane on October 30, 2019, 01:19:11 PM
Where in the MUTCD does it say that only interstates need to convert?
Non-Interstates aren't required to have exit numbers. But anything with exit numbers needs to be mile based.
This is what page 212 of the MUTCD has on it.  Nothing stands out as saying interstates only.  Or is there somewhere else?

Quote
01 Interchange exit numbering provides valuable orientation for the road user on a freeway or expressway. The
feasibility of numbering interchanges or exits on an expressway will depend largely on the extent to which grade
separations are provided. Where there is appreciable continuity of interchange facilities, interrupted only by an
occasional interSection at grade, the numbering will be helpful to the expressway user.
Standard:
02 Interchange numbering shall be used in signing each freeway interchange exit. Interchange exit
numbers shall be displayed with each Advance Guide sign, Exit Direction sign, and Exit Gore sign. The exit
number shall be displayed on a separate plaque at the top of the Advance Guide or Exit Direction sign. The
exit number (E1-5P) plaque (see Figure 2E-22) shall be 30 inches in height and shall include the word EXIT
and the appropriate exit number in a single-line format. Suffix letters shall be used for exit numbering at
a multi-exit interchange. The suffix letter shall also be included on the exit number plaque and shall be
separated from the exit number by a space having a width of between 1/2 and 3/4 of the height of the suffix
letter. Exit numbers shall not include the cardinal initials corresponding to the directions of the cross
route. Minimum numeral and letter sizes are given in Tables 2E-2 through 2E-5. If used, the interchange
numbering system for expressways shall comply with the provisions prescribed for freeways.
03 At a multi-exit interchange where suffix letters are used for exit numbering, an exit of the same number
without a suffix letter shall not be used on the same route in the same direction. For example, if an exit is
designated as EXIT 256 A, then there shall not be an exit designated as EXIT 256 on the same route in the
same direction.
04 Interchange exit numbering shall use the reference location sign exit numbering method. The
consecutive exit numbering method shall not be used.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on October 31, 2019, 11:40:37 PM
Quote from: vdeane on October 31, 2019, 01:29:32 PM
Quote from: Alps on October 30, 2019, 11:03:13 PM
Quote from: vdeane on October 30, 2019, 01:19:11 PM
Where in the MUTCD does it say that only interstates need to convert?
Non-Interstates aren't required to have exit numbers. But anything with exit numbers needs to be mile based.
This is what page 212 of the MUTCD has on it.  Nothing stands out as saying interstates only.  Or is there somewhere else?

Quote
01 Interchange exit numbering provides valuable orientation for the road user on a freeway or expressway. The
feasibility of numbering interchanges or exits on an expressway will depend largely on the extent to which grade
separations are provided. Where there is appreciable continuity of interchange facilities, interrupted only by an
occasional interSection at grade, the numbering will be helpful to the expressway user.
Standard:
02 Interchange numbering shall be used in signing each freeway interchange exit. Interchange exit
numbers shall be displayed with each Advance Guide sign, Exit Direction sign, and Exit Gore sign. The exit
number shall be displayed on a separate plaque at the top of the Advance Guide or Exit Direction sign. The
exit number (E1-5P) plaque (see Figure 2E-22) shall be 30 inches in height and shall include the word EXIT
and the appropriate exit number in a single-line format. Suffix letters shall be used for exit numbering at
a multi-exit interchange. The suffix letter shall also be included on the exit number plaque and shall be
separated from the exit number by a space having a width of between 1/2 and 3/4 of the height of the suffix
letter. Exit numbers shall not include the cardinal initials corresponding to the directions of the cross
route. Minimum numeral and letter sizes are given in Tables 2E-2 through 2E-5. If used, the interchange
numbering system for expressways shall comply with the provisions prescribed for freeways.
03 At a multi-exit interchange where suffix letters are used for exit numbering, an exit of the same number
without a suffix letter shall not be used on the same route in the same direction. For example, if an exit is
designated as EXIT 256 A, then there shall not be an exit designated as EXIT 256 on the same route in the
same direction.
04 Interchange exit numbering shall use the reference location sign exit numbering method. The
consecutive exit numbering method shall not be used.

It's interesting to note the MUTCD language also gives states a lot of leeway for short freeway segments of a given route: either use mile-based exit numbers or leave exits unnumbered for short freeway sections punctuated by longer non-freeway sections. I could see exits on the US-6 Windham Bypass and the short freeway stubs for Route 17 remaining unnumbered when signs on those stretches are eventually replaced.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on November 01, 2019, 02:01:41 PM
As far as those short stubs: the very short stubs of CT 184, as well as the Willow Brook Connector (SR 571), the CT Turnpike stub (SR 695), and the Milford Connector (SR 796) all have, or will son have exit numbers.  So it would kind of buck the trend if CT 17 and US 6 don't.  CT 72 received exit numbers about 20 years ago. I have the US 6 numbers upthread, but CT 17 would be 21 (Main St Ext), 22 (CT 9 South NB only), 35A (Hubbard St, SB only), and 35/35B (New London Turnpike).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on November 02, 2019, 06:05:54 PM
https://www.courant.com/politics/capitol-watch/hc-pol-toll-postcards-halloween-surprise-20191101-rlzo3ttfzngtzarpguz5b22bdu-story.html

Another story about the state's toll saga. Yes or no?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on November 02, 2019, 09:09:33 PM
The other thing about CT changing to mileage-based exits is that in so many cases, the sequential-based number isn't too far off from the mileage-implied exit number, which will aggravate any confusion.

It might be simpler, in some cases, to play with the mileposts (akin to what Tennessee has done in a couple of instances) rather than renumber the exits.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on November 02, 2019, 10:22:25 PM
The places that would be true are on I-84 through Danbury (only Exit 2 would be off 1 mile), I-91 from New Haven to CT 68 (there would be an alphabet city of Exit 1's and probably an Exit 0 for MLK Blvd), and the Exit 14's would no longer have the same number) I-95 between NY and Branford (although there is a discrepancy of 5 in the Fairfield area), CT 2 up to Exit 10 (would be an alphabet city of Exit 1's, but at least the alphabet city of 5's would become much more clear), and CT 8 from Bridgeport to I-84 (would be some discrepancies in the area of CT 15).  CT 15's numbering will look ridiculous when NYSDOT renumbers the Hutch (it'll suddenly jump from 20 to 27 at the state line), and I-691 will most likely get the same treatment CT 72 is getting; numbers will go up as you head west. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on November 03, 2019, 09:55:59 AM
Why should the Hutchinson Parkway numbering matter if we renumber it? I still don't see why the numbering didn't reset at the CT border in the first place.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on November 03, 2019, 10:30:29 AM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on November 03, 2019, 09:55:59 AM
Why should the Hutchinson Parkway numbering matter if we renumber it? I still don't see why the numbering didn't reset at the CT border in the first place.
I would love to see a joint numbering and milage project that sets the mile-based exits from the Whitestone Bridge to I-84.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on November 03, 2019, 12:03:58 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on November 02, 2019, 10:22:25 PM
The places that would be true are on I-84 through Danbury (only Exit 2 would be off 1 mile), I-91 from New Haven to CT 68 (there would be an alphabet city of Exit 1's and probably an Exit 0 for MLK Blvd), and the Exit 14's would no longer have the same number) I-95 between NY and Branford (although there is a discrepancy of 5 in the Fairfield area), CT 2 up to Exit 10 (would be an alphabet city of Exit 1's, but at least the alphabet city of 5's would become much more clear), and CT 8 from Bridgeport to I-84 (would be some discrepancies in the area of CT 15).  CT 15's numbering will look ridiculous when NYSDOT renumbers the Hutch (it'll suddenly jump from 20 to 27 at the state line), and I-691 will most likely get the same treatment CT 72 is getting; numbers will go up as you head west.

I don't see why ConnDOT would start I-691's exit numbering at the eastern end and increase heading west. That goes against the standard convention for east-west oriented routes, which I-691 clearly is. I would expect mile markers and exit numbers to start at I-84 and increase heading east.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on November 03, 2019, 12:33:35 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on November 03, 2019, 12:03:58 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on November 02, 2019, 10:22:25 PM
The places that would be true are on I-84 through Danbury (only Exit 2 would be off 1 mile), I-91 from New Haven to CT 68 (there would be an alphabet city of Exit 1's and probably an Exit 0 for MLK Blvd), and the Exit 14's would no longer have the same number) I-95 between NY and Branford (although there is a discrepancy of 5 in the Fairfield area), CT 2 up to Exit 10 (would be an alphabet city of Exit 1's, but at least the alphabet city of 5's would become much more clear), and CT 8 from Bridgeport to I-84 (would be some discrepancies in the area of CT 15).  CT 15's numbering will look ridiculous when NYSDOT renumbers the Hutch (it'll suddenly jump from 20 to 27 at the state line), and I-691 will most likely get the same treatment CT 72 is getting; numbers will go up as you head west.

I don't see why ConnDOT would start I-691's exit numbering at the eastern end and increase heading west. That goes against the standard convention for east-west oriented routes, which I-691 clearly is. I would expect mile markers and exit numbers to start at I-84 and increase heading east.

Internally, the "log direction" (the way mileposts increase) is east to west in ConnDOT records, probably because US 6A / CT 66 construction began near I-91 and made its way toward I-84. It seems exit numbers need to match mileposts and it's apparently too late to change I-691 in the highway log. For motorists, the direction you describe makes more sense.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on November 03, 2019, 01:09:32 PM
There are 4 roads in CT that are logged differently than they are signed: CT 31, CT 67, CT 72, and I-691.  CT 31 and CT 67 are both signed north-south, but are logged east-west for DOT purposes.  CT 72 is the opposite, but it probably stems from the days when CT 72 began at CT 66 in Middletown and headed north on what is now an extended CT 3 to Cromwell, then head west on current CT 372.  At one time, it used to stretch past its current northwestern terminus and duplex with CT 4 through Torrington and follow CT 272 to the MA border.  I-691 is probably logged as such because of the idea that its official beginning is at its parent.  When the highway was built, it was US 6A, and exit numbers are leftover from it being US 6A/CT 66. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on November 04, 2019, 09:31:54 AM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on November 02, 2019, 09:09:33 PMThe other thing about CT changing to mileage-based exits is that in so many cases, the sequential-based number isn't too far off from the mileage-implied exit number, which will aggravate any confusion.
I'm not seeing why such would aggravate any confusion.  If anything, such a scenario would simply mean that those particular interchange numbers would not change at all

Using the western end of I-84 as an example, and assuming that CTDOT does not adopt the practice of using Exit 0 (they shouldn't IMHO), I could easily see the westernmost 8 interchanges not changing at all due to their proximity with their respective mile makers (i.e. close enough for a reasonable fudge-factor).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on November 04, 2019, 05:07:11 PM
Quote from: kurumi on November 03, 2019, 12:33:35 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on November 03, 2019, 12:03:58 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on November 02, 2019, 10:22:25 PM
The places that would be true are on I-84 through Danbury (only Exit 2 would be off 1 mile), I-91 from New Haven to CT 68 (there would be an alphabet city of Exit 1's and probably an Exit 0 for MLK Blvd), and the Exit 14's would no longer have the same number) I-95 between NY and Branford (although there is a discrepancy of 5 in the Fairfield area), CT 2 up to Exit 10 (would be an alphabet city of Exit 1's, but at least the alphabet city of 5's would become much more clear), and CT 8 from Bridgeport to I-84 (would be some discrepancies in the area of CT 15).  CT 15's numbering will look ridiculous when NYSDOT renumbers the Hutch (it'll suddenly jump from 20 to 27 at the state line), and I-691 will most likely get the same treatment CT 72 is getting; numbers will go up as you head west.

I don't see why ConnDOT would start I-691's exit numbering at the eastern end and increase heading west. That goes against the standard convention for east-west oriented routes, which I-691 clearly is. I would expect mile markers and exit numbers to start at I-84 and increase heading east.

Internally, the "log direction" (the way mileposts increase) is east to west in ConnDOT records, probably because US 6A / CT 66 construction began near I-91 and made its way toward I-84. It seems exit numbers need to match mileposts and it's apparently too late to change I-691 in the highway log. For motorists, the direction you describe makes more sense.

Just out of curiosity, why is it too late to change I-691 in the highway log?  There are no mile markers publicly signed along the roadway (same goes for I-291, I-384, US 6 in Willimantic, etc...).  Starting it with Exit 1 being I-84 East/West makes more sense, especially since I-691 technically doesn't exist east of I-91. 

So, would that mean CT 66 West Exit 13 (and CT 66 East Exit 12) would become Exit 1, then Exits 10/11 would become Exit 1 A/B since they are on I-691? 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on November 04, 2019, 06:16:26 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 04, 2019, 09:31:54 AM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on November 02, 2019, 09:09:33 PMThe other thing about CT changing to mileage-based exits is that in so many cases, the sequential-based number isn't too far off from the mileage-implied exit number, which will aggravate any confusion.
I'm not seeing why such would aggravate any confusion.  If anything, such a scenario would simply mean that those particular interchange numbers would not change at all

Using the western end of I-84 as an example, and assuming that CTDOT does not adopt the practice of using Exit 0 (they shouldn't IMHO), I could easily see the westernmost 8 interchanges not changing at all due to their proximity with their respective mile makers (i.e. close enough for a reasonable fudge-factor).

Just to clarify...I am thinking about those situations where an exit number will change by 1 or 2.   

I imagine that while having a situation where, for example (old exit = 5, new exit = 24) would be annoying to folks familiar with the road, the difference is enough to make a clear distinction in the minds of folks familiar with the road.

However, in a situation where, for example (old exit = 12, new exit = 13), with multiple occurrences of slight changes occurring across the western half of the state....the similarity of old and new exit numbers will compound the confusion.

My preference is, of course, to have mileage-based exit numbers...but in Connecticut's case, it seems like ConnDOT is going to be asked to spend a lot of money to make changes that aren't going to make that much difference.

My exit is Exit 40 off of I-91.  I believe that if mileage-based it would be Exit 48.   I struggle to see the value of that change.

(I have absolutely no objection, however, to cleaning up "Exit 39&41".)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on November 04, 2019, 07:04:13 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on November 04, 2019, 05:07:11 PM
Just out of curiosity, why is it too late to change I-691 in the highway log?  There are no mile markers publicly signed along the roadway (same goes for I-291, I-384, US 6 in Willimantic, etc...).  Starting it with Exit 1 being I-84 East/West makes more sense, especially since I-691 technically doesn't exist east of I-91. 

So, would that mean CT 66 West Exit 13 (and CT 66 East Exit 12) would become Exit 1, then Exits 10/11 would become Exit 1 A/B since they are on I-691?

Herein lies the question of directional mileage vs mileage from the parent route.  If I-691 were an I-x84, then it would be a non-issue because it would be increasing both west-east and as you moved away from I-84.  Such is the case with I-291 and I-384.  There is precedence for a 3di whose mileposts and exit numbers increase as it gets closer to its parent: I-684.  US 6 would be based on US 6 east-west mileposts.  Unlike CT 11, I-384 does not include any unbuilt portions in its route log (eg east of Bolton Notch), so you wouldn't see a continuation of I-384 mileage.  It looks like CT is also moving away from numbering the exits at termini; CT 9 at I-84 will no longer have numbers, and I imagine any future projects will omit the numbers on the I-84 ramps  at the west end of 691. 

As for numbers from Meriden to Middlefield, I'd say you're right with the 66 numbers.  However, the 91 and 15 exits might be a case for an exit 0 situation, otherwise you'd have an alphabet city with 1A for 91 north, 1B for 91/15 South, 1C for 15 North, 1D for US 5, and 1E for Downtown Meriden, unless you fudge the Downtown exits up to 2 (the Meriden Square exits would be Exit 2; 2B with the fudging).  CT 322 would stay as is, and CT 10 would be Exit 7.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on November 05, 2019, 03:56:23 PM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on November 04, 2019, 06:16:26 PMJust to clarify...I am thinking about those situations where an exit number will change by 1 or 2.
Near where I reside, southeastern PA, the Baltimore Pike's interchange w/I-476 (signed as Media/Swarthmore) was originally Exit 2 when the highway first opened in Dec. 1991.  It became Exit 3 when PA converted to mile-marker-based interchange numbering about a decade later.  Yes, dealerships along Baltimore Pike had to drop their Blue Route Exit 2 out of their radio & newspaper advertisements; but they, along with their customers, adjusted.  The old sequential Exit 3 (US 1) along I-476 became Exit 5.     

Quote from: MikeTheActuary on November 04, 2019, 06:16:26 PMHowever, in a situation where, for example (old exit = 12, new exit = 13), with multiple occurrences of slight changes occurring across the western half of the state....the similarity of old and new exit numbers will compound the confusion.
Using the fore-mentioned I-84 example, the first 8 interchanges would not have to change as previously mentioned.  The westernmost I-84 interchange that would change as a result of the conversion would be Exit 9 (CT 25); which is located east of MM 11 with the I-84 mainline overpass situated just east of MM 11.4.  Such would change to Exit 11.  The current Exit 11 (CT 34) would become Exit 16 due to its proximity to MM 16 and so forth.  BTW, I-84's easternmost interchange at the MA border, the current Exit 74 (CT 171) would become Exit 97.

Quote from: MikeTheActuary on November 04, 2019, 06:16:26 PMMy preference is, of course, to have mileage-based exit numbers...but in Connecticut's case, it seems like ConnDOT is going to be asked to spend a lot of money to make changes that aren't going to make that much difference.
In many instances, ConnDOT is already replacing their signs; and if one notices, exit tabs wide enough to accommodate either additional digits and/or letter suffixes once the change takes effect are being erected in those sign replacement contracts.  The only change there would simply involve masking those tabs with the new numbers.  The cost of doing such, although an added expense, is minimal with respect to the cost of the sign replacement contracts.  Keep in mind that I-395's interchange numbers have already been converted.

Quote from: MikeTheActuary on November 04, 2019, 06:16:26 PMMy exit is Exit 40 off of I-91.  I believe that if mileage-based it would be Exit 48.   I struggle to see the value of that change.
From a local standpoint, the value of the change may not mean too much; but for more distant traffic, the value of the change is more noticeable.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on November 05, 2019, 11:20:41 PM
We will all be dead before Connecticut fully converts its exit numbers. ConnDOT is big on plans, but lacks follow through. They've been talking about doing this for 20 years. At some point you just throw in the towel.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on November 06, 2019, 10:21:37 AM
Quote from: connroadgeek on November 05, 2019, 11:20:41 PM
We will all be dead before Connecticut fully converts its exit numbers. ConnDOT is big on plans, but lacks follow through. They've been talking about doing this for 20 years. At some point you just throw in the towel.

So...perhaps we will get mileage-based exit numbering after CT 11 is completed?  :)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: The Ghostbuster on November 06, 2019, 03:15:06 PM
Why does it take Connecticut's DOT so long to do stuff? Politics? Special Interests? Incompetence? Laziness? A combination of the above & more?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on November 06, 2019, 05:00:20 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 06, 2019, 03:15:06 PM
Why does it take Connecticut's DOT so long to do stuff? Politics? Special Interests? Incompetence? Laziness? A combination of the above & more?

My money is on "politics/special interests" and "limited funding/diversion of funds that ought to be earmarked for transportation"
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on November 06, 2019, 05:03:25 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 06, 2019, 03:15:06 PM
Why does it take Connecticut's DOT so long to do stuff? Politics? Special Interests? Incompetence? Laziness? A combination of the above & more?
I blame a population ignorant about our transportation needs.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on November 06, 2019, 10:28:54 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on November 05, 2019, 11:20:41 PM
We will all be dead before Connecticut fully converts its exit numbers. ConnDOT is big on plans, but lacks follow through. They've been talking about doing this for 20 years. At some point you just throw in the towel.
As my travels take me through CT, I've been thinking about exit numbers. Fun fact: I-91's only good exit number is 15. Everything else needs to change. (Exits 1-7 are all south of Mile 2, so they're either 1A-1H - including I-95 NB as a numbered exit - or you split into 0s and 1s.)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on November 06, 2019, 11:06:31 PM
15 is still no good.  Overpass is at MP 16.18, so it would need to change to 16.  My exits up to I-691 in Meriden go like this:

Exit 0A (SB ONLY): MLK Blvd
Exit 0B (SB ONLY): I-95 NORTH
Exit 1A: Hamilton St
Exit 1B: Trumbull St
Exit 1C: US 5 NORTH State St (US 5 on NB signage only)
Exit 2 (2A SB): Willow St/Blatchley Ave (slightly fudged for simplicity)
Exit 2B (SB ONLY) Ferry St Fair Haven
Exit 3: CT 17/80
Exit 5: Montowese Ave/Universal Dr (should add Universal to signage)
Exit 6: CT 40
Exit 7 (NB ONLY): US 5/CT 22 TO CT 103 (add CT 103 to signage)
Exit 8: US 5 Washington Ave
Exit 11: US 5 (Wharton Brook Connector)
Exit 12 (NB ONLY) CT 150
Exit 13 (SB ONLY) TO CT 150 East Center St
Exit 16: CT 68
Exit 19A: East Main St
Exit 19B: CT 15 (directional exits; TO I-691 WEST NB)
Exit 20: CT 66 EAST (NB); I-691 WEST (SB)

I agree that despite it being a terminus exit, 95 North should get a number because the mainline extends slightly south and even has an exit before feeding into 95 South.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on November 07, 2019, 12:32:07 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on November 06, 2019, 11:06:31 PM
15 is still no good.  Overpass is at MP 16.18, so it would need to change to 16.  My exits up to I-691 in Meriden go like this:

Exit 0A (SB ONLY): MLK Blvd
Exit 0B (SB ONLY): I-95 NORTH
Exit 1A: Hamilton St
Exit 1B: Trumbull St
Exit 1C: US 5 NORTH State St (US 5 on NB signage only)
Exit 2 (2A SB): Willow St/Blatchley Ave (slightly fudged for simplicity)
Exit 2B (SB ONLY) Ferry St Fair Haven
Exit 3: CT 17/80
Exit 5: Montowese Ave/Universal Dr (should add Universal to signage)
Exit 6: CT 40
Exit 7 (NB ONLY): US 5/CT 22 TO CT 103 (add CT 103 to signage)
Exit 8: US 5 Washington Ave
Exit 11: US 5 (Wharton Brook Connector)
Exit 12 (NB ONLY) CT 150
Exit 13 (SB ONLY) TO CT 150 East Center St
Exit 16: CT 68
Exit 19A: East Main St
Exit 19B: CT 15 (directional exits; TO I-691 WEST NB)
Exit 20: CT 66 EAST (NB); I-691 WEST (SB)

I agree that despite it being a terminus exit, 95 North should get a number because the mainline extends slightly south and even has an exit before feeding into 95 South.
Seemed like Montowese is a 4. For that and the 15 I was going by milemarkers at the exits, not necessarily the cross street, so you may have superseding knowledge.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: zzyzx on November 07, 2019, 02:19:11 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on November 06, 2019, 05:03:25 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 06, 2019, 03:15:06 PM
Why does it take Connecticut's DOT so long to do stuff? Politics? Special Interests? Incompetence? Laziness? A combination of the above & more?
I blame a population ignorant about our transportation needs.

I blame the land of steady habits in general.  I tried explaining to my friend, who's lived in CT all of his life as well as his parents, about mile based exit numbers.  It confused him more when he asked me if there were multiple exits within a mile:
"So will they number them 1.1, 1.2, 1.3?"
"No, they'll be numbered 1A, 1B, 1C and so on!"
"That makes no sense.  It's so confusing!" he said back, "If they're numbered in order they're easier to remember!"

He rarely travels out of state, and when he does, it's to NY to MA. And this guy has an advanced degree. I didn't mention enhanced mile markers with the decimals to add to his confusion...

Imagine what the state will have to do to educate everyone about the switch to mile-based exits.  The I-395 renumbering only affected a small portion of the state, and the exits are far off from the original ones.  I would really like to see the general population react when the state phases in EXIT 0s before the freeway junctions (are there any in CT? I can't think of any from memory)

The whole switching exits on the freeways and not the parkways will also add to the confusion.  My friend lives near I-91 and the Wilber Cross.  Explaining to him why the state will renumber 91 and not the WCP will be lots of fun...
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on November 07, 2019, 08:56:48 AM
Quote from: zzyzx on November 07, 2019, 02:19:11 AMI would really like to see the general population react when the state phases in EXIT 0s before the freeway junctions (are there any in CT? I can't think of any from memory)
One thing to keep in mind that many states that already do mile-marker-based interchange numbering don't use Exit 0 for any reason.  Whether such practice is due to a particular state originally having sequential numbering (CT would fall in this category) or such never had such at all is not fully known.

As mentioned upthread & IMHO, it would be better for CT or whomever not to use Exit 0 for an interchange falling within the first mile and/or southern/western terminus unless there's several ramps/interchanges within said-mile.  Such a scenario would exist for MA's Lowell Connector at I-495/US 3 interchange/terminus.  Such is probably, IMHO, the only example in the Bay State where the use of Exit 0 at its southern end has some validity. 

That said, not using Exit 0 would reduce the amount of renumberings along southern and/or western sections in most instances.  Such would be the case for I-84 in CT (the westernmost 8 interchanges wouldn't to change) and even I-93 in MA (the southernmost 11 interchanges wouldn't need to change).

Quote from: zzyzx on November 07, 2019, 02:19:11 AMThe whole switching exits on the freeways and not the parkways will also add to the confusion.
:confused: I was under the impression that the renumbering was to take place on all highways & parkways that presently have sequential numbering.  If anything, renumbering the interchanges along the parkways (CT 15) would straighten out the oddball sequential numbering (Exit 27 at the CT-NY line) such currently have.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: zzyzx on November 07, 2019, 08:26:42 PM
The CT2030 site is now live with a comprehensive list of state highway and mass transit projects:

https://www.ct2030.com/ (https://www.ct2030.com/)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on November 07, 2019, 09:15:25 PM
The only places I would consider using Exit 0 in CT: I-91 at I-95 (only on the SB side for MLK Blvd and maybe I-95 North so you could match up the Exit 1's starting at Hamilton St), and the I-91/CT 15 exits on I-691 (to avoid an alphabet city and confusion with CT 66 Exit 1).  Seeing that CTDOT is moving toward not numbering the termini ramps of highways (such as those at the north end of CT 9 no longer being numbered), you won't see Exit 0's at the southern ends of CT 8/25, CT 9, or US 7. If those termini were numbered, only CT 9 would require an Exit 0.  CT 8/25 and US 7 have only one Exit 1 northbound, so you could use a plain Exit 1 for that and suffixed Exit 1's SB.  CT 9 would require one because northbound you would have 1A for Ferry Point and 1B for CT 154.  SB, CT 154 would be Exit 1, and the 95 ramps would be 0 A-B.

I actually managed to get away from using an Exit 0 at the west end of CT 2 despite all the close ramps.  I did not number the ramp to 91 South from State St west of the Founders Bridge.  Up to the Hebron Ave exit, you'd have:

Exit 1A: Pitkin St/East River Dr (EB), Darlin St (WB)
Exit 1B (WB ONLY): I-84 WEST/91 NORTH
Exit 1C: I-84 EAST
Exit 1D: Governor St
Exit 1E (WB ONLY): Pitkin St
Exit 1F (WB ONLY): TO I-91/CT 15 East River Dr
Exit 2A (EB ONLY): Riverside Dr/Willow St (the Willow St overpass is at MP 1.98, but bumping it to 2 makes it easier)
Exit 2B (EB ONLY): High St
NO # ( EB ONLY): Sutton Ave (exit to be eliminated)
Exit 3: Maple St (EB); Main St (WB)
Exit 4A (4 WB): CT 3 SOUTH (TO I-91 WB signage only)
Exit 4B (EB ONLY): Griswold St
Exit 5A (EB ONLY): CT 17 SOUTH
Exit 5B (5 WB): CT 94



Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on November 07, 2019, 11:03:01 PM
Quote
Exit 5B (5 WB): CT 94

One nitpick: I'd like to see the same exit number in both directions for the same exit. Even if CT 2 WB has only an exit 5B and no 5A, that's outweighed by the advantage of a consistent number for the CT 94 exit (both ways).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: DJStephens on November 07, 2019, 11:15:29 PM
Quote from: zzyzx on November 07, 2019, 08:26:42 PM
The CT2030 site is now live with a comprehensive list of state highway and mass transit projects:

https://www.ct2030.com/ (https://www.ct2030.com/)

Written for a sixth grader.  The lack of engineering details is glaring.   "No parent should be late to pick up their child due to a traffic light in the middle of a busy highway"  Arent' they planning on doing just that - on US 7 near state route 15?  Yeesh.   
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: zzyzx on November 07, 2019, 11:56:59 PM
Yeah I don't like the way it's written at all.  The future tense writing is annoying.  Just give us the details with a realistic timeframe without talking about how much less congestion the improvements will bring.  No one has even lifted a shovel yet--do you really think realigning an exit ramp or widening a bridge will make that much of a difference in traffic?

I would really be surprised if all of these major projects got completed by 2030.

Also, buried somewhere in the site is the updated "user fee" list (https://www.ct2030.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/User-Fee-Project-Chart-Nov-6-v2.pdf) (aka the bridges Lamont is thinking of tolling)

Quote from: DJStephens on November 07, 2019, 11:15:29 PM
Quote from: zzyzx on November 07, 2019, 08:26:42 PM
The CT2030 site is now live with a comprehensive list of state highway and mass transit projects:

https://www.ct2030.com/ (https://www.ct2030.com/)

Written for a sixth grader.  The lack of engineering details is glaring.   "No parent should be late to pick up their child due to a traffic light in the middle of a busy highway"  Arent' they planning on doing just that - on US 7 near state route 15?  Yeesh.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on November 08, 2019, 11:57:29 AM
I'd like to see diagrams, even if not yet to scale, of what they plan to do. New ramps, widened roadways, and so on.

For example, untangling the 2/3/17 mess in Glastonbury -- would they revise the 2/17 interchange so that 17 exits and enters from the right? (this could have easily been done in 1964 when CT 2 opened but that's water under the crumbling narrow bridge)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on November 08, 2019, 01:19:57 PM
Too bad they don't say when specific projects will get done.  Especially the user fee ones - I'd like to structure my clinching activities in CT to be done before those tolls go live.  I don't like how CT is basically tolling most of the freeways in the state - including one owned/maintained by NYSDOT!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on November 08, 2019, 01:45:35 PM
Quote from: vdeane on November 08, 2019, 01:19:57 PMI don't like how CT is basically tolling most of the freeways in the state - including one owned/maintained by NYSDOT!
According to the CT2030 website (is such incorrect?), the I-684 bridge over the Byram River in Greenwich, CT is maintained by CTDOT.  I'm assuming that's what you're referring to.

However & FWIW: Wiki account of I-684 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_684)
Quote from: Wiki AccountThe short section of I-684 in Connecticut is owned by the Connecticut Department of Transportation, but maintenance and repairs to the stretch are performed by the New York State Department of Transportation, with the cost of maintenance being reimbursed to New York by Connecticut.
Given the comments on this thread regarding the sloppiness of CT2030's write-up; this is one where the Wiki account might be more accurate regarding CT's I-684.

That said, I have not heard anything about CT attempting to place tolls on I-684.  I don't think they can do such given its lack of connection to any other road in CT.  The so-called toll revenue for such work will likely come from tolls along longer stretches of CT Interstates if implemented.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on November 08, 2019, 10:30:36 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 08, 2019, 01:45:35 PM
Quote from: vdeane on November 08, 2019, 01:19:57 PMI don't like how CT is basically tolling most of the freeways in the state - including one owned/maintained by NYSDOT!
According to the CT2030 website (is such incorrect?), the I-684 bridge over the Byram River in Greenwich, CT is maintained by CTDOT.  I'm assuming that's what you're referring to.

However & FWIW: Wiki account of I-684 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_684)
Quote from: Wiki AccountThe short section of I-684 in Connecticut is owned by the Connecticut Department of Transportation, but maintenance and repairs to the stretch are performed by the New York State Department of Transportation, with the cost of maintenance being reimbursed to New York by Connecticut.
Given the comments on this thread regarding the sloppiness of CT2030's write-up; this is one where the Wiki account might be more accurate regarding CT's I-684.

That said, I have not heard anything about CT attempting to place tolls on I-684.  I don't think they can do such given its lack of connection to any other road in CT.  The so-called toll revenue for such work will likely come from tolls along longer stretches of CT Interstates if implemented.
I think RIS had the road under NYSDOT last I looked, but I didn't check the bridge inventory.  The $0.50 toll is listed on the user fees PDF.  IMO CT charging people for what is otherwise a NY interstate is really a dick move.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on November 08, 2019, 10:42:48 PM
The website mentioned this:
QuoteFarmington: I-84, Route 9, Route 4, Traffic Circulation Enhancements
Total Estimated Cost: $110-140 Million

Commuter Benefits: Use existing road that is unfinished to connect to Route 4. This eases congestion by providing another option for drivers.

There is a partially built, but unused section of highway which could connect Farmington all the way to Route 4 from Route 9 and I-84. This will lead to the opening of a pressure valve for some of the local traffic in Farmington by utilizing the unused roadway, and providing access to another thoroughfare.

Does that mean utilize the stack?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on November 08, 2019, 11:33:04 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on November 08, 2019, 10:42:48 PM
The website mentioned this:
QuoteFarmington: I-84, Route 9, Route 4, Traffic Circulation Enhancements
Total Estimated Cost: $110-140 Million

Commuter Benefits: Use existing road that is unfinished to connect to Route 4. This eases congestion by providing another option for drivers.

There is a partially built, but unused section of highway which could connect Farmington all the way to Route 4 from Route 9 and I-84. This will lead to the opening of a pressure valve for some of the local traffic in Farmington by utilizing the unused roadway, and providing access to another thoroughfare.

Does that mean utilize the stack?

That's how I understand it. Satellite view (https://goo.gl/maps/fzVHXja4U2XEdZhXA) implies there's a clear ROW (no buildings, no reservoirs) from the stack stub to CT 4. They're probably planning a signalized intersection at the terminus; doing a terminal interchange would probably require some property acquisition.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on November 09, 2019, 12:09:52 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on November 08, 2019, 10:42:48 PM
The website mentioned this:
QuoteFarmington: I-84, Route 9, Route 4, Traffic Circulation Enhancements
Total Estimated Cost: $110-140 Million

Commuter Benefits: Use existing road that is unfinished to connect to Route 4. This eases congestion by providing another option for drivers.

There is a partially built, but unused section of highway which could connect Farmington all the way to Route 4 from Route 9 and I-84. This will lead to the opening of a pressure valve for some of the local traffic in Farmington by utilizing the unused roadway, and providing access to another thoroughfare.

Does that mean utilize the stack?
Finish 11 first! But wow.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on November 10, 2019, 05:39:22 PM
Quote from: kurumi on November 08, 2019, 11:57:29 AM
I'd like to see diagrams, even if not yet to scale, of what they plan to do. New ramps, widened roadways, and so on.

You don't see this because these details have not been decided. All of these projects still need to go through alternatives analysis and design before any less vague info is available.


As for the idea of tying a short connector roadway into the unused half of the 84/9 stack... yeeeaaah I'm filing that under "I'll believe it when I see it"
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on November 10, 2019, 08:58:07 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on November 10, 2019, 05:39:22 PM
Quote from: kurumi on November 08, 2019, 11:57:29 AM
I'd like to see diagrams, even if not yet to scale, of what they plan to do. New ramps, widened roadways, and so on.

You don't see this because these details have not been decided. All of these projects still need to go through alternatives analysis and design before any less vague info is available.


As for the idea of tying a short connector roadway into the unused half of the 84/9 stack... yeeeaaah I'm filing that under "I'll believe it when I see it"

Exactly, this is the same state that is the poster child for NIMBY.  The poster child project is the Merritt/US-7 interchange.  They want to remove stoplights on CT-9 and potentially put them on US-7.  Makes no sense and no consistency.

Here's an update on the US-7/Merritt interchange.  How 28 alternatives were originally on the table and the stoplight one made the final 2 is beyond me.  Look at the PAC Composition.  It's all these bike/ped, historical, groups. 

http://7-15norwalk.com/documents/2019_10_23-Route7-15-PIM2.pdf

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on November 10, 2019, 09:39:02 PM
As for the CT 9 extension from The Stack to Route 4: my guess is that with the residential areas nearby, we would probably see something like the 72 extension in Bristol: a 4 lane divided boulevard with hopefully a grade separation at Middle Rd. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on November 11, 2019, 08:46:58 AM
Quote from: vdeane on November 08, 2019, 10:30:36 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 08, 2019, 01:45:35 PM
Quote from: vdeane on November 08, 2019, 01:19:57 PMI don't like how CT is basically tolling most of the freeways in the state - including one owned/maintained by NYSDOT!
According to the CT2030 website (is such incorrect?), the I-684 bridge over the Byram River in Greenwich, CT is maintained by CTDOT.  I'm assuming that's what you're referring to.

However & FWIW: Wiki account of I-684 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_684)
Quote from: Wiki AccountThe short section of I-684 in Connecticut is owned by the Connecticut Department of Transportation, but maintenance and repairs to the stretch are performed by the New York State Department of Transportation, with the cost of maintenance being reimbursed to New York by Connecticut.
Given the comments on this thread regarding the sloppiness of CT2030's write-up; this is one where the Wiki account might be more accurate regarding CT's I-684.

That said, I have not heard anything about CT attempting to place tolls on I-684.  I don't think they can do such given its lack of connection to any other road in CT.  The so-called toll revenue for such work will likely come from tolls along longer stretches of CT Interstates if implemented.
I think RIS had the road under NYSDOT last I looked, but I didn't check the bridge inventory.  The $0.50 toll is listed on the user fees PDF.  IMO CT charging people for what is otherwise a NY interstate is really a dick move.
Apparently NY State drivers have since gotten wind of such and are understandably not too happy about it.
New York drivers outraged over Connecticut toll proposal

It could be argued that placing a toll along that segment of I-684 would be considered a border toll; which is presently prohibited by federal law (placing tolls at the borders of existing free Interstates) even under the current allowable circumstances.  Gov. Lamont may very well be jumping the shark at least with this particular part of the plan.

I must've missed something along the way... has Gov. Lamont's tolling plan for existing free Interstates in CT actually been approved by the feds... yet?  Or are they (CT) still deciding on where to place such?  It's almost as if the Governor's trying to throw tolls on every highway to see what sticks/gets approved.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: cl94 on November 11, 2019, 03:41:56 PM
I don't see 684 actually getting tolled. Why do I say this? Well, such a toll would be VERY easy to shunpike via NY 22 and NY 120, which would make that area a traffic nightmare. It would probably cost NYSDOT less to pay for the damn bridge replacement themselves than to deal with the consequences of shunpiking.

Quote from: PHLBOS on November 11, 2019, 08:46:58 AM
It could be argued that placing a toll along that segment of I-684 would be considered a border toll; which is presently prohibited by federal law (placing tolls at the borders of existing free Interstates) even under the current allowable circumstances.  Gov. Lamont may very well be jumping the shark at least with this particular part of the plan.

I was thinking this. The new RI tolls are placed such that there is a free exit beforehand. New border tolls are only allowed under very specific circumstances, which this is VERY iffy about. 684 would also be a pass-through toll, which in itself is horrible optics.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on November 11, 2019, 04:19:39 PM
Quote from: cl94 on November 11, 2019, 03:41:56 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 11, 2019, 08:46:58 AM
It could be argued that placing a toll along that segment of I-684 would be considered a border toll; which is presently prohibited by federal law (placing tolls at the borders of existing free Interstates) even under the current allowable circumstances.  Gov. Lamont may very well be jumping the shark at least with this particular part of the plan.

I was thinking this. The new RI tolls are placed such that there is a free exit beforehand. New border tolls are only allowed under very specific circumstances, which this is VERY iffy about. 684 would also be a pass-through toll, which in itself is horrible optics.
IIRC, the RI truck-only tolls are placed throughout the length of the highways; so, in theory, the entire road's being tolled (for trucks) not just at/inside the state line.

As far as I know the only case(s) where new border tolls are allowed are for either new water crossings (although RI residents actually forced RIDOT to drop the planned-toll along RI 24's new Sakonnet River Bridge a few years ago) or brand new toll roads (US 301 Expressway in DE).  Given that this short I-684 bridge in CT is more of an overpass/viaduct variety (we're not talking something of Tappan Zee or even Scudder Falls caliber here); using the new water crossing argument to justify placing tolls is stretching things a bit IMHO.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on November 11, 2019, 07:33:44 PM
Shadyjay and a few others would appreciate (or not) this:

Update on the CT-8 signing project, looks like all the BGSs for the on-ramps are being replaced with LGSs.  UGH! 

These new LGSs are only held up by two flimsy poles and no z-bars in the back.  Some signs are already curving.  CT DOT did something similar with the "HOSPITAL Exit 35" sign on I-84 West.  It used to be a BBS and was replaced with a LBS. Are they being cheap?  Will all new projects be like this?  I noticed in the past few years when there was a sign such as "I-84 East Waterbury NEXT LEFT" or "NEXT RIGHT" BGS on a side road and a new signing project came through those signs were just replaced by shield trailblazers.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49051171987_e77baed15f_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2hJu5vR)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on November 11, 2019, 08:16:17 PM
@PHLBOS:  I played that tolling story from FOX 5 New York. Although they're talking about I-684 in Greenwich, we both know what area is being shown from about :46 to :48 in...

I-90/Massachusetts Turnpike West, between the Prudential Tunnel and by Boston University (Agganis Arena?). Perhaps some of the video was taken from WTIC-TV (FOX) channel 61 of Hartford? They and others here nearly always show the Turnpike at some point.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on November 11, 2019, 08:56:00 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on November 11, 2019, 07:33:44 PM
Shadyjay and a few others would appreciate (or not) this:

Update on the CT-8 signing project, looks like all the BGSs for the on-ramps are being replaced with LGSs.  UGH! 

Good god!  That is awful... it looks temporary.  I hope it is, considering I see the CBYD markings in front of the old sign, on the pavement, so there is hope.  But why? 

I went back and checked the plans.  The plans indeed show the onramp signage as shown above to be sheet aluminum signs, mounted on the two posts.  So then I checked other projects since this one... CT 8 Bridgeport-Shelton, CT 9, and they all show the "extruded aluminum" logo in the plans for onramp signs.  So perhaps this was just a plan oversight.  Or perhaps there was a change in the contract for Derby-Waterbury that restored the "extruded aluminum" to guide signs, hence why the fresh CBYD "new sign" paint in front of the old sign. 

I've been busy with work lately, and with the time change, its harder to get out and do a quick trip to check progress.  I've been doing more long-distance work trips lately, with another tomorrow (to western PA). 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on November 11, 2019, 09:54:14 PM
And once again, CTDOT is using the black borders on signage for state route shields.  Still have yet to figure out why some don't and why some do.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on November 11, 2019, 11:42:15 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on November 11, 2019, 09:54:14 PM
And once again, CTDOT is using the black borders on signage for state route shields.  Still have yet to figure out why some don't and why some do.
None should. Black should only be the outermost color on a light background.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on November 12, 2019, 08:39:51 AM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on November 11, 2019, 08:16:17 PM
@PHLBOS:  I played that tolling story from FOX 5 New York. Although they're talking about I-684 in Greenwich, we both know what area is being shown from about :46 to :48 in...

I-90/Massachusetts Turnpike West, between the Prudential Tunnel and by Boston University (Agganis Arena?). Perhaps some of the video was taken from WTIC-TV (FOX) channel 61 of Hartford? They and others here nearly always show the Turnpike at some point.
Sadly, such faux pas isn't just a CT thing.  I can not tell you the number of times I've seen articles/videos regarding the PA Turnpike but the pics/video footage is that of the NJ Turnpike... and vice-versa.

More classic video faux pas in news stories are more prevalent in aviation/airport-related subjects.  They'll either show stock footage of a long-discontinued airliner (example: Boeing 727) and/or a discontinued airline (Northwest, Continental and/or USAir/US Airways).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: roadman on November 12, 2019, 10:00:12 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on November 11, 2019, 07:33:44 PM
Shadyjay and a few others would appreciate (or not) this:

Update on the CT-8 signing project, looks like all the BGSs for the on-ramps are being replaced with LGSs.  UGH! 

These new LGSs are only held up by two flimsy poles and no z-bars in the back.  Some signs are already curving.  CT DOT did something similar with the "HOSPITAL Exit 35" sign on I-84 West.  It used to be a BBS and was replaced with a LBS. Are they being cheap?  Will all new projects be like this?  I noticed in the past few years when there was a sign such as "I-84 East Waterbury NEXT LEFT" or "NEXT RIGHT" BGS on a side road and a new signing project came through those signs were just replaced by shield trailblazers.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49051171987_e77baed15f_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2hJu5vR)


Twin U-channel posts are good for a maximum load of 20 sf.  That new Waterbury sign is obviously larger than that, which means it will eventually fail.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on November 12, 2019, 10:23:46 AM
El cheapo signage is nothing new for ConnDOT.  Alternate route signage and some attraction signage is just sheet metal.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: cl94 on November 12, 2019, 10:52:24 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 12, 2019, 08:39:51 AM
More classic video faux pas in news stories are more prevalent in aviation/airport-related subjects.  They'll either show stock footage of a long-discontinued airliner (example: Boeing 727) and/or a discontinued airline (Northwest, Continental and/or USAir/US Airways).

My favorite is when they show a 737 or 747 for everything. I see 747 footage/pictures all the time for airlines that no longer fly them.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: US 89 on November 12, 2019, 11:05:51 AM
Quote from: Alps on November 11, 2019, 11:42:15 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on November 11, 2019, 09:54:14 PM
And once again, CTDOT is using the black borders on signage for state route shields.  Still have yet to figure out why some don’t and why some do.
None should. Black should only be the outermost color on a light background.

So you're saying stuff like this (https://i.imgur.com/8hOD77H.jpg) isn't allowed? How long has that been the case?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on November 12, 2019, 01:53:19 PM
Quote from: Alps on November 11, 2019, 11:42:15 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on November 11, 2019, 09:54:14 PM
And once again, CTDOT is using the black borders on signage for state route shields.  Still have yet to figure out why some don't and why some do.
None should. Black should only be the outermost color on a light background.
Granted, this is getting somewhat OT; but is such really a hard/fast rule for customized state route shields that aren't the generic MUTCD circle/oval nor have a black background behind the shield shape?

I would think that CTDOT-specific MUTCD would have a say on the matter.  In past years, state route shields on sign panels typically did not have the black border... unless the panel featured a white background (though a few signs along I-84's HOV lanes featured borderless route shields on white background panels) as you mentioned.  However, the recent change may be indeed based on updated CTDOT standards.

CTDOT's Sign Catalog (https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOT/documents/dtrafficdesign/SignCatalogpdf.pdf?la=en) (updated 7/3/2019) doesn't state either yay or nay on the matter, but the graphics shown on the Series 50 pages show state route signs with the black outline even on green sign panels.  OTOH, for US routes, the graphics do not show the black background when used on sign panels per the national MUTCD.

CTDOT isn't the only agency that, in many instances, no longer uses different-style state route shields for sign panels vs. free-standing installs.  For well over a decade, MassDOT includes the black offset border on its sign-panel-mounted state route shields.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on November 12, 2019, 04:36:49 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 12, 2019, 01:53:19 PM
Quote from: Alps on November 11, 2019, 11:42:15 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on November 11, 2019, 09:54:14 PM
And once again, CTDOT is using the black borders on signage for state route shields.  Still have yet to figure out why some don't and why some do.
None should. Black should only be the outermost color on a light background.
Granted, this is getting somewhat OT; but is such really a hard/fast rule for customized state route shields that aren't the generic MUTCD circle/oval nor have a black background behind the shield shape?

I would think that CTDOT-specific MUTCD would have a say on the matter.  In past years, state route shields on sign panels typically did not have the black border... unless the panel featured a white background (though a few signs along I-84's HOV lanes featured borderless route shields on white background panels) as you mentioned.  However, the recent change may be indeed based on updated CTDOT standards.

CTDOT's Sign Catalog (https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOT/documents/dtrafficdesign/SignCatalogpdf.pdf?la=en) (updated 7/3/2019) doesn't state either yay or nay on the matter, but the graphics shown on the Series 50 pages show state route signs with the black outline even on green sign panels.  OTOH, for US routes, the graphics do not show the black background when used on sign panels per the national MUTCD.

CTDOT isn't the only agency that, in many instances, no longer uses different-style state route shields for sign panels vs. free-standing installs.  For well over a decade, MassDOT includes the black offset border on its sign-panel-mounted state route shields.
What about WVDOT?  Their SR shield is the same.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on November 12, 2019, 05:03:42 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on November 12, 2019, 04:36:49 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 12, 2019, 01:53:19 PM
Quote from: Alps on November 11, 2019, 11:42:15 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on November 11, 2019, 09:54:14 PM
And once again, CTDOT is using the black borders on signage for state route shields.  Still have yet to figure out why some don't and why some do.
None should. Black should only be the outermost color on a light background.
Granted, this is getting somewhat OT; but is such really a hard/fast rule for customized state route shields that aren't the generic MUTCD circle/oval nor have a black background behind the shield shape?

I would think that CTDOT-specific MUTCD would have a say on the matter.  In past years, state route shields on sign panels typically did not have the black border... unless the panel featured a white background (though a few signs along I-84's HOV lanes featured borderless route shields on white background panels) as you mentioned.  However, the recent change may be indeed based on updated CTDOT standards.

CTDOT's Sign Catalog (https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOT/documents/dtrafficdesign/SignCatalogpdf.pdf?la=en) (updated 7/3/2019) doesn't state either yay or nay on the matter, but the graphics shown on the Series 50 pages show state route signs with the black outline even on green sign panels.  OTOH, for US routes, the graphics do not show the black background when used on sign panels per the national MUTCD.

CTDOT isn't the only agency that, in many instances, no longer uses different-style state route shields for sign panels vs. free-standing installs.  For well over a decade, MassDOT includes the black offset border on its sign-panel-mounted state route shields.
What about WVDOT?  Their SR shield is the same.
Yes it is; but their state MUTCD criteria/standard for SR shields on sign panels could differ from CTDOT's criteria/standard.  As stated earlier, square/rectangular route shields aren't specified in the national MUTCD.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on November 12, 2019, 10:56:52 PM
Quote from: roadman on November 12, 2019, 10:00:12 AM
Twin U-channel posts are good for a maximum load of 20 sf.  That new Waterbury sign is obviously larger than that, which means it will eventually fail.
According to what standard? NJDOT uses twin U's for up to 50 SF. It depends on the channel section.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: roadman on November 13, 2019, 12:42:29 PM
Quote from: Alps on November 12, 2019, 10:56:52 PM
Quote from: roadman on November 12, 2019, 10:00:12 AM
Twin U-channel posts are good for a maximum load of 20 sf.  That new Waterbury sign is obviously larger than that, which means it will eventually fail.
According to what standard? NJDOT uses twin U's for up to 50 SF. It depends on the channel section.
Quoting MassDOT standard.  And those CT channels don't look much beefier than the ones MassDOT uses.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on November 14, 2019, 12:14:06 AM
Quote from: roadman on November 13, 2019, 12:42:29 PM
Quote from: Alps on November 12, 2019, 10:56:52 PM
Quote from: roadman on November 12, 2019, 10:00:12 AM
Twin U-channel posts are good for a maximum load of 20 sf.  That new Waterbury sign is obviously larger than that, which means it will eventually fail.
According to what standard? NJDOT uses twin U's for up to 50 SF. It depends on the channel section.
Quoting MassDOT standard.  And those CT channels don't look much beefier than the ones MassDOT uses.
They don't look much beefier than what NJ uses either. I'd have to see CT specs.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on November 15, 2019, 07:38:51 PM
Sadly I think the LGSs at the on-ramps are a new policy.  I was in Newtown today on US-6 near Exit 10 of I-84 and the BGS at the Exit 10 on-ramp to I-84 East is now an LGS.  US-6 was widened in the area and the sign was part of the plans putting US-6 first on the sign rather than I-84 as US-6 multiplexes with I-84 east of there.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on November 18, 2019, 10:25:52 AM
If the below-article is accurate; Gov. Lamont's plan to place an AET gantry on the CT portion of I-684 appears to be dead-on arrival.  The push-back came from neighboring Westchester County, NY.

Border war over proposed I-684 Greenwich toll ends with nary a ding on a New York EZ Pass (https://www.lohud.com/story/money/personal-finance/taxes/david-mckay-wilson/2019/11/15/ny-connecticut-border-war-ends-opposition-kills-684-toll-plan/4203467002/?fbclid=IwAR1JyJ6lVzEccTQTOumLYiIUZsIV33lXPb-TU6Wi7INX4540mbtE6Du9NFA)

Quote from: Lohud ArticleWith Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont's highway toll plan in tatters, Westchester leaders welcomed the bipartisan opposition that arose across the state line, which signaled that the four-day war over a proposed toll gantry on a one-mile stretch of Interstate 684 in Greenwich had ended without a single ding on a New York E-Z Pass.

Connecticut Senate Democratic leaders from New Haven and Norwalk trashed Lamont's plan on Thursday, saying that the toll plan lacked support in the state's Democrat-controlled upper chamber. Instead, they suggested that legalizing sports betting and recreational marijuana would be a better way to finance the state's dire transportation needs.

Then Connecticut Republicans, who have long opposed highway tolls, proposed tapping into the state's reserves to help pay for repairs to the state's roads, bridges, railroad lines and airports. It sent Connecticut policymakers back to the drawing board to find a more palatable financial fix for its infrastructure.

Westchester County Executive George Latimer, who had instructed County Attorney John Nonna to consider suing Connecticut if the plan moved forward, said he was relieved that the county did not have to gear up for the interstate legal battle in federal court.
...

State Sen. Shelley Mayer, D-Yonkers, whose district includes I-684 as far north as Bedford, applauded the Connecticut Senate Democrats who stood up against the plan. The I-684 toll station was a new addition to a plan Lamont had first aired in 2018, when he sought approval for 82 gantries around the state.

It had been reduced to 14 gantries on eight state roads under the plan he announced last week.

"It was done hastily, without thought, and with a punitive impact on New Yorkers,"  she said. "It was not a thoughtful way to enhance the Connecticut infrastructure by imposing tolls on New Yorkers, without justification."
...

Lamont's inclusion of the Greenwich toll didn't sit well with one of his fellow Greenwich Democrats, state Sen. Alex Bergstein, D-Greenwich, who said she was surprised to see the I-684 toll included in Lamont's toll plan.

Bergstein's state Senate website declares: "We are all neighbors."  While she supports tolls on major Connecticut highways, putting the cashless gantry on the sliver of 684 in Greenwich was one toll too many.

"I do not believe in taxation without representation, and I was surprised to see a proposed toll on 684 that runs from New York state into Connecticut for a short stretch,"  she said. "I do not support fees on that portion of 684. However, I do believe that drivers using Connecticut's major highways should contribute to their maintenance and improvement. New York and every state in our region has tolls for this reason."

Upshoot: Gov. Lamont IMHO literally jumped the shark with at least this part of his tolling plan.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on November 18, 2019, 11:38:38 AM
The ironic thing: Bergstein, who opposed the toll on I-684, was the senator who introduced the tolls bill in the state legislature.  Guess she's ok with tolls, as long as they don't affect her by being in her district.  You just can't make this stuff up.  This would be like if PennDOT put a toll on I-86 in South Waverly.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: cl94 on November 18, 2019, 01:14:38 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on November 18, 2019, 11:38:38 AM
The ironic thing: Bergstein, who opposed the toll on I-684, was the senator who introduced the tolls bill in the state legislature.  Guess she's ok with tolls, as long as they don't affect her by being in her district.  You just can't make this stuff up.  This would be like if PennDOT put a toll on I-86 in South Waverly.

Aren't a lot of politicians like that? "Hurt people all you want, just not those in my district!"
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on November 18, 2019, 01:43:55 PM
The debate about I-684 comes down to real property.  Is I-684 in CT, including its ROW and following utilities, still property of NYSDOT?  If it is then CT has no authority to erect tolls on it.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: The Ghostbuster on November 18, 2019, 03:24:38 PM
Are tolls really going to get reimposed in Connecticut? Count me on the skeptical side. If tolls really are reimposed, they should be entirely electronically charged and collected. It seems to me like transportation in Connecticut follows the same pattern: Much talk, little action on implementing anything. It's almost as if the state is prepetually stuck in neutral.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on November 18, 2019, 03:39:11 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 18, 2019, 03:24:38 PMAre tolls really going to get reimposed in Connecticut?
At present & to my knowledge; nothing has officially been finalized nor submitted (to the feds) for approval.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 18, 2019, 03:24:38 PMCount me on the skeptical side.
Given Gov. Lamont's misfires on the matter, including the recent I-684 tolling-attempt debacle; I'm inclined to agree.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 18, 2019, 03:24:38 PMIf tolls really are reimposed, they should be entirely electronically charged and collected.
Such is what's exactly being proposed (AET).  If AET didn't exist, any attempt to re-establish tolls in CT would've been an automatic non-starter given the infamous 1983 tollbooth pileup.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 18, 2019, 03:24:38 PMIt seems to me like transportation in Connecticut follows the same pattern: Much talk, little action on implementing anything. It's almost as if the state is prepetually stuck in neutral.
Agree, but in this case; the later the implementation of tolls, the better.  Especially, and yes I'm going to get political here, since Candidate Lamont campaigned in 2018 for truck-only tolls (similar to what the feds approved for RI); his backpedalling on the matter (to charge tolls for every vehicle) could very well come back & bite him should he campaign for re-election come 2022.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on November 19, 2019, 04:42:21 PM
CT's proposed tolling soap-opera continues.  Now it's back to tolling just trucks-again a la RI (which did receive federal approval to do so).

House Democrats say tolling cars is off the table, propose truck-only tolls (https://www.wtnh.com/news/connecticut/state-democratic-leaders-propose-tolls-on-trucks-only/?fbclid=IwAR2hzdEpVfvkI8Sl4s5k9g5ZCwgrWkTJ34dGq4FomitbFZR341U5IBOoFGg)

Quote from: WTNH ArticleHARTFORD, Conn. (WTNH)— House Democratic leaders say that tolling cars is off the table and have proposed truck-only tolls at 12 sites across the state.

House Speaker Joe Aresimowicz (D-Berlin) and House Majority Leader Matt Ritter (D-Hartford) are asking Governor Lamont to consider truck-only tolls on 12 of the 14 bridges in the Governor's transportation proposal CT2030.

The proposal eliminates Rt. 9 and the Wilbur Cross and Merritt Parkways.
...
It is estimated that truck-only tolls could raise approximately $150 million annually.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: The Ghostbuster on November 19, 2019, 05:37:32 PM
If trucks are the only vehicles that are going to be tolled, maybe trucks should be given their own lanes, and thus have those lanes tolled. In dense urban landscapes, building truck-only toll lanes would probably be quite a chore. In the end, I expect no vehicles will be tolled.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: cl94 on November 19, 2019, 07:18:21 PM
Truck tolls I see being much easier to implement. Yeah, there was SOME opposition, but market conditions in that area allow trucking companies to pass on the cost to the customer. The average voter doesn't care about truck tolls as it doesn't affect them, they only see new bridges.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on November 23, 2019, 06:36:49 PM
Drove the length of the CT 8 signing project from Derby to Waterbury today.  All new guide signs are in place, along with secondary, regulatory, mile markers, and even those god awful sheet metal entrance signs. 

A couple signs within the project limits are listed as N.I.C. on the plans, for some reason.  These include two existing truss overheads in Naugatuck (one which retains button copy Phase III), and two 1980s-style "angled-support" gantries with button copy signs.  Why these oddballs were left out, I am not sure. 

RE:  sheet metal entrance signs replacing BGSs....
after checking upcoming sign projects (CT 8 from Bridgeport to Shelton, CT 9, I-84, etc), all those project plans show the traditional extruded aluminum on heavy steel posts.  So hopefully the Derby-Waterbury project is a one-off for the cheap way out for the entrance signs.


Here's a couple samples of the new signs on CT 8:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49111349108_d58752c781_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2hPNv5q)CT8NB-Exit15-2 (https://flic.kr/p/2hPNv5q) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49111350023_b61951405a_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2hPNvmc)CT8NB-Exit26-2 (https://flic.kr/p/2hPNvmc) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49111349503_e716b64c14_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2hPNvce)CT8NB-Exit30-1 (https://flic.kr/p/2hPNvce) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49111989996_10de5c0dda_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2hPRMAd)CT8SB-Exit15-2 (https://flic.kr/p/2hPRMAd) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

Complete photo log available here: 
https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/albums/72157670186371584/page3

Also, on the way home, I stopped at the recently reopened Rest Area/Welcome Center on I-95 North in Westbrook.  The attendant said, at least for now, the rest area will remain open 7 days a week from 9am-6pm.  In years past, the rest area went to Thursday-Sunday hours for the winter season, and it is unclear whether that will resume this winter.  Unlike the other non-commercial rest areas in Connecticut, this rest area will not be open 24/7.  I don't believe it was ever open 24/7, as it isn't operated by ConnDOT like the others.   Given the hours the attendant stated, I'm assuming the other welcome centers in Connecticut (Danbury, N. Stonington, etc) will remain staffed 9am-6pm daily.  Those buildings are open 24/7. 

Its nice to see Connecticut giving a hoot about tourism again.  In the past couple years, RI has reopened its I-95 welcome center.  Meanwhile, most welcome centers in Massachusetts are boarded up and motorists get nothing more than port-o-lets in the parking lot, even at high noon. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on November 25, 2019, 12:33:53 AM
Update on I-91 Exit 29 project 11/25/19:

-Center median has been removed on I-91 from vic. exit 26-28 and CT 5/15 from exit 86 to bridge carrying I-91.
-Milling and paving began on I-91 N from Exit 26.
-The relocated Exit 89 from CT 5/15 NB has been completed.  Pavement removal has begun on the old ramp.
-Mold for support for the new flyover ramp is up, awaiting a pour.
-New reduce speed signs are up at various points in the site area
-Exit 28 loop has been paved

BE AWARE: in wet/winter conditions removed pavement markings can be slippery.  This is especially true for shoulder lines.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on November 25, 2019, 04:29:54 PM
Nearby Brainard Airport (HFD) had 1.55 inches this weekend. I guess that would be a good way to test that scenario.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: zzyzx on November 27, 2019, 03:57:02 PM
Visiting home for the week and checked out the new Costco near me.  They modified the ramps from exit 74 off 95 S to connect to a new frontage road and added new traffic signals and signage.  Check out the huge cutout 95 shields and notice no thick black border on the state route shields.

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20191127/3a01c0d60b5cea3a1a564ebf7da94e3f.jpg)
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20191127/7bcd4b13bbd77d0d7c940e4923770f60.jpg)
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20191127/76f9d7b9b8fe14b6260da8c0c0cc55b0.jpg)


iPhone
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: dgolub on November 30, 2019, 08:42:04 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on November 23, 2019, 06:36:49 PM
Complete photo log available here: 
https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/albums/72157670186371584/page3

Nice pictures!  I'll need to head up to Winsted and clinch that again some time next year.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: zzyzx on December 04, 2019, 01:36:52 PM
I just noticed this sign right before the on ramp to 95 north at Exit 74.  Since when did CT start placing CalTrans like signage for a freeway entrance? Or could this have been the contractor for Costco who decided this?  I don't know of any other "FREEWAY ENTRANCE"  signs across the state:

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20191204/91308516f77f605bf4337078e1a796c6.jpg)


iPhone
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on December 04, 2019, 03:59:36 PM
Heaven forbid they ever change the "9" with a vertical "THE"? I'm outta Connecticut for good! :-D
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on December 04, 2019, 10:58:52 PM
Quote from: zzyzx on December 04, 2019, 01:36:52 PM
I just noticed this sign right before the on ramp to 95 north at Exit 74.  Since when did CT start placing CalTrans like signage for a freeway entrance? Or could this have been the contractor for Costco who decided this?  I don't know of any other "FREEWAY ENTRANCE"  signs across the state:
The diagonal down arrow is not the correct type, but it's also not CT standard. Unless it is. I mean, it IS all in the MUTCD now.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on December 05, 2019, 10:14:59 AM
Quote from: Alps on December 04, 2019, 10:58:52 PM
Quote from: zzyzx on December 04, 2019, 01:36:52 PM
I just noticed this sign right before the on ramp to 95 north at Exit 74.  Since when did CT start placing CalTrans like signage for a freeway entrance? Or could this have been the contractor for Costco who decided this?  I don't know of any other "FREEWAY ENTRANCE"  signs across the state:
The diagonal down arrow is not the correct type, but it's also not CT standard. Unless it is. I mean, it IS all in the MUTCD now.

MassDOT is the only agency who regularly uses the diagonal down arrow, especially on BGS's.  I've noticed a couple on BGS's on CT 2; one at the CT 17 split and the other at the CT 11 split (both eastbound), but I don't see it much in CT or other states.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on December 05, 2019, 03:18:07 PM
New Haven is taking out even more of the CT-34 Expwy.  Now it's another intersection added.  I thought the DOT had gripes about traffic backing up almost to I-95.  I see they caved again.

https://www.newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/entry/downtown_crossing2/

Read the comments on the article too
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: SectorZ on December 05, 2019, 05:12:57 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on December 05, 2019, 03:18:07 PM
New Haven is taking out even more of the CT-34 Expwy.  Now it's another intersection added.  I thought the DOT had gripes about traffic backing up almost to I-95.  I see they caved again.

https://www.newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/entry/downtown_crossing2/

Read the comments on the article too

You mean the comment where someone says that New Haven isn't congested, like Portland Oregon?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on December 05, 2019, 08:11:26 PM
So... why did CT build a large flyover to CT 34 anyways?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on December 05, 2019, 09:23:01 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 05, 2019, 08:11:26 PM
So... why did CT build a large flyover to CT 34 anyways?

Keep in mind that when that ramp was designed and broken ground on... even when it opened, the idea of removing the Oak Street connector was just the city of New Haven and some new urbanist groups making noise - it wasn't something the state had any particular intention of doing. That changed shortly thereafter.

At any rate, it's still the main route into downtown, so there's a decent amount of traffic using that ramp. If nothing else, they eliminated a left exit.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on December 05, 2019, 09:41:39 PM
Sounds like the Inner Loop project in Rochester... something that was talked about for a long time with people outside of the stakeholders advocating for it thinking it wouldn't happen any time soon, until it suddenly did.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on December 05, 2019, 10:46:54 PM
The signage at the new exit 74 is just weird in general. Hoping it gets fixed at some point to Connecticut standards.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: bluecountry on December 09, 2019, 04:21:08 PM
So what happened to the CT tolls?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on December 10, 2019, 09:14:45 AM
Quote from: bluecountry on December 09, 2019, 04:21:08 PMSo what happened to the CT tolls?
After the recent blowback on a plan that would have placed tolls along the tiny piece of I-684 that's in CT from Westchester County, NY (something that was never originally considered when all this (re)tolling talk started); Gov. Lamont has since retreated to just doing a RI-style of implementing tolls only for trucks... for now.    Such is still only in the planning stages.  See prior posts/pages in this thread for the discussions.
 
However & regardless of what tolling plan in is ultimately decided upon, federal permission for (partially) tolling existing free Interstates still needs to be sought & approved before the first AET gantry on any Interstate in CT is erected.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on December 11, 2019, 04:25:21 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 10, 2019, 09:14:45 AM
Quote from: bluecountry on December 09, 2019, 04:21:08 PMSo what happened to the CT tolls?
After the recent blowback on a plan that would have placed tolls along the tiny piece of I-684 that's in CT from Westchester County, NY (something that was never originally considered when all this (re)tolling talk started); Gov. Lamont has since retreated to just doing a RI-style of implementing tolls only for trucks... for now.    Such is still only in the planning stages.  See prior posts/pages in this thread for the discussions.
 
However & regardless of what tolling plan in is ultimately decided upon, federal permission for (partially) tolling existing free Interstates still needs to be sought & approved before the first AET gantry on any Interstate in CT is erected.
Friendly reminder that CT is free AT ANY TIME to put tolls on regular-old state highways.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on December 11, 2019, 04:31:14 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on December 11, 2019, 04:25:21 PMFriendly reminder that CT is free AT ANY TIME to put tolls on regular-old state highways.
They certainly can but the majority of those state-route expressways aren't long-distance and/or don't connect to other freeways at both ends.  Additionally, and this was mentioned several pages back, if tolls are (re)imposed on CT 15 but not I-91 or I-95 where both highways run somewhat parallel to 15; guess where the majority of traffic will be going?  That's one reason why CT presently won't place tolls on just non-Interstate highways.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on December 11, 2019, 04:34:34 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 11, 2019, 04:31:14 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on December 11, 2019, 04:25:21 PMFriendly reminder that CT is free AT ANY TIME to put tolls on regular-old state highways.
They certainly can but the majority of those state-route expressways aren't long-distance and/or don't connect to other freeways at both ends.  Additionally, and this was mentioned several pages back, if tolls are (re)imposed on CT 15 but not I-91 or I-95 where both highways run somewhat paral to 15; guess where the majority of raffic will be going?  That's one reason why CT presently won't place tolls on just non-Interstate highways.
I don't think that just because an expressway isnt long-distance should mean it isn't worth tolling.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on December 12, 2019, 09:31:27 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on December 11, 2019, 04:34:34 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 11, 2019, 04:31:14 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on December 11, 2019, 04:25:21 PMFriendly reminder that CT is free AT ANY TIME to put tolls on regular-old state highways.
They certainly can but the majority of those state-route expressways aren't long-distance and/or don't connect to other freeways at both ends.  Additionally, and this was mentioned several pages back, if tolls are (re)imposed on CT 15 but not I-91 or I-95 where both highways run somewhat paral to 15; guess where the majority of raffic will be going?  That's one reason why CT presently won't place tolls on just non-Interstate highways.
I don't think that just because an expressway isnt long-distance should mean it isn't worth tolling.
In general, a long distance road usually carries more through and out-of-state traffic.  NYC-Boston truck traffic will typically use I-95-91*-84 (*I-91 north to I-84 east involves using CT 15 for a short distance & vice-versa).  Boston and/or Northeastern New England-bound traffic from points south of NYC as well as west will use I-84 from end-to-end (I-691-91-CT 15 alternate in the Hartford area during rush hours).  In contrast, short highways that do not connect to other continuous highways at both ends will typically attract more localized traffic (origin/destination).

Since CT is a pass-through state (being a CT resident, you probably already know that); one intent of CT's proposed tolling plans is geared to collect toll money via AET from through-traffic/out-of-state vehicles.  The long-distance/through Interstates is where the majority of that traffic demographic is.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on December 14, 2019, 02:56:56 PM
Looks like ConnDOT wants to re-study the I-84 Aetna Viaduct

https://www.wtnh.com/news/connecticut/hartford/brakes-pumped-on-5b-i-84-viaduct-replacement-in-hartford/
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on December 15, 2019, 01:11:37 AM
looks like politics are not in this thread oh ok
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on December 16, 2019, 09:02:54 AM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on December 14, 2019, 02:56:56 PM
Looks like ConnDOT wants to re-study the I-84 Aetna Viaduct
https://www.wtnh.com/news/connecticut/hartford/brakes-pumped-on-5b-i-84-viaduct-replacement-in-hartford/

Quote from: WTNH.com article"It was originally designed for about 55,000 vehicles per day in the 1960s,"  said Rich Armstrong Former Principal Engineer, CT DOT. "Right now, we have 175,000 vehicles per day."
One has to wonder had I-291 been built in its entirety as a full beltway, how much of that 175,000 daily vehicle total along I-84 in that area would've been diverted?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on December 16, 2019, 12:01:07 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 16, 2019, 09:02:54 AM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on December 14, 2019, 02:56:56 PM
Looks like ConnDOT wants to re-study the I-84 Aetna Viaduct
https://www.wtnh.com/news/connecticut/hartford/brakes-pumped-on-5b-i-84-viaduct-replacement-in-hartford/

Quote from: WTNH.com article"It was originally designed for about 55,000 vehicles per day in the 1960s,"  said Rich Armstrong Former Principal Engineer, CT DOT. "Right now, we have 175,000 vehicles per day."
One has to wonder had I-291 been built in its entirety as a full beltway, how much of that 175,000 daily vehicle total along I-84 in that area would've been diverted?

Looks like about 25-30k:

From http://www.i84hartford.com/documents/misc/I84-Viaduct-Report110216.pdf:
Quote
The I-84 Viaduct carries daily traffic volumes of 175,000 vehicles, making it Connecticut's most heavily used highway. Approximately 45% of the vehicle trips on the Viaduct have origins or destinations in the City of Hartford; approximately 45% of the trips are regional with origins and destinations outside of the City of Hartford; approximately 10% of trips have origins and destinations within Hartford. Of the regional trips that pass through the city, approximately 2/3 are shorter regional trips–for example a trip from East Hartford to West Hartford; 1/3 of regional trips are longer trips. These longer regional trips representing approximately 15% of overall traffic on the Viaduct are the most likely candidates for diversion to another highway corridor should such a strategy be considered, and if necessary capacity is in place on other roadways. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on December 18, 2019, 02:40:12 PM
The northwest quadrant of the beltway, which was never built. It would've run from the I-84/CT 9 "stack" in Farmington, through West Hartford and up into Bloomfield, in the area of CT Route 218, connecting at I-91 in Windsor. Thanks to a couple of reservoirs, it was never built.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on December 18, 2019, 05:34:16 PM
I always thought, why not build a parkway into the Talcott Mountain range, from the Stack to US 44.  Keep the speed limit at 55 and prohibit trucks.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on December 18, 2019, 11:29:49 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on December 18, 2019, 05:34:16 PM
I always thought, why not build a parkway into the Talcott Mountain range, from the Stack to US 44.  Keep the speed limit at 55 and prohibit trucks.

That would impact three of the wealthiest towns in the metro Hartford area, places that actively resist four-lane roads, and one of which seems actively hostile to private motorized transportation in general.

While I think the reservoir concerns are legitimate, it was really NIMBYism that doomed the north-south leg of that quadrant of I-291.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on December 19, 2019, 07:56:37 AM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on December 18, 2019, 11:29:49 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on December 18, 2019, 05:34:16 PM
I always thought, why not build a parkway into the Talcott Mountain range, from the Stack to US 44.  Keep the speed limit at 55 and prohibit trucks.

That would impact three of the wealthiest towns in the metro Hartford area, places that actively resist four-lane roads, and one of which seems actively hostile to private motorized transportation in general.

While I think the reservoir concerns are legitimate, it was really NIMBYism that doomed the north-south leg of that quadrant of I-291.
And yet those same people complain about traffic.  You can't have it both ways.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on December 19, 2019, 08:38:33 AM
Having commuted that way for 11 years, I-291 would have been an absolute dream to have.  Instead of having to take back roads through Farmington, Avon, and West Hartford, I-291 would have let me out within 2 minutes of my destination.  Instead, you see Mountain Rd in West Hartford backed up almost a mile to get through the lights at US 44.  And North Main St through West Hartford Center is often a nightmare.  NIMBYism has created some major bottlenecks, and we passed up a nice reliever for I-84 in Hartford for traffic headed to the airport and Springfield, and even as a northern bypass for Boston bound traffic by taking 291 all the way back to 84 in Manchester.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on December 19, 2019, 12:39:08 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on December 19, 2019, 07:56:37 AM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on December 18, 2019, 11:29:49 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on December 18, 2019, 05:34:16 PM
I always thought, why not build a parkway into the Talcott Mountain range, from the Stack to US 44.  Keep the speed limit at 55 and prohibit trucks.

That would impact three of the wealthiest towns in the metro Hartford area, places that actively resist four-lane roads, and one of which seems actively hostile to private motorized transportation in general.

While I think the reservoir concerns are legitimate, it was really NIMBYism that doomed the north-south leg of that quadrant of I-291.
And yet those same people complain about traffic.  You can't have it both ways.
It's how development often is.  People want to be free to move to whatever community they want but don't want anyone to move in after them.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Beltway on December 19, 2019, 09:45:06 PM
The unbuilt I-291 beltway probably exacerbates this need as well.  Another fantastically expensive bridge replacement of an original Interstate highway bridge viaduct.

https://www.enr.com/articles/48387-expanded-mobility-study-pauses-hartford-viaduct-replacement
Expanded Mobility Study Pauses Hartford Viaduct Replacement
December 18, 2019

Plans to replace the I-84 viaduct in downtown Hartford have been put on hold for up to three years while the Connecticut Dept. of Transportation seeks to better coordinate the $5-billion project with other area transportation needs.  With a current $60-million repair project expected to keep the 60-year-old, two-mile system of structures safe and functional to at least 2040, the agency will conduct a broader mobility study that incorporates other potential transportation improvements, including relocation of the existing I-84/I-91 interchange, as well as improvements to bus and rail lines.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Rothman on December 19, 2019, 10:47:19 PM
Relocation of I-84/I-91?  Yeesh.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on December 20, 2019, 12:59:41 AM
Quote from: Rothman on December 19, 2019, 10:47:19 PM
Relocation of I-84/I-91?  Yeesh.

Lest us forget  Larson's Big Dig (https://larson.house.gov/media-center/op-eds-and-letters/taking-tunnel-vision-approach-i-84i-91-interchange-realignment)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on December 20, 2019, 11:50:08 AM
I-91 Exit 29 Construction update:

-Delivery of drain culverts and pipes has arrived
-Another bridge support for the flyover is being poured
-Lane shift is in effect CT 15 NB past exit 91
-Median of I-91 is being excavated.

Unrelated: CT 15 is getting new lamp fixtures and LED lights from the Berlin Turnpike to the COB.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on December 20, 2019, 01:09:11 PM
They took absolutely forever replacing streetlights along CT Route 9 and the Willow Brook Connector (unsigned CT Route 571) in Berlin this year.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on December 20, 2019, 06:10:38 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on December 20, 2019, 01:09:11 PM
They took absolutely forever replacing streetlights along CT Route 9 and the Willow Brook Connector (unsigned CT Route 571) in Berlin this year.

They are also replacing them on CT 72 east of I-84.  I assume they're replacing most lights along the extent of the re-signing projects that will take place next year (at least where they exist; there are a couple stretches on Route 9 between East Berlin and Middletown where they do not)/
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on January 02, 2020, 05:37:05 PM
Bumping for this.  Just saw it on WFSB Channel 3 news.

https://www.wfsb.com/news/changes-coming-to-exit-numbers-along-some-ct-highways/article_52eead2e-2da6-11ea-a4bb-bb63d3df2e72.html
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: The Ghostbuster on January 02, 2020, 05:40:48 PM
I wish they'd make the sequential-to-mileage-based exit renumbering project move at a much faster pace, but from what I've heard about Connecticut, the state prefers a slower-than-a-snail pace for everything.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on January 02, 2020, 05:48:37 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on January 02, 2020, 05:37:05 PM
Bumping for this.  Just saw it on WFSB Channel 3 news.

https://www.wfsb.com/news/changes-coming-to-exit-numbers-along-some-ct-highways/article_52eead2e-2da6-11ea-a4bb-bb63d3df2e72.html


You beat me to it.  Shame the video isn't online, as it was complete with people complaining "this change makes no sense".

The theme in the broadcast coverage was "it's happening whether we want it to or not" and "the feds are paying for it".
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on January 02, 2020, 08:27:55 PM
Remember, we are The Land Of Steady Habits! Cue this:  :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on January 02, 2020, 08:49:28 PM
Video is online now.  The main selling point is federal funding with all the reckless hullabaloo going on with rampant state spending.  Just so ridiculous that RI and MA can get it done in 2 years while CT takes 10.  But then again, we were the last state in the northeast to raise the speed limit from 55, the last to allow Sunday liquor sales, and will probably be the last ones to the table on sports betting. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: bob7374 on January 02, 2020, 11:39:43 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on January 02, 2020, 08:49:28 PM
Video is online now.  The main selling point is federal funding with all the reckless hullabaloo going on with rampant state spending.  Just so ridiculous that RI and MA can get it done in 2 years while CT takes 10.  But then again, we were the last state in the northeast to raise the speed limit from 55, the last to allow Sunday liquor sales, and will probably be the last ones to the table on sports betting. 
IIRC, I-95 was to be one of the last routes with exit renumbering. RIDOT now says they plan to change their I-95 exits by the end of 2020, Mass. should be done by 2022. I get the feeling that this won't change ConnDOT's mind to complete their work sooner.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on January 03, 2020, 12:40:51 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on January 02, 2020, 08:49:28 PM
Video is online now.  The main selling point is federal funding with all the reckless hullabaloo going on with rampant state spending.  Just so ridiculous that RI and MA can get it done in 2 years while CT takes 10.  But then again, we were the last state in the northeast to raise the speed limit from 55, the last to allow Sunday liquor sales, and will probably be the last ones to the table on sports betting. 
Don't tell the sheeple who pays federal taxes.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mr. Matté on January 03, 2020, 02:13:11 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 10, 2019, 09:14:45 AM
However & regardless of what tolling plan in is ultimately decided upon, federal permission for (partially) tolling existing free Interstates still needs to be sought & approved before the first AET gantry on any Interstate in CT is erected.

Is this applicable to the parts of 95 and 395 that were the Connecticut Turnpike and formerly tolled? I believe there was something following the Mianus River Bridge collapse where the feds did help pay for the bridge replacement and required that tolls be removed at least there but I don't know if that edict applied to the whole highway.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on January 03, 2020, 02:57:29 PM
Quote from: Mr. Matté on January 03, 2020, 02:13:11 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 10, 2019, 09:14:45 AM
However & regardless of what tolling plan in is ultimately decided upon, federal permission for (partially) tolling existing free Interstates still needs to be sought & approved before the first AET gantry on any Interstate in CT is erected.

Is this applicable to the parts of 95 and 395 that were the Connecticut Turnpike and formerly tolled? I believe there was something following the Mianus River Bridge collapse where the feds did help pay for the bridge replacement and required that tolls be removed at least there but I don't know if that edict applied to the whole highway.

It applies to all roads, including those that were formerly tolled, as tolls were abolished altogether.  By contrast, the Mass Pike tolls that were reinstated west of Exit 6 were never actually abolished; the rate was lowered to 0, but you still had to get a ticket. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: roadman on January 03, 2020, 03:01:49 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on January 03, 2020, 02:57:29 PM
Quote from: Mr. Matté on January 03, 2020, 02:13:11 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 10, 2019, 09:14:45 AM
However & regardless of what tolling plan in is ultimately decided upon, federal permission for (partially) tolling existing free Interstates still needs to be sought & approved before the first AET gantry on any Interstate in CT is erected.

Is this applicable to the parts of 95 and 395 that were the Connecticut Turnpike and formerly tolled? I believe there was something following the Mianus River Bridge collapse where the feds did help pay for the bridge replacement and required that tolls be removed at least there but I don't know if that edict applied to the whole highway.

It applies to all roads, including those that were formerly tolled, as tolls were abolished altogether.  By contrast, the Mass Pike tolls that were reinstated west of Exit 6 were never actually abolished; the rate was lowered to 0, but you still had to get a ticket. 

Tolls were eliminated only for passenger cars.  Commercial vehicles were still charged.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on January 03, 2020, 04:14:09 PM
Quote from: Mr. Matté on January 03, 2020, 02:13:11 PMI believe there was something following the Mianus River Bridge collapse where the feds did help pay for the bridge replacement and required that tolls be removed at least there but I don't know if that edict applied to the whole highway.
That's what triggered the removal of tolls along the entire CT Turnpike; the section north of I-95, originally CT 52, had then recently received the I-395 designation prior to the Mianus River Bridge collapse. 

All the remaining tolled facilities in CT were later removed in response to a massive vehicle pile-up at a CT Turnpike toll plaza a few months following the Mianus River Bridge collapse.  With the proliferation of AET decades later, the issue of traffic jams and/or crashes into toll booths no longer exists.  Such is one reason why CT, and other states, are seeking to (re)toll existing free Interstates.

That said & as others have already mentioned: once tolls are removed from an Interstate highway, regardless of whether the road was an Interstate from day one or grandfathered years later, federal permission is still required to (re)establish tolls for said-highways.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on January 03, 2020, 11:45:39 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on January 03, 2020, 02:57:29 PM
Quote from: Mr. Matté on January 03, 2020, 02:13:11 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 10, 2019, 09:14:45 AM
However & regardless of what tolling plan in is ultimately decided upon, federal permission for (partially) tolling existing free Interstates still needs to be sought & approved before the first AET gantry on any Interstate in CT is erected.

Is this applicable to the parts of 95 and 395 that were the Connecticut Turnpike and formerly tolled? I believe there was something following the Mianus River Bridge collapse where the feds did help pay for the bridge replacement and required that tolls be removed at least there but I don't know if that edict applied to the whole highway.

It applies to all roads, including those that were formerly tolled, as tolls were abolished altogether.  By contrast, the Mass Pike tolls that were reinstated west of Exit 6 were never actually abolished; the rate was lowered to 0, but you still had to get a ticket.
I remember that quite well. You still got a ticket when you entered the Mass Pike, and if you entered and exited west of Exit 6, you would give the ticket to the toll collector upon exiting, but paid nothing.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on January 03, 2020, 11:50:54 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on January 02, 2020, 11:39:43 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on January 02, 2020, 08:49:28 PM
Video is online now.  The main selling point is federal funding with all the reckless hullabaloo going on with rampant state spending.  Just so ridiculous that RI and MA can get it done in 2 years while CT takes 10.  But then again, we were the last state in the northeast to raise the speed limit from 55, the last to allow Sunday liquor sales, and will probably be the last ones to the table on sports betting. 
IIRC, I-95 was to be one of the last routes with exit renumbering. RIDOT now says they plan to change their I-95 exits by the end of 2020, Mass. should be done by 2022. I get the feeling that this won't change ConnDOT's mind to complete their work sooner.

From what I've read thus far on Connecticut's exit renumbering program, I-95 will be one of the last highways to be renumbered. But in a bit of good news, it appears that the state wants to have all of its highways converted by the end of this decade, which is a bit faster than the 20-year timeframe ConnDOT originally announced in 2015. Maybe the feds are pressing ConnDOT to speed things up a bit.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on January 04, 2020, 01:08:51 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on January 03, 2020, 11:50:54 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on January 02, 2020, 11:39:43 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on January 02, 2020, 08:49:28 PM
Video is online now.  The main selling point is federal funding with all the reckless hullabaloo going on with rampant state spending.  Just so ridiculous that RI and MA can get it done in 2 years while CT takes 10.  But then again, we were the last state in the northeast to raise the speed limit from 55, the last to allow Sunday liquor sales, and will probably be the last ones to the table on sports betting. 
IIRC, I-95 was to be one of the last routes with exit renumbering. RIDOT now says they plan to change their I-95 exits by the end of 2020, Mass. should be done by 2022. I get the feeling that this won't change ConnDOT's mind to complete their work sooner.

From what I've read thus far on Connecticut's exit renumbering program, I-95 will be one of the last highways to be renumbered. But in a bit of good news, it appears that the state wants to have all of its highways converted by the end of this decade, which is a bit faster than the 20-year timeframe ConnDOT originally announced in 2015. Maybe the feds are pressing ConnDOT to speed things up a bit.

Basically from glacial to sloth speed.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on January 04, 2020, 10:31:33 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on January 03, 2020, 11:50:54 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on January 02, 2020, 11:39:43 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on January 02, 2020, 08:49:28 PM
Video is online now.  The main selling point is federal funding with all the reckless hullabaloo going on with rampant state spending.  Just so ridiculous that RI and MA can get it done in 2 years while CT takes 10.  But then again, we were the last state in the northeast to raise the speed limit from 55, the last to allow Sunday liquor sales, and will probably be the last ones to the table on sports betting. 
IIRC, I-95 was to be one of the last routes with exit renumbering. RIDOT now says they plan to change their I-95 exits by the end of 2020, Mass. should be done by 2022. I get the feeling that this won't change ConnDOT's mind to complete their work sooner.

From what I've read thus far on Connecticut's exit renumbering program, I-95 will be one of the last highways to be renumbered. But in a bit of good news, it appears that the state wants to have all of its highways converted by the end of this decade, which is a bit faster than the 20-year timeframe ConnDOT originally announced in 2015. Maybe the feds are pressing ConnDOT to speed things up a bit.
Considering that it's been 5 years since 2015 and there are 10 years in the decade, it's only very slightly faster.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on January 05, 2020, 07:55:03 PM
I forget the extent to which it's been mentioned here....but the powers-that-be have been in the process of realigning SSR 401, as part of slowly moving forward with the Bradley Airport master plan, in which the main parking garage will be extended westward and gain a centralized rental car facility, and then a new Terminal B will (supposedly/eventually) be built to replace the demolished Murphy Terminal and the current IAB.

The Bradley Connector freeway has been shortened by about 2000 feet or so, and the old Hamilton Road North demolished.   The freeway now ends at a funky semi-roundabout (it's not possible to drive the full circle).   I have no clue if the definitions of SSR 401 and 403 have been updated.

Also, in the past couple of days, I installed a dashcam in my car.  I went through the semi-roundabout when running an errand this afternoon...so I thought I'd share the video.

https://youtu.be/q1rYVHhqpzs
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on January 05, 2020, 10:12:48 PM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on January 05, 2020, 07:55:03 PM
I forget the extent to which it's been mentioned here....but the powers-that-be have been in the process of realigning SSR 401, as part of slowly moving forward with the Bradley Airport master plan, in which the main parking garage will be extended westward and gain a centralized rental car facility, and then a new Terminal B will (supposedly/eventually) be built to replace the demolished Murphy Terminal and the current IAB.

The Bradley Connector freeway has been shortened by about 2000 feet or so, and the old Hamilton Road North demolished.   The freeway now ends at a funky semi-roundabout (it's not possible to drive the full circle).   I have no clue if the definitions of SSR 401 and 403 have been updated.

Also, in the past couple of days, I installed a dashcam in my car.  I went through the semi-roundabout when running an errand this afternoon...so I thought I'd share the video.

https://youtu.be/q1rYVHhqpzs
Terminal B is technically the IAB now.  So Aer Lingus gets dropped off there.  I don't think they do pre-clearence in Dublin.

At least they're finally done with that mess.  The Schoepster Rd. connector was falling apart as it was.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on January 06, 2020, 01:03:40 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on January 05, 2020, 10:12:48 PM
Terminal B is technically the IAB now.  So Aer Lingus gets dropped off there.  I don't think they do pre-clearence in Dublin.

Dublin has preclearance, so the Aer Lingus flights arrive at Gate 7 in Terminal A. (I have spent way too much time waiting at gates 2/4/6...)

During the few months when Norwegian was flying to Edinburgh, they were arriving at the IAB, and then would have to get towed over to the west concourse of Terminal A for departure.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: ixnay on January 07, 2020, 08:10:38 AM
What's the story re the ghost ramps at the 4-level I-84/CT 9 interchange in Farmington?  (Sorry if this has been broached before but I just discovered this interchange on Google Sat while looking up something else, and this thread *is* 152 pages long.)

ixnay
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on January 07, 2020, 08:28:32 AM
Quote from: ixnay on January 07, 2020, 08:10:38 AM
What's the story re the ghost ramps at the 4-level I-84/CT 9 interchange in Farmington?  (Sorry if this has been broached before but I just discovered this interchange on Google Sat while looking up something else, and this thread *is* 152 pages long.)
Those ghost ramps are still there.  The interchange w/I-84 was originally planned to be a 4-way interchange with I-291 but only the northeastern leg between I-91 and I-84 was actually built (as I-291).  The remaining pieces of the proposed I-291, aside from the above and the piece that's currently CT 9 south of I-84, were ultimately dropped from ConnDOT's plans.

To my knowledge, there's no known plans for those unused ghost ramps... connections or removals.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Magical Trevor on January 07, 2020, 01:53:09 PM
In a similar vein (though not that I've seen covered on some websites as for the above stack (https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&safe=active&source=hp&ei=LFI4XfvvBdHs_Qae05-YBQ&q=connecticut+roads+stack&btnK=Google+Search&oq=cutting+ow&gs_l=psy-ab.3.1.0l10.2425.9670..12030...3.0..0.457.1432.12j1j4-1......0....1..gws-wiz.....10..35i39j0i131.007E3U_zz34)), it looks like there was a plan for an exit 45 from EB I-84 that was abandoned at some point (https://www.google.com/maps/place/41%C2%B044'58.3%22N+72%C2%B042'37.3%22W/@41.749522,-72.7109052,218m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m6!3m5!1s0x0:0x0!7e2!8m2!3d41.7495208!4d-72.7103576). Does anyone know more?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: ixnay on January 07, 2020, 01:55:09 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 07, 2020, 08:28:32 AM
Quote from: ixnay on January 07, 2020, 08:10:38 AM
What's the story re the ghost ramps at the 4-level I-84/CT 9 interchange in Farmington?  (Sorry if this has been broached before but I just discovered this interchange on Google Sat while looking up something else, and this thread *is* 152 pages long.)
Those ghost ramps are still there.  The interchange w/I-84 was originally planned to be a 4-way interchange with I-291 but only the northeastern leg between I-91 and I-84 was actually built (as I-291).  The remaining pieces of the proposed I-291, aside from the above and the piece that's currently CT 9 south of I-84, were ultimately dropped from ConnDOT's plans.

From the first of Magical Trevor's links, it appears ConnDOT couldn't get around the reservoirs north of the stack.

ixnay
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on January 07, 2020, 02:21:40 PM
I only know that, at present, Exit 45 for Flatbush Avenue, is westbound off and eastbound on only. The ramp does look a bit long for that area.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on January 07, 2020, 02:45:05 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on January 05, 2020, 10:12:48 PM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on January 05, 2020, 07:55:03 PM
I forget the extent to which it's been mentioned here....but the powers-that-be have been in the process of realigning SSR 401, as part of slowly moving forward with the Bradley Airport master plan, in which the main parking garage will be extended westward and gain a centralized rental car facility, and then a new Terminal B will (supposedly/eventually) be built to replace the demolished Murphy Terminal and the current IAB.

The Bradley Connector freeway has been shortened by about 2000 feet or so, and the old Hamilton Road North demolished.   The freeway now ends at a funky semi-roundabout (it's not possible to drive the full circle).   I have no clue if the definitions of SSR 401 and 403 have been updated.

Also, in the past couple of days, I installed a dashcam in my car.  I went through the semi-roundabout when running an errand this afternoon...so I thought I'd share the video.

https://youtu.be/q1rYVHhqpzs
Terminal B is technically the IAB now.  So Aer Lingus gets dropped off there.  I don't think they do pre-clearence in Dublin.

At least they're finally done with that mess.  The Schoepster Rd. connector was falling apart as it was.

I don't get why the end of the connector has been reduced from two-to-one lane NB?  After the circle it opens up to 2-lanes again.  What is it with this DOT with removing lanes and/or free movements etc. Why would you ever remove a lane?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on January 07, 2020, 03:25:55 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 07, 2020, 08:28:32 AM
Quote from: ixnay on January 07, 2020, 08:10:38 AM
What's the story re the ghost ramps at the 4-level I-84/CT 9 interchange in Farmington?  (Sorry if this has been broached before but I just discovered this interchange on Google Sat while looking up something else, and this thread *is* 152 pages long.)
Those ghost ramps are still there.  The interchange w/I-84 was originally planned to be a 4-way interchange with I-291 but only the northeastern leg between I-91 and I-84 was actually built (as I-291).  The remaining pieces of the proposed I-291, aside from the above and the piece that's currently CT 9 south of I-84, were ultimately dropped from ConnDOT's plans.

To my knowledge, there's no known plans for those unused ghost ramps... connections or removals.
There is a recent plan to bring those stubs up to CT 4 within already purchased ROW.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on January 07, 2020, 06:10:55 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on January 07, 2020, 02:21:40 PM
I only know that, at present, Exit 45 for Flatbush Avenue, is westbound off and eastbound on only. The ramp does look a bit long for that area.

It was originally to be the north end of a CT 9 expressway that would have connected to the top end of the Berlin Turnpike where 5/15 leaves the turnpike.  CT 9 would have duplexed with I-84 to Sisson Ave, where it would have exited on the Woods River Expressway; the only remnants of which are the middle of nowhere 187/189 expressway and a couple of ghost cuts on the Sisson Ave ramps.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on January 07, 2020, 06:47:31 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on January 07, 2020, 02:45:05 PM
I don't get why the end of the connector has been reduced from two-to-one lane NB?  After the circle it opens up to 2-lanes again.  What is it with this DOT with removing lanes and/or free movements etc. Why would you ever remove a lane?

I think the CAA might be the correct agency to blame here.  Bradley is no longer under ConnDOT jurisdiction.

Keep in mind too that the freeway section of (former?) CT 401 is now mostly one lane northbound, with the second lane being dropped essentially where the ramp from EB CT 20 merges in.  The traffic volume is low enough for this to not be a problem.

I assume that this is partly a traffic-calming measure and partly an attempt to eliminate weaving.  In the prior configuration, traffic arriving from the Connector tended not to slow down very much (despite the speed limit drop), and there could be some hair-raising merges and weaving with various shuttles and other airport-circulating traffic.

I did also notice that the current BDL Master Plan calls for putting in two more roundabouts on SSR 401 (one of which would replace the jughandle to access the arrival/departure roadways).  I have no idea if/when those will be installed.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on January 07, 2020, 09:15:37 PM
Quote from: ixnay on January 07, 2020, 01:55:09 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 07, 2020, 08:28:32 AM
Quote from: ixnay on January 07, 2020, 08:10:38 AM
What's the story re the ghost ramps at the 4-level I-84/CT 9 interchange in Farmington?  (Sorry if this has been broached before but I just discovered this interchange on Google Sat while looking up something else, and this thread *is* 152 pages long.)
Those ghost ramps are still there.  The interchange w/I-84 was originally planned to be a 4-way interchange with I-291 but only the northeastern leg between I-91 and I-84 was actually built (as I-291).  The remaining pieces of the proposed I-291, aside from the above and the piece that's currently CT 9 south of I-84, were ultimately dropped from ConnDOT's plans.

From the first of Magical Trevor's links, it appears ConnDOT couldn't get around the reservoirs north of the stack.

ixnay
Why couldn't they use eminent domain?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on January 07, 2020, 10:10:05 PM
For anyone curious on the Flatbush Freeway, or Trout Brook Freeway, or others, consult Kurumi's excellent resource:
https://www.kurumi.com/roads/ct/hfd-fwy-60s.html

And definitely check out the larger map for a view of the whole area for what could've been:
https://www.kurumi.com/roads/ct/pics/art-hfd-fwy-60s.png

Basically, all the left exits from I-84 were intended for something more.  Flatbush Freeway from Exit 45, a freeway from the Exit 46 ramps, heading north, I-291 north of CT 9 at Exit 39A, and even down in the Southington area at Exit 29 (part of a planned CT 10 freeway).  Today, all we're left with is some stub ramps, buried pavement, and a legacy of what "could've been".  Had many of these roads been built, especially I-291 north/west of Hartford, it would've taken pressure off I-84.  But then again, all these freeways leading into I-84 from points north or south (Bloomfield, Newington, etc) would've added more fuel to the fire.  The goals back then were get all the people into the city, where the jobs were at.  This isn't 100% true anymore.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on January 07, 2020, 11:47:47 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on January 07, 2020, 09:15:37 PM
Quote from: ixnay on January 07, 2020, 01:55:09 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 07, 2020, 08:28:32 AM
Quote from: ixnay on January 07, 2020, 08:10:38 AM
What's the story re the ghost ramps at the 4-level I-84/CT 9 interchange in Farmington?  (Sorry if this has been broached before but I just discovered this interchange on Google Sat while looking up something else, and this thread *is* 152 pages long.)
Those ghost ramps are still there.  The interchange w/I-84 was originally planned to be a 4-way interchange with I-291 but only the northeastern leg between I-91 and I-84 was actually built (as I-291).  The remaining pieces of the proposed I-291, aside from the above and the piece that's currently CT 9 south of I-84, were ultimately dropped from ConnDOT's plans.

From the first of Magical Trevor's links, it appears ConnDOT couldn't get around the reservoirs north of the stack.

ixnay
Why couldn't they use eminent domain?
Because lawsuits.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: zzyzx on January 08, 2020, 01:25:44 AM
I just noticed Historic Aerials has some new imagery from 1971 (in color too!)  You can see parts of Route 11 and Route 9 under construction:

(https://i.imgur.com/N3CirPi.png)

Unfortunately, it doesn't cover much of the state (only northern parts of New London & Middlesex counties) but still nice to see some higher quality color imagery from that time.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on January 08, 2020, 02:17:19 PM
Quote from: Alps on January 07, 2020, 11:47:47 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on January 07, 2020, 09:15:37 PM
Quote from: ixnay on January 07, 2020, 01:55:09 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 07, 2020, 08:28:32 AM
Quote from: ixnay on January 07, 2020, 08:10:38 AM
What's the story re the ghost ramps at the 4-level I-84/CT 9 interchange in Farmington?  (Sorry if this has been broached before but I just discovered this interchange on Google Sat while looking up something else, and this thread *is* 152 pages long.)
Those ghost ramps are still there.  The interchange w/I-84 was originally planned to be a 4-way interchange with I-291 but only the northeastern leg between I-91 and I-84 was actually built (as I-291).  The remaining pieces of the proposed I-291, aside from the above and the piece that's currently CT 9 south of I-84, were ultimately dropped from ConnDOT's plans.

From the first of Magical Trevor's links, it appears ConnDOT couldn't get around the reservoirs north of the stack.

ixnay
Why couldn't they use eminent domain?
Because lawsuits.
Maybe then, but ever since Keto v. New London they could do it.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on January 08, 2020, 06:38:48 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on January 08, 2020, 02:17:19 PM
Quote from: Alps on January 07, 2020, 11:47:47 PM
Because lawsuits.
Maybe then, but ever since Keto v. New London they could do it.

The problem wasn't that they couldn't do it with eminent domain.  (And, actually, much of the land in question was nominally owned by the state or a quasi-government entity, reducing the need for eminent domain.)

The problem was that the alignment for the mountain leg of 291 passed by the homes of (and through the recreational areas preferred by) some of the wealthiest folks the Hartford metro area.   The land in question is environmentally sensitive and has potential archaeological significance, giving a basis for those wealthy folks to sue the state to block the highway.

Lawsuits can be expensive and time-consuming.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: The Ghostbuster on January 08, 2020, 06:44:11 PM
I think Connecticut's road-building days are long over. If another new freeway or expressway building project is ever approved in the state, I will be shocked.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on January 08, 2020, 07:27:57 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 08, 2020, 06:44:11 PM
I think Connecticut's road-building days are long over. If another new freeway or expressway building project is ever approved in the state, I will be shocked.

The last was CT-72 bypass, which wasn't even a compromise. Half of those cross streets could've been dead ends but they all cross thru with a stop light.
https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOT/documents/deng/17_137/Route72Overviewpdf.pdf?la=en

US-7 was the last expressway to be built and that opened in 2009. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on January 21, 2020, 04:31:26 PM
Sign update:

Appears that the contractor for the 2017 version of the statewide spot overhead sign project is finally making some progress.  Observed a new monotube bridge gantry on I-691 East at Exit 10 in Meriden. Just the support is up, no signs yet.  Also as part of this project is the gantry at Exit 11, one just south of I-691 on CT 15 South at Exit 67W, a few on CT 9 South in New Britain, among other locations statewide.  I'll get an update later this week on whether or not there is a new gantry up at Exit 11.  I recently drove past 3 or 4 other work sites in this project and observed no work started. 

Then there's still the several gantries needing replacement on I-84 in the Southington to Farmington contract, which has a completion date of June 2020.  Seems to me that project should've been completed already, as there's only 2 or 3 supports left to install. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on January 21, 2020, 05:39:21 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on January 21, 2020, 04:31:26 PM
Sign update:

Appears that the contractor for the 2017 version of the statewide spot overhead sign project is finally making some progress.  Observed a new monotube bridge gantry on I-691 East at Exit 10 in Meriden. Just the support is up, no signs yet.  Also as part of this project is the gantry at Exit 11, one just south of I-691 on CT 15 South at Exit 67W, a few on CT 9 South in New Britain, among other locations statewide.  I'll get an update later this week on whether or not there is a new gantry up at Exit 11.  I recently drove past 3 or 4 other work sites in this project and observed no work started. 

Then there's still the several gantries needing replacement on I-84 in the Southington to Farmington contract, which has a completion date of June 2020.  Seems to me that project should've been completed already, as there's only 2 or 3 supports left to install.

My guess is the ones on the EB 84/72 concurrency are part of the 72 sign replacement project.  The rest of the project is sign removals (mostly off of overpasses) and the enhanced milepost placement. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on January 22, 2020, 09:15:35 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on January 21, 2020, 05:39:21 PM
My guess is the ones on the EB 84/72 concurrency are part of the 72 sign replacement project.  The rest of the project is sign removals (mostly off of overpasses) and the enhanced milepost placement.
Until the recent sign replacement project along I-84 in that area came about; those eastbound signs were the newest ones along that concurrency & are still in decent condition reflectivity-wise.  IMHO, the only BGS' in that area that need changing as a result of the exit renumbering would be the left-lane ramp exit signs for CT 72 eastbound (current Exit 35).  Obviously, the new signs would feature the current MUTCD standard for left-exit tabs as well as being wider to incorporate a suffixed-exit (Exit 50 B(?)).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on January 22, 2020, 07:29:36 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 22, 2020, 09:15:35 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on January 21, 2020, 05:39:21 PM
My guess is the ones on the EB 84/72 concurrency are part of the 72 sign replacement project.  The rest of the project is sign removals (mostly off of overpasses) and the enhanced milepost placement.
Until the recent sign replacement project along I-84 in that area came about; those eastbound signs were the newest ones along that concurrency & are still in decent condition reflectivity-wise.  IMHO, the only BGS' in that area that need changing as a result of the exit renumbering would be the left-lane ramp exit signs for CT 72 eastbound (current Exit 35).  Obviously, the new signs would feature the current MUTCD standard for left-exit tabs as well as being wider to incorporate a suffixed-exit (Exit 50 B(?)).

Don't think you'd need suffixes for the 72 East or Slater Rd exits.  EB on 84, I have 72 West at 49A, Crooked St as 49B, 72 East as 50, and Slater Rd as 51 (rounded up for simplicity).  The new signage for 72 West and Crooked St (overhead, and gore signs) are wide enough to accommodate suffixes.  As for the existing signage that hasn't been replaced, the WB signage that was replaced was of the same vintage.  What I don't like in the 72 renumbering project is that the New Britain Ave exit WB on 72 gets an 84 exit number (33B) instead of Exit 4.  It may correct itself in the future by becoming 49B to match Crooked St so that 72 West  matches the EB exit number instead of being plain Exit 49. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on January 22, 2020, 09:52:41 PM
I-84 East Exit 35 signs are all part of the Southington to Farmington project.  This includes replacement of existing pipe gantries for the 1/2 mile and "exit now" Exit 35 assemblies.  It also includes adding a 1/4 mile assembly.  Also, I have yet to see replacement signs for the Exit 36 "exit now" and Exit 39A "exit now". 

Westbound, at last check a month or so ago, the Exit 39 "exit now" sign was still mounted on the bridge, with its successor on a new monotube bridge in front.  Recent traffic cam footage shows the Exit 36 1/2 mile overhead not replaced yet.  As for Exit 33, the Route 9/72 sign replacement project will change out the exit tab to an EXIT 33 B-A instead, so that what is now 72WB Exit 2 will become Exit 33B.  This would most likely be the equivalent to the eastbound direction, with the "33" being replaced with the mileage-based number, retaining the "A" and "B" suffixes.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on January 22, 2020, 11:13:07 PM
A couple of other older signs that still exist: the EB ground mounted 1/2 mile sign for Exit 34, the EB bridge mounted 1/4 mile sign for Slater Rd (immediately behind a new 1/4 mile sign on a chorded truss gantry), the EB bridge mounted 1 mile sign for Exit 39, and the bridge mounted 1 1/2 mile sign for Exit 33 WB.  I traveled Exit 32-39A going eastbound this afternoon.   I believe that I also saw there is still an erroneous white WEST banner on one of the I-84 reassurance shields between Exit 31 and 30.   

One other thing I did notice: a  Clearview looking sign on CT 9 North for the Exit 29 exit now sign.    (https://goo.gl/maps/yF51JsBuGC625uSa7)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on January 23, 2020, 09:42:18 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on January 22, 2020, 11:13:07 PMOne other thing I did notice: a  Clearview looking sign on CT 9 North for the Exit 29 exit now sign. (https://goo.gl/maps/yF51JsBuGC625uSa7)
That one's been mentioned before in either this thread (many pages back) or in The Clearview Thread.  Such was either a rogue install or the designer/fabricator not being aware that CT never allowed the use of the Clearview font. 

Circa 2012, this rogue Clearview install (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5478301,-73.0272142,3a,75y,336.74h,72.12t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sB-trDmo2Zg5GNkd0L9DIIw!2e0!5s20120501T000000!7i13312!8i6656) was along I-84 westbound in Waterbury from about 2011 through mid-2013.  It was probably installed around the same time that BGS and its siblings along CT 9 were installed.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: DJ Particle on January 24, 2020, 01:10:21 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 23, 2020, 09:42:18 AM
Circa 2012, this rogue Clearview install (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5478301,-73.0272142,3a,75y,336.74h,72.12t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sB-trDmo2Zg5GNkd0L9DIIw!2e0!5s20120501T000000!7i13312!8i6656) was along I-84 westbound in Waterbury from about 2011 through mid-2013.  It was probably installed around the same time that BGS and its siblings along CT 9 were installed.

It's on the 2009 images too...
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on January 24, 2020, 09:12:08 AM
Quote from: DJ Particle on January 24, 2020, 01:10:21 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 23, 2020, 09:42:18 AM
Circa 2012, this rogue Clearview install (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5478301,-73.0272142,3a,75y,336.74h,72.12t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sB-trDmo2Zg5GNkd0L9DIIw!2e0!5s20120501T000000!7i13312!8i6656) was along I-84 westbound in Waterbury from about 2011 through mid-2013.  It was probably installed around the same time that BGS and its siblings along CT 9 were installed.

It's on the 2009 images too...
Maybe, but the given the very grainy image for that 2009 GSV; it's a little tough to tell at first glance.  Initially, I thought it was the pre-Clearview install.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on January 25, 2020, 08:56:30 PM
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49441264633_de016acec1_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2ijXpt8)

Before, the current style of signage on the Merritt Pkwy with the odd font were these 1970's non-reflective button copy signs that actually had the outline shields and hung over the highway.  This was also before Exit 44 was simplified.
(Contributed Photo to CTPost of unknown photographer)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: ipeters61 on January 26, 2020, 11:05:27 PM
Quote from: DJ Particle on January 24, 2020, 01:10:21 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 23, 2020, 09:42:18 AM
Circa 2012, this rogue Clearview install (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5478301,-73.0272142,3a,75y,336.74h,72.12t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sB-trDmo2Zg5GNkd0L9DIIw!2e0!5s20120501T000000!7i13312!8i6656) was along I-84 westbound in Waterbury from about 2011 through mid-2013.  It was probably installed around the same time that BGS and its siblings along CT 9 were installed.

It's on the 2009 images too...
I remember seeing some Clearview-looking street blades on Burnside Avenue in East Hartford (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7828296,-72.5918431,3a,15y,149.93h,92.69t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smqPeTbtE5XW7pyYZJbaq_g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) a few years ago.

Quote from: Mergingtraffic on January 25, 2020, 08:56:30 PM
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49441264633_de016acec1_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2ijXpt8)

Before, the current style of signage on the Merritt Pkwy with the odd font were these 1970's non-reflective button copy signs that actually had the outline shields and hung over the highway.  This was also before Exit 44 was simplified.
(Contributed Photo to CTPost of unknown photographer)
Nice find!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on January 27, 2020, 08:56:43 AM
Quote from: ipeters61 on January 26, 2020, 11:05:27 PMI remember seeing some Clearview-looking street blades on Burnside Avenue in East Hartford (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7828296,-72.5918431,3a,15y,149.93h,92.69t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smqPeTbtE5XW7pyYZJbaq_g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) a few years ago.
From my experience/observations, the fonts on streetblade signs vary a lot, even along state-owned/maintained roadways; so seeing one in Clearview in a state that does normally use Clearview on their highway signs doesn't surprise me or is that unusual.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: cl94 on January 27, 2020, 11:11:35 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 27, 2020, 08:56:43 AM
Quote from: ipeters61 on January 26, 2020, 11:05:27 PMI remember seeing some Clearview-looking street blades on Burnside Avenue in East Hartford (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7828296,-72.5918431,3a,15y,149.93h,92.69t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smqPeTbtE5XW7pyYZJbaq_g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) a few years ago.
From my experience/observations, the fonts on streetblade signs vary a lot, even along state-onwed/maintained roadways; so seeing one in Clearview in a state that does normally use Clearview on their highway signs doesn't surprise me or is that unusual.

Similarly, in NY, there are some COUNTIES and CITIES that have used Clearview for several years, to the point where I expect Clearview in these municipalities even if no statewide agency currently uses it. Westchester County and Saratoga Springs immediately ring a bell there.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on January 27, 2020, 08:27:45 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 27, 2020, 08:56:43 AM
Quote from: ipeters61 on January 26, 2020, 11:05:27 PMI remember seeing some Clearview-looking street blades on Burnside Avenue in East Hartford (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7828296,-72.5918431,3a,15y,149.93h,92.69t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smqPeTbtE5XW7pyYZJbaq_g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) a few years ago.
From my experience/observations, the fonts on streetblade signs vary a lot, even along state-onwed/maintained roadways; so seeing one in Clearview in a state that does normally use Clearview on their highway signs doesn't surprise me or is that unusual.

There's a very simple reason for this: ConnDOT is generally not responsible for street sign blades. Those Clearview signs on US 44 in East Hartford were installed by the town of East Hartford. Note how you can find examples of (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7816578,-72.6141366,3a,15y,119.67h,91.07t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8_HFJEpY6hbmwsCIVrueYQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)  the same (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7854136,-72.5983409,3a,15y,141.09h,95.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sxZWQ3h8kNhLpGfoSEZ_x-A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) style of sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7818704,-72.6175557,3a,15y,286.24h,91.6t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7JHNUg8eZBJD-AA_zej16g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) in East Hartford at intersections between two locally-maintained streets.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on January 27, 2020, 08:30:28 PM
I mean, ConnDOT didn't name those streets.  Locals did.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: DJ Particle on January 28, 2020, 01:18:09 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on January 25, 2020, 08:56:30 PM
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49441264633_de016acec1_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2ijXpt8)

Before, the current style of signage on the Merritt Pkwy with the odd font were these 1970's non-reflective button copy signs that actually had the outline shields and hung over the highway.  This was also before Exit 44 was simplified.
(Contributed Photo to CTPost of unknown photographer)
I remember those signs.  Many of them were up as late as the early 1990s. (the Merritt was part of my "major snow avoidance" route from Cape Cod to Ithaca NY)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on January 28, 2020, 07:16:47 AM
The state outline shields on the Merritt were around until the late 1990s, until the first round of sign replacement came through in 2000.  Prior to that, spot sign replacement for certain exits had taken place.  This included Exits 39 & 40 due to the slight northward extension of the US 7 expressway (resulting in Phase III signage), and the removal of ramps at Exit 44 (Fairfield, pictured above) and Exit 53 (Stratford).  This resulted in the unique Merritt Parkway signage being put up at those exits, though Exit 53-SB would wait until the rebuild of the Sikorsky Bridge before it got the fancy new signs. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on January 28, 2020, 04:38:37 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on January 28, 2020, 07:16:47 AM
The state outline shields on the Merritt were around until the late 1990s, until the first round of sign replacement came through in 2000.  Prior to that, spot sign replacement for certain exits had taken place.  This included Exits 39 & 40 due to the slight northward extension of the US 7 expressway (resulting in Phase III signage), and the removal of ramps at Exit 44 (Fairfield, pictured above) and Exit 53 (Stratford).  This resulted in the unique Merritt Parkway signage being put up at those exits, though Exit 53-SB would wait until the rebuild of the Sikorsky Bridge before it got the fancy new signs.
The last time I ever saw a state-shaped SR shield was NB at the Sikorsky Bridge.  It's been gone since it was rebuilt.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on January 28, 2020, 08:22:19 PM
Not sure if any of them are still there, but the backwoods of Greenwich used to have several.  In fact, here's some that may still be in the wild:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0988264,-73.5812145,3a,38.9y,194.48h,78.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVbFuh5gscWyyBrzuYZgYaw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0907412,-73.6475686,3a,38y,189.32h,79.97t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1smEeM0PhvSSwM2q3pah5wjQ!2e0!5s20151201T000000!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DmEeM0PhvSSwM2q3pah5wjQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D28.418392%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0906911,-73.6479459,3a,75y,34.97h,73.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sipmsNbtpFWTvYGEyp-yt2g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Most of these have a streetview date of 2015.  They could still be there.  Really like that last one, as its unique, with the name of the road within the shield as well.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on January 28, 2020, 10:40:14 PM
I think I've maybe seen 1 state shield in my life outside of Fairfield County.  There used to be one on the BGS for the southbound WC Parkway entrance from US 5 in Wallingford.  I do remember a CONN 10 shield just north of the Southington/Plainville line that existed into the 1980's.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on January 28, 2020, 11:21:48 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on January 28, 2020, 04:38:37 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on January 28, 2020, 07:16:47 AM
The state outline shields on the Merritt were around until the late 1990s, until the first round of sign replacement came through in 2000.  Prior to that, spot sign replacement for certain exits had taken place.  This included Exits 39 & 40 due to the slight northward extension of the US 7 expressway (resulting in Phase III signage), and the removal of ramps at Exit 44 (Fairfield, pictured above) and Exit 53 (Stratford).  This resulted in the unique Merritt Parkway signage being put up at those exits, though Exit 53-SB would wait until the rebuild of the Sikorsky Bridge before it got the fancy new signs.
The last time I ever saw a state-shaped SR shield was NB at the Sikorsky Bridge.  It's been gone since it was rebuilt.
That one was a contractor install while they were doing worked, probably grabbed from their scrap heap of prior removals. There are still a couple in the hinterlands along the coast.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on January 29, 2020, 06:34:14 PM
Quote from: Alps on January 28, 2020, 11:21:48 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on January 28, 2020, 04:38:37 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on January 28, 2020, 07:16:47 AM
The state outline shields on the Merritt were around until the late 1990s, until the first round of sign replacement came through in 2000.  Prior to that, spot sign replacement for certain exits had taken place.  This included Exits 39 & 40 due to the slight northward extension of the US 7 expressway (resulting in Phase III signage), and the removal of ramps at Exit 44 (Fairfield, pictured above) and Exit 53 (Stratford).  This resulted in the unique Merritt Parkway signage being put up at those exits, though Exit 53-SB would wait until the rebuild of the Sikorsky Bridge before it got the fancy new signs.
The last time I ever saw a state-shaped SR shield was NB at the Sikorsky Bridge.  It's been gone since it was rebuilt.
That one was a contractor install while they were doing worked, probably grabbed from their scrap heap of prior removals. There are still a couple in the hinterlands along the coast.
I think those are replicas, made in the 90s.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on January 29, 2020, 08:23:20 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on January 29, 2020, 06:34:14 PM
Quote from: Alps on January 28, 2020, 11:21:48 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on January 28, 2020, 04:38:37 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on January 28, 2020, 07:16:47 AM
The state outline shields on the Merritt were around until the late 1990s, until the first round of sign replacement came through in 2000.  Prior to that, spot sign replacement for certain exits had taken place.  This included Exits 39 & 40 due to the slight northward extension of the US 7 expressway (resulting in Phase III signage), and the removal of ramps at Exit 44 (Fairfield, pictured above) and Exit 53 (Stratford).  This resulted in the unique Merritt Parkway signage being put up at those exits, though Exit 53-SB would wait until the rebuild of the Sikorsky Bridge before it got the fancy new signs.
The last time I ever saw a state-shaped SR shield was NB at the Sikorsky Bridge.  It's been gone since it was rebuilt.
That one was a contractor install while they were doing worked, probably grabbed from their scrap heap of prior removals. There are still a couple in the hinterlands along the coast.
I think those are replicas, made in the 90s.
Not all...
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on January 30, 2020, 12:53:43 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on January 28, 2020, 08:22:19 PM
Not sure if any of them are still there, but the backwoods of Greenwich used to have several.  In fact, here's some that may still be in the wild:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0988264,-73.5812145,3a,38.9y,194.48h,78.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVbFuh5gscWyyBrzuYZgYaw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0907412,-73.6475686,3a,38y,189.32h,79.97t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1smEeM0PhvSSwM2q3pah5wjQ!2e0!5s20151201T000000!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DmEeM0PhvSSwM2q3pah5wjQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D28.418392%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0906911,-73.6479459,3a,75y,34.97h,73.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sipmsNbtpFWTvYGEyp-yt2g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Most of these have a streetview date of 2015.  They could still be there.  Really like that last one, as its unique, with the name of the road within the shield as well.

All of those are still there as far as I know. But the shield in your first link is in Stamford, not Greenwich. And the second and third are more recent town of Greenwich installs, not legit vintage state-issue outline shields.

There is another outline 15 that was still standing Westport as of last summer, and the 137 seen in my avatar is also somehow, amazingly, still there.

That's all that still survives in the wild. There was also a 25 until a few years ago but it perished in a sign replacement project.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on February 07, 2020, 09:37:51 PM
Got some pics of the new LGS signs at the CT-8 on-ramps in the Naugatuck and Beacon Falls area.
They don't look good...how are they going to last as long as the extruded aluminum signs? They aren't. The metal is already curving.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49501958943_54b79139e5.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2iqjtLK)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49501958558_e02359f5b1.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2iqjtE7)

Below, is the sign the above one replaced. 1990-2019
(https://live.staticflickr.com/1747/28801204458_26cd032ff0.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/KT4GEE)


Although a button copy sign was forgotten in Beacon Falls. This was back when CT put up "Next Left," or "Right Lane" BGSs in addition to the "enter here" BGS signs at the on-ramps.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49501936203_fe4baf3eb0.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2iqjn1F)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on February 08, 2020, 09:42:44 AM
I-91 construction update
-Sound barriers on CT 15 in East Hartford are being removed.
-Retaining wall for new flyover ramp is starting construction
-Grading on I-91 continues past Exit 28
-New conduit is being run in the median of I-91 from Exit 28.
-New signposts have been installed on I-91 from Exit 28.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jon daly on February 09, 2020, 09:15:39 AM
Hola, I have not been here in a while but thought that I'd mention somethings that I've seen recently.

On CT-27 North in Mystic, there is a new directional complex sign (I believe that's what it is called) as you approach the on-ramp for I-95 South. The shield is bigger than normal. But what really stands out for me is that the M3-2 rectangle says "SOUTH" in blue on a white background.

Also, there is anew medical center opening off of Jerry Browne Road. New stop signs have been installed and there is a new sign for it on Coogan Boulevard.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on February 09, 2020, 12:23:55 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on February 07, 2020, 09:37:51 PM
Got some pics of the new LGS signs at the CT-8 on-ramps in the Naugatuck and Beacon Falls area.
They don't look good...how are they going to last as long as the extruded aluminum signs? They aren't. The metal is already curving.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49501958943_54b79139e5.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2iqjtLK)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49501958558_e02359f5b1.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2iqjtE7)

Below, is the sign the above one replaced. 1990-2019
(https://live.staticflickr.com/1747/28801204458_26cd032ff0.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/KT4GEE)


Although a button copy sign was forgotten in Beacon Falls. This was back when CT put up "Next Left," or "Right Lane" BGSs in addition to the "enter here" BGS signs at the on-ramps.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49501936203_fe4baf3eb0.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2iqjn1F)

They really want to be cheap about replacing the highway signs on Route 8. The old ones they're replacing are 30 years old. The new ones probably won't last more tuan.10 years.  As the old saying goes, you get what you pay for.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on February 09, 2020, 06:34:09 PM
Luckily, project plans for subsequent sign replacement projects (CT 8 from Bridgeport to Derby, CT 9 from Cromwell to I-84, I-84 from West to East Hartford) show the normal heavy duty extruded aluminum entry signs, vs these sheet aluminum signs. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on February 15, 2020, 08:31:42 PM
Took my new truck out for a spin today to check on some of the 2017 spot sign replacement locations.  After seeing ConnDOT web cam confirmation of some sites completed, I was hoping some other sites would be done.  Out of the 4 sites I passed, this one had the only noticeable progress:  I-691 East at Exit 10 in Meriden.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49540528376_80a24b784a_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2itJa7Y)691EB-Exit10 (https://flic.kr/p/2itJa7Y) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

The next sign up the 'pike, at Exit 11, is also due to be replaced but no work observed there yet.  Also, just south of Exit 10 is another spot replacement site:  CT 15 South Exit 67W.  I only caught a glimpse as I passed by on I-691, but it looked like there were new signs/gantry in place, though I could've been mistaken.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on February 15, 2020, 11:04:41 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on February 15, 2020, 08:31:42 PM
Took my new truck out for a spin today to check on some of the 2017 spot sign replacement locations.  After seeing ConnDOT web cam confirmation of some sites completed, I was hoping some other sites would be done.  Out of the 4 sites I passed, this one had the only noticeable progress:  I-691 East at Exit 10 in Meriden.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49540528376_80a24b784a_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2itJa7Y)691EB-Exit10 (https://flic.kr/p/2itJa7Y) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

Dear ConnDOT:
No.

New gantries go BEHIND existing, so that you can see the signs. If you need to put it in front, put up temporary signs plz.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: TravelingBethelite on February 16, 2020, 12:01:20 AM
This is from years ago, but I'm seeing if anyone else saw it there. Somewhere in the Derby area - around the CT 8/34 interchange - there was a error "US 8" shield. (Inspired by the US/state error shield thread.) I saw it only once ever - and as soon I told my dad to turn around so we could take a photo of it, we couldn't find it again? I know I saw it, and I know it was there. Did anyone else ever see it? Where was it?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on February 16, 2020, 01:00:48 PM
Never seen it in person, but saw it on the eastcoastroads.com site, and on Google maps, on CT 110:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.2869891,-73.081629,3a,25.9y,104.18h,86.15t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKsExG7dHTV3gcT1I5gV4tQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Since we've gone "there", here's an erroneous US 15 shield in Meriden:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5440791,-72.7849245,3a,15y,60.26h,86.44t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUHVX_kSbu9IIKtgh3fQrXw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Not sure of any others in the state, though I know there are numerous erroneous CT 1, 5, and 6 shields scattered about.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on February 17, 2020, 08:38:47 AM
Quote from: Alps on February 15, 2020, 11:04:41 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on February 15, 2020, 08:31:42 PM
Took my new truck out for a spin today to check on some of the 2017 spot sign replacement locations.  After seeing ConnDOT web cam confirmation of some sites completed, I was hoping some other sites would be done.  Out of the 4 sites I passed, this one had the only noticeable progress:  I-691 East at Exit 10 in Meriden.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49540528376_80a24b784a_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2itJa7Y)691EB-Exit10 (https://flic.kr/p/2itJa7Y) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

Dear ConnDOT:
No.

New gantries go BEHIND existing, so that you can see the signs. If you need to put it in front, put up temporary signs plz.
As much of a critic I am of ConnDOT; in this case, the likely reasoning for placing the new gantry in front of the existing gantry is due to the gore location with respect to the gantry. (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Meriden,+CT/@41.5395588,-72.7719451,196m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x89e7ca2124b4cab7:0xf8fbded56523558a!8m2!3d41.5381535!4d-72.8070435)

That said & if that's the reason for doing such; I do agree that temporary signs or even portable VMS' should've been provided until the new signs are actually erected.

Judging by the number of support brackets on that new gantry; it would appear that the upcoming new pull-through sign for CT 66 eastbound will be larger and have more information (control city/cities) on the panel.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on February 17, 2020, 09:01:00 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 17, 2020, 08:38:47 AM
As much of a critic I am of ConnDOT; in this case, the likely reasoning for placing the new gantry in front of the existing gantry is due to the gore location with respect to the gantry. (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Meriden,+CT/@41.5395588,-72.7719451,196m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x89e7ca2124b4cab7:0xf8fbded56523558a!8m2!3d41.5381535!4d-72.8070435)

That said & if that's the reason for doing such; I do agree that temporary signs or even portable VMS' should've been provided until the new signs are actually erected.

Judging by the number of support brackets on that new gantry; it would appear that the upcoming new pull-through sign for CT 66 eastbound will be larger and have more information (control city/cities) on the panel.

Not sure if they will put a control on CT 66.  CTDOT has a sign on Route 9 North in Middletown saying the best route to Meriden is 9 North to 91 South.  Putting Middletown as a control for 66 East here would go against that.  But it's CTDOT, so you never know.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on February 17, 2020, 09:21:11 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on February 17, 2020, 09:01:00 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 17, 2020, 08:38:47 AM
As much of a critic I am of ConnDOT; in this case, the likely reasoning for placing the new gantry in front of the existing gantry is due to the gore location with respect to the gantry. (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Meriden,+CT/@41.5395588,-72.7719451,196m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x89e7ca2124b4cab7:0xf8fbded56523558a!8m2!3d41.5381535!4d-72.8070435)

That said & if that's the reason for doing such; I do agree that temporary signs or even portable VMS' should've been provided until the new signs are actually erected.

Judging by the number of support brackets on that new gantry; it would appear that the upcoming new pull-through sign for CT 66 eastbound will be larger and have more information (control city/cities) on the panel.

Not sure if they will put a control on CT 66.  CTDOT has a sign on Route 9 North in Middletown saying the best route to Meriden is 9 North to 91 South.  Putting Middletown as a control for 66 East here would go against that.  But it's CTDOT, so you never know.
Another possibility for that center sign, given the number of brackets on the gantry (4), would be that the new sign would feature a horizontal 66 EAST message with two downward arrows below it.  Either that or Middlefield could be used en lieu of Middletown for a control city
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: The Ghostbuster on February 17, 2020, 03:19:05 PM
Has any date been announced as to when CT 72 will have its exits renumbered to mileage-based? I heard it was going to happen this year.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on February 17, 2020, 05:26:37 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 17, 2020, 08:38:47 AM
Quote from: Alps on February 15, 2020, 11:04:41 PM
Dear ConnDOT:
No.

New gantries go BEHIND existing, so that you can see the signs. If you need to put it in front, put up temporary signs plz.
As much of a critic I am of ConnDOT; in this case, the likely reasoning for placing the new gantry in front of the existing gantry is due to the gore location with respect to the gantry. (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Meriden,+CT/@41.5395588,-72.7719451,196m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x89e7ca2124b4cab7:0xf8fbded56523558a!8m2!3d41.5381535!4d-72.8070435)

That said & if that's the reason for doing such; I do agree that temporary signs or even portable VMS' should've been provided until the new signs are actually erected.

Judging by the number of support brackets on that new gantry; it would appear that the upcoming new pull-through sign for CT 66 eastbound will be larger and have more information (control city/cities) on the panel.

The outer two signs will be "status quo", with the exception of advances in CTDOT signage practices (aligned exit tabs, LEFT on Exit 11 incorporated into the exit tab, the angled arrow in the "EXIT ONLY" banner), the center pull-through will become:

691  EAST
   TO
66  EAST

While this is at odds with the 1/2 mile advance assembly for Exit 10 (which just has the "EAST 66" pullthrough), the sign assembly at Exit 11 will have its "EAST 66" replaced with "BEGIN 66 EAST". 

Now what really grinds my gears is that, in a couple years or whenever I-691 signs get replaced en masse (and exits renumbered), that Exit 11 sign will most likely get replaced again, as the move to a single control city takes place.  Not sure why this couldn't be incorporated into this project, but just seems wasteful to fabricate a sign, only to have it removed and replaced again in a couple years.  Same will probably go for the Exit 10 sign, as it will most likely loose "W. Cross Pkwy".  Personally, I see nothing wrong with two control cities on a sign. 

Signs on this portion of I-691 were originally installed in the late 1980s, IIRC.  There's been a couple spot replacements here n' there.  There's an upcoming "safety improvement project" for I-691 on the horizon, but not sure if that's going to include sign replacement. 


And as far as when CT 72 will get new numbers, that project is part of the CT 9 sign replacement from New Britain up to I-84.  I believe a contractor has been selected and some preliminary work is underway.  I did observe some stakes where new signs will go, at least on the Cromwell to Berlin project which was announced at that same time.  It's still early in the contract to see significant visible evidence.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jon daly on February 17, 2020, 06:21:51 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on February 16, 2020, 01:00:48 PM
Never seen it in person, but saw it on the eastcoastroads.com site, and on Google maps, on CT 110:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.2869891,-73.081629,3a,25.9y,104.18h,86.15t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKsExG7dHTV3gcT1I5gV4tQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Since we've gone "there", here's an erroneous US 15 shield in Meriden:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5440791,-72.7849245,3a,15y,60.26h,86.44t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUHVX_kSbu9IIKtgh3fQrXw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Not sure of any others in the state, though I know there are numerous erroneous CT 1, 5, and 6 shields scattered about.

Not sure if this will work, but there's a CT 6 shield at the intersection of Lake Street and Cider Mill Road in Bolton. I think that it's actually an upside down CT 9 sign.


Link. (https://www.google.com/maps/place/State+Hwy+533+%26+Lake+St,+Manchester,+CT+06043/@41.7908052,-72.4721543,3a,75y,282.57h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sruJh9v4auAjDKN2P2T3mWg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!3m4!1s0x89e658f7c508fa15:0xe6219159658e0634!8m2!3d41.7907935!4d-72.4721878)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jon daly on February 17, 2020, 06:37:32 PM
Cool! I figured out how to link Streetview images. I switched jobs last month. My commute is no longer Mystic to Johnston, RI. It's the even longer Mystic to Windsor commute for the time being. The following sign on CT 11 southbound irks me more than the CT 6 sign. The state park is Devil's Hopyard not Devils Hopyard. It's not like CT doesn't use apostrophes on signs. There's the slangy "LET 'EM WORK, LET 'EM LIVE" signs. But there's also two tourist attractions named after Eugene O'Neill and the Attractions Signs for those have apostrophes.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4749477,-72.2945812,3a,37y,142.13h,88.51t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6tJFPYot2sO2M_ePgZnrLw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4749477,-72.2945812,3a,37y,142.13h,88.51t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6tJFPYot2sO2M_ePgZnrLw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

Anytime someone gets pedantic about the English language online, he'll make an error. I'm sure that there's one in this post.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: TravelingBethelite on February 17, 2020, 06:42:36 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on February 16, 2020, 01:00:48 PM
Never seen it in person, but saw it on the eastcoastroads.com site, and on Google maps, on CT 110:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.2869891,-73.081629,3a,25.9y,104.18h,86.15t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKsExG7dHTV3gcT1I5gV4tQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Since we've gone "there", here's an erroneous US 15 shield in Meriden:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5440791,-72.7849245,3a,15y,60.26h,86.44t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUHVX_kSbu9IIKtgh3fQrXw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Not sure of any others in the state, though I know there are numerous erroneous CT 1, 5, and 6 shields scattered about.

Thank you! That's the exact sign I was talking about. I've been looking for that sign for years.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on February 17, 2020, 07:34:57 PM
A former coworker of mine lives along that street in Meriden. He can confirm that it's still there.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on February 17, 2020, 10:22:03 PM
Here is how I would envision 691 looking after the renumbering:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49550375168_334c84d570_c.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on February 17, 2020, 10:49:53 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on February 17, 2020, 10:22:03 PM
Here is how I would envision 691 looking after the renumbering:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49550375168_334c84d570_c.jpg)

That would violate the standard exit numbering convention for east-west routes. The standard convention is for exit numbers and mile markers to start at the western end and increase heading east.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on February 18, 2020, 08:50:48 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on February 17, 2020, 10:49:53 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on February 17, 2020, 10:22:03 PM
Here is how I would envision 691 looking after the renumbering:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49550375168_334c84d570_c.jpg)

That would violate the standard exit numbering convention for east-west routes. The standard convention is for exit numbers and mile markers to start at the western end and increase heading east.
You beat me to the punch.  Additionally, the current sequential numbered interchanges for I-691 start at the I-84 interchange (current Exits 1 & 2) and increase eastward to I-91.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on February 18, 2020, 09:42:01 AM
A BEGIN sign??  That would be a new one for ConnDOT.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on February 18, 2020, 11:34:00 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 18, 2020, 08:50:48 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on February 17, 2020, 10:49:53 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on February 17, 2020, 10:22:03 PM
Here is how I would envision 691 looking after the renumbering:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49550375168_334c84d570_c.jpg)

That would violate the standard exit numbering convention for east-west routes. The standard convention is for exit numbers and mile markers to start at the western end and increase heading east.
You beat me to the punch.  Additionally, the current sequential numbered interchanges for I-691 start at the I-84 interchange (current Exits 1 & 2) and increase eastward to I-91.

JP's exit numbers follow the mileposts on I-691 in the state highway log, which are indeed "backwards" (east to west).

I hope ConnDOT leaves the more familiar west-to-east convention in place and uses "9 minus X" (approx.) for the mileage-based numbers, but I haven't seen the plans.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on February 18, 2020, 12:07:41 PM
The numbers on 691 will go East to West for 2 reasons: the CT log officially designates 691 as a North-South route but signs it East-West.  This is the same reason why CT 72's numbers will start at CT 9 and head west rather than starting at 14 for CT 177 and end at 19B for CT 71.  Secondly, mileage on a 3DI usually starts at its parent; if we wanted to keep the numbers East-West, you'd have to renumber 691 as an I-x84.  I originally had the numbers East-West but realized they wouldn't be when CTDOT numbered CT 72 that way.  Otherwise you'd have 2, 4, 6, 7A, 7B, and the 91/15's would all be 8's (assuming the 84 ramps would no longer be numbered in following the pattern at the north end of CT 9).   It actually makes numbering the 91/15 interchange easier going East-West because you'd have 1A for 91 North, 1B for 91/15 south, and the partial to 15 North would be 1C.  Otherwise you'd have 8A being the partial and wonder where 8A was going EB.  The Preston and West Main exits on 66 use 66 mileage, hence the plain 1's.

And there is one BEGIN sign in CT: on the ramp from 72 East to 9 South (although CT 9 doesn't officially "Begin"  there.) Wish there would be more END signs than just the one on CT 4 at Boulevard in West Hartford.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on February 18, 2020, 01:00:09 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on February 18, 2020, 12:07:41 PM
The numbers on 691 will go East to West for 2 reasons: the CT log officially designates 691 as a North-South route but signs it East-West. 
...
Secondly, mileage on a 3DI usually starts at its parent; if we wanted to keep the numbers East-West, you'd have to renumber 691 as an I-x84.
Given the above, then why were the sequential numbers for I-691 set going eastward in the first place?

As far as the 3DI's mileage typically starting from its parent logic is concerned: while such seems to be true for either spur routes (odd 3DIs) and bypass/beltway even 2DIs; such certainly wasn't the case for I-376 in the Greater Pittsburgh area both before and after it took over much of PA 60 & the lower part of I-279.  Such always had its highest exit number/milepost located at its terminus at its I-76 parent (PA Turnpike Exit 57) east of Pittsburgh.

Bottom line & IMHO; I-691's mile marker-based interchange numbers should follow the conventional west-to-east arrangement for consistency if nothing else.  I just checked GSV; mile markers along I-691 are either very scarce or non-existent.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on February 18, 2020, 01:06:32 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on February 18, 2020, 12:07:41 PM
The numbers on 691 will go East to West for 2 reasons: the CT log officially designates 691 as a North-South route but signs it East-West.  This is the same reason why CT 72's numbers will start at CT 9 and head west rather than starting at 14 for CT 177 and end at 19B for CT 71.  Secondly, mileage on a 3DI usually starts at its parent; if we wanted to keep the numbers East-West, you'd have to renumber 691 as an I-x84.
Is that actually a rule or something certain states made up for themselves?  It's certainly not the case in NY.

Regarding it being north-south... why?  What it planned to extend further?

Although starting at I-91 would allow CT 66 to start at 0 without resetting anything, but wouldn't the duplicative numbers in a short distance be confusing?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on February 18, 2020, 04:40:41 PM
There are no mile markers along I-691.  I just drove it again this past weekend.  I don't believe I-291 or I-384 carry any mile markers either.  And CT 72 doesn't have any numbers either. 

I-691 exits were numbered that way long before I-691 was even in the picture... before the late 1980s, it was CT 66, and the highway ended at Exit 4 until c 1985.  In fact, it was signed as "EXIT 4/"66"/SOUTHINGTON".  It wasn't until the highway was built to I-84 when it became I-691.  There used to be a sign "NOTICE/66 IS NOW 691" just before Exit 11, westbound. 

I agree the exit numbers should proceed from west to east, regardless of internal mileage.  But obviously any plan to convert to mile-based exits would also include installation of MUTCD-compliant mileposts, and if the internal mileage is used, then we're going to get exit numbers that run east to west.  As far as how E Main St/Preston Ave exit gets handled, I'd prefer to see it numbered as part of I-691, as having another Exit 1 thrown in the mix would be damn confusing to many.  Perhaps though that is why the "END 691/BEGIN 66" is being made more prominent on the spot sign replacements.  Right now, motorists see the first CT 66 East pull-though just east of Exit 8, and westbound, the first is right at the start of the expressway.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on February 18, 2020, 09:14:19 PM
Quote from: vdeane on February 18, 2020, 01:06:32 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on February 18, 2020, 12:07:41 PM
The numbers on 691 will go East to West for 2 reasons: the CT log officially designates 691 as a North-South route but signs it East-West.  This is the same reason why CT 72's numbers will start at CT 9 and head west rather than starting at 14 for CT 177 and end at 19B for CT 71.  Secondly, mileage on a 3DI usually starts at its parent; if we wanted to keep the numbers East-West, you'd have to renumber 691 as an I-x84.
Is that actually a rule or something certain states made up for themselves?  It's certainly not the case in NY.

Regarding it being north-south... why?  What it planned to extend further?

Although starting at I-91 would allow CT 66 to start at 0 without resetting anything, but wouldn't the duplicative numbers in a short distance be confusing?

The original plan, when the road was US 6A (the CT 66 designation didn't come along until the mid 60's) was to extend the freeway east all the way to Willimantic.  Kurumi and Steve Anderson have articles dedicated to this.   The I-691 designation came along circa 1976.  The portion from CT 322 to CT 10 opened in late 1985, and opened to I-84 in 1988.  The killing of the highway east of its current terminus as CT 66 predated the I-691 creation.  CTDOT has other routes that are logged differently than signed.  Besides the two mentioned, CT 31 and CT 67 are signed North-South but logged East-West.  As for the numbers, there technically would be no exact duplicates.  You'd have the 1's on 66 and 1A, 1B, and 1C (WB only) on 691.  Really no different than the current 39/39A or 25/25A setups on I-84.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on February 19, 2020, 01:23:07 AM
Quote from: vdeane on February 18, 2020, 01:06:32 PM
Regarding it being north-south... why?

I don't think there is some specific justification as to why. It being north-south reflects a lack of thought being put into how to inventory it, because the inventorying was never intended to be for anything other than internal purposes so it wasn't considered important that it make any sense to the public.

Fast forward several decades, and the mandate to use mile-based exit numbers suddenly puts the state in the awkward position of needing to either redo the inventorying of the road to flip its direction around (and create internal mess and confusion in the process), or leave the existing inventorying alone and accept that mile markers and exit numbers will be signed "backwards" from standard convention.

The latter option was easier for the DOT, and the fact that the exit numbers are "backwards" is frankly one of those things that the average non-roadgeek motorist won't notice or care about.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: deathtopumpkins on February 19, 2020, 08:32:31 AM
Quote from: Alps on February 18, 2020, 09:41:26 PM
To put this to rest, no, there is no rule that 3di exit numbering starts at the parent. It always goes W-E or S-N per the MUTCD.

MUTCD begs to differ:
Quote from: MUTCD §2E.3114 Spur route interchanges shall be numbered in ascending order starting at the interchange where the spur leaves the mainline route (see Figure 2E-20 (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009r1r2/part2/part2e.htm#figure2E20)).

The above rule only applies to odd numbered 3dis though, as even numbered are supposed to follow the directional convention.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on February 19, 2020, 09:08:26 AM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on February 19, 2020, 08:32:31 AM
Quote from: Alps on February 18, 2020, 09:41:26 PM
To put this to rest, no, there is no rule that 3di exit numbering starts at the parent. It always goes W-E or S-N per the MUTCD.

MUTCD begs to differ:
Quote from: MUTCD §2E.3114 Spur route interchanges shall be numbered in ascending order starting at the interchange where the spur leaves the mainline route (see Figure 2E-20 (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009r1r2/part2/part2e.htm#figure2E20)).

The above rule only applies to odd numbered 3dis though, as even numbered are supposed to follow the directional convention.
As mentioned earlier, and yes I know this is a CT-topic thread, I-376 in western PA never followed that MUTCD convention since its 1972 inception.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on February 19, 2020, 01:45:30 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on February 19, 2020, 08:32:31 AM
Quote from: Alps on February 18, 2020, 09:41:26 PM
To put this to rest, no, there is no rule that 3di exit numbering starts at the parent. It always goes W-E or S-N per the MUTCD.

MUTCD begs to differ:
Quote from: MUTCD §2E.3114 Spur route interchanges shall be numbered in ascending order starting at the interchange where the spur leaves the mainline route (see Figure 2E-20 (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009r1r2/part2/part2e.htm#figure2E20)).

The above rule only applies to odd numbered 3dis though, as even numbered are supposed to follow the directional convention.
I caught that as I reread my reply this morning. I removed it. I will stop being wrong now.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on February 19, 2020, 01:51:08 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on February 18, 2020, 12:07:41 PM
The numbers on 691 will go East to West for 2 reasons: the CT log officially designates 691 as a North-South route but signs it East-West.  This is the same reason why CT 72's numbers will start at CT 9 and head west rather than starting at 14 for CT 177 and end at 19B for CT 71.  Secondly, mileage on a 3DI usually starts at its parent; if we wanted to keep the numbers East-West, you'd have to renumber 691 as an I-x84.  I originally had the numbers East-West but realized they wouldn't be when CTDOT numbered CT 72 that way.

Why CONNDOT would record I-691 in its route logs as a north-south route makes no sense as it clearly runs east-west. Comparing I-691's situation to Route 72, there is a big difference where logging Route 72 as a north-south route makes some degree of sense. Looking at Route 72 on a map one will see that it has a dog-leg shape that runs east-west from Route 9 to US-6 near Terryville, and then runs north-south from US-6 to Route 4 near Harwinton.  In contrast, I-691 runs almost on a due east-west alignment with no real jog to the north or south anywhere along the route.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on February 19, 2020, 11:51:14 PM
I-691's log direction is westbound (which is opposite to the usual eastbound), but not north-south:

(https://i.imgur.com/Q7g9RCL.png)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on February 20, 2020, 02:55:48 PM
Apparently, Gov. Lamont has pulled the brakes on his truck-toll plan (which still included the short piece of I-684 in Greenwich, CT IIRC)... for now.

Lamont vents frustration with General Assembly and abandons tolls (https://www.ctpost.com/politics/article/Lamont-expected-to-give-up-on-tolls-15068492.php?fbclid=IwAR3mz5uaHaHr1LkcWTFbBY2fELa4gfQjS-fZwQ9pj9BysuupecKEX0rtn7U)

Quote from: CTPostAfter a year of prodding the Democratic majority in the General Assembly, Gov. Ned Lamont on Wednesday abruptly slammed the brakes on his plan for trucks-only highway tolls, admitting defeat and lambasting the legislature for its reticence.

But even as he hastily called a news conference in his Capitol office, Democratic leaders insisted that they could muster the support for a dozen tolls next week. Lamont said he was tired of their procrastination, and vowed that his plan to fix highways and railroad lines will go forward, with state taxpayers shouldering the full freight rather than gathering revenue from interstate trucks.
...

"I have a legislature that doesn't want to make a choice at this time,"  a terse, visibly frustrated Lamont told reporters after 4 p.m. "I've lost patience. I think it's time to take a pause. If these guys aren't willing to step up and vote, I'm going to solve this problem. Right now we're going to go back to the way we've done it for years in this state. We both agree, we need $19 to $20 billion. I'm going to do that out of pocket. I hate to do it this way."
...

At around the time that Lamont was venting to reporters in the Capitol, Democratic leaders said they still hold out hope for a vote on tolls next week. So it's not entirely clear whether tolls are dead for the year, depending on what Lamont's bonding alternative turns out to be.

Two of the biggest opponents of tolls, House Minority Leader Themis Klarides, R-Derby and Senate Minority Leader Len Fasano, R-North Haven, told reporters that parking the toll legislation is politically expedient, especially at this point in the first month of the short, 13-week budget-adjustment session of the General Assembly.

"Nothing is dead in this building,"  Fasano said, adding he'd be surprised if this issue was revived this session. "In 2021? I think you can bank on it."

"I think and I'm hoping that the House Democrats understand what the Senate Democrats seem to have understood for a while and that's that this is not a good vote and it's a very risky vote for them because the people of Connecticut don't like it and they do not want their hands stuck in their pocket one more time,"  Klarides said.
...

Patrick Sasser of Stamford, a firefighter who is the informal leader of the No Tolls CT movement, was optimistic at the apparent death of the proposal. "I'm happy the governor will be moving away from tolls,"  Sasser said. "I am hopeful that lawmakers from both sides of the aisle can come together to find a solution that works for the people of Connecticut."

Asked by reporters about his opinion of the opposition to tolls, Lamont snapped: "It's a grassroots movement to do nothing."

Told about Lamont's comment, Sasser, took a different view.

"The voice of the people has been heard,"  he said. "It's been clear from day one that the people of Connecticut were not in favor of tolls coming into the state, and part of that is that they just don't trust another source of revenue,"  Sasser said. "We've seen this before, where these other things were supposed to save Connecticut and we've been spiraling out of control. What people really want to see in Connecticut is reform...and that's what this movement has been about."
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on February 20, 2020, 10:18:48 PM
And once again... my stance of "I'll believe it when I see it" on this matter is upheld.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on February 21, 2020, 08:43:28 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on February 20, 2020, 10:18:48 PMAnd once again... my stance of "I'll believe it when I see it" on this matter is upheld.
This is one of those times where taking the Doubting Thomas stand is completely valid.

That said, it might be prudent for the CT legislature to wait until anyone who was around during the 1983 Mianus Bridge collapse is long dead & gone (i.e. their version of the Warren Commission) before presenting a bill to reintroduce tolls.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on February 21, 2020, 03:07:26 PM
I was 12 when that happened. I don't plan on dropping dead. Then again, I don't make or propose any laws in this state. :(
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on February 28, 2020, 10:42:03 AM
THEY FINALLY TOOK DOWN THE OLD I-84 EB EXIT 36 1/2 MILE SIGN ON THE BRIDGE BEHIND THE NEW SIGN
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on February 28, 2020, 04:57:57 PM
Good.  Maybe this is a sign of progress being made to finish the Southington-to-Farmington contract and replace the remaining overheads. 

In "spot sign replacement" news... the following has been observed this week:

I-91 NB Exit 24 1/2 mile, with the old cantilever still standing (for now) in the background:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49589602046_6ab69518ec_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2iy4F1J)91NB-newExit24advance (https://flic.kr/p/2iy4F1J) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

CT 3 SB Jct I-91 sign, viewed from CT 3 NB.  This will not be replaced... removal only:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49589112498_260643968b_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2iy2auf)3SB-cruciformremoval (https://flic.kr/p/2iy2auf) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

I-84 WB at Exit 64:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49571018761_88b8a7e2bf_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2iwqqRg)84WB-Exit64 (https://flic.kr/p/2iwqqRg) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49570514793_dbc14c0e21_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2iwnR3a)84WB-Exit64 (https://flic.kr/p/2iwnR3a) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

While there is still several sites to have work done in the 2017 project, the 2019 project has started, with foundation work for a new overhead on I-91 SB 1 mile before Exit 22 in Rocky Hill. 

And I believe we have a name for the color-coded "angled supports" that sprung up throughout CT in the 80s and early 90s.  The 2019 spot sign replacement calls this style "cruciform cantilever" and "cruciform" for the full width spans.  The sign removed on CT 3 SB linked above would be a "cruciform cantilever". 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on February 28, 2020, 06:08:49 PM
So, is there no longer going to be a pull-through sign at exit 64?  It's kinda dumb having it sandwiched in there.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on February 28, 2020, 06:18:32 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on February 28, 2020, 06:08:49 PM
So, is there no longer going to be a pull-through sign at exit 64?  It's kinda dumb having it sandwiched in there.

The former truss gantry there will be removed, being replaced with the two 4-chord cantilevers.  The pull-through will be removed. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: zzyzx on March 03, 2020, 02:50:17 AM
Looks like CTDOT is replacing hundreds of LED traffic signal lamps (https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/Construction-News-from-the-Connecticut-Department-of-Transportation/2020/LED-Traffic-Signal-Relamping-in-Various-Connecticut-Towns) at various state road intersections.

What got my attention was this:

QuoteWhere applicable, these projects will also replace circular red LED lamps with red arrow LED lamps at locations that are not currently in compliance with current design requirements, and will also replace circular green LED lamps with vertical green arrow LED lamps at applicable exit ramps to provide additional emphasis and countermeasures against wrong way driving maneuvers. Existing backplates and span-mounted signs will also be replaced.

There's no mention of replacing circular yellow lamps with FYAs.  I don't think there are any in the state right now, but don't you think this would be a good time to introduce them, given the large scale of the project?  I think this will be helpful in several towns, especially those with significantly less nighttime traffic, since the state is removing the nighttime flashing operation (https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/Construction-News-from-the-Connecticut-Department-of-Transportation/2019/Traffic-Signal-Revisions-in-Various-Eastern-Connecticut-Towns) on future signal installations?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on March 03, 2020, 10:45:05 PM
And it looks like even more of the old signage has come down westbound on I-84 between Farmington and New Britain.  The old Exit 39/Exit 38 signage, the Exit 37 exit now signage, and the Exit 33 1 1/2 mile signage were both gone when I drove through today.  However, the button copy 1 mi Exit 39 EB sign remains on the Fienemann Rd overpass, as well as the old 39A exit now gantry EB.  The EB exit now sign for Slater Rd remains the bridge mounted button copy BGS.  It's only taken 2 1/2 years :eyebrow:
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on March 03, 2020, 11:32:35 PM
Quote from: zzyzx on March 03, 2020, 02:50:17 AM
Looks like CTDOT is replacing hundreds of LED traffic signal lamps (https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/Construction-News-from-the-Connecticut-Department-of-Transportation/2020/LED-Traffic-Signal-Relamping-in-Various-Connecticut-Towns) at various state road intersections.

What got my attention was this:

QuoteWhere applicable, these projects will also replace circular red LED lamps with red arrow LED lamps at locations that are not currently in compliance with current design requirements, and will also replace circular green LED lamps with vertical green arrow LED lamps at applicable exit ramps to provide additional emphasis and countermeasures against wrong way driving maneuvers. Existing backplates and span-mounted signs will also be replaced.

There's no mention of replacing circular yellow lamps with FYAs.  I don't think there are any in the state right now, but don't you think this would be a good time to introduce them, given the large scale of the project?  I think this will be helpful in several towns, especially those with significantly less nighttime traffic, since the state is removing the nighttime flashing operation (https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/Construction-News-from-the-Connecticut-Department-of-Transportation/2019/Traffic-Signal-Revisions-in-Various-Eastern-Connecticut-Towns) on future signal installations?

They did a big round of this several years back. Connecticut was late to the red arrow party, then all of a sudden one day about five years ago they were everywhere. It was around the same time yellow-bordered back plates starting becoming all the rage. Still not sure what the point of the FYA is though and why it's needed. As I understand it, the meaning is you can turn left after yielding to oncoming traffic, but how is that any different than a standard green ball? We've always had to yield to oncoming traffic when turning left. The state even has a law (14-242e) that says so, FYA or not.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on March 04, 2020, 01:27:48 AM
This may be old news, but I looked at the plans for the upcoming I-84 rehab/add-a-lane project in West Hartford.

The jist I got from it is that it will be:
- A complete bridge replacement over Berkshire Rd. and Ridgewood Rd.
- The addition of an aux lane from Exit 41 to Exit 40
-Full sign and traffic signal replacement.

Contract start date is May 4th, with a projected end date of October 3, 2022.  Incentivized finish date is September 5, 2022.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: roadman on March 04, 2020, 11:52:06 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on February 28, 2020, 06:18:32 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on February 28, 2020, 06:08:49 PM
So, is there no longer going to be a pull-through sign at exit 64?  It's kinda dumb having it sandwiched in there.

The former truss gantry there will be removed, being replaced with the two 4-chord cantilevers.  The pull-through will be removed. 

That pull thru sign, and the 'bitten off' corner with the replacement button copy down arrow, was always one of my landmarks on trips down I-84.  BTW, the sign has been in that condition for at least the past twelve years.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on March 04, 2020, 07:47:35 PM
I supposed that mess of a sign is still there? I refer to the Vernon/Tolland town line sign, with the destroyed button copy on either side. It's in the median.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: ipeters61 on March 08, 2020, 10:47:44 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on March 03, 2020, 11:32:35 PM
Still not sure what the point of the FYA is though and why it's needed. As I understand it, the meaning is you can turn left after yielding to oncoming traffic, but how is that any different than a standard green ball? We've always had to yield to oncoming traffic when turning left. The state even has a law (14-242e) that says so, FYA or not.
When I was in grad school, I had several friends who were not from the United States and were not used to our rules of the road.  I had to explain to many of them that I was allowed to make a left at a "doghouse" style traffic light even after the green arrow disappeared.

In other words, it's more straightforward to understand for people learning to drive.  Needless to say, when I moved down here and saw a flashing red (or was it yellow? It was in MD), I was a tad confused at first but understood after a few seconds of looking at it.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on March 09, 2020, 11:27:18 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on March 03, 2020, 11:32:35 PM
Quote from: zzyzx on March 03, 2020, 02:50:17 AM
Looks like CTDOT is replacing hundreds of LED traffic signal lamps (https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/Construction-News-from-the-Connecticut-Department-of-Transportation/2020/LED-Traffic-Signal-Relamping-in-Various-Connecticut-Towns) at various state road intersections.

What got my attention was this:

QuoteWhere applicable, these projects will also replace circular red LED lamps with red arrow LED lamps at locations that are not currently in compliance with current design requirements, and will also replace circular green LED lamps with vertical green arrow LED lamps at applicable exit ramps to provide additional emphasis and countermeasures against wrong way driving maneuvers. Existing backplates and span-mounted signs will also be replaced.

There's no mention of replacing circular yellow lamps with FYAs.  I don't think there are any in the state right now, but don't you think this would be a good time to introduce them, given the large scale of the project?  I think this will be helpful in several towns, especially those with significantly less nighttime traffic, since the state is removing the nighttime flashing operation (https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/Construction-News-from-the-Connecticut-Department-of-Transportation/2019/Traffic-Signal-Revisions-in-Various-Eastern-Connecticut-Towns) on future signal installations?

They did a big round of this several years back. Connecticut was late to the red arrow party, then all of a sudden one day about five years ago they were everywhere. It was around the same time yellow-bordered back plates starting becoming all the rage. Still not sure what the point of the FYA is though and why it's needed. As I understand it, the meaning is you can turn left after yielding to oncoming traffic, but how is that any different than a standard green ball? We've always had to yield to oncoming traffic when turning left. The state even has a law (14-242e) that says so, FYA or not.
Right, but I believe a new section codifying the FYA is necessary to enforce it.  Every other phase is in there.  There would also need to be a campaign to educate drivers on how the FYA works and there will probably be people who oppose it because it's another signal phase to memorize.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on March 11, 2020, 11:23:29 AM
Just noticed that some of the new enhanced mile markers are going up on I-84 on the Southington-Farmington stretch.  The signage was very spotty this morning; I got on at Queen St EB and got off on 72 EB.  The 46.6 and 46.8 at the top of the entrance ramp were installed, as well as a 48.4 and 48.6 in Plainville around the 55 MPH speed drop.  Here's a shot of the 48.6:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49647622968_a0fbaaafce.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on March 11, 2020, 01:26:45 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on March 11, 2020, 11:23:29 AM
Just noticed that some of the new enhanced mile markers are going up on I-84 on the Southington-Farmington stretch.  The signage was very spotty this morning; I got on at Queen St EB and got off on 72 EB.  The 46.6 and 46.8 at the top of the entrance ramp were installed, as well as a 48.4 and 48.6 in Plainville around the 55 MPH speed drop.  Here's a shot of the 48.6:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49647622968_a0fbaaafce.jpg)
That looks like a standard MUTCD marker with an E on top.  The enhanced ones look like this: http://nysroads.com/photos.php?route=i86&state=NY&file=101_4553.JPG
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on March 11, 2020, 02:11:21 PM
From my observations, CT only uses enhanced mile markers on every whole number mile (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4151358,-73.4165605,3a,75y,131.62h,78.84t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8-1ksgUlmKUta6_ig_KZbA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) (i.e. MM X.0).

However, jp the roadgeek's pic of MM 48.6 is indeed an example of a newer design.  CTDOT's prior-styled tenths mile makers looked like this (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4258314,-73.3416437,3a,75y,116.56h,88.13t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_psUabGUD5yd-Eqd7WAR7A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) (pardon the smallish GSV of such).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on March 11, 2020, 10:39:19 PM
At the end of the I-84 exit 11 ramps in Newtown (dead Route 25), there's a sign pointing to Route 59: https://goo.gl/maps/4LmY5TfQET4b8dG77

(https://i.imgur.com/GkZ4APJ.png)

This seems helpful but random; Route 59 is almost 8 miles away and seemingly not a pressing concern for I-84 travelers. The marker is next to a covered-up detour sign.

Anyone know more about this?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: roadman on March 12, 2020, 01:27:34 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 11, 2020, 02:11:21 PM
From my observations, CT only uses enhanced mile markers on every whole number mile (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4151358,-73.4165605,3a,75y,131.62h,78.84t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8-1ksgUlmKUta6_ig_KZbA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) (i.e. MM X.0).

However, jp the roadgeek's pic of MM 48.6 is indeed an example of a newer design.  CTDOT's prior-styled tenths mile makers looked like this (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4258314,-73.3416437,3a,75y,116.56h,88.13t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_psUabGUD5yd-Eqd7WAR7A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) (pardon the smallish GSV of such).

MassDOT also provides the full enhanced milepost only at the even mile, but uses a different design for the intermediate mileposts than CT does.  https://www.mass.gov/doc/massdot-standard-sign-book/download  see MA-D10-2b and MA-D10-4a details.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on March 12, 2020, 02:47:00 PM
Took a short ride today.  Most of the 1/5 MP were done but not the full MP's, except one.  Found this enhanced MM.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49652845602_7c9720027e_n.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: zzyzx on March 12, 2020, 02:54:17 PM
Enhanced MM have been around for a while on 95 in the southeastern part.  They were installed as part of the sign replacement project.  This is from the summer of 2018:

(https://i.imgur.com/ALKEe8P.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on March 12, 2020, 06:56:09 PM
Quote from: kurumi on March 11, 2020, 10:39:19 PM
At the end of the I-84 exit 11 ramps in Newtown (dead Route 25), there's a sign pointing to Route 59: https://goo.gl/maps/4LmY5TfQET4b8dG77

(https://i.imgur.com/GkZ4APJ.png)

This seems helpful but random; Route 59 is almost 8 miles away and seemingly not a pressing concern for I-84 travelers. The marker is next to a covered-up detour sign.

Anyone know more about this?

I checked it out on Google Maps and saw that TO 59 sign is wooden, which leads me to believe its part of some construction detour.

But this one's my favorite, from the Dept of Redundancy Dept....which also appears to be wooden and therefore, also part of some construction project:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4076621,-73.2690328,3a,21.4y,343.87h,88.33t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sho2o6Fu0MDtGSGSJEVLarQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

EDIT: 
So I found this press release regarding a project in 2018 for bridge work on Route 25 in Monroe:
https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/Construction-News-from-the-Connecticut-Department-of-Transportation/2018/Rescheduled-Closure-of-Route-25-in-Monroe-for-Bridge-Construction-Activities

I'm guessing this would've been located between Routes 111 & 59, since Route 111 is mentioned as the detour (111N to 34W to Wasserman Way, reverse SB).  If coming off I-84 at Exit 11, the detour for CT 25 South thru traffic would've been to the right (via 34E to 111S) but the "TO 59" sign was there saying you could still travel down CT 25 South up to CT 59, but not beyond that.  And since it wasn't a detour, but instead as an advisory, then no DETOUR placque is necessary.  But the wooden nature of it makes it a construction/contractor sign.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on March 12, 2020, 07:19:29 PM
Further reference on mile markers...

A very faded mile marker 20 on CT 9 North in Middletown. 
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5187339,-72.6035626,3a,22y,345.66h,88.87t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1so217swiePCTr83Gh5VJmJg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

A typical Mass. 0.2/mile marker:
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.445484,-72.6194384,3a,75y,53.12h,70.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYXix9yl7OMnMZv7i3HghJw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Non-standard Mass. 0.1/mile marker, installed when the Deerfield River bridge on I-91 was replaced:
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5213749,-72.6252966,3a,60y,8.33h,87.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1syvaGkXPv2VgVqz7SMiaZpg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
(this is the same style Vermont uses, but VT only does 0.2/mile markers.  This is the only case I've seen with every tenth being designated with a marker)

The markers for 0.2/mile on I-84 from Danbury to Newtown are similar to the ones that were on I-95 west of Branford to NY in the early 90s.  The new ones, which are slightly larger, aren't bad, but would look better if the route direction (N,S,E,W) was the same size font as the mile numerals. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on March 12, 2020, 07:31:51 PM
Any word on if ConnDOT has allowed contractors to suspend work on major projects?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on March 12, 2020, 11:28:24 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 12, 2020, 07:31:51 PM
Any word on if ConnDOT has allowed contractors to suspend work on major projects?
That is the last thing contractors are going to do.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: SectorZ on March 13, 2020, 08:37:53 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 12, 2020, 07:31:51 PM
Any word on if ConnDOT has allowed contractors to suspend work on major projects?

Is this something they are asking for?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on March 13, 2020, 01:14:51 PM
Quote from: Alps on March 12, 2020, 11:28:24 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 12, 2020, 07:31:51 PM
Any word on if ConnDOT has allowed contractors to suspend work on major projects?
That is the last thing contractors are going to do.
Someone at work has a fiance who works at a construction contractor.  They just announced layoffs are coming and are bringing in all employees for performance evaluations.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeCL on March 15, 2020, 10:23:18 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 09, 2020, 11:27:18 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on March 03, 2020, 11:32:35 PM
Quote from: zzyzx on March 03, 2020, 02:50:17 AM
Looks like CTDOT is replacing hundreds of LED traffic signal lamps (https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/Construction-News-from-the-Connecticut-Department-of-Transportation/2020/LED-Traffic-Signal-Relamping-in-Various-Connecticut-Towns) at various state road intersections.

What got my attention was this:

QuoteWhere applicable, these projects will also replace circular red LED lamps with red arrow LED lamps at locations that are not currently in compliance with current design requirements, and will also replace circular green LED lamps with vertical green arrow LED lamps at applicable exit ramps to provide additional emphasis and countermeasures against wrong way driving maneuvers. Existing backplates and span-mounted signs will also be replaced.

There's no mention of replacing circular yellow lamps with FYAs.  I don't think there are any in the state right now, but don't you think this would be a good time to introduce them, given the large scale of the project?  I think this will be helpful in several towns, especially those with significantly less nighttime traffic, since the state is removing the nighttime flashing operation (https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/Construction-News-from-the-Connecticut-Department-of-Transportation/2019/Traffic-Signal-Revisions-in-Various-Eastern-Connecticut-Towns) on future signal installations?

They did a big round of this several years back. Connecticut was late to the red arrow party, then all of a sudden one day about five years ago they were everywhere. It was around the same time yellow-bordered back plates starting becoming all the rage. Still not sure what the point of the FYA is though and why it's needed. As I understand it, the meaning is you can turn left after yielding to oncoming traffic, but how is that any different than a standard green ball? We've always had to yield to oncoming traffic when turning left. The state even has a law (14-242e) that says so, FYA or not.
Right, but I believe a new section codifying the FYA is necessary to enforce it.  Every other phase is in there.  There would also need to be a campaign to educate drivers on how the FYA works and there will probably be people who oppose it because it's another signal phase to memorize.
I hate how some of the intersections are set up if I'm driving up to a intersection and I can see the light for the traffic to the right turn to yellow but I'm not over the loop sensor to get the left arrow green I have to wait a whole cycle again just to get the green arrow.. you could put a flashing yellow to turn.. I know a few who have made left on red from that area as depending on the time of day the traffic is really light.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeCL on March 15, 2020, 10:26:33 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on February 28, 2020, 04:57:57 PM
Good.  Maybe this is a sign of progress being made to finish the Southington-to-Farmington contract and replace the remaining overheads. 

In "spot sign replacement" news... the following has been observed this week:

I-91 NB Exit 24 1/2 mile, with the old cantilever still standing (for now) in the background:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49589602046_6ab69518ec_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2iy4F1J)91NB-newExit24advance (https://flic.kr/p/2iy4F1J) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

CT 3 SB Jct I-91 sign, viewed from CT 3 NB.  This will not be replaced... removal only:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49589112498_260643968b_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2iy2auf)3SB-cruciformremoval (https://flic.kr/p/2iy2auf) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

I-84 WB at Exit 64:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49571018761_88b8a7e2bf_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2iwqqRg)84WB-Exit64 (https://flic.kr/p/2iwqqRg) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49570514793_dbc14c0e21_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2iwnR3a)84WB-Exit64 (https://flic.kr/p/2iwnR3a) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

While there is still several sites to have work done in the 2017 project, the 2019 project has started, with foundation work for a new overhead on I-91 SB 1 mile before Exit 22 in Rocky Hill. 

And I believe we have a name for the color-coded "angled supports" that sprung up throughout CT in the 80s and early 90s.  The 2019 spot sign replacement calls this style "cruciform cantilever" and "cruciform" for the full width spans.  The sign removed on CT 3 SB linked above would be a "cruciform cantilever".
Sorry I'm late to the party(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200316/85c02e277e52af5fc61caa2d1fe8a432.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on March 18, 2020, 09:51:16 AM
I-84 new MUTCD and enhanced mileposts are now all installed eastbound up to MP 55.2 (The Stack) with the exception of a couple through the CT 72 concurrency. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeCL on March 18, 2020, 12:02:04 PM
Can someone explain why the dot has put up so many portable VMS up? And the signs which displays the time to the next state route or major junction.. it seems wasteful.

Also what's with all the signs taken down and just laying next to the posts?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on March 18, 2020, 12:55:25 PM
Quote from: MikeCL on March 18, 2020, 12:02:04 PM
Can someone explain why the dot has put up so many portable VMS up? And the signs which displays the time to the next state route or major junction.. it seems wasteful.

Also what's with all the signs taken down and just laying next to the posts?
Where do you see portable VMSs?  Are you talking about on I-91?  Those are there to provide trip times specific to the Charter Oak Bridge project.

There are some portable units made permanent, like the one on Avon Mountain. A majority of them are permanent.

The trip times that are displayed come from the states Traffic Information System.  It's completely automated.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeCL on March 18, 2020, 03:00:49 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 18, 2020, 12:55:25 PM
Quote from: MikeCL on March 18, 2020, 12:02:04 PM
Can someone explain why the dot has put up so many portable VMS up? And the signs which displays the time to the next state route or major junction.. it seems wasteful.

Also what's with all the signs taken down and just laying next to the posts?
Where do you see portable VMSs?  Are you talking about on I-91?  Those are there to provide trip times specific to the Charter Oak Bridge project.

There are some portable units made permanent, like the one on Avon Mountain. A majority of them are permanent.

The trip times that are displayed come from the states Traffic Information System.  It's completely automated.
On 95-N Norwalk area but it's really from the weigh station in Greenwich they took down the large one over the roadway about a year ago and put a small orange one made permanent which imho is stupid it's a lot less visible. The signs in Norwalk are the traffic monitors but still was that the best way to do them? Is a more permanent fixture going to be set up?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on March 18, 2020, 08:44:14 PM
Driving back to the Hartford ara from Memphis Monday night, I saw a surprising number portable VMSs set up on I-84 from the New York state line to Waterbury.  (They may have extended past there, but I was getting tired / traffic was getting dense, so they might not have stuck out in my mind.)

Of course they were all advising people to call 211 for information on the Coronazombie apocalypse....
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on March 23, 2020, 06:40:16 PM
New gantry foundations going in on CT-8 between I-95 and Shelton.  IDK if they're the spot replacements or the new Bpt to Shelton signing project. 

PS. this sign still here, non-reflective.  Probably dates to the beginning of the I-91/CT-9 interchange when CT-9 ended there.  It's light green so to me that says 1968-1969 install date.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49684150676_61ee4ff679_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2iGqg2w)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on March 23, 2020, 10:01:36 PM
Yup, that one's been there forever, definitely since before CT 9 was extended north/west past I-91.  A contract is out for the replacement of signs on CT 9 from Exit 18 to Exit 24, then from Exit 24 to I-84, so this one is definitely on borrowed time.  It won't be replaced at this location.

May get out this week and lense a few signs statewide and in NY and MA, depending on weather.  Perfect time for a drive-around... no traffic, and I won't be getting out of the truck!

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on March 23, 2020, 11:17:48 PM
I believe every button copy sign up to the I-91 complex is original to when that stretch of CT 9 opened.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on March 24, 2020, 11:05:53 AM
Negative.  Signs on CT 9 were replaced in the mid/late 1980s.  The only one original is the Junction 91 sign shown above.  The first CT 9 extension to the Berlin Tpke opened in Dec. 1989 and the original signs south of I-91 were gone by then. 

Prior to the sign replacement, the last "regular" signed exit was #12 in Middletown.  Exits 13-16 didn't have numbers and Exits 18 & 19 barely had numbers.  Exit 20 did not have a number. 

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on March 24, 2020, 11:56:39 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on March 23, 2020, 06:40:16 PM
New gantry foundations going in on CT-8 between I-95 and Shelton.  IDK if they're the spot replacements or the new Bpt to Shelton signing project. 

PS. this sign still here, non-reflective.  Probably dates to the beginning of the I-91/CT-9 interchange when CT-9 ended there.  It's light green so to me that says 1968-1969 install date.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49684150676_61ee4ff679_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2iGqg2w)

Looking at the sign, it appears that they just slapped a 91 sticker onto the interstate shield after the sign was fabricated. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on March 24, 2020, 12:14:07 PM
<bs type="making-stuff-up">It's been 50 years. White numerals on a blue background have low adhesion persistence and are the first to eventually slide down to the bottom of the sign. White on green, in contrast, will stay put for more than a century.</bs>
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on March 24, 2020, 12:15:08 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on March 24, 2020, 11:56:39 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on March 23, 2020, 06:40:16 PM
New gantry foundations going in on CT-8 between I-95 and Shelton.  IDK if they're the spot replacements or the new Bpt to Shelton signing project. 

PS. this sign still here, non-reflective.  Probably dates to the beginning of the I-91/CT-9 interchange when CT-9 ended there.  It's light green so to me that says 1968-1969 install date.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49684150676_61ee4ff679_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2iGqg2w)

Looking at the sign, it appears that they just slapped a 91 sticker onto the interstate shield after the sign was fabricated. 

Either that, or the whole shield was replaced at some point.  That's been done throughout the region for the past several years.  Most of the signs on CT 9 NB for I-91 have had "reassurance shields" replacing the original button copy shields on the overheads.  And yes, some of them don't have centered "9" "1" numerals. 

Here's a picture that shows it, just up the road a spell...click it for full version, then click again in FLICKR to zoom:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/1684/26718017965_8c7dad9e11_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/GGYPUa)CT9NB-Exit20 (https://flic.kr/p/GGYPUa) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

You can see the original (late 80s) shield on the Exit 20S sign, and a slap-on replacement shield on the Exit 20N sign.  I can almost guarantee that this is what was done to the JUNCTION 91 sign. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on March 24, 2020, 12:34:50 PM
There's a similar looking reassurance shield on I-91 South in Hartford just between Main St and Jennings Rd.  Looks pretty pathetic

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49694417991_a552daed3b_o.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on March 24, 2020, 03:38:48 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on March 24, 2020, 12:34:50 PM
There's a similar looking reassurance shield on I-91 South in Hartford just between Main St and Jennings Rd.  Looks pretty pathetic

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49694417991_a552daed3b_o.jpg)

That sign probably dates back to the late '80s/early '90s when I-91 was completely rebuilt and widened with HOV lanes added through that area.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: wytout on March 24, 2020, 05:11:55 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on March 24, 2020, 03:38:48 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on March 24, 2020, 12:34:50 PM
There's a similar looking reassurance shield on I-91 South in Hartford just between Main St and Jennings Rd.  Looks pretty pathetic

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49694417991_a552daed3b_o.jpg)

That sign probably dates back to the late '80s/early '90s when I-91 was completely rebuilt and widened with HOV lanes added through that area.

The cardinal direction sign, yes. The shield, no. The shields were badly faded in the early 2000's and they went down through the upper 91 corridor slapping up those replacements off-centered, especially dark blue, wretched looking shields.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Dougtone on March 25, 2020, 07:32:20 AM
Come check out the Bulkeley Bridge, an architectural gem of a stone arch bridge that I-84 uses to cross the Connecticut River between Hartford and East Hartford, Connecticut. It's certainly worth exiting the highway to view its beauty.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2020/03/bulkeley-bridge.html (https://www.gribblenation.org/2020/03/bulkeley-bridge.html)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on March 28, 2020, 12:10:25 AM
Looks like the new mileposts on I-84 between Southington and Farmington (up to MP 56) are now done in both directions with the exception of those that will most likely be part of the CT 72 re-sign/exit renumbering project later this year.   New EB markers are missing from 49.8 - 50.2, and WB are missing from 50.2 - 49.0
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on March 29, 2020, 01:26:51 AM
Hmmmm

(https://i.imgur.com/bMHzJ4M.png)

To be fair, though, the 2015 "Let's Go CT" plan (https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOT/documents/dcommunications/CTDOT30YRpdf.pdf?la=en) does mention adding a lane in each direction between the NY state line and Waterbury, and the I-84 Danbury site does mention increasing capacity.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on March 29, 2020, 01:59:54 AM
Quote from: kurumi on March 29, 2020, 01:26:51 AM
Hmmmm

(https://i.imgur.com/bMHzJ4M.png)

To be fair, though, the 2015 "Let's Go CT" plan (https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOT/documents/dcommunications/CTDOT30YRpdf.pdf?la=en) does mention adding a lane in each direction between the NY state line and Waterbury, and the I-84 Danbury site does mention increasing capacity.
That site makes it seem like they're not that far along in the process yet, but if you read instead of doing a humorous search, you'll find a package of vague improvements that may and may not include widening.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: D-Dey65 on March 30, 2020, 08:13:29 PM
I just spotted a former turning ramp near Exit 26 on the Connecticut Turnpike in Bridgeport between Wordin and Eastbound Railroad Avenues.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/41°11'11.0%22N+73°11'44.0%22W/@41.1679407,-73.2052193,339m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d41.186389!4d-73.195556?hl=en (https://www.google.com/maps/place/41%C3%82%C2%B011'11.0%22N+73%C3%82%C2%B011'44.0%22W/@41.1679407,-73.2052193,339m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d41.186389!4d-73.195556?hl=en)

It looks like the kind of thing that should've been kept.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on March 30, 2020, 09:23:47 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on March 30, 2020, 08:13:29 PM
I just spotted a former turning ramp near Exit 26 on the Connecticut Turnpike in Bridgeport between Wordin and Eastbound Railroad Avenues.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/41°11'11.0%22N+73°11'44.0%22W/@41.1679407,-73.2052193,339m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d41.186389!4d-73.195556?hl=en (https://www.google.com/maps/place/41%C3%82%C2%B011'11.0%22N+73%C3%82%C2%B011'44.0%22W/@41.1679407,-73.2052193,339m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d41.186389!4d-73.195556?hl=en)

It looks like the kind of thing that should've been kept.
Scanning Historic Aerials, that looks like it was for a trolley line or other surface railroad to curve around that property.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on March 31, 2020, 11:21:30 AM
Quote from: kurumi on March 29, 2020, 01:26:51 AM
Hmmmm

(https://i.imgur.com/bMHzJ4M.png)

To be fair, though, the 2015 "Let's Go CT" plan (https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOT/documents/dcommunications/CTDOT30YRpdf.pdf?la=en) does mention adding a lane in each direction between the NY state line and Waterbury, and the I-84 Danbury site does mention increasing capacity.

What I don't understand is how CONNDOT came up with an estimate in the billions to add a lane in each direction on I-84 between Danbury and Waterbury.  The median is wide enough along most of the route to incorporate an additional lane, which would be a relatively low-cost option (I-91 south of Hartford was widened in this fashion about 20 years ago). So what then would drive the cost north of $1 billion?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: D-Dey65 on March 31, 2020, 12:36:53 PM
Quote from: Alps on March 30, 2020, 09:23:47 PM
Scanning Historic Aerials, that looks like it was for a trolley line or other surface railroad to curve around that property.
Interesting. It still looks like it could be used for a right turn ramp anyway, especially for buses.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: zzyzx on April 16, 2020, 04:07:27 PM
Here's a really detailed article (https://eastoncourier.news/2020/04/11/lacys-lonely-bridge-at-the-merritt-parkway/?fbclid=IwAR1mBgqSbvi9EcB1GLD3OGjSTPHhL5XlSLoPbnS-UyuA-eWHeVNLu9d2AOs) about the Sport Hill Rd. bridge over the Merritt from The Historical Society of Easton. Before the land was even cleared for building the roadway, the bridge structures were built, as explained here:

QuoteIn the spring of 1934, with only some of the rights-of-way having been secured, work began anyway. Much of the federal grant money had been ear-marked for bridge construction, so in a rather unorthodox move, Commissioner MacDonald let out contracts to build new bridges where no roads had yet been laid out or started. One such bridge was the one at Sport Hill Road, just a few yards south of the Easton-Fairfield town line.

The article also explains the mystery of why there is no Exit 45 on the Merritt:

QuoteIf you've ever given directions to a friend traveling east on the Merritt, you probably realize that Exit 44 at Black Rock Turnpike isn't followed by Exit 45, but rather by Exit 46 at Sport Hill Road. That is because Exit 45 was originally on the drawing board for Morehouse Highway, a once through road from lower Fairfield all the way to its intersection with Westport Road in Easton.

(https://i.imgur.com/1JAVCCu.png)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on April 16, 2020, 06:25:49 PM
Quote from: zzyzx on April 16, 2020, 04:07:27 PM
Here's a really detailed article (https://eastoncourier.news/2020/04/11/lacys-lonely-bridge-at-the-merritt-parkway/?fbclid=IwAR1mBgqSbvi9EcB1GLD3OGjSTPHhL5XlSLoPbnS-UyuA-eWHeVNLu9d2AOs) about the Sport Hill Rd. bridge over the Merritt from The Historical Society of Easton. Before the land was even cleared for building the roadway, the bridge structures were built, as explained here:

QuoteIn the spring of 1934, with only some of the rights-of-way having been secured, work began anyway. Much of the federal grant money had been ear-marked for bridge construction, so in a rather unorthodox move, Commissioner MacDonald let out contracts to build new bridges where no roads had yet been laid out or started. One such bridge was the one at Sport Hill Road, just a few yards south of the Easton-Fairfield town line.

The article also explains the mystery of why there is no Exit 45 on the Merritt:

QuoteIf you've ever given directions to a friend traveling east on the Merritt, you probably realize that Exit 44 at Black Rock Turnpike isn't followed by Exit 45, but rather by Exit 46 at Sport Hill Road. That is because Exit 45 was originally on the drawing board for Morehouse Highway, a once through road from lower Fairfield all the way to its intersection with Westport Road in Easton.

(https://i.imgur.com/1JAVCCu.png)

The current Exit 44 used to be a cloverleaf before it was reconstructed about 20 years ago. The ramps for Route 58 south was Exit 44 and the ramps for northbound Route 58 was Exit 45. Reconstruction in the late 90s eliminated the cloverleaf and consolidated the two exits into one, Exit 44.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: zzyzx on April 25, 2020, 03:48:42 PM
Is CTDOT downgrading roads across the state?  Route 156 in Waterford by Millstone is now a 2 lane road with a center turn lane.  It was 4 lanes previously and now on the other side there's a through lane and a left turn lane to turn into Millstone. 

I'm surprised to see Center turn lanes as they are uncommon in the state, especially in the SE part where there isn't as much urban traffic. What's it like in other parts of the state where they are restriping?

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200425/77331f4aaafed2f484949d22568c7df6.jpg)


iPhone
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: mariethefoxy on April 25, 2020, 08:09:43 PM
I hate when they do that, because now if you are stuck behind grandma doing 25 in a 40 you are screwed, before you could pass
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on April 25, 2020, 10:57:37 PM
Quote from: mariethefoxy on April 25, 2020, 08:09:43 PM
I hate when they do that, because now if you are stuck behind grandma doing 25 in a 40 you are screwed, before you could pass
I've actually heard traffic calming advocates bring that up as one of the reasons why they want road diets.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: SectorZ on April 26, 2020, 07:52:40 AM
Quote from: vdeane on April 25, 2020, 10:57:37 PM
Quote from: mariethefoxy on April 25, 2020, 08:09:43 PM
I hate when they do that, because now if you are stuck behind grandma doing 25 in a 40 you are screwed, before you could pass
I've actually heard traffic calming advocates bring that up as one of the reasons why they want road diets.

I wish traffic calming advocates had to label their cars as such just so everyone could drive 25 in a 40 zone in front of them.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on April 26, 2020, 08:55:25 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on April 16, 2020, 06:25:49 PM
Quote from: zzyzx on April 16, 2020, 04:07:27 PM
The article also explains the mystery of why there is no Exit 45 on the Merritt:

QuoteIf you've ever given directions to a friend traveling east on the Merritt, you probably realize that Exit 44 at Black Rock Turnpike isn't followed by Exit 45, but rather by Exit 46 at Sport Hill Road. That is because Exit 45 was originally on the drawing board for Morehouse Highway, a once through road from lower Fairfield all the way to its intersection with Westport Road in Easton.

The current Exit 44 used to be a cloverleaf before it was reconstructed about 20 years ago. The ramps for Route 58 south was Exit 44 and the ramps for northbound Route 58 was Exit 45. Reconstruction in the late 90s eliminated the cloverleaf and consolidated the two exits into one, Exit 44.

Yeah, that bit about Morehouse being why there is no exit 45 is bogus.

The fact that an interchange was once planned there is of intrigue, but they contradict their own assertion when they note that "an interchange at that location was abandoned before construction even began".

See here's the thing: when the Merritt first opened (1938/1940), the exits weren't numbered. Exit numbers first appeared in 1948. Any interchanges which were not built and not still planned would have been excluded from the numbering sequence.

And indeed... we know that the interchange with Black Rock Turnpike originally two exits each way, which were numbered 44 and 45, so that's where exit 45 was. This is also consistent with how CT assigned exit numbers in the early days - when there were separate exits for each direction of a road, they were given separate numbers rather than A-B or S-N/E-W.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on April 26, 2020, 10:21:47 PM
Manchester DPW is removing the pedestrian islands at the intersection of Buckland St., Pleasant Valley Rd., and Buckland Hills Dr.  Going by the contract plans:

-NTOR is being implemented
-Two phases per direction, one for protected turns, the other for thru and right turns.
-Pedestrian signals appear to be timed during the thru phases.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on April 26, 2020, 10:42:32 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 26, 2020, 10:21:47 PM
Manchester DPW is removing the pedestrian islands at the intersection of Buckland St., Pleasant Valley Rd., and Buckland Hills Dr.  Going by the contract plans:

-NTOR is being implemented
-Two phases per direction, one for protected turns, the other for thru and right turns.
-Pedestrian signals appear to be timed during the thru phases.

https://goo.gl/maps/skfPsadwQTmSsFjM8

That's a 4-way intersection with 2 thru lanes each direction, median dividers in each direction, double left turn lanes for each direction, and a channelized right turn for each direction. It honestly seems like it's not in Connecticut. And I'm not sure there are any other intersections like that in the state.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on April 26, 2020, 10:54:16 PM
Quote from: kurumi on April 26, 2020, 10:42:32 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 26, 2020, 10:21:47 PM
Manchester DPW is removing the pedestrian islands at the intersection of Buckland St., Pleasant Valley Rd., and Buckland Hills Dr.  Going by the contract plans:

-NTOR is being implemented
-Two phases per direction, one for protected turns, the other for thru and right turns.
-Pedestrian signals appear to be timed during the thru phases.

https://goo.gl/maps/skfPsadwQTmSsFjM8

That's a 4-way intersection with 2 thru lanes each direction, median dividers in each direction, double left turn lanes for each direction, and a channelized right turn for each direction. It honestly seems like it's not in Connecticut. And I'm not sure there are any other intersections like that in the state.
There's another one with the same design at Buckland/Adams Sts. and Tolland Tpke.
They were installed 30 years ago when the mall opened and obviously designed to promote continuous traffic flow.  IMO they're the best engineered intersections in the state.  Traffic is heavy but always moving and the lights are very well-timed.  What I think spurred this change is:

1) The increase in luxury apartments in the area have resulted in increased foot traffic and a need for safer crosswalks.  With the separated right turns peds are only protected by the "Yield" sign.
2) The intersection is prone to see accidents involving right and U-turning traffic, hence going over to NTOR.
3) The benefit of separated right turns has been rendered moot by high traffic volumes.
4) The signal installation is 30 years old and will be upgraded with video pre-emption.  There's also provisions for all of Buckland St. to get cameras.
5) CONNDOTs desire for more doghouse signals for right lanes.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: ipeters61 on April 26, 2020, 10:55:08 PM
Quote from: kurumi on April 26, 2020, 10:42:32 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 26, 2020, 10:21:47 PM
Manchester DPW is removing the pedestrian islands at the intersection of Buckland St., Pleasant Valley Rd., and Buckland Hills Dr.  Going by the contract plans:

-NTOR is being implemented
-Two phases per direction, one for protected turns, the other for thru and right turns.
-Pedestrian signals appear to be timed during the thru phases.

https://goo.gl/maps/skfPsadwQTmSsFjM8

That's a 4-way intersection with 2 thru lanes each direction, median dividers in each direction, double left turn lanes for each direction, and a channelized right turn for each direction. It honestly seems like it's not in Connecticut. And I'm not sure there are any other intersections like that in the state.
I grew up in South Windsor around that intersection and I eventually had to change my routing to my university at Christmas time and change my routing home from work so I wouldn't have to wait in line forever to make the left from the I-84 EB ramp to Buckland Road and then make another left onto Pleasant Valley.

From work (coming in from I-384), I just would loop around on Tolland Turnpike and Chapel Street.  From school (coming from Willimantic), I stopped taking I-384/US-6 and just took CT-31 to I-84 WB.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on April 27, 2020, 02:21:46 AM
It is at this point SOP in CT to remove channelized right turns wherever they exist, as intersections come up for rebuild.

Increased pedestrian safety is of course the justification for such a policy broadly, but I don't think the merits of each individual case are really being considered. See for example how the rebuild of I-95 exits 44/45 eliminated the free-flowing turn from CT 10 south to I-95 south, in spite of the fact that there is no sidewalk on that side of the street and pretty much no objective reason for a pedestrian to be on that side of the street.

Pedestrian safety is also the primary reason why NTOR is gradually proliferating.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on April 27, 2020, 11:00:25 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on April 27, 2020, 02:21:46 AM
It is at this point SOP in CT to remove channelized right turns wherever they exist, as intersections come up for rebuild.

Increased pedestrian safety is of course the justification for such a policy broadly, but I don't think the merits of each individual case are really being considered. See for example how the rebuild of I-95 exits 44/45 eliminated the free-flowing turn from CT 10 south to I-95 south, in spite of the fact that there is no sidewalk on that side of the street and pretty much no objective reason for a pedestrian to be on that side of the street.

Pedestrian safety is also the primary reason why NTOR is gradually proliferating.

In the case of the Buckland intersection, while there are some pedestrians (but not enough to justify a dedicated pedestrian phase without a manual request), I wonder if the bigger concern is just driver aggression due to overall traffic volume at that intersection.  Despite my best efforts to avoid that intersection, I have observed several accidents involving RTOR vehicles there.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: zzyzx on April 27, 2020, 02:18:04 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on April 26, 2020, 08:55:25 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on April 16, 2020, 06:25:49 PM
Quote from: zzyzx on April 16, 2020, 04:07:27 PM
The article also explains the mystery of why there is no Exit 45 on the Merritt:

QuoteIf you've ever given directions to a friend traveling east on the Merritt, you probably realize that Exit 44 at Black Rock Turnpike isn't followed by Exit 45, but rather by Exit 46 at Sport Hill Road. That is because Exit 45 was originally on the drawing board for Morehouse Highway, a once through road from lower Fairfield all the way to its intersection with Westport Road in Easton.

The current Exit 44 used to be a cloverleaf before it was reconstructed about 20 years ago. The ramps for Route 58 south was Exit 44 and the ramps for northbound Route 58 was Exit 45. Reconstruction in the late 90s eliminated the cloverleaf and consolidated the two exits into one, Exit 44.

Yeah, that bit about Morehouse being why there is no exit 45 is bogus.

The fact that an interchange was once planned there is of intrigue, but they contradict their own assertion when they note that "an interchange at that location was abandoned before construction even began".

See here's the thing: when the Merritt first opened (1938/1940), the exits weren't numbered. Exit numbers first appeared in 1948. Any interchanges which were not built and not still planned would have been excluded from the numbering sequence.

And indeed... we know that the interchange with Black Rock Turnpike originally two exits each way, which were numbered 44 and 45, so that's where exit 45 was. This is also consistent with how CT assigned exit numbers in the early days - when there were separate exits for each direction of a road, they were given separate numbers rather than A-B or S-N/E-W.

That makes much more sense.  And that is why I trust the people on this forum more than some writers who can't do their research right. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on April 27, 2020, 04:29:59 PM
Specifically, it looks like there will be an LPI phase added to the intersection.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: wytout on April 30, 2020, 10:48:41 AM
Work started this week on the roundabout at 319 and 190 in Stafford.  Initial tree clearing within the project limits is nearly done.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49837846162_7a3395cd17_z.jpg)

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: zzyzx on May 04, 2020, 02:58:06 PM
Not surprisingly, there's been a significant decrease in traffic on the state's highways since the stay at home orders went into place. On sections of I-95, traffic volumes are down 50% on average (https://www.theday.com/local-news/20200502/state-traffic-down-50-on-average-during-pandemic)

QuoteAs more people stay at home during the pandemic, traffic volumes on state highways have dropped significantly to an average of 50%, and even lower in areas of southeastern Connecticut.

Fewer cars on the roads has led to a host of impacts for the state's transportation system. Crews are able to work more efficiently on construction projects. But it also means fewer gas tax dollars for the Special Transportation Fund.

The state Department of Transportation also is reporting an uptick in speeding on highways and is urging drivers to maintain safe speeds.

Traffic lower starting in mid-March

DOT Spokesman Kevin Nursick said the department started to see a noticeable decrease in traffic starting March 13, with volumes continuing to drop and then holding steady at a 50% decrease on average.

An analysis by MS2, a software development and data management firm for transportation agencies, calculates "the daily traffic volume change as compared to the same day of week in the same month for the most recent year that data is available." State traffic was down about 38% on Saturday, April 25, 2020, compared to Saturday, April 27, 2019, and about 61% on Sunday, April 26, 2020, compared to April 28, 2019, according to MS2. On Monday, April 27, 2020, traffic dropped about 48% compared to Monday, April 29, 2019.

Nationally, traffic was down about 36% on Saturday, April 25, 2020; about 37% on Sunday, April 26; and about 32% on Monday, April 27, compared to last year.

A stretch of Interstate 95 in East Lyme and Route 2 in North Stonington, sites of two of the state's 23 automated traffic counters, are seeing lower traffic volumes than the state average.

I-95 in East Lyme, which averaged 71,920 vehicles a day last year, had a traffic volume of 34,071 vehicles on Monday, April 20, and 24,576 vehicles on Sunday, April 19, according to DOT data.

East Lyme Police Chief Michael Finkelstein said there is a noticeable fluctuation in traffic volumes on roads in East Lyme. He said morning commutes are far less traveled, while volumes later in the day appear fairly normal.

Route 2 in North Stonington, which averaged 12,896 daily vehicles in 2019, saw 3,940 vehicles on Monday, April 20, and 3,501 vehicles on Sunday, April 19, the state data shows.

Interactive charts and the rest of the article from The Day is in the link.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: DJStephens on May 04, 2020, 06:59:38 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on April 26, 2020, 07:52:40 AM
Quote from: vdeane on April 25, 2020, 10:57:37 PM
Quote from: mariethefoxy on April 25, 2020, 08:09:43 PM
I hate when they do that, because now if you are stuck behind grandma doing 25 in a 40 you are screwed, before you could pass
I've actually heard traffic calming advocates bring that up as one of the reasons why they want road diets.

I wish traffic calming advocates had to label their cars as such just so everyone could drive 25 in a 40 zone in front of them.

A conversion from a four lane with no center lane to three lane works in some cases.   In other situations, it doesn't.   Have observed locally most four lanes here going to three lanes.  Some of them should have been rebuilt and widened as five lane jobs.   Very poor E-W capacity in most of the rio grande valley.    Both las Cruces and in Albuquerque.   The mindset must be simply that the traffic is going to go away (now it has with the virus, but it has been returning to normal recently)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on May 05, 2020, 04:32:38 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on April 27, 2020, 02:21:46 AM
It is at this point SOP in CT to remove channelized right turns wherever they exist, as intersections come up for rebuild.

Increased pedestrian safety is of course the justification for such a policy broadly, but I don't think the merits of each individual case are really being considered. See for example how the rebuild of I-95 exits 44/45 eliminated the free-flowing turn from CT 10 south to I-95 south, in spite of the fact that there is no sidewalk on that side of the street and pretty much no objective reason for a pedestrian to be on that side of the street.

Pedestrian safety is also the primary reason why NTOR is gradually proliferating.

I can't stand it when they take away free flowing movements. Exit 44-45 is now a disaster in my opinion.  It seems to be PC, as free flowing traffic or flowing traffic in general is not PC.  Right channelized turns which every state has but for some reason it's not good enough in CT.

At the end of the CT-72 Expwy there's a right channelized turn before the blvd begin
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on May 05, 2020, 09:08:35 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on May 05, 2020, 04:32:38 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on April 27, 2020, 02:21:46 AM
It is at this point SOP in CT to remove channelized right turns wherever they exist, as intersections come up for rebuild.

Increased pedestrian safety is of course the justification for such a policy broadly, but I don't think the merits of each individual case are really being considered. See for example how the rebuild of I-95 exits 44/45 eliminated the free-flowing turn from CT 10 south to I-95 south, in spite of the fact that there is no sidewalk on that side of the street and pretty much no objective reason for a pedestrian to be on that side of the street.

Pedestrian safety is also the primary reason why NTOR is gradually proliferating.

I can't stand it when they take away free flowing movements. Exit 44-45 is now a disaster in my opinion.  It seems to be PC, as free flowing traffic or flowing traffic in general is not PC.  Right channelized turns which every state has but for some reason it's not good enough in CT.

At the end of the CT-72 Expwy there's a right channelized turn before the blvd begin

You haven't seen nothin' yet. Just wait until they install a signalized intersection on the US-7 freeway where it junctions with the Merritt Parkway. Because placing a traffic light on a freeway with traffic moving at 70 mph makes total sense if you're in Connecticut.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: deathtopumpkins on May 06, 2020, 08:27:14 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on May 05, 2020, 04:32:38 PMIt seems to be PC, as free flowing traffic or flowing traffic in general is not PC.  Right channelized turns which every state has but for some reason it's not good enough in CT.

It's not just CT, and it's not "PC". Free flowing right turns are dangerous for pedestrians. MassDOT prohibits them now too.

Highway design changes and evolves over time as we learn what works and what doesn't. There are countless things that were once common practice, but have since been recognized as being unsafe. The only agenda behind it is safety.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on May 07, 2020, 09:32:49 PM
I now wonder how old the CT 9 expressway is? I passed over it on the Coles Road bridges in Cromwell. They're very close to the I-91 interchange. They're stamped as 1967.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on May 07, 2020, 10:49:51 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on May 07, 2020, 09:32:49 PM
I now wonder how old the CT 9 expressway is? I passed over it on the Coles Road bridges in Cromwell. They're very close to the I-91 interchange. They're stamped as 1967.

I only have "1969" as the opening date for the I-91 to Middletown segment. Not very precise.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on May 08, 2020, 03:45:21 PM
Given the way several bridges were built in the area (Cromwell/Rocky Hill), 1967 wouldn't surprise me for a build year.  Heck, the I-291 bridges on I-91 were built and that road never even opened!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on May 10, 2020, 10:51:21 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on May 07, 2020, 09:32:49 PM
I now wonder how old the CT 9 expressway is? I passed over it on the Coles Road bridges in Cromwell. They're very close to the I-91 interchange. They're stamped as 1967.
Bridge stamp dates reflect their construction, not their utilization.

They weren't in complete service until CT 9 was extended through New Britain, in and around 1990.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on May 10, 2020, 11:12:50 PM
The Coles Road bridges were in service when CT 9 was opened up to I-91. 
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6207245,-72.6840137,3a,43y,264.67h,74.22t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srf87Ww1O-WKc-hWv0q4-Nw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

I bet this bridge has a same time frame for construction, even though CT 9 wasn't extended underneath and west of here until much later.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6266858,-72.6927064,3a,75y,175.93h,79.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJ7L7ySPB9Xv201mPx3Tymw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

The I-91 North to CT 9 North bridge has a born-on date of 1988.  Originally, this connection was going to be a left exit, so there would have not been a bridge here.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6214798,-72.6922847,3a,40.2y,213.21h,73.14t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sY9oCy7cDArPxfxi3S6lgHA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DY9oCy7cDArPxfxi3S6lgHA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D67.873985%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i819


Further up Route 9, in New Britain on the Taras Shevchenko north of Exit 28, the overpass over East St in New Britain has a date stamped 1975 and another 1976.  This was to be the connector between the CT 72 and I-291 expressways and for years, didn't connect to anything to the north.  This is the wide concrete section of CT 9 for about 3/4 mile north of CT 72.  By the mid 1980s, it finally reached CT 175, but wouldn't get a signed number until 1990 (being Route 9), and wouldn't be extended to I-84 until 1992.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6794135,-72.76453,3a,75y,186.79h,67.86t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1su7E4RzoacW41JjJF-h_cHw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192



Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on May 15, 2020, 07:58:28 PM
ConnDOT recently milled and paved the on and off ramps for Exit 21 of I-91 (CT Route 372) in Cromwell. It was badly needed. Only one problem: They did something stupid with the south on/off ramps. They removed a big section of the guard rail. Now it only starts near a sharp curve at the top of the slope. It's not the best picture. I could always try for another shot again, on that side next time.

(https://i.imgur.com/Di2qGRc.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on May 16, 2020, 01:59:52 AM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on May 15, 2020, 07:58:28 PM
ConnDOT recently milled and paved the on and off ramps for Exit 21 of I-91 (CT Route 372) in Cromwell. It was badly needed. Only one problem: They did something stupid with the south on/off ramps. They removed a big section of the guard rail. Now it only starts near a sharp curve at the top of the slope. It's not the best picture. I could always try for another shot again, on that side next time.

(https://i.imgur.com/8Lx4Ze0.jpg)
Yeah, I feel like when you remove guiderail, you're supposed to put a temporary barrier in place. I don't even see a yellow stripe there, just wide open pavement. Wots, uh... the deal?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on May 16, 2020, 09:49:01 AM
They haven't even striped this side yet. The on/off ramps for the I-91 North on the other side are done. They just need to add the big white stop stripe at the traffic light with CT Route 372.

Actually, I think the guard rail (southbound on/off) was like that beforehand, going by this street view image:

https://goo.gl/maps/LMmnnngupkEB6am68
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on May 16, 2020, 11:29:56 PM
Finally got around to snapping a pic of some of the I-95 Exit 74 signage installed as part of the COSTCO project. 

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49903579051_9d37f12593_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2j2NTrn)20200516_154549 (https://flic.kr/p/2j2NTrn) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

Since the previous photo on this thread was posted, it appears that downward facing arrow is normal size and not oversized.  I-95 shields in the area are still oversized, however.

And that FREEWAY ENTRANCE sign is quite unique for Connecticut.  Perhaps it was posted because the left turn lane from CT 161 South allows motorists to either turn onto the ramp to I-95 North or to the local street just beyond to access the park & ride and Motel 6.  The sign shows motorists that the first left is indeed for the entrance to 95. 

But the worst part of the interchange "improvements" is the reconfigured ramp to I-95 South, which has a reverse curve in the middle, which slows traffic trying to enter I-95 South.  You enter the interstate's acceleration lane at about 20 mph, and the acceleration lane wasn't lengthened to accommodate this new curve.  I'm not sure why the extra curve was put in, or why the acceleration lane wasn't lengthened, but there is real estate available to do both.  We'll have to wait for a future widening project for any solution, unfortunately.  Getting on at the next exit up (Exit 75) isn't any better, as that acceleration lane is even shorter.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on May 17, 2020, 12:40:34 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on May 16, 2020, 11:29:56 PM
Finally got around to snapping a pic of some of the I-95 Exit 74 signage installed as part of the COSTCO project. 

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49903579051_9d37f12593_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2j2NTrn)20200516_154549 (https://flic.kr/p/2j2NTrn) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

Since the previous photo on this thread was posted, it appears that downward facing arrow is normal size and not oversized.  I-95 shields in the area are still oversized, however.

And that FREEWAY ENTRANCE sign is quite unique for Connecticut.  Perhaps it was posted because the left turn lane from CT 161 South allows motorists to either turn onto the ramp to I-95 North or to the local street just beyond to access the park & ride and Motel 6.  The sign shows motorists that the first left is indeed for the entrance to 95. 

But the worst part of the interchange "improvements" is the reconfigured ramp to I-95 South, which has a reverse curve in the middle, which slows traffic trying to enter I-95 South.  You enter the interstate's acceleration lane at about 20 mph, and the acceleration lane wasn't lengthened to accommodate this new curve.  I'm not sure why the extra curve was put in, or why the acceleration lane wasn't lengthened, but there is real estate available to do both.  We'll have to wait for a future widening project for any solution, unfortunately.  Getting on at the next exit up (Exit 75) isn't any better, as that acceleration lane is even shorter.
What is this now, California?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on May 17, 2020, 06:10:41 PM
Just as long as people don't start saying "The 95", we're good!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: NoGoodNamesAvailable on May 17, 2020, 06:53:37 PM
Freeway/Parkway Entrance signs are now standard in NYS as well, as a wrong-way countermeasure.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: zzyzx on May 17, 2020, 06:54:28 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on May 17, 2020, 12:40:34 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on May 16, 2020, 11:29:56 PM
Finally got around to snapping a pic of some of the I-95 Exit 74 signage installed as part of the COSTCO project. 

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49903579051_9d37f12593_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2j2NTrn)20200516_154549 (https://flic.kr/p/2j2NTrn) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

Since the previous photo on this thread was posted, it appears that downward facing arrow is normal size and not oversized.  I-95 shields in the area are still oversized, however.

And that FREEWAY ENTRANCE sign is quite unique for Connecticut.  Perhaps it was posted because the left turn lane from CT 161 South allows motorists to either turn onto the ramp to I-95 North or to the local street just beyond to access the park & ride and Motel 6.  The sign shows motorists that the first left is indeed for the entrance to 95. 

But the worst part of the interchange "improvements" is the reconfigured ramp to I-95 South, which has a reverse curve in the middle, which slows traffic trying to enter I-95 South.  You enter the interstate's acceleration lane at about 20 mph, and the acceleration lane wasn't lengthened to accommodate this new curve.  I'm not sure why the extra curve was put in, or why the acceleration lane wasn't lengthened, but there is real estate available to do both.  We'll have to wait for a future widening project for any solution, unfortunately.  Getting on at the next exit up (Exit 75) isn't any better, as that acceleration lane is even shorter.
What is this now, California?
I see you were in my neck of the woods. I took the photo back in November and didn't notice they changed the arrow size since.  I'm now back in CT from CA and I find the freeway sign amusing.

I'll start giving directions to Costco by saying "just take the 95 freeway to Flanders, it's only 5 minutes from the 395 interchange!


iPhone
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on May 17, 2020, 10:19:14 PM
What's the difference between the downward slanted arrow versus a normal one that points upward?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on May 18, 2020, 12:26:02 AM
Quote from: connroadgeek on May 17, 2020, 10:19:14 PM
What's the difference between the downward slanted arrow versus a normal one that points upward?
Downward slanted means "the sign above this arrow applies to this point on the roadway," usually used for freeway entrances or crosswalks. Upward means "go in the direction indicated by this arrow".
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Roadgeekteen on May 18, 2020, 12:53:38 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on May 16, 2020, 11:29:56 PM
Finally got around to snapping a pic of some of the I-95 Exit 74 signage installed as part of the COSTCO project. 

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49903579051_9d37f12593_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2j2NTrn)20200516_154549 (https://flic.kr/p/2j2NTrn) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

Since the previous photo on this thread was posted, it appears that downward facing arrow is normal size and not oversized.  I-95 shields in the area are still oversized, however.

And that FREEWAY ENTRANCE sign is quite unique for Connecticut.  Perhaps it was posted because the left turn lane from CT 161 South allows motorists to either turn onto the ramp to I-95 North or to the local street just beyond to access the park & ride and Motel 6.  The sign shows motorists that the first left is indeed for the entrance to 95. 

But the worst part of the interchange "improvements" is the reconfigured ramp to I-95 South, which has a reverse curve in the middle, which slows traffic trying to enter I-95 South.  You enter the interstate's acceleration lane at about 20 mph, and the acceleration lane wasn't lengthened to accommodate this new curve.  I'm not sure why the extra curve was put in, or why the acceleration lane wasn't lengthened, but there is real estate available to do both.  We'll have to wait for a future widening project for any solution, unfortunately.  Getting on at the next exit up (Exit 75) isn't any better, as that acceleration lane is even shorter.
I'm pretty sure that some people in New England wouldn't know what a "freeway" is.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: storm2k on May 18, 2020, 11:37:56 AM
Quote from: Alps on May 16, 2020, 01:59:52 AM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on May 15, 2020, 07:58:28 PM
ConnDOT recently milled and paved the on and off ramps for Exit 21 of I-91 (CT Route 372) in Cromwell. It was badly needed. Only one problem: They did something stupid with the south on/off ramps. They removed a big section of the guard rail. Now it only starts near a sharp curve at the top of the slope. It's not the best picture. I could always try for another shot again, on that side next time.

(https://i.imgur.com/8Lx4Ze0.jpg)
Yeah, I feel like when you remove guiderail, you're supposed to put a temporary barrier in place. I don't even see a yellow stripe there, just wide open pavement. Wots, uh... the deal?

It looks like they have the markers in place to paint the lines, except it was coming at a later time?

Still doesn't explain why they took out so much guardrail though.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on May 26, 2020, 06:56:13 PM
A potential resurgence on the I-84 sign replacement project, Southington to Farmington:

I observed the ConnDOT web cam which looks east from Exit 33 and I see a gantry I haven't seen before, in front of an existing monotube bridge structure for Exit 35.  It appears to be a 4-chord truss, not a monotube bridge like the new ones westbound. 

For those playing along... we're still waiting on these installations (does not include removals):

Eastbound:
(3) for Exit 35, (1) for Exit 36, (1) for Exit 39, (1) for Exit 39A

Westbound:
(1) for Exit 39A, (1) for Exit 36



Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on May 27, 2020, 12:42:39 AM
What exactly is being done on I-84/US 6 in West Hartford right now? I noticed that the Exit 40 West on-ramp from Ridgewood Road (right by NBC channel 30's studio) is closed off. The detour from CT Route 71 west had you going down to CT Route 9 Exit 30 in the far north end of New Britain.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on May 27, 2020, 04:22:09 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on May 27, 2020, 12:42:39 AM
What exactly is being done on I-84/US 6 in West Hartford right now? I noticed that the Exit 40 West on-ramp from Ridgewood Road (right by NBC channel 30's studio) is closed off. The detour from CT Route 71 west had you going down to CT Route 9 Exit 30 in the far north end of New Britain.



https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/Construction-News-from-the-Connecticut-Department-of-Transportation/2020/Scheduled-Upcoming-Five-Month-I-84-Westbound-Exit-40-on-ramp-closure

QuoteThe Connecticut Department of Transportation is announcing the scheduled upcoming closure of the I-84 westbound  Exit 40 on-ramp at Ridgewood Road in West Hartford for a period of approximately five months.  The ramp will be closed on May 11, 2020, and reopened on or before October 5, 2020.  The closure and detour are necessary to facilitate construction and safety improvements to the I-84 westbound bridge over Ridgewood Road.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on May 27, 2020, 06:50:57 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on May 27, 2020, 04:22:09 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on May 27, 2020, 12:42:39 AM
What exactly is being done on I-84/US 6 in West Hartford right now? I noticed that the Exit 40 West on-ramp from Ridgewood Road (right by NBC channel 30's studio) is closed off. The detour from CT Route 71 west had you going down to CT Route 9 Exit 30 in the far north end of New Britain.



https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/Construction-News-from-the-Connecticut-Department-of-Transportation/2020/Scheduled-Upcoming-Five-Month-I-84-Westbound-Exit-40-on-ramp-closure

QuoteThe Connecticut Department of Transportation is announcing the scheduled upcoming closure of the I-84 westbound  Exit 40 on-ramp at Ridgewood Road in West Hartford for a period of approximately five months.  The ramp will be closed on May 11, 2020, and reopened on or before October 5, 2020.  The closure and detour are necessary to facilitate construction and safety improvements to the I-84 westbound bridge over Ridgewood Road.
Yea, that whole area is being reconfigured.  They're eliminating some of the winding through Corbin's Corner.  It's a multi-year ordeal.

Other projects of note:
-Sign replacement is starting for the I-84 Exit 58/59 gantries.
-The median is being repaired from Exit 57 to 60.  Exposed rebar is poking out in spots.

Update to the I-91 COB project:
-The first pier for the new Exit 29 is up. Construction of the abutment for the ramp has started.
- I-91 median clearing and signbase installation continues.
- Grading for the widened I-91 NB is nearing completion
-95% of the sound barriers on CT 15 over Silver Lane are gone.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on May 28, 2020, 11:05:48 AM
Didn't get a shot because it was a little foggy and rainy, but CTDOT finally installed the 1/2 mile and Exit Now gantries on I-84 EB in Plainville for Exit 35 (CT 72 East).  Interesting that unlike westbound with the pipe gantries, these are full overhead chorded trusses.  The old Exit Now curved gantry is still standing, but should be gone soon.  They also installed the missing mileposts (49.8-50.2) but the 49.8 and 50 are on the far side of the ramp from Crooked St rather than on the jersey barrier between the travel lanes and the ramp. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on May 28, 2020, 12:34:27 PM
Any sign yet of work (foundations, etc) for the new Exit 35 1/4 mile assembly?  This is in the contract plans and seems unnecessary with a 1/2 mile advance just before.

Was on I-691 East this morning... still just the support (monotube bridge) at exit 10 and no work observed yet at Exit 11.  These two are spot-replacements.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on May 28, 2020, 03:49:03 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on May 28, 2020, 12:34:27 PM
Any sign yet of work (foundations, etc) for the new Exit 35 1/4 mile assembly?  This is in the contract plans and seems unnecessary with a 1/2 mile advance just before.

Was on I-691 East this morning... still just the support (monotube bridge) at exit 10 and no work observed yet at Exit 11.  These two are spot-replacements.
I didn't see anything yesterday going WB.

Why are they doing spot replacements when 691 is a relatively short section of freeway?  Just put out a contract to replace all the signs.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: bob7374 on May 28, 2020, 06:07:27 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on May 28, 2020, 03:49:03 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on May 28, 2020, 12:34:27 PM
Any sign yet of work (foundations, etc) for the new Exit 35 1/4 mile assembly?  This is in the contract plans and seems unnecessary with a 1/2 mile advance just before.

Was on I-691 East this morning... still just the support (monotube bridge) at exit 10 and no work observed yet at Exit 11.  These two are spot-replacements.
I didn't see anything yesterday going WB.

Why are they doing spot replacements when 691 is a relatively short section of freeway?  Just put out a contract to replace all the signs.
Could be waiting until they are supposed to renumber the exits in 2022 or 2023.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on May 28, 2020, 06:28:05 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on May 28, 2020, 03:49:03 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on May 28, 2020, 12:34:27 PM
Any sign yet of work (foundations, etc) for the new Exit 35 1/4 mile assembly?  This is in the contract plans and seems unnecessary with a 1/2 mile advance just before.

Was on I-691 East this morning... still just the support (monotube bridge) at exit 10 and no work observed yet at Exit 11.  These two are spot-replacements.
I didn't see anything yesterday going WB.

Why are they doing spot replacements when 691 is a relatively short section of freeway?  Just put out a contract to replace all the signs.



My bad.  It was the 1/4 and Exit Nowp
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on May 28, 2020, 08:52:31 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on May 28, 2020, 06:07:27 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on May 28, 2020, 03:49:03 PM
Why are they doing spot replacements when 691 is a relatively short section of freeway?  Just put out a contract to replace all the signs.
Could be waiting until they are supposed to renumber the exits in 2022 or 2023.

The spot replacements I'm guessing are because the overhead support structures are up for replacement due to age, deterioration, etc.  The ones on I-691 in question are of the older truss style and most likely have been up since the 1970s.

What drives me crazy with these spot replacements is that the signs being put up are basically carbon copies of the existing signs, but upgraded to modern standards, such as aligned exit tabs, "LEFT' in the tab, the arrow within the "EXIT ONLY" banner, direct copy, etc).  They do not take into account what modifications will result in a "blanket" sign replacement project.  For instance, the Exit 11 signs will read "91 North/Hartford/Springield" as part of the spot replacement, but I betcha "Springfield" will not be listed during a blanket project.  Same goes for "W. Cross Pkwy" for the Exit 10 signs.  So in a couple of years when I-691 gets a blanket project, the new signs on these new gantries will be junked.  The exact same thing happened when I-95 South Exit 87 gantry in Groton was replaced.  "Clarence B. Sharp Hwy" was on the new gantry, but <5 years later, the signs were replaced again, changing the destination to "Groton City".  That seems awfully wasteful, especially when the predecessor signs lasted for 20+ years. 

When the spot sign replacement project first started, the overhead assembly was replaced or removed, with the existing sign relocated to the new gantry or the ground.  On CT 9 Exit 11, the 1/2 mile advances were both removed several years ago, with the button copy sign moved to ground supports.  Maybe that's what should be done on roads which are awaiting a "blanket" conversion.  Otherwise it just seems like a waste.

"ConnDOT.... one step forward... 3 steps back!"
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on May 29, 2020, 10:52:09 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on May 28, 2020, 11:05:48 AM
Didn't get a shot because it was a little foggy and rainy, but CTDOT finally installed the 1/2 mile and Exit Now gantries on I-84 EB in Plainville for Exit 35 (CT 72 East).  Interesting that unlike westbound with the pipe gantries, these are full overhead chorded trusses.  The old Exit Now curved gantry is still standing, but should be gone soon.  They also installed the missing mileposts (49.8-50.2) but the 49.8 and 50 are on the far side of the ramp from Crooked St rather than on the jersey barrier between the travel lanes and the ramp. 

Definitely noticed the new gantry while on Woodford Avenue near Crooked Street in Plainville. That was on Thursday. I couldn't get pics, as I was on a city bus and the windows were pretty dirty, to be honest. The monotube gantries by the New Britain city line were still in place.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on June 01, 2020, 04:58:24 PM
Took a quick drive up on I-84 in New Britain and Farmington today...

Looks like all guide signs and support structures have been installed and all old ones removed, including the ones westbound at Exit 39.  I only shot eastbound, but verified the westbound as being all replaced. 

Here's a small sample:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49967137428_23b10bd676_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2j8qD8s)84EB-Exit35-3 (https://flic.kr/p/2j8qD8s) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49967137398_d23d1be561_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2j8qD7W)84EB-Exit39-1 (https://flic.kr/p/2j8qD7W) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49967647001_73892645a7_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2j8tfBc)84EB-Exit39A-3 (https://flic.kr/p/2j8tfBc) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

And the rest...
https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/with/49967647001/

I'll get the remaining westbound signs within a week or so.

Enjoy!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on June 04, 2020, 08:40:46 PM
Damn, that was quick.  Now westbound new signage:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49971579161_643f27d3ae_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2j8Ppv4)84WB-Exit39-1 (https://flic.kr/p/2j8Ppv4) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49971841217_8409af24a2_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2j8QKpg)84WB-Exit36-2 (https://flic.kr/p/2j8QKpg) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

All other signage has been replaced on I-84 and can be viewed in my I-84 album.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on June 05, 2020, 09:20:52 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on June 04, 2020, 08:40:46 PM
Damn, that was quick.  Now westbound new signage:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49971579161_643f27d3ae_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2j8Ppv4)84WB-Exit39-1 (https://flic.kr/p/2j8Ppv4) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49971841217_8409af24a2_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2j8QKpg)84WB-Exit36-2 (https://flic.kr/p/2j8QKpg) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

All other signage has been replaced on I-84 and can be viewed in my I-84 album.

It looks like they left plenty of room in the exit tabs for Exits 38 and 39 to accommodate renumbering to mile-based exit numbers (these will probably be suffixed exits since they're close to one another). Anyone know when I-84 exits will be renumbered?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: bob7374 on June 05, 2020, 09:36:17 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on June 05, 2020, 09:20:52 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on June 04, 2020, 08:40:46 PM
Damn, that was quick.  Now westbound new signage:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49971579161_643f27d3ae_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2j8Ppv4)84WB-Exit39-1 (https://flic.kr/p/2j8Ppv4) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49971841217_8409af24a2_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2j8QKpg)84WB-Exit36-2 (https://flic.kr/p/2j8QKpg) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

All other signage has been replaced on I-84 and can be viewed in my I-84 album.

It looks like they left plenty of room in the exit tabs for Exits 38 and 39 to accommodate renumbering to mile-based exit numbers (these will probably be suffixed exits since they're close to one another). Anyone know when I-84 exits will be renumbered?
Right now, it appears I-84 will be the second to last interstate to be renumbered in 2028, just prior to I-95 in 2029. See Reply #3033.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on June 06, 2020, 03:24:44 PM
I got shots the other morning of the EB Exit 35 ones, but seeing that I've driven maybe 50 miles in the past month, the windshield was a little dirty.  Surprised they left the Exit Now for Slater Rd and the 1 mile EB for Route 4 as bridge mounts, as CTDOT seemed to be moving away from that (but then again, they were moving away from full chorded truss gantries too).  Looks like the SR 508 signage is still the old signage, and most of the CT 72 signage is still older but going to be replaced and renumbered (there's still Phase III signage for Corbin Ave).  As for the I-84 numbers in the area, the new numbers should be

CT 72 WEST: 49A
Crooked St (EB) / New Britain Ave (WB): 49B (although the WB exit is on CT 72 but will be renumbered 33B when CT 72 exits are)
CT 72 EAST: 50
Slater Rd: 51
Fienemann Rd: 53
US 6 WEST (WB ONLY): 54A
CT 4: 54 (EB), 54B (WB)
CT 9: 55
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on June 09, 2020, 03:37:30 PM
What's the story on this sign? CT-9 NORTH is button copy. The rest is demountable. Stanley St on-ramp. New Britain. There's no 72 scarring so was it blank until the road opened?
Demountable copy was used from about 1981-1984.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49989085936_e94bedd868_z.jpg)[/url]

This non-reflective sign on Broad St in Hartford fell down.  So I'm sure it'll be hauled away soon.  That leaves 8 NRBC signs left in the state.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49988779731_34570c1e5d_z.jpg)[/url]

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49988608763_3b37800271_z.jpg)[/url]
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on June 09, 2020, 06:31:21 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on June 09, 2020, 03:37:30 PM
This non-reflective sign on Broad St in Hartford fell down.  So I'm sure it'll be hauled away soon.  That leaves 8 NRBC signs left in the state.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49988779731_34570c1e5d_z.jpg)

My God, man, pick that sign up! I'll pay you for it!
(fully realizes it wouldn't fit in my own car either)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on June 09, 2020, 08:09:26 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on June 09, 2020, 03:37:30 PM
What's the story on this sign? CT-9 NORTH is button copy. The rest is demountable. Stanley St on-ramp. New Britain. There's no 72 scarring so was it blank until the road opened?
Demountable copy was used from about 1981-1984.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49989085936_e94bedd868_z.jpg)[/url]


Simple.  When that portion of what is now CT 9 (between CT 72 and CT 175/today's Exit 29 (NB) ) opened, it was signed as "TO 175" from Rt 72.  In 1990, CT 9 was extended west of the Berlin Tpke, replacing CT 72, and up to New Britain, then via the then-unsigned expressway to end at CT 175.  CT 175 would be its northern terminus until 1992 when the rest of the expressway to CT 9 was completed.

Most likely the sign in question above read "TO 175/NEWINGTON", with the "TO" being the same style letters as "Newington", and a square slap-on shield, non-button copy.  Or it could have just been blank the whole time, in anticipation of being signed for I-291 or something else. 

Several signs in the New Britain area have the mixed "button copy/demountable", which means they date back to when CT 72 passed N/S (instead of just E/W).  Here's an example on CT 9 South at Exit 25: 
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6580064,-72.7730179,3a,15y,153.43h,106.17t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPSdgmVTQlpRI7rENDYij7A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192


On an unrelated note, while watching one of my newly acquired railfan DVDs, I grabbed a shot of the old style entrance ramp signs that graced I-91 in the Windsor/Windsor Locks era, pre-widening (pre-1990):
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49990036487_760d5f3fa4_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2jas1dP)20200609_181552 (https://flic.kr/p/2jas1dP) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

I find it interesting that no direction was shown on these signs.  The shadow in the image is that of the Dexter Coffin Bridge at I-91 Exit 42 in Windsor Locks.  Just past the shadow is the ramps to/from I-91 South at Exit 42.  The entrance sign reads:
    91
Hartford
   <--

I'm not sure if onramps east of the river got this treatment, as that was the first section widened, being completed lt 80s/c 1990.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on June 09, 2020, 09:44:40 PM
Shady jay
I'm guessing it was blank except for Newington as there's no scarring.

CT used to have BGS NEXT LEFT/RIGHT on side roads before an entrance ramp. Now they don't. Heck, with the CT-8 contract they don't even have "enter here"  BGSs with an arrow.

They're getting cheap with extruded aluminum signs.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on June 11, 2020, 12:50:24 AM
But yet, the southern CT 8 sign replacement project restores full extruded aluminum signs to the onramps.  The CT 9 northern 2 projects are the same way.  Let's hope this continues, 'cause I can't see those sheet aluminum onramp signs lasting too long! 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on June 23, 2020, 09:39:23 PM
CT-8 Shelton-Waterbury signing contract update:

Driving through today I noticed new NB signage on a gantry that I thought was supposed to leave the button copy up.  The gantry holding the Exit 27 1/4 mile and Exit 28 1 mile signs and Exit 26 SB sign had the NB signs replaced this past week.  The SB sign was not and is still button copy.  I don't remember that being in the contract. 

The Exit 27 1/4 mile was burnt last year b/c of a truck fire but the Eixt 28 sign was not damaged.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on June 23, 2020, 09:40:54 PM
Update for the I-91 COB project:

-The new center median for I-91 is being installed.
-The first sign mounts are being poured and posts being erected.
-Grading and initial paving for the widened I-91 NB is done
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on June 29, 2020, 08:45:19 PM
I sometimes wonder if a "SOUTH" sign should be on this sign in Cromwell? This is at the northern terminus of Route 217.
(https://i.imgur.com/iS4VbSj.jpg)

I took a photo, in part, because the traffic lights were out. I don't think it was the weather, although some people DID have thunderstorms on this day.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeCL on June 29, 2020, 08:56:39 PM
I sent a email to CT DOT for whatever reason (I waited about 2 weeks) WPML750 the HAR transmitter off exit 9 NB of 95 has been transmitting without anyone speaking but the sign in Darien going SB will flash to tune in.. Normally I tune into it every now and then just to see how the traffic is.. Lets see how fast they fix it.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on June 29, 2020, 09:56:36 PM
Those signs at the 372/217 jct I don't believe ever had "SOUTH" on the 217 sign, in either direction.  They were put up when the bridge just south of this intersection on CT 217 was rebuilt/widened.  Turn lanes were added at that time.  I used to live in the condo complex just south of here for a few years and the bridge was rebuilt/widened.... after I moved out!  Figures.


Sending an e-mail to DOT does work.  I sent one when brand new signs in my home town were replaced with the wrong shield and arrows, and the next day, crews were out fixing them.  I do need to send them an e-mail about the replacement of this sign on CT 9 North in Middletown:

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5567015,-72.6426253,3a,39.5y,336.36h,83.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVOxq3hEdBKYj_dF8ZnpX9A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

The merge sign was replaced with the "lane added/no merge" sign, which is clearly not proper for this location.  It implies traffic entering CT 9 North from the ramp at right has its own lane.  It actually has an extremely short acceleration lane, which ends before that brown sign in the distance.  This ramp has been the scene of numerous accidents over the years.  A relative of mine had his vehicle totalled in an accident here within the past year. 

Furthermore, it will be interesting to see, if the "latest plan" to remove the traffic lights just ahead on Route 9, causes a reroute of CT 17, as traffic entering here would have to exit in 1/2 mile on the left in order to stay on CT 17.  It could be rerouted via So Main St/Main St.  And hopefully, a longer acceleration lane at this troublesome onramp is in the cards.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on June 29, 2020, 10:30:54 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on June 29, 2020, 09:56:36 PM
Those signs at the 372/217 jct I don't believe ever had "SOUTH" on the 217 sign, in either direction.  They were put up when the bridge just south of this intersection on CT 217 was rebuilt/widened.  Turn lanes were added at that time.  I used to live in the condo complex just south of here for a few years and the bridge was rebuilt/widened.... after I moved out!  Figures.

The Mattabesset River bridge is stamped as 2004. A Middletown maintained walking/bike path is under it as well. I also find it funny how the Cromwell/Middletown town line sign is maybe 100 feet south of where it should be (the middle of the river). Once past that is the light for Eastlake and Westlake Drives. Going straight starts to take you up the slow climb of Higby Mountain. Westlake Drive is condo and apartment hell. There's not one single private home on that road that I could see. I-91 is also very close by to the west.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeCL on June 30, 2020, 08:23:46 AM
Why is CT so against flashing yellow arrow lights? I came back from the outter banks 2 weeks ago and I loved them no trying to beat the light or having to sit at a red left arrow when I have no cars coming my way.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on June 30, 2020, 01:37:44 PM
Quote from: MikeCL on June 30, 2020, 08:23:46 AM
Why is CT so against flashing yellow arrow lights? I came back from the outter banks 2 weeks ago and I loved them no trying to beat the light or having to sit at a red left arrow when I have no cars coming my way.
Two things I can think of:

1. Speed control.
2. Prevention of accidents involving turning vehicles.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on June 30, 2020, 07:16:40 PM
Quote from: MikeCL on June 30, 2020, 08:23:46 AM
Why is CT so against flashing yellow arrow lights? I came back from the outter banks 2 weeks ago and I loved them no trying to beat the light or having to sit at a red left arrow when I have no cars coming my way.
NJDOT also doesn't use them. If you see one in NJ it's a county install.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on June 30, 2020, 08:53:02 PM
Quote from: MikeCL on June 30, 2020, 08:23:46 AM
Why is CT so against flashing yellow arrow lights?

They're a newfangled thing and this is the land of steady habits. Connecticut only started using red arrows a few years ago after decades of them existing elsewhere.

CT has been using doghouses for sometimes protected/sometimes permissive left turns since forever. Functionally speaking, this works just as well as a FYA unless you have multiple left turn lanes or a lagging protected left in the opposite direction (yellow trap). Neither is particularly common in CT.

That said yes, when one of those situations does exist, the currently preferred solution seems to be to just make the left turn protected-only.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on June 30, 2020, 09:03:09 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on June 30, 2020, 08:53:02 PM
Quote from: MikeCL on June 30, 2020, 08:23:46 AM
Why is CT so against flashing yellow arrow lights?

They're a newfangled thing and this is the land of steady habits. Connecticut only started using red arrows a few years ago after decades of them existing elsewhere.

CT has been using doghouses for sometimes protected/sometimes permissive left turns since forever. Functionally speaking, this works just as well as a FYA unless you have multiple left turn lanes or a lagging protected left in the opposite direction (yellow trap). Neither is particularly common in CT.

That said yes, when one of those situations does exist, the currently preferred solution seems to be to just make the left turn protected-only.
Except I've seen a lot of doghouse lefts go to protected-only.j

We also impliment some kind of presence-based automation at every installation. It used to be in-road magnetic field based. Now all of them are being installed with a combination of magnetic field and video monitoring.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: sharkyfour on June 30, 2020, 10:46:48 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on June 30, 2020, 09:03:09 PM
We also impliment some kind of presence-based automation at every installation. It used to be in-road magnetic field based. Now all of them are being installed with a combination of magnetic field and video monitoring.

I think the magnetic field monitoring is becoming a thing of the past.  I've noticed as they do repaving projects, they'll retrofit the intersections with the video detection systems and not replace the magnetic loops.  There's actually two intersections near me where they didn't retrofit the intersections with video detection since the whole signal was up for replacement after a paving project in 2017 or 2018.  One intersection got video detection in the new signal last year; the other intersection they just installed the footings for the new masts.  That second intersection is definitely just running on timing, no detection, and the timed cycles are AWFUL.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on July 01, 2020, 01:44:41 AM
Quote from: sharkyfour on June 30, 2020, 10:46:48 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on June 30, 2020, 09:03:09 PM
We also impliment some kind of presence-based automation at every installation. It used to be in-road magnetic field based. Now all of them are being installed with a combination of magnetic field and video monitoring.

I think the magnetic field monitoring is becoming a thing of the past.  I've noticed as they do repaving projects, they'll retrofit the intersections with the video detection systems and not replace the magnetic loops.  There's actually two intersections near me where they didn't retrofit the intersections with video detection since the whole signal was up for replacement after a paving project in 2017 or 2018.  One intersection got video detection in the new signal last year; the other intersection they just installed the footings for the new masts.  That second intersection is definitely just running on timing, no detection, and the timed cycles are AWFUL.

Agreed. And I HATE it.  Used to be that a light with a protected left in one direction but not the other would only trip the turn arrow if there was a car in the lane to turn left.  Now, it trips EVERY time, even if there is no car in the lane.  It's as if there is payola between the DOT and the fuel industry to cost you more gas while you're stuck idling longer at lights for no reason.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeCL on July 01, 2020, 03:05:10 PM
I dont understand why they just leave the light like it is and forget about it.. why don't they adjust the timing as more people come on the road.. I know a light that stays green for only 6 seconds which all it does is entices people to run the light because they know it short and takes another 3 mins to reset.

Also looks like the HAR is down state wide? In Fairfield I don't hear anything at all.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on July 01, 2020, 07:13:04 PM
Quote from: MikeCL on July 01, 2020, 03:05:10 PM
I dont understand why they just leave the light like it is and forget about it.. why don't they adjust the timing as more people come on the road.. I know a light that stays green for only 6 seconds which all it does is entices people to run the light because they know it short and takes another 3 mins to reset.
Like I said a couple posts ago, its to prevent speeding.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: sharkyfour on July 01, 2020, 08:14:47 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on July 01, 2020, 01:44:41 AM
Quote from: sharkyfour on June 30, 2020, 10:46:48 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on June 30, 2020, 09:03:09 PM
We also impliment some kind of presence-based automation at every installation. It used to be in-road magnetic field based. Now all of them are being installed with a combination of magnetic field and video monitoring.

I think the magnetic field monitoring is becoming a thing of the past.  I've noticed as they do repaving projects, they'll retrofit the intersections with the video detection systems and not replace the magnetic loops.  There's actually two intersections near me where they didn't retrofit the intersections with video detection since the whole signal was up for replacement after a paving project in 2017 or 2018.  One intersection got video detection in the new signal last year; the other intersection they just installed the footings for the new masts.  That second intersection is definitely just running on timing, no detection, and the timed cycles are AWFUL.

Agreed. And I HATE it.  Used to be that a light with a protected left in one direction but not the other would only trip the turn arrow if there was a car in the lane to turn left.  Now, it trips EVERY time, even if there is no car in the lane.  It's as if there is payola between the DOT and the fuel industry to cost you more gas while you're stuck idling longer at lights for no reason.

Seriously.  The one that really gets under my skin right now is US 6 at Airport Road in North Windham.  The protected lefts when nobody's there and the timing in general are just horrible.  The one down the street at Walmart wasn't as bad while it was on timing-only for about a year.  But we're approaching 2 years as timing-only at Airport Road now...
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on July 02, 2020, 02:26:20 AM
Quote from: sharkyfour on July 01, 2020, 08:14:47 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on July 01, 2020, 01:44:41 AM
Quote from: sharkyfour on June 30, 2020, 10:46:48 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on June 30, 2020, 09:03:09 PM
We also impliment some kind of presence-based automation at every installation. It used to be in-road magnetic field based. Now all of them are being installed with a combination of magnetic field and video monitoring.

I think the magnetic field monitoring is becoming a thing of the past.  I've noticed as they do repaving projects, they'll retrofit the intersections with the video detection systems and not replace the magnetic loops.  There's actually two intersections near me where they didn't retrofit the intersections with video detection since the whole signal was up for replacement after a paving project in 2017 or 2018.  One intersection got video detection in the new signal last year; the other intersection they just installed the footings for the new masts.  That second intersection is definitely just running on timing, no detection, and the timed cycles are AWFUL.

Agreed. And I HATE it.  Used to be that a light with a protected left in one direction but not the other would only trip the turn arrow if there was a car in the lane to turn left.  Now, it trips EVERY time, even if there is no car in the lane.  It's as if there is payola between the DOT and the fuel industry to cost you more gas while you're stuck idling longer at lights for no reason.

Seriously.  The one that really gets under my skin right now is US 6 at Airport Road in North Windham.  The protected lefts when nobody's there and the timing in general are just horrible.  The one down the street at Walmart wasn't as bad while it was on timing-only for about a year.  But we're approaching 2 years as timing-only at Airport Road now...

The one I'm referring to is on CT 10 in Southington at Flanders St by Oak Hill Cemetery.  Southbound traffic has a left turn lane with an advance arrow.  It used to be that if there was no car in the left turn lane, the cycle would skip the green arrow and turn green in both directions simultaneously.  Now, it can be 6 AM on a Sunday, you're the only car on the road, you're heading northbound and catch the red light, and you still have to wait those extra few seconds for the ghosts to turn left.  Of course, southbound at that light has it's own set of problems; 90% of the time if you catch that light red, you will catch the next light by Stop & Shop red as well.  It is just ridiculous how many times I have watched that light turn green, then no more than 5 seconds later, the lights on the When Flashing Stop Ahead sign about 100 feet ahead of you start blinking.  Whoever timed those two lights was smoking something.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on July 02, 2020, 11:50:40 PM
Quote from: sharkyfour on July 01, 2020, 08:14:47 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on July 01, 2020, 01:44:41 AM
Quote from: sharkyfour on June 30, 2020, 10:46:48 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on June 30, 2020, 09:03:09 PM
We also impliment some kind of presence-based automation at every installation. It used to be in-road magnetic field based. Now all of them are being installed with a combination of magnetic field and video monitoring.

I think the magnetic field monitoring is becoming a thing of the past.  I've noticed as they do repaving projects, they'll retrofit the intersections with the video detection systems and not replace the magnetic loops.  There's actually two intersections near me where they didn't retrofit the intersections with video detection since the whole signal was up for replacement after a paving project in 2017 or 2018.  One intersection got video detection in the new signal last year; the other intersection they just installed the footings for the new masts.  That second intersection is definitely just running on timing, no detection, and the timed cycles are AWFUL.

Agreed. And I HATE it.  Used to be that a light with a protected left in one direction but not the other would only trip the turn arrow if there was a car in the lane to turn left.  Now, it trips EVERY time, even if there is no car in the lane.  It's as if there is payola between the DOT and the fuel industry to cost you more gas while you're stuck idling longer at lights for no reason.

Seriously.  The one that really gets under my skin right now is US 6 at Airport Road in North Windham.  The protected lefts when nobody's there and the timing in general are just horrible.  The one down the street at Walmart wasn't as bad while it was on timing-only for about a year.  But we're approaching 2 years as timing-only at Airport Road now...
Have you considered writing ConnDOT?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: sharkyfour on July 02, 2020, 11:55:01 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on July 02, 2020, 11:50:40 PM
Quote from: sharkyfour on July 01, 2020, 08:14:47 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on July 01, 2020, 01:44:41 AM
Quote from: sharkyfour on June 30, 2020, 10:46:48 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on June 30, 2020, 09:03:09 PM
We also impliment some kind of presence-based automation at every installation. It used to be in-road magnetic field based. Now all of them are being installed with a combination of magnetic field and video monitoring.

I think the magnetic field monitoring is becoming a thing of the past.  I've noticed as they do repaving projects, they'll retrofit the intersections with the video detection systems and not replace the magnetic loops.  There's actually two intersections near me where they didn't retrofit the intersections with video detection since the whole signal was up for replacement after a paving project in 2017 or 2018.  One intersection got video detection in the new signal last year; the other intersection they just installed the footings for the new masts.  That second intersection is definitely just running on timing, no detection, and the timed cycles are AWFUL.

Agreed. And I HATE it.  Used to be that a light with a protected left in one direction but not the other would only trip the turn arrow if there was a car in the lane to turn left.  Now, it trips EVERY time, even if there is no car in the lane.  It's as if there is payola between the DOT and the fuel industry to cost you more gas while you're stuck idling longer at lights for no reason.

Seriously.  The one that really gets under my skin right now is US 6 at Airport Road in North Windham.  The protected lefts when nobody's there and the timing in general are just horrible.  The one down the street at Walmart wasn't as bad while it was on timing-only for about a year.  But we're approaching 2 years as timing-only at Airport Road now...
Have you considered writing ConnDOT?

Yes, I did write them actually.  They said they didn't retrofit the actuators at those two intersections because the entire signal was coming due for replacement.  At the time I wrote them in 2018, one project had been bid and awarded and the other was about to go out to bid.  Looking back, the road was re-paved (and inductive loops removed) in August 2017.  The signal at WalMart was replaced in September-ish 2019.  The signal at Airport Road, which is the one that's really off, just had the signal mast foundations installed, so it's still 6-12 months out from completion.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on July 10, 2020, 11:25:20 AM
After being put up this past winter, the new monotube gantry at I-691 East Exit 10 in Meriden has had its new signs installed.  This occurred sometime within the past 2-3 weeks:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50095903211_8c3518b250_3k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2jjNAHa)691EB-Exit10-2 (https://flic.kr/p/2jjNAHa) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

And 1/2 mile up the road at Exit 11, the new gantry and signs are also up.  This one went up quickly, as there was no new support structure there a few weeks ago:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50095323958_bb4a34bb94_4k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2jjKCw3)691EB-Exit11-2 (https://flic.kr/p/2jjKCw3) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

Both of these replacements are "spot" and part of ConnDOT's 2017 spot sign replacement project statewide. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on July 10, 2020, 12:45:33 PM
Interesting how the new signage is a lot more precise about the 691/66 transition.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on July 10, 2020, 10:00:52 PM
Yes indeed.

The problem will be when I-691 gets a blanket sign replacement at some point within the next 5, 10? years, and they'll probably replace some of these signs again, like removing "Springfield" from the Exit 11 signs.  I get it... support structures need to be replaced when their time is up (and most likely those two truss' were original to CT 66 construction, or at least since the 70s), but how 'bout coordinating with what's in the plans for future sign replacement projects?  Or, do what ConnDOT used to do and mount the old signs on the new gantry. 

At least there is some notice for motorists regarding the transition of I-691 East into CT 66 East. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Ben114 on July 10, 2020, 10:08:23 PM
How big of an exit tab do they need? That's big.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on July 10, 2020, 10:58:21 PM
Quote from: Ben114 on July 10, 2020, 10:08:23 PM
How big of an exit tab do they need? That's big.

Fixed it! Love, Caltrans

(https://i.imgur.com/HqYjLdl.png)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on July 17, 2020, 10:40:10 AM
Last night I saw a random sign replacement going on on CT 3 SB.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on July 17, 2020, 03:37:59 PM
Passed by the Charter Oak/Exit 29 reconstruction project today on my way back from Manch-vegas (Really that only works in VT & NH, but whatever)...
Noticed a new 4-chord cantilever advance on CT 15 North for Exit 90, just before the bridge, and several new monotube gantries on I-91, with what appeared to be the existing button copy signs on them, though I couldn't tell since I was on CT 15 South and couldn't see the signs clearly due to trees.

Where was the random sign replacement on CT 3 SB?  If it was within the confines of the I-91 interchange, there are some CT 3 signs in that area being replaced as part of the Exit 29 project, which includes safety improvements on I-91 down to Exit 25/CT 3.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on July 17, 2020, 03:55:04 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on July 17, 2020, 03:37:59 PM
Passed by the Charter Oak/Exit 29 reconstruction project today on my way back from Manch-vegas (Really that only works in VT & NH, but whatever)...
Noticed a new 4-chord cantilever advance on CT 15 North for Exit 90, just before the bridge, and several new monotube gantries on I-91, with what appeared to be the existing button copy signs on them, though I couldn't tell since I was on CT 15 South and couldn't see the signs clearly due to trees.

Where was the random sign replacement on CT 3 SB?  If it was within the confines of the I-91 interchange, there are some CT 3 signs in that area being replaced as part of the Exit 29 project, which includes safety improvements on I-91 down to Exit 25/CT 3.
The original signs are being mounted there temporarily. IIRC a sound majority of the signs in the project will be new.

The CT 3 sign replacement was on the east approach for the Putnam Bridge.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on July 17, 2020, 06:38:36 PM
Hmmm... the only sign on CT 3 in the state's spot sign replacement contracts in recent years was the "Junction 91 1 1/2 Miles" sign.  The sign, mounted on a cruciform cantilever, was removed and the gantry is being removed and not replaced.... at least per the contract plans.


Most of the signs on the Charter Oak Bridge and east are not getting replaced.  The CT 15 South to I-91 South ramp is only having the "exit now" sign replaced, removing "NY City" as a control city.  All other signs for this exit are remaining as is.  Same goes for the CT 15 North ramp to I-91 North, whose "exit now" gantry is not getting replaced.  There are some signs by the southern CT 15/I-91 connector (closer to Brainard Rd) that are also not being replaced.  I personally would've taken this opportunity to replace all CT 15 signage from Exit 85/CT 99 up to I-84, including gantries if necessary.  But that doesn't appear to be the case.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on July 19, 2020, 09:32:59 PM
And now... the new I-91 North gantries in Hartford:

At Exit 27:
I'm not sure why they bothered relocating the Exit 28 & Bradley Airport signs onto this gantry.  Bradley will get a new ground-mount sign, and Exit 28 is closed for the time being.  So really they could've gotten away with just leaving up the Exit 27 sign.  All signs will get replaced during a later stage of the project.  I'm also guessing, because the Exit 27 sign looks "on the level" and the other two are off, the future APL prohibits mounting non-APL signs in line with the others.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50131598057_156640c321_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2jnXxxx)91NB-Exit27 (https://flic.kr/p/2jnXxxx) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

At Exit 28 (temporarily closed):
There will be 3 new signs posted here at some point later in the project, one of them being a "US 5/CT 15 North/Charter Oak Bridge".  No APL is planned here, so all signs currently mount level.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50131373116_a8cef334c7_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2jnWoFf)91NB-Exit28 (https://flic.kr/p/2jnWoFf) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

Future 1/4 mile advance for the new LEFT Exit 29.  This will be an APL.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50130808013_b9e4129d28_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2jnTuG6)91NB-Exit29-1 (https://flic.kr/p/2jnTuG6) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

Future "exit now" APL for the new LEFT Exit 29...
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50131373881_b0a5e9a89a_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2jnWoUr)91NB-Exit29-2 (https://flic.kr/p/2jnWoUr) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on July 20, 2020, 01:03:23 AM
The first new sign is up on CT 15 NB for Exit 90.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeCL on July 22, 2020, 01:02:12 PM
I'm guessing the 1670 AM is going to be down for who knows how long.. but yet the highway signs still flash saying to tune to the channel but no signal at all.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on July 24, 2020, 08:17:48 PM
Sometime within the past week or so, the old gantry and signs at I-691 East/CT 66 East was taken down, leaving just the side supports, but even better, fully exposing the new signs.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50148839626_e449edec25_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2jptURY)691EB-Exit11 (https://flic.kr/p/2jptURY) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

Also, ConnDOT has put out a press release for the replacement of sheet aluminum signs statewide.... pretty much on all expressways.  CT 8 and CT 9 are not listed, as those routes have just had or about to have their signs replaced.  CT 2 and I-691 are also not listed, leading me to believe they're targeted next for sign replacement within the next year or so.  Also skipped is I-84 between Southington and Hartford, again in the middle of or having just received new signs.  Project also includes removal of the "Old Exit ##" signs from I-395, CT 2A, and SSR 695.

Press release here:
https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/Construction-News-from-the-Connecticut-Department-of-Transportation/2020/Statewide-Replacement-of-Highway-Sheet-Aluminum-Signs-on-Limited-Access-Highways

QuoteThe types of signs that will be replaced include but are not limited to Mile Markers, Exit Gore signs, Speed Limit signs, Merge signs, and Route Confirmation signs.  Additionally, all "Old Exit"  panels on I-395, CT-2A, and S.R. 695 will be removed.

I like how ConnDOT refers to reassurance shields as "route confirmation signs".

This project may spell an end to the oversized "65/55" numerals on speed limit signs, in favor of smaller numerals as seen in recent sign replacement projects.  Wonder if this will also result in all MUTCD-compliant mile markers statewide, setting the stage for future exit renumbering by mileage.



Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: bob7374 on July 25, 2020, 12:15:26 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on July 24, 2020, 08:17:48 PM
Sometime within the past week or so, the old gantry and signs at I-691 East/CT 66 East was taken down, leaving just the side supports, but even better, fully exposing the new signs.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50148839626_e449edec25_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2jptURY)691EB-Exit11 (https://flic.kr/p/2jptURY) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

Also, ConnDOT has put out a press release for the replacement of sheet aluminum signs statewide.... pretty much on all expressways.  CT 8 and CT 9 are not listed, as those routes have just had or about to have their signs replaced.  CT 2 and I-691 are also not listed, leading me to believe they're targeted next for sign replacement within the next year or so.  Also skipped is I-84 between Southington and Hartford, again in the middle of or having just received new signs.  Project also includes removal of the "Old Exit ##" signs from I-395, CT 2A, and SSR 695.

Press release here:
https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/Construction-News-from-the-Connecticut-Department-of-Transportation/2020/Statewide-Replacement-of-Highway-Sheet-Aluminum-Signs-on-Limited-Access-Highways

QuoteThe types of signs that will be replaced include but are not limited to Mile Markers, Exit Gore signs, Speed Limit signs, Merge signs, and Route Confirmation signs.  Additionally, all "Old Exit"  panels on I-395, CT-2A, and S.R. 695 will be removed.

I like how ConnDOT refers to reassurance shields as "route confirmation signs".

This project may spell an end to the oversized "65/55" numerals on speed limit signs, in favor of smaller numerals as seen in recent sign replacement projects.  Wonder if this will also result in all MUTCD-compliant mile markers statewide, setting the stage for future exit renumbering by mileage.
Checked out the latest ConnDOT project advertising schedule (July 2020 to June 2021), the sign replacement contract above is currently scheduled to be advertised on Nov. 18. I also noticed that the second CT 9 sign replacement contract advertisement is now for Aug. 12, it first was scheduled for July 22. There are a few other statewide sign replacement contracts listed. Here's a link to the list: https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOT/documents/dfiscalprojects/advschedule.pdf (https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOT/documents/dfiscalprojects/advschedule.pdf)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on July 25, 2020, 06:46:19 PM
Anyone know what the deal is with the work being done on I-84 between Exits 59 and 57? Is it drainage work?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on July 25, 2020, 08:49:31 PM
No, that's replacing a sign support structure.  It is this span being replaced:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7662895,-72.6237803,3a,37.1y,245.89h,85.01t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1syfYf57QF2yejuvUuGdIebw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

The new support will span all lanes of I-84, but will not span the on-ramps at Exit 58.  Some of the ramps are closed to fascilitate construction activities such as pouring the new foundations.  As far as signs, westbound, the new signs will be standard "carbon copy" of the existing signs, with aligned exit tabs, "LEFT" tabs, etc.  Eastbound, the sign support will include a new diagrammatic for the I-84/I-384 jct - 1 1/2 Miles.  Given there is a 1 1/4 mile advance for this same jct on a bridge overpass just east of here, I'm guessing this may replace the bridge-mount.   
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 10, 2020, 05:09:28 PM
Drove the length of the CT 8 sign replacement project from Bridgeport to Shelton.  No new extruded aluminum/guide signs to report... just some secondary signs, reassurance shields, mile markers, and offramp signs.  Some new foundations were spotted.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50207566903_51d2d9ea75_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2juEUre)8/25NB-MP1 (https://flic.kr/p/2juEUre) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

In this photo, we see the reassurance shields are of the outline type.  We also seen an ehnanced mile marker and two bridge ID signs off in the distance.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on August 11, 2020, 01:22:07 AM
Finally, CTDOT accurately (and correctly) gives priority to CT 8 on the 8/25 connector.  Now, if only they would correct the signage on I-95 that puts 25 before 8 for Exit 27A.  And why not just truncate CT 25 to the split?  I know it's a historical thing like MA 128, but most people think of this road as CT 8 (where most still refer to I-95 between Canton and Peabody as 128).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 11, 2020, 03:05:22 PM
Yeah, that "25/8" on I-95 irks me.  But on CT 8 itself, previous reassurance shields listed the routes as "8/25".  See:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.1905462,-73.1938313,3a,37.5y,11.57h,95.74t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sTGKNH6EX7sJ4-mjuCdfpUQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

What makes it seem like CT 25 has priority is at the split, where CT 25 gets 3 lanes while CT 8 has only 2, and you have to merge right to get to them, as one lane comes in from the US 1/Boston Ave exit.  CT 25 was originally signed on local roads and the CT 8/25 connector was only CT 8, until the CT 25 expressway was built up to northern Trumbull.  It seems weird that the 6-lane CT 25 expressway (and 8 lanes in spots, if you include the truck lanes) ends in the middle of nowhere, but that's CT for ya. 

From plans I saw, one of the advance northbound 8/25 jct signs was due to be replaced as part of the state's spot overhead sign project, but never was, and I'm sure it'll now be included in the blanket Bridgeport-to-Shelton project.  The plans for that sign showed a "future" exit tab over the CT 25 portion, so its possible that at that point, CT 25 may be truncated to the jct and removed from the Bridgeport section of CT 8.  I guess it depends on how CT 25 exits get numbered... will the first solo 25 exit northbound become Exit 1 or Exit 4?  We'll see.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 12, 2020, 04:43:25 PM
Route 9 signing project and exit renumbering contract was released today.  It replaces all signs, I-95 to Exit 16, along with the CT 17 and CT 82 connectors.  It also renumbers all exits by mileage, including those in the two northern CT 9 signing contracts from Exit 18 to I-84.  Some notes:

*  Yes, signs are being replaced in Middletown through the Acheson Drive section.  We're going to get some alphabet soup southbound for present Exits 12-15, which will become Exits 23A-23D.  Present NB Exit 12 will become Exit 22.
*  All bridge mounts will be replaced with ground signage

*  Like the other CT 9 projects and the southernmost CT 8 project, entrance signs will resume being extruded aluminum, not sheet aluminum.
*  Exit services, Park & Ride, and town line signs will be denoted by sheet aluminum signs.  Not sure why CT no longer uses the "service bar"... that looked nice on signs!
*  Some exits have had destinations altered.  "82/East Haddam/Moodus" becomes "82/East Haddam/Haddam" in both directions.  In some cases, the secondary destination has
    been moved to a secondary extruded sign.
*  There are a few errors in the plans, which hopefully will be corrected before signs go up in the field.  My favorite is the "Speed Limit 65" sign just after the "Speed limit Ahead
    45 MPH".  There's also an "Old Saybrook Town Line" sign northbound which should be an "Essex Town Line" sign.
*  Some ATTRACTIONS logo signs are going to go up. 

Plans can be found here:
https://biznet.ct.gov/scp_search/BidDetail.aspx?CID=54644

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: rushfan01760 on August 12, 2020, 05:28:06 PM
Looks like this Clearview sign is coming down:

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7103977,-72.759795,3a,75y,342.63h,106.63t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srDynHQbPd3blPFIrKX9PcQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 12, 2020, 06:30:01 PM
Oh that will be coming down this year, if not next, as that was part of Route 9 Phase I (Exit 25 to I-84).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: zzyzx on August 12, 2020, 11:28:09 PM
Looks like the few remaining JUNCTION signs will be gone too, like this one on CT-82:

(https://i.imgur.com/vwpPvAb.png)

There's also another one on 9SB for I-95.

Are there any more standalone JUNCTION signs left in the state??

EDIT: I see they are adding a JUNCTION I-91 2 MILES sign on 9SB after New Exit 31/21 (pg. 12 in the TRAFFIC pdf). So it seems CT DOT isn't abandoning them after all.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on August 13, 2020, 01:45:55 AM
There's a Junction I-91 sign on CT 3 southbound: https://goo.gl/maps/4erQpZStnRYrKppE7. Looks to be the original from 1987-1989.

There's also a "2 JCT" sign in the other direction: https://goo.gl/maps/z8VB1D6quJVQSC5EA
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on August 13, 2020, 11:12:45 AM
Still also a JCT I-84 2 1/2 MI sign on I-91 South just after crossing over Main St.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8042774,-72.6587495,3a,75y,145.32h,89.76t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sK15nH4d2l3kVVFg-MaeHhg!2e0
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 13, 2020, 11:19:34 AM
Quote from: kurumi on August 13, 2020, 01:45:55 AM
There's a Junction I-91 sign on CT 3 southbound: https://goo.gl/maps/4erQpZStnRYrKppE7. Looks to be the original from 1987-1989.

That one actually came down recently and not replaced, as part of the state's spot overhead project.  Guess ConnDOT saw no need for it, as it was replaced with nothing.  It actually dated to the mid 90s, when the CT 3/I-91 interchange was modified and the direct CT 3 South to I-91 South ramp was added. 

That "2 JCT" sign on CT 3 North has always struck me as odd. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on August 13, 2020, 12:39:46 PM
Some thoughts on the Route 9 exit renumbering: 

Using 37 for CT 175 is driving me CRAZY.  The CT 175 overpass is between MP 37.95-37.98, and the SB exit/NB entrance are well into mile 38.

The whole New Britain area is a CF.  Why not just use 34 for the Willow Brook Connector, 35A (35) for Ellis St (Ellis St is at MP 35.13), 35B for Columbus Blvd (MP 35.56), and 36 as the number for the whole 72 interchange, including Chestnut St and East Main St?  Chestnut St is at MP 35.74, and East Main is at MP 36.08.  It would be a lot simpler if NB you had plain 36 for 72 West, and SB you had 36A for Chestnut, 36B for 72 West and 36C for Downtown.  AND WHY IS 34B USED FOR ELLIS ST SB WHEN THERE IS NO 34A?!?  Should be just plain 34.

I see Springfield and N.Y. City were removed as secondary controls for I-91

Still no love for CT 3 on the West St exit in Cromwell

I would've fudged Silver St down to 22 to keep it consistent with Bow Lane (as both are Exit 12 now; hey, they did it for Ellis St despite being at MP 35.13).  And I would have fudged up CT 66 West to 24A and made the Arrigoni 24B to keep a single number for the 66 exits (it's at MP 23.94).  WIth both of these, you'd have much less of an Alphabet City at 23; CT 17 South would be 23A and deKoven Dr would be 23B.

Why do they insist on still mentioning TO 17 on SB CT 155 exit signage when you just had a concurrency with CT 17 that left via an exit 2 miles ago?  And if you really want to nitpick, I would add SOUTH to the 17 on NB signage since you have a junction with CT 17 in 2 miles.

I see Higganum is now on supplemental signage for the Aircraft Rd exit

No mention of the Essex 11 Old Saybrook 15 mileage sign between current Exits 9 and 8?

I see they're consistent now for the controls for CT 82 and use Haddam and East Haddam in both directions.  NB signage currently uses East Haddam/Colchester and SB signage uses East Haddam/Moodus.

I would've used Exit 9 for CT 148 as the 9 MP is within the interchange, but that's just me.

COME ON CTDOT. The CT 80 overpass is between MP 6.98 and 6.99.  Just round to 7 dammit.  And no love for Killingworth NB.

WHY 154 BEFORE 153?!? (see also:25 before 8 on I-95 Exit 27A).   I would've rounded up to 4 (overpasses at 3.87 and 3.94), but that's just me.

No more exit number for Ferry Point northbound so that the 2 CT 154 exits can both be 1 instead of a 1A and 1B NB.

No more N.Y. City and Providence as secondary controls for I-95/US 1.  Interesting that US 1 gets love here at the southern terminus but US 6 gets no love on I-84 at the northern terminus.  And of course, CTDOT maintains its practice here of not giving exit numbers to termini. 

Huh, ha, whaaat?  CT 9 North gets an exit number on CT 82?!? :-o  But no exit number for Main St Extension (21) or for CT 9 South (22; NB only) on CT 17.






Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on August 13, 2020, 03:45:48 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on August 13, 2020, 12:39:46 PM
Some thoughts on the Route 9 exit renumbering: 

Using 37 for CT 175 is driving me CRAZY.  The CT 175 overpass is between MP 37.95-37.98, and the SB exit/NB entrance are well into mile 38.
...

Huh, ha, whaaat?  CT 9 North gets an exit number on CT 82?!? :-o  But no exit number for Main St Extension (21) or for CT 9 South (22; NB only) on CT 17.

Agreed. I think MP 0.00 to 1.50 should be exit 1, MP 1.50 to 2.50 exit 2, and so on. (CT tends to use Exit 1A, B, C... for the first 2 miles, where there tend to be a lot of interchanges anyway.)

For an interchange "on the line", choose whichever number doesn't conflict with nearby exits. I think the fewer letter-suffixed exits you need, the better.

It's not only strange that Route 82 has a numbered "exit" for Route 9 north, but the Route 9 south sign (no exit number) on page 542 has two down-facing arrows yet is apparently ground-mounted. Target fixation is a thing.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on August 14, 2020, 01:00:20 AM
Couple of others I noticed; one that irks me, one that is interesting.

The one that irks me: for 66 West: Why use Middletown as a control for 66 West when you are already in Middletown?!?  Would've preferred they used "Washington St" or even "Downtown Middletown" (at least northbound).  Of course, I would have used Meriden, but I get it; CTDOT wants you to use 9 North to 91 South to get to Meriden (BTW, I don't see that sign in the plans).

The interesting one: The CT 17 South exit has eschewed the longer distance control (New Haven) for a local street (South Main St).  Guess they figured New Haven bound traffic would have exited at I-91 (or do they really want you to complete the giant triangle and take 9 all the way to Old Saybrook and pick up 95 South? :-P)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 14, 2020, 03:10:10 PM
The CT 9 South/CT 9 North signs at the western end of CT 82 are indeed to be mounted overhead.  The contract plans show it, while the "special provisions" 500+ page book does indeed show it as "ground". 

It makes sense to change "New Haven" to "South Main St" for Exit 13, southbound.  I would've changed Exit 11 to read "155/Randolph Rd" and installed a secondary sign northbound that reads "To 17 South/Durham".  If you just past Exit 13 southbound, for CT 17, why do you need another route to get to CT 17 again via Exit 11, and one that's out of the way no less.

Exit 15 should've been changed to "Washington St", at least southbound, as there are 2 more Middletown exits in that direction.  Northbound signs for this "exit" used to also read Meriden until the first sign replacement project in the mid 80s. 

Not a fan of two lines for such points that are currently one line.  Such as, "Middlesex/Tpke" and "Old/Saybrook". 

Maybe we'll see an "Addendum" issued to address some issues, but most likely not.  Such as the 1/2 mile advance northbound for Exit 2 just saying "Old Saybrook", while "154" makes an appearance on the exit now sign.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: The Ghostbuster on August 14, 2020, 08:17:58 PM
Why are the exits at Interstate 84 being denumbered? They should be 40A and 40B. Also, since CT 9 will never go any further north than Interstate 84, the unused ramps and road pavement should be obliterated.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Ben114 on August 14, 2020, 09:33:17 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 14, 2020, 08:17:58 PM
Why are the exits at Interstate 84 being denumbered? They should be 40A and 40B. Also, since CT 9 will never go any further north than Interstate 84, the unused ramps and road pavement should be obliterated.

Most likely because ConnDOT doesn't sign the exits at the end of highways. (See the southern end of CT 9 and I-91 for example)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on August 15, 2020, 01:34:30 AM
Quote from: kurumi on August 13, 2020, 03:45:48 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on August 13, 2020, 12:39:46 PM
Using 37 for CT 175 is driving me CRAZY.  The CT 175 overpass is between MP 37.95-37.98, and the SB exit/NB entrance are well into mile 38.

Agreed. I think MP 0.00 to 1.50 should be exit 1, MP 1.50 to 2.50 exit 2, and so on. (CT tends to use Exit 1A, B, C... for the first 2 miles, where there tend to be a lot of interchanges anyway.)

This theoretically purist approach is not actually common practice in the greater scheme of things. Most states either always round up or always round down. CT has decided to always round down, so MP 37.98 = exit 37. NY is also in the always round down club.

It is certainly clunky though to always round down AND refuse to use exit 0 (CT is not using exit 0). This can get you a bunch of exit 1s.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on August 15, 2020, 12:48:05 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 14, 2020, 08:17:58 PM
Why are the exits at Interstate 84 being denumbered? They should be 40A and 40B. Also, since CT 9 will never go any further north than Interstate 84, the unused ramps and road pavement should be obliterated.

Not necessarily so.  If you looked at one of Lamont's long range transportation plan, it included an extension to CT 4.  But yes,  CTDOT usually doesn't number termini ramps, which most likely means that the I-84 exits at the west end of I-691 will no longer be numbered when I-691 is renumbered (and probably east to west, as previously discussed).  I'm just curious how the exits at the west end of I-291 will be renumbered.  Will the 91 ramps no longer be numbered and only the 218 ramp be numbered, or will all ramps be unnumbered?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: DJStephens on August 16, 2020, 10:54:30 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 14, 2020, 08:17:58 PM
Why are the exits at Interstate 84 being denumbered? They should be 40A and 40B. Also, since CT 9 will never go any further north than Interstate 84, the unused ramps and road pavement should be obliterated.

The existing late sixties stack is being partially used.  Since Route 9 was connected to it in the  early? nineties.   Demolishing it  would require a full "reroute" of traffic that is using the facility.  While a directional T, of either Box Beam or segmental design, would be more aesthetically pleasing, it would be a major expense in an expensive state.   The stack was not used for twenty plus years, at all, so it was not exposed to de-icing chemicals and salt during that time.  Would imagine that there was far more liberal use of pure rock salt in the seventies, than there is now.  Do remember hunks of rock salt being thrown down in the seventies, growing up in New England.  So that stack should have plenty of life yet.   
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on August 17, 2020, 10:28:28 AM
Quote from: DJStephens on August 16, 2020, 10:54:30 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 14, 2020, 08:17:58 PM
Why are the exits at Interstate 84 being denumbered? They should be 40A and 40B. Also, since CT 9 will never go any further north than Interstate 84, the unused ramps and road pavement should be obliterated.

The existing late sixties stack is being partially used.  Since Route 9 was connected to it in the  early? nineties.   Demolishing it  would require a full "reroute" of traffic that is using the facility.  While a directional T, of either Box Beam or segmental design, would be more aesthetically pleasing, it would be a major expense in an expensive state.   The stack was not used for twenty plus years, at all, so it was not exposed to de-icing chemicals and salt during that time.  Would imagine that there was far more liberal use of pure rock salt in the seventies, than there is now.  Do remember hunks of rock salt being thrown down in the seventies, growing up in New England.  So that stack should have plenty of life yet.
ConnDOT used sand with occasional rock salt before switching to a calcium chloride spray. More sand than anything else.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on August 17, 2020, 04:14:12 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on August 17, 2020, 10:28:28 AM
Quote from: DJStephens on August 16, 2020, 10:54:30 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 14, 2020, 08:17:58 PM
Why are the exits at Interstate 84 being denumbered? They should be 40A and 40B. Also, since CT 9 will never go any further north than Interstate 84, the unused ramps and road pavement should be obliterated.

The existing late sixties stack is being partially used.  Since Route 9 was connected to it in the  early? nineties.   Demolishing it  would require a full "reroute" of traffic that is using the facility.  While a directional T, of either Box Beam or segmental design, would be more aesthetically pleasing, it would be a major expense in an expensive state.   The stack was not used for twenty plus years, at all, so it was not exposed to de-icing chemicals and salt during that time.  Would imagine that there was far more liberal use of pure rock salt in the seventies, than there is now.  Do remember hunks of rock salt being thrown down in the seventies, growing up in New England.  So that stack should have plenty of life yet.
ConnDOT used sand with occasional rock salt before switching to a calcium chloride spray. More sand than anything else.

The sand/rock salt mix did a number on Connecticut's roads and bridges. Apparently Connecticut has switched to a more eco-friendly de-icing solution made up of molasses and beet juice, as outlined in the article below.

https://www.ctinsider.com/news/nhregister/article/Molasses-and-beet-juice-help-keep-Connecticut-14905921.php
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 21, 2020, 09:17:00 PM
Some progress is being made on the sign replacement on CT 9 from Cromwell to Farmington.  Observed a few new sign foundations in sporadic locations throughout, including in Cromwell and Berlin.  Still no progress to report on the 2 spot sign replacement projects SB in New Britain... this is from the 2017 project. 

Finally got a chance to drive the all-too-short CT 189 (original CT 9) expressway up in Bloomfield, with the sign photos at my FLICKR page.  Also got shots of the new north end of the Bradley Airport connector.  Not a fan of the rotary, but oh well.  Still a lot of construction going on in that area.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 22, 2020, 03:53:18 PM
CT 2 is next for exit number conversion, along with CT 3 (Wethersfield-Glastonbury), CT 17 (Glastonbury), and CT 11.  Press release here announces the project, along with the new numbers, with plans available next summer:

https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/Construction-News-from-the-Connecticut-Department-of-Transportation/2020/Replacement-of-Highway-Signs-and-Sign-Supports-on-Routes-2-3-11and-17-Mileage-Based-Exit-Numbering

Looks like ConnDOT is holding out hope for CT 11, given the mile-based exits retain existing mile markers, which count up from the non-existent connection with I-95/I-395. 
Also, for some reason, CT 3's northern terminus gives numbers to the CT 2 exits.  This is against what is presently being done statewide on CT 8, CT 9, etc. 


With CT 8, CT 9, and now CT 2/3/11/17 projects announced, there won't be any Phase III on any major state route, and the last large stretch on any route will be I-91 north of Hartford and I-95 in Branford-Guilford. 


Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on August 23, 2020, 12:56:16 AM
CT 17 southbound experience will be interesting. Exit 36A/36B; then exit 35; then end of freeway.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on August 23, 2020, 12:59:18 AM
Quote from: kurumi on August 23, 2020, 12:56:16 AM
CT 17 southbound experience will be interesting. Exit 36A/36B; then exit 35; then end of freeway.
That's a borderline case for engineering judgment to say "forget it, exit numbers won't do anything useful." 3 or more exits, I'd say yes.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Ben114 on August 23, 2020, 01:30:37 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on August 22, 2020, 03:53:18 PM
Looks like ConnDOT is holding out hope for CT 11, given the mile-based exits retain existing mile markers, which count up from the non-existent connection with I-95/I-395. 

Yep, it's even in their route log.
(https://i.imgur.com/AsfDPQT.png)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on August 23, 2020, 01:56:36 AM
My thoughts...

CT 2: Seems CTDOT has abandoned the round down mentality it had with CT 9's numbers and has shifted to rounding to the nearest mileposts.  Willow St EB is bumped up to 2 (and rightfully so) despite the intersection being at MP 1.98.  High St EB and Main St WB are round up to 3 despite the intersections being at MP 2.80 and 2.94, respectively (and I could see High St becoming plain Exit 3 in the future when Sutton Ave closes).  Other examples of rounding up: Maple St (EB only) to 4 (MP 3.67), CT 83 to 10 (MP 9.94), Thompson St to 11 (MP 10.76), South Main St (WB only) to 18 (MP 17.66), CT 16 to 24 (MP 23.70), Chestnut Hill Rd to 26 (MP 25.97), the Lebanon exit to 31 (MP 30.91), Fitchville (WB only) to 35 (MP 34.53[!]), CT 32 North to 36 (MP 35.69), and New London Turnpike to 38 (MP 37.70).  I nailed the westbound Exit 1 alphabet city, and we now will have an Exit 1E that has nothing to do with leading to the eastbound direction of a highway :).  In the Colchester area, I would've left the CT 16 exit at 23 to avoid the alphabet city eastbound, and would've rounded the 354 exit westbound down to 24 in that it is a de facto exit for CT 11 and it intersects another route it leads to (CT 85) at MP 24.84.  In the Norwich area, I would've made Fitchville 34 and CT 32 North 35 to avoid the alphabet city westbound at 36, but I like the rounding up of Norwichtown to avoid a 37C after the 395 exits  and that the 395 South exit westbound can be plain Exit 37.  But why no EB exit number for the Governor St ramp (will we just continue to see DOWNTOWN as the Exit #?)  As for a couple of other things: I hope CTDOT updates some of the controls and does not use New London as a control for CT 11 (should be just Salem) and uses Norwich/New London as dual controls for CT 2 East at the CT 11 split.  As such, I would hope to see New London replace New Haven as the control on the EB ramp to 395 South (or at least dual controls; but leave WB as is).  And pretty please, can we use Worcester as the control for 395 North?  I-395 doesn't come within 30 miles of Providence, and who really takes CT 2 to I-395 to SR 695 to get from Hartford to the RI border when going there?

CT 3: Wasn't sure if it would get numbers for such a short freeway (and with the first 11 miles being non-limited access), but it will.  This indicates to me that the Willimantic Bypass portion of US 6 will as well when it is re-signed.  The only thing: the EB termini ramps at CT 2 are numbered, which goes against everything CTDOT has been doing in eliminating numbers for termini ramps (see CT 9 at I-84).  And the CT 2 intersection is at MP 13.68, but rounding up makes sense to avoid an alphabet city.

CT 11: <in my best Lloyd Christmas voice>  So you're saying there's a chance?  So, we're leaving the mileposts as if the road exists all the way to I-95, we'll number the exits as such, but we've officially cancelled it and we won't number the terminus southbound.  Got it :crazy:

CT 17: Sooooo.....why does this section of CT 17 get exit numbers, while a section of similar length in Middletown does not? 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on August 23, 2020, 12:30:34 PM
What's with the logs? They could make a nicer one in Excel which can make nice tables.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on August 23, 2020, 01:27:42 PM
Given the numerous freeway to freeway interchanges with missing movements, which convention do you prefer? Example is CT 3 at I-91, which has one exit NB, but two exits (11A and 11B) SB:
ConnDOT chooses #2, but there are consistency arguments favoring #1.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on August 23, 2020, 03:36:50 PM
Quote from: kurumi on August 23, 2020, 12:56:16 AM
CT 17 southbound experience will be interesting. Exit 36A/36B; then exit 35; then end of freeway.

What's interesting to note about that is that ConnDOT will number the exits on the Glastonbury stub of Route 17, but recent plans show no exit numbers for the Route 17 stub off Route 9 south of Middletown.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on August 23, 2020, 04:21:30 PM
Quote from: kurumi on August 23, 2020, 01:27:42 PM
Given the numerous freeway to freeway interchanges with missing movements, which convention do you prefer? Example is CT 3 at I-91, which has one exit NB, but two exits (11A and 11B) SB:

  • make CT 3 NB to I-91 NB exit 11B, to match CT 3 SB to I-91 NB
  • make CT 3 NB to I-91 NB plain exit 11, since there's only one exit in that direction
ConnDOT chooses #2, but there are consistency arguments favoring #1.

Definitely prefer #2.  You'll see the same thing on I-84 in Farmington when its renumbered.  US 6 (WB only) will be 54A, but CT 4 will be 54 eastbound and 54B westbound.  Having a 54B eastbound (when the numbers are increasing) looks silly when there is no 54A (and the exit tabs and gore sign on the new signage for the eastbound exit did not leave room for a suffix).  The fun one, though will be the Hartford tunnel exits.  Eastbound should be 62A (High St/Ann Uccello St), and 62B (Main St).  The question is will CTDOT go with 62C for 91 North and 62D for 91 South, or vice versa?  I say the latter, because the destination point of the flyover (current 51) is farther east than the one for the short ramp (current 52).  So, if things are correct, exits eastbound should go 62A, 62B, 62D, 62C.  Westbound, you should have 62D (I-91 North, current 51) and 62B (US 44/Main St, current 50), but no 62C or 62A. It wouldn't make sense to make them 62B and 62A as they wouldn't be consistent with their eastbound counterparts. 

There is a scenario of #1 if you look at the CT 9 plans.  Ellis St (actually, TO CT 71) southbound is labeled as 34B, despite there not being a 34A (SR 571/Willow Brook Connector) exit.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 25, 2020, 05:13:42 PM
A couple of locations in the state's 2018 version of spot sign replacements have been completed...

The 3 overheads on I-91 SB that were on the SR 3/Cromwell Ave overpass just south of Rocky Hill are now gone, replaced with a new monotube structure holding new signs for Exits 22S and 22N.  No pull-through.  Signs on the overpass have been removed. 
** NO PHOTO AS I WAS TRAVELING NORTHBOUND AND RETURNED HOME A DIFFERENT WAY.  WILL GET A PHOTO SOON, THOUGH **

One of the 3 signs mounted on the SR 190 overpass at Exit 47 in Enfield on I-91 NB has been removed...  the damaged Exit 48 1/4 mile sign.  The pull-through and Exit 47W "exit now" signs remain on the overpass and have not been replaced. 

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50268131718_f66c34d1b8_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2jA2jfb)91NB-Exit47W (https://flic.kr/p/2jA2jfb) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on August 25, 2020, 08:26:33 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on August 22, 2020, 03:53:18 PM
Looks like ConnDOT is holding out hope for CT 11, given the mile-based exits retain existing mile markers, which count up from the non-existent connection with I-95/I-395. 

I wouldn't read too much into this. They're changing the exit numbers because of a federal mandate that they match the mile markers. There's no reason for them to also, at extra expense and headache, change the mile markers and have to reinventory everything on the road to match - even if they've firmly decided that the southern half of CT 11 is cancelled forever. There is, after all, no requirement that mile markers on a road start at 0.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Roadsguy on August 25, 2020, 09:52:03 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on August 25, 2020, 08:26:33 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on August 22, 2020, 03:53:18 PM
Looks like ConnDOT is holding out hope for CT 11, given the mile-based exits retain existing mile markers, which count up from the non-existent connection with I-95/I-395. 

I wouldn't read too much into this. They're changing the exit numbers because of a federal mandate that they match the mile markers. There's no reason for them to also, at extra expense and headache, change the mile markers and have to reinventory everything on the road to match - even if they've firmly decided that the southern half of CT 11 is cancelled forever. There is, after all, no requirement that mile markers on a road start at 0.

Funny how this can be interpreted in opposite ways: either ConnDOT still cares a little bit about CT 11, or they care so little that they can't even be bothered to remove the cancelled section from the route log.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on August 26, 2020, 12:48:49 AM
George R. R. Martin is going to tackle CT 11 right after he finishes Winds of Winter.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on August 26, 2020, 02:27:53 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on August 25, 2020, 09:52:03 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on August 25, 2020, 08:26:33 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on August 22, 2020, 03:53:18 PM
Looks like ConnDOT is holding out hope for CT 11, given the mile-based exits retain existing mile markers, which count up from the non-existent connection with I-95/I-395. 

I wouldn't read too much into this. They're changing the exit numbers because of a federal mandate that they match the mile markers. There's no reason for them to also, at extra expense and headache, change the mile markers and have to reinventory everything on the road to match - even if they've firmly decided that the southern half of CT 11 is cancelled forever. There is, after all, no requirement that mile markers on a road start at 0.

Funny how this can be interpreted in opposite ways: either ConnDOT still cares a little bit about CT 11, or they care so little that they can't even be bothered to remove the cancelled section from the route log.
Without getting too fictional, there's no reason that they couldn't converted CT 11 into a Super-2 and have it taper back onto CT 85 a little further south. That at least keeps thru traffic away from the rotary.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 26, 2020, 06:02:39 PM
Yup, that would work, and for a few years that was a proposal on some maps (Rand McNally I believe).  If you can't have the full-build to I-95/I-395, then do this, extend south to a point south of the rotary along Rt 85.  Think like what ConnDOT did to US 7 around Brookfield.  Then you could sign CT 11 all the way to I-95, perhaps have it replace CT 85.  Then the existing mileage would be close. 

Wait... did we ever determine where in fact MP 0 on Rt 11 would be?  Remember, at one point it was proposed to end at I-395 somewhere near MP 1, then was extended to meet I-95 at some point near Exit 81.  Only much later was it proposed to end right at the I-95/I-395 interchange.

Or... the ultimate Rt 11 shaft... convert the entire expressway to a Super 2.  Or, remove the whole thing.  Maybe try a trial "Super 2".  Make it safer by throwing up a jersey barrier. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on August 26, 2020, 10:55:48 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on August 26, 2020, 02:27:53 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on August 25, 2020, 09:52:03 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on August 25, 2020, 08:26:33 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on August 22, 2020, 03:53:18 PM
Looks like ConnDOT is holding out hope for CT 11, given the mile-based exits retain existing mile markers, which count up from the non-existent connection with I-95/I-395. 

I wouldn't read too much into this. They're changing the exit numbers because of a federal mandate that they match the mile markers. There's no reason for them to also, at extra expense and headache, change the mile markers and have to reinventory everything on the road to match - even if they've firmly decided that the southern half of CT 11 is cancelled forever. There is, after all, no requirement that mile markers on a road start at 0.

Funny how this can be interpreted in opposite ways: either ConnDOT still cares a little bit about CT 11, or they care so little that they can't even be bothered to remove the cancelled section from the route log.
Without getting too fictional, there's no reason that they couldn't converted CT 11 into a Super-2 and have it taper back onto CT 85 a little further south. That at least keeps thru traffic away from the rotary.
If they do that, they've given up! No giving up!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on September 03, 2020, 10:24:33 AM
Does anyone have any photos of the alleged ramp meter from the CT 17 to CT 9 ramp in Middletown?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: The Ghostbuster on September 03, 2020, 01:57:09 PM
Speaking of Middletown, is CT 9 doomed to forever have at-grade intersections at Washington St., St. Johns Square (CT 17), and Miller St.? If the locals won't let any ramps and bridges replace those intersections, I would say cul-de-sac all three of them. I realize that would cause a lot of problems (and probably much opposition), though it might be the only way to make CT 9 completely freeway between Interstate 95 and Interstate 84. I am open to other suggestions.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: sharkyfour on September 04, 2020, 07:02:20 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on September 03, 2020, 10:24:33 AM
Does anyone have any photos of the alleged ramp meter from the CT 17 to CT 9 ramp in Middletown?

No photos, but I do remember it back in the late 90's/early 2000's.  I remember a period of just some inoperative remnants sitting there for a while, too.  Not really too keen on exact dates, though.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on September 06, 2020, 09:33:09 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 03, 2020, 01:57:09 PM
Speaking of Middletown, is CT 9 doomed to forever have at-grade intersections at Washington St., St. Johns Square (CT 17), and Miller St.? If the locals won't let any ramps and bridges replace those intersections, I would say cul-de-sac all three of them. I realize that would cause a lot of problems (and probably much opposition), though it might be the only way to make CT 9 completely freeway between Interstate 95 and Interstate 84. I am open to other suggestions.

If you look back a page or two (or three) in this thread you'll find we answered those questions.  Projects pending by ConnDOT to remove Washington St & Hartford Ave (not St Johns Sq) lights and a project going out to bid soon to close off Miller St. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on September 07, 2020, 12:07:20 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on September 06, 2020, 09:33:09 PMHartford Ave (not St Johns Sq)
I take it you're referring to Google's map-o, since there are only two lights.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on September 07, 2020, 11:01:12 AM
I would've referred to it as Exit 15 and 16 but the OP referenced the local streets. 

Now I am looking at Google Maps and see they have incorrectly labelled Hartford Ave as St John Square, where the "square" is only the area around the intersection of Main St and St John St at the top of the hill, just before turning onto the Arrigoni.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on September 09, 2020, 04:35:19 PM
Released today, the 2020 version of the state's spot overhead sign replacement project.  Sites are scattered throughout mostly central and southwestern CT.  A couple of them are unique, placing "diagrammatics" on ground-mounts, including one on I-84 East for Exit 59/I-384.  Also, one bridge-mount and one old cantilever on I-691 West in Meriden are being replaced with one new monotube bridge, with mileage-based exit numbers, Exits 1A-B-C for I-91 North/South/Berlin Tpke.  This leads me to believe (unfortunately) that there will be a second Exit 1 for present Exits 12 & 13.  Too bad ConnDOT just doesn't redo I-691 mileage so that Mile 0 is at the *western* terminus (at I-84).  Then, if the exits had to reset at the start of CT 66, there wouldn't be two Exit 1s next to each other.

For those who want to have a gander at the contract plans, consult:
https://biznet.ct.gov/scp_search/BidDetail.aspx?CID=54862
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: southshore720 on September 09, 2020, 04:52:00 PM
And Providence is still the control city for I-384 EB.  I guess the dream for extension to RI will never die!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on September 09, 2020, 06:30:41 PM
Quote from: southshore720 on September 09, 2020, 04:52:00 PM
And Providence is still the control city for I-384 EB.  I guess the dream for extension to RI will never die!

Typically, these "spot replacement" projects maintain the "status-quo" as far as control cities, destinations, etc, go.  The signs on I-691 West in Meriden are the only ones in these projects that have had different control cities, if only slightly (W. Cross Pkwy doesn't show up for new Exit 1B).  I am pretty sure a blanket I-691/CT 66 sign replacement project is coming within the next year, hence why the change here.  But look at I-91 South Exit 14 which continues to use "150/E Center St/Wallingford".  Most likely it'll become "150/Wallingford" under a blanket project.  Same for "384 East/Providence".  I'm sure it'll become "384 East/Willimantic".  Or I could be wrong. 

I think the more unique thing with the replacement of that sign is that it is becoming a ground-mount.  On the widest highway in the state.  Most likely, though, only temporary, until a "blanket" project comes through there.  Signs in E. Hartford/Manchester are getting up there in years.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on September 09, 2020, 06:35:06 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on September 09, 2020, 04:35:19 PM
Released today, the 2020 version of the state's spot overhead sign replacement project.  Sites are scattered throughout mostly central and southwestern CT.  A couple of them are unique, placing "diagrammatics" on ground-mounts, including one on I-84 East for Exit 59/I-384.  Also, one bridge-mount and one old cantilever on I-691 West in Meriden are being replaced with one new monotube bridge, with mileage-based exit numbers, Exits 1A-B-C for I-91 North/South/Berlin Tpke.  This leads me to believe (unfortunately) that there will be a second Exit 1 for present Exits 12 & 13.  Too bad ConnDOT just doesn't redo I-691 mileage so that Mile 0 is at the eastern terminus.  Then, if the exits had to reset at the start of CT 66, there wouldn't be two Exit 1s next to each other.

For those who want to have a gander at the contract plans, consult:
https://biznet.ct.gov/scp_search/BidDetail.aspx?CID=54862
Pardon? If Mile 0 was at I-91, you would absolutely have two Exit 1s next to each other. What CTDOT really should do is keep the current system of using I-691's exit numbers even after CT 66 begins.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on September 09, 2020, 07:36:43 PM
Whoops, meant western terminus at I-84.  Corrected.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on September 10, 2020, 07:26:47 AM
Quote from: southshore720 on September 09, 2020, 04:52:00 PM
And Providence is still the control city for I-384 EB.  I guess the dream for extension to RI will never die!
It still should be. That's the fastest way there from that exit.
I would prefer that they decommission I-384 and put US 6 there instead; trade in the Interstate miles for another project.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: mrsman on September 10, 2020, 08:02:30 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on September 10, 2020, 07:26:47 AM
Quote from: southshore720 on September 09, 2020, 04:52:00 PM
And Providence is still the control city for I-384 EB.  I guess the dream for extension to RI will never die!
It still should be. That's the fastest way there from that exit.
I would prefer that they decommission I-384 and put US 6 there instead; trade in the Interstate miles for another project.

I don't think that simply decommissioning the highway would cause the feds to release more funds.  The highway was already built and the funds were already spent.

That being said, there are a number of short 3di freeways out there that are entirely part of a longer us highway corridor.  I-384/US 6 , I-580/US 395 in Reno, NV also comes to mind.  I agree that the interstate designation is not necessarily helpful and the US highway designation would be preferred.  Another tactic is to only have a secret designation, such as I-595 in the DC area.  The highway is only known as being part of US 50, but the interstate designation lives on secretly for funding purposes and the like.  Another example exists at the opposite end of US 50 with secret I-305 in Sacramento.

So they should remove the 384 shields, keep it as a secret designation, and just let the highway be known as US 6.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on September 10, 2020, 09:14:21 AM
Or you could just cosign US 6 with I-384.  It seems odd that US 6/44 are paired for a short distance across the CT River, then US 44 exits at the first possible chance (at Exit 53/Conn Blvd) while US 6 stays with I-84 until Exit 60 in Manchester, where it joins up with US 44.  But I'm guessing that arrangement is done since US 6's pre-I-84 route took it through the south end of Hartford, crossing with the Charter Oak Bridge.  Back then, the only logical way to get onto a surface road was to exit at what is now Exit 60.  And back then, US 44 got back on what is now I-84 for the run out to Willington, while US 6 got off. 

I really hate unnecessary US routes multiplexed with an interstate, when there are plenty of surface roads around that could give the US route a route of its own.  See:  US 6 in Danbury, US 6 east of Farmington, etc. 


Back to the 2020 overhead support project, there is one sign proposed that contradicts one previously replaced.  The "Lane Ends 1/2 mile" for I-91 North Exit 11 1 mile advance, which is just north of a previously-installed monotube bridge gantry that includes the Exit 10 "exit now" sign and a "Lane Ends 1500 Feet" sign.  Maybe a "blanket" project would replace the Exit 10 monotube with a 4-chord side cantilever, eliminating that particular "1500 Ft" lane end advisory, but seems kind of a waste.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on September 10, 2020, 09:26:23 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on September 10, 2020, 09:14:21 AM
Or you could just cosign US 6 with I-384.  It seems odd that US 6/44 are paired for a short distance across the CT River, then US 44 exits at the first possible chance (at Exit 53/Conn Blvd) while US 6 stays with I-84 until Exit 60 in Manchester, where it joins up with US 44.  But I'm guessing that arrangement is done since US 6's pre-I-84 route took it through the south end of Hartford, crossing with the Charter Oak Bridge.  Back then, the only logical way to get onto a surface road was to exit at what is now Exit 60.  And back then, US 44 got back on what is now I-84 for the run out to Willington, while US 6 got off. 

I really hate unnecessary US routes multiplexed with an interstate, when there are plenty of surface roads around that could give the US route a route of its own.  See:  US 6 in Danbury, US 6 east of Farmington, etc. 

US 6 has historically been the route to Providence. Most of US 44's alignment east of the river was former CT 101. I don't see any reason why you shouldn't put US 6 on i-384 if US 44 parallels it through Manchester. Though, I doubt very much that anyone really notices the US 6/I-84 concurrency anymore; CONNDOT doesn't make it prominent aside from obligatory shields.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on September 10, 2020, 02:40:44 PM
Wouldn't it just be easier to decommission I-384 altogether  and slap US 6 on it if there are no plans to EVER extend it to Willimantic or put US 6 on local streets like Silver Lane?

CTDOT's numbering scheme for 691, as evidenced in the illustrations, is to follow the state highway log a la CT 72.  Yes, the exits for 691/66 will probably go 7-5-3-2B-2A-1B-1A-1 eastbound and 1-1A-1B-1C-2A-2B-3-5-7 (unnumbered for the I-84 ramps) westbound.  You could make Preston and East Main both Exit 0, but that isn't kosher in CTDOT circles (the only one that could and really should be Exit 0 in the future is current Exit 1 on I-91 South (the artist formerly known as CT 34)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: STLmapboy on September 11, 2020, 03:31:47 PM
Two ignorant questions:

Why is most CT signage so old compared to surrounding states?
The traffic signals are also pretty bad. Why are they so old as well? And would CT get some damn FYAs?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on September 11, 2020, 04:46:54 PM
Quote from: STLmapboy on September 11, 2020, 03:31:47 PM
Two ignorant questions:

Why is most CT signage so old compared to surrounding states?
The traffic signals are also pretty bad. Why are they so old as well? And would CT get some damn FYAs?

<Gets up on soapbox>

Because Connecticut is last to the party on everything unless it involves raising taxes.  Last in the northeast to raise the speed limit above 55.  Last in the region to allow Sunday liquor sales.  Dragging its feet on converting to mileage based exits.  When they replaced signage the last time around in the late 80's, they decided to go to reflective button copy that was typical of the type of signage used in the 1960's because they got a sweetheart deal from 3M.  They somehow find money to pay their state labor unions handsomely but let everything else go to h-e-double hockey sticks in a handbasket.  And some of the speed limits are extremely draconian for the roads they are on (25 MPH zones on roads that would be 40-45 in most other states).  And so many of the state roads are extremely lacking in left turn lanes, let alone left turn arrows.  Plus whoever timed the lights on many roads was either high on something, had a deal with Monro or Exxon-Mobil, or all of the above.  It took us 40 years to fix the I-84/I-91 interchange, and NIMBYism has stopped the construction of pretty much every major highway since 1970.

<Steps down from soapbox>
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: STLmapboy on September 11, 2020, 07:03:19 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on September 11, 2020, 04:46:54 PM
Quote from: STLmapboy on September 11, 2020, 03:31:47 PM
Two ignorant questions:

Why is most CT signage so old compared to surrounding states?
The traffic signals are also pretty bad. Why are they so old as well? And would CT get some damn FYAs?

<Gets up on soapbox>

Because Connecticut is last to the party on everything unless it involves raising taxes.  Last in the northeast to raise the speed limit above 55.  Last in the region to allow Sunday liquor sales.  Dragging its feet on converting to mileage based exits.  When they replaced signage the last time around in the late 80's, they decided to go to reflective button copy that was typical of the type of signage used in the 1960's because they got a sweetheart deal from 3M.  They somehow find money to pay their state labor unions handsomely but let everything else go to h-e-double hockey sticks in a handbasket.  And some of the speed limits are extremely draconian for the roads they are on (25 MPH zones on roads that would be 40-45 in most other states).  And so many of the state roads are extremely lacking in left turn lanes, let alone left turn arrows.  Plus whoever timed the lights on many roads was either high on something, had a deal with Monro or Exxon-Mobil, or all of the above.  It took us 40 years to fix the I-84/I-91 interchange, and NIMBYism has stopped the construction of pretty much every major highway since 1970.

<Steps down from soapbox>

Thank you for echoing my thoughts. I went to CT on streetview just after browsing through Texas and my god...it's just not up to par. Sure, there are some nice parts (91/95 in New Haven, HOV lanes, some decent (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7700782,-72.6737704,3a,75y,120.11h,95.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sN83xpH96mQfZ-W7Vwk9PGg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192/) signal (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.1734227,-73.1913493,3a,75y,167.52h,95.21t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3P7OvPlCbVuWH0BgKmPw3g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192/) installs (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0533932,-73.5324295,3a,75y,6.43h,93.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgUdlpBSXyXKyZ61eBsGOyg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192/)), but so much of it looks...unkempt.

Can anyone send me a GSV link with a CT FYA?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on September 12, 2020, 06:05:11 PM
As promised, a shot of the new Exit 22 signs on I-91 South in Rocky Hill.  These signs replaced the former button copy signs that were installed on the bridge in the background.  Signs for Exits 22 N-S were put up on that bridge in 1990, shortly after Route 9 was extended west/north of I-91.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50333940956_05d666ba96_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2jFQB3d)91SB-Exit22-1 (https://flic.kr/p/2jFQB3d) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr


Look closely at the signs and you'll notice the shields are subtle outlines. 

Also, there are 3 different sign types for this interchange: 
This sign, mounted on the now-standard monotube bridge gantry
The 1/2 mile signs, which are button copy, date to 1990, and installed on a cruciform truss
The Exit 22S "exit now" signs, mounted on a tubular truss, also as part of the state's spot overhead structure replacement project. 

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on September 12, 2020, 06:09:23 PM
Also, at this time, I'd like to share an e-mail response I got after writing to ConnDOT about the sign replacement on Route 9.  I asked about why more sheet aluminum signs are being used, vs extruded aluminum, and why the demise of the "service bar" (incorporating service symbols into the bottom of the main guide signs).  I sent the e-mail on 8/27 and wasn't necessarily looking for a response, but what I got was very informative. 
.
.
.
Quote
Good morning Jason,

Your knowledge of signs is quite apparent in your email, which makes me curious to know what your background is.  We very rarely receive inquiries where someone understands signage and not only understands signage but knows the materials that are used. 

With that said let me get into some details about some of the signing decisions that are starting to be made now that the Department is trying to put more emphasis on asset management as a whole as well as replacing signage that has poor retroreflectivity.  Based on your email, I assume you may know what retroreflectivity means but if you don't it's the principal of returning light back to the light source, so for signs, it's the ability to have the light from the headlights of your car make the sign appear visible when it's dark.  If the signs were just reflective, like a mirror, the light from your headlights wouldn't make the signs appear to illuminate at night because the light would end up bouncing off the sign and go into the woods.

In general, the majority of signage on our limited access roadways were last replaced between 1985 and 1995.  After that point, there was minimal sign replacement until around 2005.  From 2005 until about 2015 there were corridor sign replacement projects and various sign support replacement projects taking place but it wasn't in a managed fashion.  Around 2015, we created a small group in our Division of Traffic Engineering that placed emphasis on sign replacement projects, specifically on limited access roadways due to the amount of unaware motorists that travel through Connecticut.  I want to emphasize unaware motorists because that is the intent of signage in order to make someone that doesn't know the area aware of roadway features or primary destinations along the roadway. 

Since this group came together, we've been looking at our standards and practices to try to update our signage to be in conformance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and try to make better decisions on the use of Federal and State funding since all funding is paid for with some form of public money that we all as tax payers end up paying for.  As you noted in your email, the life span of the signs on CT-9 has been exceptionally long (about 30 years), but that's just because there wasn't an asset life cycle that was managed in the past.  With current sign sheeting technology, we expect to get a 17 year life out of the signs maintaining minimum required retroreflectivity. 

At this point, I'd like to dig a little deeper into some of the points you bring up because they're great points and I'd like you to understand some of the decision making that came into play.  I should note that the decisions we make now aren't necessarily locked in stone so we could revert if we feel it's a benefit to.

1.   Sheet aluminum post mounted supports vs extruded aluminum side mounted supports with foundations

a.   You're right on the money when you say the extruded supports last significantly longer but they cost significantly more. 
i.   A large sheet aluminum sign (let's assume a general service, park & ride, or town line sign as you noted) typically costs the State about $2,500 to install under a sign replacement project. 
ii.   That same sign as an extruded aluminum sign will cost about $15,000.
iii.   Since these signs aren't considered critical signs, we decided to go with sheet aluminum to reduce the cost of the installations as they add up significantly when you realize there are around 10,000 extruded aluminum signs in the State. 
iv.   These signs are also a lower priority in terms of the MUTCD so we want to maintain an emphasis on the higher priority signs such as the Exit Directional sign, Advance Guide signs (1/2 mile, 1 mile, etc), and supplemental destinations that are major traffic generators such as a college/university or a train station.
v.   Utilizing sheet aluminum signs also allows us a little more flexibility on sign placement.
vi.   We receive many complaints when we replace signs because the general public doesn't understand how much the materials and labor cost to perform this work, so this was one way for us to reduce some costs from a signing perspective.

b.   Maintenance
i.   While in my opinion, our Maintenance staff is great, they have limitations to the type of work they can perform. 
ii.   When an extruded aluminum sign is hit by an errant vehicle or damaged our Sign Shop doesn't have the ability to fabricate extruded signs so we can't replace these signs as quickly or efficiently.
iii.   We also don't keep the steel in stock for the extruded supports because we typically don't work on them but we do for sheet aluminum.

c.   Adding the general services to the 1 mile or ½ mile signs was very convenient but it created other challenges.
i.   The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) didn't like this very much as it's questionable if it violates the MUTCD.
ii.   As services change, this becomes more difficult to update and more costly to update.
iii.   This created significant issues with the overall size of the signs. 
1.   They end up being a few feet taller and sometimes a little wider than necessary making breakaway sign post selection in many cases very difficult and more expensive. 
2.   If there was a steep slope on the edge of the road where these signs were installed, our Bridge Design unit would have to run additional loading analysis because the signs became so large.

d.   The Merritt Parkway signage was a little different than most projects because there is a Merritt Parkway Advisory Committee (MPAC) that all changes have to be brought to.
i.   Previously, the Merritt Parkway utilized an extruded aluminum type of sign support but had sheet aluminum signs attached to the supports with more or less a double sided tape.  That's why many of the signs literally fell off the sign posts.
ii.   During the design process we had to explain to the MPAC that utilizing extruded aluminum signs will mitigate the issues with the signs falling off and they will still look uniform similar to a sheet aluminum sign. 
iii.   Previous Merritt Parkway signs were required to be fabricated by State forces but switching to extruded aluminum allowed us to follow the standard low bid contract process.

2.   Thank you for your notes about some mistakes on the plans.  We've noticed a few others as well so we'll get them cleaned up as construction gets underway.

I know this was a very longwinded email but I hope it answers your questions in a way where you can understand some of the recent decisions and changes in design practice.  Please let me know if you have any other questions or suggestions as we're open to listening.  I also appreciate the tone of your email, it's not often that we receive emails noting that people are generally happy with the work being accomplished.

Have a nice weekend and stay safe,
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on September 12, 2020, 08:14:09 PM
QuotePreviously, the Merritt Parkway utilized an extruded aluminum type of sign support but had sheet aluminum signs attached to the supports with more or less a double sided tape.  That's why many of the signs literally fell off the sign posts.
Glad you wrote for this quote alone!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: relaxok on September 13, 2020, 04:39:01 AM
Wow! What a reply!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: mrsman on September 13, 2020, 06:59:38 AM
Quote from: relaxok on September 13, 2020, 04:39:01 AM
Wow! What a reply!

Agreed.  Amazing they took the time from their workday to craft such a detailed reply.  Compare the non-response mentioned in the New York thread regarding Northway signage to guide (or not to guide) traffic in the Albany area of the need to be in the right lane to stay on I-87 to reach the Thruway.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on September 13, 2020, 11:36:51 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on September 12, 2020, 06:09:23 PM
Also, at this time, I'd like to share an e-mail response I got after writing to ConnDOT about the sign replacement on Route 9.  I asked about why more sheet aluminum signs are being used, vs extruded aluminum, and why the demise of the "service bar" (incorporating service symbols into the bottom of the main guide signs).  I sent the e-mail on 8/27 and wasn't necessarily looking for a response, but what I got was very informative. 
.
.
.
Quote
Good morning Jason,

Your knowledge of signs is quite apparent in your email, which makes me curious to know what your background is.  We very rarely receive inquiries where someone understands signage and not only understands signage but knows the materials that are used. 

With that said let me get into some details about some of the signing decisions that are starting to be made now that the Department is trying to put more emphasis on asset management as a whole as well as replacing signage that has poor retroreflectivity.  Based on your email, I assume you may know what retroreflectivity means but if you don't it's the principal of returning light back to the light source, so for signs, it's the ability to have the light from the headlights of your car make the sign appear visible when it's dark.  If the signs were just reflective, like a mirror, the light from your headlights wouldn't make the signs appear to illuminate at night because the light would end up bouncing off the sign and go into the woods.

In general, the majority of signage on our limited access roadways were last replaced between 1985 and 1995.  After that point, there was minimal sign replacement until around 2005.  From 2005 until about 2015 there were corridor sign replacement projects and various sign support replacement projects taking place but it wasn't in a managed fashion.  Around 2015, we created a small group in our Division of Traffic Engineering that placed emphasis on sign replacement projects, specifically on limited access roadways due to the amount of unaware motorists that travel through Connecticut.  I want to emphasize unaware motorists because that is the intent of signage in order to make someone that doesn't know the area aware of roadway features or primary destinations along the roadway. 

Since this group came together, we've been looking at our standards and practices to try to update our signage to be in conformance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and try to make better decisions on the use of Federal and State funding since all funding is paid for with some form of public money that we all as tax payers end up paying for.  As you noted in your email, the life span of the signs on CT-9 has been exceptionally long (about 30 years), but that's just because there wasn't an asset life cycle that was managed in the past.  With current sign sheeting technology, we expect to get a 17 year life out of the signs maintaining minimum required retroreflectivity. 

At this point, I'd like to dig a little deeper into some of the points you bring up because they're great points and I'd like you to understand some of the decision making that came into play.  I should note that the decisions we make now aren't necessarily locked in stone so we could revert if we feel it's a benefit to.

1.   Sheet aluminum post mounted supports vs extruded aluminum side mounted supports with foundations

a.   You're right on the money when you say the extruded supports last significantly longer but they cost significantly more. 
i.   A large sheet aluminum sign (let's assume a general service, park & ride, or town line sign as you noted) typically costs the State about $2,500 to install under a sign replacement project. 
ii.   That same sign as an extruded aluminum sign will cost about $15,000.
iii.   Since these signs aren't considered critical signs, we decided to go with sheet aluminum to reduce the cost of the installations as they add up significantly when you realize there are around 10,000 extruded aluminum signs in the State. 
iv.   These signs are also a lower priority in terms of the MUTCD so we want to maintain an emphasis on the higher priority signs such as the Exit Directional sign, Advance Guide signs (1/2 mile, 1 mile, etc), and supplemental destinations that are major traffic generators such as a college/university or a train station.
v.   Utilizing sheet aluminum signs also allows us a little more flexibility on sign placement.
vi.   We receive many complaints when we replace signs because the general public doesn't understand how much the materials and labor cost to perform this work, so this was one way for us to reduce some costs from a signing perspective.

b.   Maintenance
i.   While in my opinion, our Maintenance staff is great, they have limitations to the type of work they can perform. 
ii.   When an extruded aluminum sign is hit by an errant vehicle or damaged our Sign Shop doesn't have the ability to fabricate extruded signs so we can't replace these signs as quickly or efficiently.
iii.   We also don't keep the steel in stock for the extruded supports because we typically don't work on them but we do for sheet aluminum.

c.   Adding the general services to the 1 mile or ½ mile signs was very convenient but it created other challenges.
i.   The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) didn't like this very much as it's questionable if it violates the MUTCD.
ii.   As services change, this becomes more difficult to update and more costly to update.
iii.   This created significant issues with the overall size of the signs. 
1.   They end up being a few feet taller and sometimes a little wider than necessary making breakaway sign post selection in many cases very difficult and more expensive. 
2.   If there was a steep slope on the edge of the road where these signs were installed, our Bridge Design unit would have to run additional loading analysis because the signs became so large.

d.   The Merritt Parkway signage was a little different than most projects because there is a Merritt Parkway Advisory Committee (MPAC) that all changes have to be brought to.
i.   Previously, the Merritt Parkway utilized an extruded aluminum type of sign support but had sheet aluminum signs attached to the supports with more or less a double sided tape.  That's why many of the signs literally fell off the sign posts.
ii.   During the design process we had to explain to the MPAC that utilizing extruded aluminum signs will mitigate the issues with the signs falling off and they will still look uniform similar to a sheet aluminum sign. 
iii.   Previous Merritt Parkway signs were required to be fabricated by State forces but switching to extruded aluminum allowed us to follow the standard low bid contract process.

2.   Thank you for your notes about some mistakes on the plans.  We've noticed a few others as well so we'll get them cleaned up as construction gets underway.

I know this was a very longwinded email but I hope it answers your questions in a way where you can understand some of the recent decisions and changes in design practice.  Please let me know if you have any other questions or suggestions as we're open to listening.  I also appreciate the tone of your email, it's not often that we receive emails noting that people are generally happy with the work being accomplished.

Have a nice weekend and stay safe,
Wow, what a kind reply.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: CapeCodder on September 15, 2020, 02:11:49 PM
Am I the only one who thinks that the I-91 shields are wonky? The 91 seems to hug the bottom of the shield with so much wasted blue space above it?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on September 15, 2020, 05:43:46 PM
Quote from: CapeCodder on September 15, 2020, 02:11:49 PM
Am I the only one who thinks that the I-91 shields are wonky? The 91 seems to hug the bottom of the shield with so much wasted blue space above it?

You referring to these?
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7941406,-72.6548143,3a,31y,26.5h,86.98t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNSlaNGgiev2iMMwitoD17Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

I'm not a fan of this style.. thank god they didn't become too numerous or last too long...
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9009501,-72.6376977,3a,24.5y,181.95h,87.07t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8rQBfRZdjExno80r7WB9lg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Both of these are pretty descent looking...
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7911713,-72.655764,3a,26.2y,204.03h,94.98t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sXBdXwfbfhUMLpMcNWSol0Q!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DXBdXwfbfhUMLpMcNWSol0Q%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D307.18713%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: CapeCodder on September 15, 2020, 06:14:17 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on September 15, 2020, 05:43:46 PM
Quote from: CapeCodder on September 15, 2020, 02:11:49 PM
Am I the only one who thinks that the I-91 shields are wonky? The 91 seems to hug the bottom of the shield with so much wasted blue space above it?

You referring to these?
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7941406,-72.6548143,3a,31y,26.5h,86.98t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNSlaNGgiev2iMMwitoD17Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

I'm not a fan of this style.. thank god they didn't become too numerous or last too long...
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9009501,-72.6376977,3a,24.5y,181.95h,87.07t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8rQBfRZdjExno80r7WB9lg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Both of these are pretty descent looking...
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7911713,-72.655764,3a,26.2y,204.03h,94.98t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sXBdXwfbfhUMLpMcNWSol0Q!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DXBdXwfbfhUMLpMcNWSol0Q%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D307.18713%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

Yes. CT seems to follow MA's lead with supersized reassurance shields.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on September 15, 2020, 06:34:28 PM
Actually, CT has never posted a supersized Mass-style reassurance shield, at least that I know of in the past 30 years or so.  The ones I posted links to in Google Maps are all normal sized traditional shields. 

Mass is the only state I've seen to use the supersized variety, and the XXL variety for the 3DIs.  To see them shrink back down to smaller ones on I-495 seems odd.  And I really can't stand Mass' use of supersized shields on 2-lane roads. 

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: CapeCodder on September 15, 2020, 07:14:27 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on September 15, 2020, 06:34:28 PM
Actually, CT has never posted a supersized Mass-style reassurance shield, at least that I know of in the past 30 years or so.  The ones I posted links to in Google Maps are all normal sized traditional shields. 

Mass is the only state I've seen to use the supersized variety, and the XXL variety for the 3DIs.  To see them shrink back down to smaller ones on I-495 seems odd.  And I really can't stand Mass' use of supersized shields on 2-lane roads.

TIL! I think the two posts for use with the shields tricked my eyes.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on September 22, 2020, 10:39:22 PM
ConnDOT has put up a new web page in regards to the I-91/I-691/Rt 15 interchange project in Meriden.  The plans show some extensive widening and ramp reconfigurations.  We'll be gaining yet another left exit but will lose one as well as lose one left hand entrance.  Here are a few highlights:

I-91 NB Exit 16 & 17 are combined into one, splitting into two, with Exit 17 entering on the right side of CT 15 NB, instead of the left.  I-91 NB gets widened from where the new ramp from CT 15 NB will come in (south of the E Main St overpass) to the Bee St underpass before Exit 18, and again from the I-691/CT 66 onramp north to the rest area in Middletown.

I-91 SB truck lane gets extended south to Exit 18, which will become a 2-lane ramp.  Existing combined Exit 17 (to CT 15 SB and East Main St) gets split, with the new ramp to CT 15 SB now occuring south of the E Main St overpass.  This will be 3 lanes, with 1 lane going to 91 SB, one to 15SB, and an option lane.  A short 2-lane section of 91SB traffic will occur, until the ramps merge in from 15 SB.

CT 15 NB gets a new left hand exit beginning as 15 NB crosses over I-91 before Exit 67.  This will be a 2-lane ramp.  The existing Exit 68N-E ramp is maintained in its present configuration, as it will serve traffic heading to CT 66 East and another ramp to 91NB.  (Traffic coming in from E Main St NB will still need 91 NB access).  The ramp from 15NB to 691WB is also widened.

CT 15 SB gets widened from the 691 EB ramp merge down to a new right side ramp to 91SB, also 2 lanes, which will fly over 15 SB to get to 91SB.

I-691 EB and WB will be widened from Exit 8 up to Exit 10 to accomodate the new 2-lane ramps at Exit 10-EB and the merge from 15NB.  I-691 EB - Exit 11 will be a new 2-lane ramp, still a left exit.  What is interesting is that thru traffic at Exit 11, EB and at Exit 10, WB will only get a single lane.  This will better show the transition between CT 66 and I-691. 

Basically all spot sign replacement projects in this area within the past 1-2 years will be junked.  Given all the 2-lane ramps and option lanes, I bet we'll see a lot of APLs go in. 

You can view the project website here, with links to download the plans.  No sign plans yet.  Construction is still a few years off for the big project, but the smaller one is planned for 2022.

https://portal.ct.gov/DOT79-240
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on September 23, 2020, 07:41:34 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on September 22, 2020, 10:39:22 PM
ConnDOT has put up a new web page in regards to the I-91/I-691/Rt 15 interchange project in Meriden.  The plans show some extensive widening and ramp reconfigurations.  We'll be gaining yet another left exit but will lose one as well as lose one left hand entrance.  Here are a few highlights:

I-91 NB Exit 16 & 17 are combined into one, splitting into two, with Exit 17 entering on the right side of CT 15 NB, instead of the left.  I-91 NB gets widened from where the new ramp from CT 15 NB will come in (south of the E Main St overpass) to the Bee St underpass before Exit 18, and again from the I-691/CT 66 onramp north to the rest area in Middletown.

I-91 SB truck lane gets extended south to Exit 18, which will become a 2-lane ramp.  Existing combined Exit 17 (to CT 15 SB and East Main St) gets split, with the new ramp to CT 15 SB now occuring south of the E Main St overpass.  This will be 3 lanes, with 1 lane going to 91 SB, one to 15SB, and an option lane.  A short 2-lane section of 91SB traffic will occur, until the ramps merge in from 15 SB.

CT 15 NB gets a new left hand exit beginning as 15 NB crosses over I-91 before Exit 67.  This will be a 2-lane ramp.  The existing Exit 68N-E ramp is maintained in its present configuration, as it will serve traffic heading to CT 66 East and another ramp to 91NB.  (Traffic coming in from E Main St NB will still need 91 NB access).  The ramp from 15NB to 691WB is also widened.

CT 15 SB gets widened from the 691 EB ramp merge down to a new right side ramp to 91SB, also 2 lanes, which will fly over 15 SB to get to 91SB.

I-691 EB and WB will be widened from Exit 8 up to Exit 10 to accomodate the new 2-lane ramps at Exit 10-EB and the merge from 15NB.  I-691 EB - Exit 11 will be a new 2-lane ramp, still a left exit.  What is interesting is that thru traffic at Exit 11, EB and at Exit 10, WB will only get a single lane.  This will better show the transition between CT 66 and I-691. 

Basically all spot sign replacement projects in this area within the past 1-2 years will be junked.  Given all the 2-lane ramps and option lanes, I bet we'll see a lot of APLs go in. 

You can view the project website here, with links to download the plans.  No sign plans yet.  Construction is still a few years off for the big project, but the smaller one is planned for 2022.

https://portal.ct.gov/DOT79-240
2 lanes from 91S-15S and 15N-91N are all I ask for. Especially the former.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on September 24, 2020, 09:52:46 AM
Quote from: Alps on September 23, 2020, 07:41:34 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on September 22, 2020, 10:39:22 PM
ConnDOT has put up a new web page in regards to the I-91/I-691/Rt 15 interchange project in Meriden.  The plans show some extensive widening and ramp reconfigurations.  We'll be gaining yet another left exit but will lose one as well as lose one left hand entrance.  Here are a few highlights:

I-91 NB Exit 16 & 17 are combined into one, splitting into two, with Exit 17 entering on the right side of CT 15 NB, instead of the left.  I-91 NB gets widened from where the new ramp from CT 15 NB will come in (south of the E Main St overpass) to the Bee St underpass before Exit 18, and again from the I-691/CT 66 onramp north to the rest area in Middletown.

I-91 SB truck lane gets extended south to Exit 18, which will become a 2-lane ramp.  Existing combined Exit 17 (to CT 15 SB and East Main St) gets split, with the new ramp to CT 15 SB now occuring south of the E Main St overpass.  This will be 3 lanes, with 1 lane going to 91 SB, one to 15SB, and an option lane.  A short 2-lane section of 91SB traffic will occur, until the ramps merge in from 15 SB.

CT 15 NB gets a new left hand exit beginning as 15 NB crosses over I-91 before Exit 67.  This will be a 2-lane ramp.  The existing Exit 68N-E ramp is maintained in its present configuration, as it will serve traffic heading to CT 66 East and another ramp to 91NB.  (Traffic coming in from E Main St NB will still need 91 NB access).  The ramp from 15NB to 691WB is also widened.

CT 15 SB gets widened from the 691 EB ramp merge down to a new right side ramp to 91SB, also 2 lanes, which will fly over 15 SB to get to 91SB.

I-691 EB and WB will be widened from Exit 8 up to Exit 10 to accomodate the new 2-lane ramps at Exit 10-EB and the merge from 15NB.  I-691 EB - Exit 11 will be a new 2-lane ramp, still a left exit.  What is interesting is that thru traffic at Exit 11, EB and at Exit 10, WB will only get a single lane.  This will better show the transition between CT 66 and I-691. 

Basically all spot sign replacement projects in this area within the past 1-2 years will be junked.  Given all the 2-lane ramps and option lanes, I bet we'll see a lot of APLs go in. 

You can view the project website here, with links to download the plans.  No sign plans yet.  Construction is still a few years off for the big project, but the smaller one is planned for 2022.

https://portal.ct.gov/DOT79-240
2 lanes from 91S-15S and 15N-91N are all I ask for. Especially the former.

It seems like they're spending a whole lot of money without making substantial improvements to the I-91/I-691/CT-15 interchange. Of glaring note, they keep the lane drops on I-91 in both directions, rather than widening I-91 so that it's three lanes in each direction all the way through the interchange. I'm certainly not a fan of left hand exits. There was a great opportunity to eliminate the several left exits, yet they chose not to capitalize on that opportunity.  All in all, this could have been done a whole lot better with the same amount of money they're going to spend on this project.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on September 24, 2020, 01:16:39 PM
One may think the mainline I-91 needs to be 3 lanes but it really doesn't need to be.  The traffic chokepoints are the movements from 91S->15S and from 15N->91N.  Thru traffic on I-91 moves pretty well through the 2-lane stretch.  After all this is said and done, it will still be 2 lanes, but for not nearly as long.

As for the left exits, they should've converted the 691EB->91NB ramp into a flyover.  You could move the whole roadway to the north to take advantage of the wide median, and have the present right 2 lanes at Exit 11 on I-691 fly over, with some rebuilding of course.  If you moved this exit to the right, then you could also finally put in the 15SB->66EB connection, which is a ghost ramp... graded but not paved.  It would enter 691EB on the left, and that could be one of the two lanes that becomes "thru" for 66EB.

This project is still technically in the design phases and I'm sure there will be tweaks between now and when it goes out to bid.  Maybe the public will have something to say. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on September 24, 2020, 06:01:23 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on September 24, 2020, 01:16:39 PM
One may think the mainline I-91 needs to be 3 lanes but it really doesn't need to be.  The traffic chokepoints are the movements from 91S->15S and from 15N->91N.  Thru traffic on I-91 moves pretty well through the 2-lane stretch.  After all this is said and done, it will still be 2 lanes, but for not nearly as long.

As for the left exits, they should've converted the 691EB->91NB ramp into a flyover.  You could move the whole roadway to the north to take advantage of the wide median, and have the present right 2 lanes at Exit 11 on I-691 fly over, with some rebuilding of course.  If you moved this exit to the right, then you could also finally put in the 15SB->66EB connection, which is a ghost ramp... graded but not paved.  It would enter 691EB on the left, and that could be one of the two lanes that becomes "thru" for 66EB.

This project is still technically in the design phases and I'm sure there will be tweaks between now and when it goes out to bid.  Maybe the public will have something to say. 
I would slightly differ by saying that when there's an accident on 15S, 91S does get congested as everyone tries to stay on the mainline. 15 being two lanes with no shoulders, there are accidents there on occasion, so 3 lanes on 91 would be a reasonable thought.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on September 24, 2020, 06:45:40 PM
Looks like some of the replacement reassurance signage has started going up on I-84 in the Hartford area, mostly between South Main St (Exit 41) and Sisson Ave (Exit 46).  The I-84/US 6 shields are now on a single metal post instead of on twin supports, and the 84 shields are neutered, as opposed to the Southington-Farmington ones from a couple years ago which are state shields (no new mile markers yet east of MP 56).   Also included: a CT 173 South sign on the westbound South Main St exit ramp, a Speed Limit 50/Minimum Speed 40 sign near the Flatbush Avenue onramp eastbound, and new small attractions signs for Exit 48A and 48B that are about the size of speed limit signs.  The most ridiculous install: a new West Hartford town line LGS that is typically found on local roads in front of the existing one at Prospect Ave.  Blink and you miss it. 

EDIT: They added one eastbound right under the Prospect Ave bridge.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on September 24, 2020, 07:36:52 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on September 24, 2020, 06:45:40 PM
The most ridiculous install: a new West Hartford town line LGS that is typically found on local roads in front of the existing one at Prospect Ave.  Blink and you miss it. 

We better start getting used to those!  Though we have been in the minority for so long, as many adjacent states (MA, VT, NH, ME) use small town line signs that are usually also just sheet aluminum, vs extruded. 

Lets not forget this one on I-95 NB in Guilford that has been there for many years, at least since the 1990s.  What was once the oddity will now be the standard.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.2970152,-72.7440725,3a,75y,103.39h,83.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spbf3MaVY1jW2L7i9Iw-CSg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeCL on September 24, 2020, 09:40:15 PM
What's with the bridge work in Stamford on 95 N/S seems like they just stopped working and not sure when they are going to repave
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeCL on September 24, 2020, 09:45:23 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on September 13, 2020, 11:36:51 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on September 12, 2020, 06:09:23 PM
Also, at this time, I'd like to share an e-mail response I got after writing to ConnDOT about the sign replacement on Route 9.  I asked about why more sheet aluminum signs are being used, vs extruded aluminum, and why the demise of the "service bar" (incorporating service symbols into the bottom of the main guide signs).  I sent the e-mail on 8/27 and wasn't necessarily looking for a response, but what I got was very informative. 
.
.
.
Quote
Good morning Jason,

Your knowledge of signs is quite apparent in your email, which makes me curious to know what your background is.  We very rarely receive inquiries where someone understands signage and not only understands signage but knows the materials that are used. 

With that said let me get into some details about some of the signing decisions that are starting to be made now that the Department is trying to put more emphasis on asset management as a whole as well as replacing signage that has poor retroreflectivity.  Based on your email, I assume you may know what retroreflectivity means but if you don't it's the principal of returning light back to the light source, so for signs, it's the ability to have the light from the headlights of your car make the sign appear visible when it's dark.  If the signs were just reflective, like a mirror, the light from your headlights wouldn't make the signs appear to illuminate at night because the light would end up bouncing off the sign and go into the woods.

In general, the majority of signage on our limited access roadways were last replaced between 1985 and 1995.  After that point, there was minimal sign replacement until around 2005.  From 2005 until about 2015 there were corridor sign replacement projects and various sign support replacement projects taking place but it wasn't in a managed fashion.  Around 2015, we created a small group in our Division of Traffic Engineering that placed emphasis on sign replacement projects, specifically on limited access roadways due to the amount of unaware motorists that travel through Connecticut.  I want to emphasize unaware motorists because that is the intent of signage in order to make someone that doesn't know the area aware of roadway features or primary destinations along the roadway. 

Since this group came together, we've been looking at our standards and practices to try to update our signage to be in conformance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and try to make better decisions on the use of Federal and State funding since all funding is paid for with some form of public money that we all as tax payers end up paying for.  As you noted in your email, the life span of the signs on CT-9 has been exceptionally long (about 30 years), but that's just because there wasn't an asset life cycle that was managed in the past.  With current sign sheeting technology, we expect to get a 17 year life out of the signs maintaining minimum required retroreflectivity. 

At this point, I'd like to dig a little deeper into some of the points you bring up because they're great points and I'd like you to understand some of the decision making that came into play.  I should note that the decisions we make now aren't necessarily locked in stone so we could revert if we feel it's a benefit to.

1.Sheet aluminum post mounted supports vs extruded aluminum side mounted supports with foundations

a.You're right on the money when you say the extruded supports last significantly longer but they cost significantly more. 
i.A large sheet aluminum sign (let's assume a general service, park & ride, or town line sign as you noted) typically costs the State about $2,500 to install under a sign replacement project. 
ii.That same sign as an extruded aluminum sign will cost about $15,000.
iii.Since these signs aren't considered critical signs, we decided to go with sheet aluminum to reduce the cost of the installations as they add up significantly when you realize there are around 10,000 extruded aluminum signs in the State. 
iv.These signs are also a lower priority in terms of the MUTCD so we want to maintain an emphasis on the higher priority signs such as the Exit Directional sign, Advance Guide signs (1/2 mile, 1 mile, etc), and supplemental destinations that are major traffic generators such as a college/university or a train station.
v.Utilizing sheet aluminum signs also allows us a little more flexibility on sign placement.
vi.We receive many complaints when we replace signs because the general public doesn't understand how much the materials and labor cost to perform this work, so this was one way for us to reduce some costs from a signing perspective.

b.Maintenance
i.While in my opinion, our Maintenance staff is great, they have limitations to the type of work they can perform. 
ii.When an extruded aluminum sign is hit by an errant vehicle or damaged our Sign Shop doesn't have the ability to fabricate extruded signs so we can't replace these signs as quickly or efficiently.
iii.We also don't keep the steel in stock for the extruded supports because we typically don't work on them but we do for sheet aluminum.

c.Adding the general services to the 1 mile or ½ mile signs was very convenient but it created other challenges.
i.The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) didn't like this very much as it's questionable if it violates the MUTCD.
ii.As services change, this becomes more difficult to update and more costly to update.
iii.This created significant issues with the overall size of the signs. 
1.They end up being a few feet taller and sometimes a little wider than necessary making breakaway sign post selection in many cases very difficult and more expensive. 
2.If there was a steep slope on the edge of the road where these signs were installed, our Bridge Design unit would have to run additional loading analysis because the signs became so large.

d.The Merritt Parkway signage was a little different than most projects because there is a Merritt Parkway Advisory Committee (MPAC) that all changes have to be brought to.
i.Previously, the Merritt Parkway utilized an extruded aluminum type of sign support but had sheet aluminum signs attached to the supports with more or less a double sided tape.  That's why many of the signs literally fell off the sign posts.
ii.During the design process we had to explain to the MPAC that utilizing extruded aluminum signs will mitigate the issues with the signs falling off and they will still look uniform similar to a sheet aluminum sign. 
iii.Previous Merritt Parkway signs were required to be fabricated by State forces but switching to extruded aluminum allowed us to follow the standard low bid contract process.

2.Thank you for your notes about some mistakes on the plans.  We've noticed a few others as well so we'll get them cleaned up as construction gets underway.

I know this was a very longwinded email but I hope it answers your questions in a way where you can understand some of the recent decisions and changes in design practice.  Please let me know if you have any other questions or suggestions as we're open to listening.  I also appreciate the tone of your email, it's not often that we receive emails noting that people are generally happy with the work being accomplished.

Have a nice weekend and stay safe,
Wow, what a kind reply.
At least he got a response.. I emailed about two months ago about what happened to the highway advisory radio for lower Fairfield county it's 1670 AM it's been dead air now for over 3 months but yet the lights on the highway still flash telling you to tune in..
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: zzyzx on September 27, 2020, 10:58:17 PM
Connecticut College just launched a website about Urban Renewal History projects in New London, including the expansion of I-95. There's some high quality satellite imagery and charts showing the evolution of the road network around the city.  There's also a rendering from the 1960s that shows a widely different plan for Bank St. and the area around Union Station.  Basically CTDOT wanted to build a large freeway connection so commuters could reach downtown in less than 2 minutes. There's a lot more info to go through:


https://conncoll.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=9ed5ba20384545e6bfd5d3aaff30ea97 (https://conncoll.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=9ed5ba20384545e6bfd5d3aaff30ea97)

https://ctexaminer.com/2020/09/26/conn-college-launches-website-of-urban-renewal-history-in-new-london/ (https://ctexaminer.com/2020/09/26/conn-college-launches-website-of-urban-renewal-history-in-new-london/)


iPhone
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on October 07, 2020, 12:59:42 PM
Question: is there a place one can check up on the current status of construction projects in CT and related closures?  I was going to clinch CT 9, part of US 1, and part of US 6 on Sunday, but noticed on Google Maps that the ramps carrying US 6 on the south end of the CT 8 overlap are closed, aparrantly for a bridge project (https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/Construction-News-from-the-Connecticut-Department-of-Transportation/2020/Lane-Shifts-and-Scheduled-Four-Month-Ramp-Closures-on-Route-8-in-Thomaston).  However, NY's 511 (which includes info on CT) doesn't show it in either the construction or closure layers, and CT's 511 is WAY out of date (the construction project shown in the area is from last year).  If this was NY, I could just go on NYSDOT's website, look up the project, and check the status - projected end date, whether it's on time/early/late/etc.  I couldn't find an equivalent resource from CT's DOT.  Is there one?  I'm wondering if I have to scrap this trip on account of the closure (if Google Maps is 100% accurate, one of the ramps would reopen by Sunday... but the one going in the other direction to what I'd be going, and I don't know if flipping directions would change my travel time, and since it's Sunday, don't have time to check since I don't know how to get an empirical time with Google's "depart at" feature, necessitating that I spec out trips on the same day of the week as the planned travel; plus changing direction is less idea for a multitude of reasons).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: SectorZ on October 07, 2020, 03:57:41 PM
Quote from: vdeane on October 07, 2020, 12:59:42 PM
Question: is there a place one can check up on the current status of construction projects in CT and related closures?  I was going to clinch CT 9, part of US 1, and part of US 6 on Sunday, but noticed on Google Maps that the ramps carrying US 6 on the south end of the CT 8 overlap are closed, aparrantly for a bridge project (https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/Construction-News-from-the-Connecticut-Department-of-Transportation/2020/Lane-Shifts-and-Scheduled-Four-Month-Ramp-Closures-on-Route-8-in-Thomaston).  However, NY's 511 (which includes info on CT) doesn't show it in either the construction or closure layers, and CT's 511 is WAY out of date (the construction project shown in the area is from last year).  If this was NY, I could just go on NYSDOT's website, look up the project, and check the status - projected end date, whether it's on time/early/late/etc.  I couldn't find an equivalent resource from CT's DOT.  Is there one?  I'm wondering if I have to scrap this trip on account of the closure (if Google Maps is 100% accurate, one of the ramps would reopen by Sunday... but the one going in the other direction to what I'd be going, and I don't know if flipping directions would change my travel time, and since it's Sunday, don't have time to check since I don't know how to get an empirical time with Google's "depart at" feature, necessitating that I spec out trips on the same day of the week as the planned travel; plus changing direction is less idea for a multitude of reasons).

You know a state has failed when a neighboring state does a better job detailing their own construction events.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on October 07, 2020, 09:19:12 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on October 07, 2020, 03:57:41 PM
Quote from: vdeane on October 07, 2020, 12:59:42 PM
Question: is there a place one can check up on the current status of construction projects in CT and related closures?  I was going to clinch CT 9, part of US 1, and part of US 6 on Sunday, but noticed on Google Maps that the ramps carrying US 6 on the south end of the CT 8 overlap are closed, aparrantly for a bridge project (https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/Construction-News-from-the-Connecticut-Department-of-Transportation/2020/Lane-Shifts-and-Scheduled-Four-Month-Ramp-Closures-on-Route-8-in-Thomaston).  However, NY's 511 (which includes info on CT) doesn't show it in either the construction or closure layers, and CT's 511 is WAY out of date (the construction project shown in the area is from last year).  If this was NY, I could just go on NYSDOT's website, look up the project, and check the status - projected end date, whether it's on time/early/late/etc.  I couldn't find an equivalent resource from CT's DOT.  Is there one?  I'm wondering if I have to scrap this trip on account of the closure (if Google Maps is 100% accurate, one of the ramps would reopen by Sunday... but the one going in the other direction to what I'd be going, and I don't know if flipping directions would change my travel time, and since it's Sunday, don't have time to check since I don't know how to get an empirical time with Google's "depart at" feature, necessitating that I spec out trips on the same day of the week as the planned travel; plus changing direction is less idea for a multitude of reasons).

You know a state has failed when a neighboring state does a better job detailing their own construction events.
If it helps, that year-old project is the half of the project that would affect my trip that was done last year - and NY's 511 doesn't have anything in the area at all.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on October 08, 2020, 01:16:51 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on October 07, 2020, 03:57:41 PM
Quote from: vdeane on October 07, 2020, 12:59:42 PM
Question: is there a place one can check up on the current status of construction projects in CT and related closures?  I was going to clinch CT 9, part of US 1, and part of US 6 on Sunday, but noticed on Google Maps that the ramps carrying US 6 on the south end of the CT 8 overlap are closed, aparrantly for a bridge project (https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/Construction-News-from-the-Connecticut-Department-of-Transportation/2020/Lane-Shifts-and-Scheduled-Four-Month-Ramp-Closures-on-Route-8-in-Thomaston).  However, NY's 511 (which includes info on CT) doesn't show it in either the construction or closure layers, and CT's 511 is WAY out of date (the construction project shown in the area is from last year).  If this was NY, I could just go on NYSDOT's website, look up the project, and check the status - projected end date, whether it's on time/early/late/etc.  I couldn't find an equivalent resource from CT's DOT.  Is there one?  I'm wondering if I have to scrap this trip on account of the closure (if Google Maps is 100% accurate, one of the ramps would reopen by Sunday... but the one going in the other direction to what I'd be going, and I don't know if flipping directions would change my travel time, and since it's Sunday, don't have time to check since I don't know how to get an empirical time with Google's "depart at" feature, necessitating that I spec out trips on the same day of the week as the planned travel; plus changing direction is less idea for a multitude of reasons).

You know a state has failed when a neighboring state does a better job detailing their own construction events.

CT doesn't even advertise its 511 program.  Most people don't even know it exists.  They still rely on short wave AM radio messages for travel advisories other than what is posted on VMS's. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Old Dominionite on October 08, 2020, 06:17:31 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on September 24, 2020, 07:36:52 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on September 24, 2020, 06:45:40 PM
The most ridiculous install: a new West Hartford town line LGS that is typically found on local roads in front of the existing one at Prospect Ave.  Blink and you miss it. 

We better start getting used to those!  Though we have been in the minority for so long, as many adjacent states (MA, VT, NH, ME) use small town line signs that are usually also just sheet aluminum, vs extruded. 

Lets not forget this one on I-95 NB in Guilford that has been there for many years, at least since the 1990s.  What was once the oddity will now be the standard.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.2970152,-72.7440725,3a,75y,103.39h,83.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spbf3MaVY1jW2L7i9Iw-CSg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Growing up in Connecticut, I never liked the BGS "Town Line"  signs on the state's expressways. I didn't think the information was important enough, especially given how small the towns are geographically. I have no problem with using the LGS signs instead. For some cities with multiple exits along a route, a BGS sign at the municipal boundary indicating how many upcoming exits serve the city makes sense, but that's about it.

Perhaps ConnDOT could use some of the money currently earmarked for BGS "Town Line"  signs for a few more BGS distance signs...  :D
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on October 09, 2020, 02:43:31 PM
If anything you're going to be seeing less distance signs.  The two on Route 9 are going away soon.  Honestly, in a small state where the exits are so close together, they don't really serve that much of a purpose.  In VT, you'll see distance signs after most exits which list the distance to the next exit's town and to the primary control city. 

I would be a fan of distance signs at the start of an expressway.  Maybe on CT 9 before Exit 2, that say "Essex #/Middletown ##/Hartford ##".  Same for CT 2... "Colchester ##/Hartford ##".  And more on I-95:  Greenwich, Old Saybrook area, New London, for example. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on October 14, 2020, 06:49:58 PM
Drove 3 sign replacement project lengths today... I-84 from East Hartford to West Hartford, CT 9 from Farmington to New Britain, and CT 9 from Berlin to Cromwell. 

I-84:
As posted previously, a couple of the new, small town line signs are up, for Hartford and West Hartford.  Also some new "ATTRACTIONS" signs up, all sheet aluminum.  New regulatory signage (merge, speed limits, etc) are also up, potentially some exit gore signs, and a reassurance shield or two.  Didn't observe any progress with new sign support foundations, and no extruded aluminum signs up yet.

CT 9, both projects:
A few new foundations are up, for both ground-mount and overhead sign supports.  No sheet aluminum signs up of any kind.  Usually these are first to go up in a project. 

Next week, potentially an update on the CT 8 project from Bridgeport to Shelton.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: dkblake on October 14, 2020, 07:08:39 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on October 09, 2020, 02:43:31 PM
If anything you're going to be seeing less distance signs.  The two on Route 9 are going away soon.  Honestly, in a small state where the exits are so close together, they don't really serve that much of a purpose.  In VT, you'll see distance signs after most exits which list the distance to the next exit's town and to the primary control city. 

I would be a fan of distance signs at the start of an expressway.  Maybe on CT 9 before Exit 2, that say "Essex #/Middletown ##/Hartford ##".  Same for CT 2... "Colchester ##/Hartford ##".  And more on I-95:  Greenwich, Old Saybrook area, New London, for example. 

Yes to more on I-95, especially given the, er, creative exit numbering and, um, variable traffic. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on October 21, 2020, 12:11:04 AM
Had the occasion to exit on SR 508 (I-84 Exit 39) today.  The center mounted light poles have been replaced by side mounted LED's a la the new lighting put up on the I-84 mainline in the area.  Also, one of the overhead gantries was replaced in-kind with a newer 4 WEST Farmington/Torrington sign on the off ramp and new directional I-84 signage on the on-ramp (never understood the need for Farmington as a control when you're IN Farmington; really should be Farmington Center or Unionville).  The remaining gantry is the old signage, as is the BGS at the beginning of the on-ramp side of the connector. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Pete from Boston on November 01, 2020, 07:16:35 PM
What's going on with the Rochambeau Bridge on I-84 over the Housatonic? Crossed it twice in the dark so I couldn't see what was happening. Re-decking? Something more?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Pete from Boston on November 02, 2020, 12:31:49 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 01, 2020, 07:16:35 PM
What's going on with the Rochambeau Bridge on I-84 over the Housatonic? Crossed it twice in the dark so I couldn't see what was happening. Re-decking? Something more?

Answered my own question.

https://www.newtownbee.com/08172020/rochambeau-bridge-rehabilitation-underway/

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on November 02, 2020, 03:31:56 PM
I got to give ConnDOT credit for making that bridge that wide when it was rehabbed/rebuilt in the (1980s?)  That was some nice forward thinking.  This one, the Saltonstall Bridge on I-95, and the Society Rd bridge on I-95 were built for "future lanes".  The Saltonstall Bridge got its extra lanes during the early stage of the "Q" Bridge project.  Now we're waiting on the others to get their lanes, but I'm not holding my breath at this point.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: noelbotevera on November 03, 2020, 12:35:39 PM
I just noticed I-91 stays on the west side of the Connecticut River except between Windsor Locks and Chicopee, MA. Is there a reason for this shuffle?

I know it's meant to serve Springfield, but couldn't US 5 be upgraded while keeping I-91 on the west side of the river? And why cross it at Windsor Locks when it could cross quickly to serve Springfield (say, cross at Longmeadow from Agawam)?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on November 03, 2020, 07:13:43 PM
I'm guessing the terrain made it easier to cross at Windsor Locks and pass through Enfield which is relatively flat.  I'm sure Mass. pushed to get I-91 to run through Springfield, as US 5 was running already on the west side of the river.  It was probably thought, in those expressway-gun-ho days, that an interstate would help the city a'la urban renewal.
Steve Anderson has some more info over on his site for I-91 in Mass:  http://www.bostonroads.com/roads/I-91_MA/

And now, decades later, there is some talk of moving I-91 over to the west side of the river allowing Springfield to reclaim access to its riverfront. 

Earlier this fall, I traversed CT 159 for the first time in many years from Windsor Locks up to Agawam.  Passing through Windsor Locks downtown is pretty tight knit and developed, and also a narrow profile with the river and canal and former factories.  Sure, north of downtown up in Suffield it gets more "open" so I'm sure the path of least resistance was taken, whenever possible.  Maybe the town of Enfield was all for I-91 and would later have the areas surrounding Exits 47-48 extensively developed.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on November 10, 2020, 09:41:43 AM
Quote from: noelbotevera on November 03, 2020, 12:35:39 PM
I just noticed I-91 stays on the west side of the Connecticut River except between Windsor Locks and Chicopee, MA. Is there a reason for this shuffle?

I know it's meant to serve Springfield, but couldn't US 5 be upgraded while keeping I-91 on the west side of the river? And why cross it at Windsor Locks when it could cross quickly to serve Springfield (say, cross at Longmeadow from Agawam)?
CT 159 was former US 5A, and there were weak plans to four-lane it north of Windsor.
There were also plans for a CT 9 freeway extending to MA 57 in South wick, and CT 20 would have reached out there too.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on November 10, 2020, 01:37:57 PM
I thought that I-91 being located on the eastern side of the CT River was usually attributed to "urban renewal" goals in Springfield.

The subject is discussed in Wikipedia (I know; take it with grains of salt) here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Springfield,_Massachusetts#Highway_construction) and here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Springfield,_Massachusetts#Interstate_91_is_constructed,_amputating_Springfield_from_the_river).

On a related note, a roundabout is supposed to be going in at the northern intersection of CT140/CT159 in Windsor Locks, in conjunction with the conversion of one of the riverside factories into apartments, as well as in association with a new transit-oriented development effort triggered by the start of CT Rail service and the supposed-upgrade/relocation of the Windsor Locks rail stop.

(It wouldn't be hard to upgrade the current WNL station; but I'll be disappointed if it becomes even more challenging to park there, as that's my launch point for trips into NYC, and hopefully eventually for my commute into Montréal.)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on November 10, 2020, 02:22:44 PM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on November 10, 2020, 01:37:57 PM
I thought that I-91 being located on the eastern side of the CT River was usually attributed to "urban renewal" goals in Springfield.

The subject is discussed in Wikipedia (I know; take it with grains of salt) here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Springfield,_Massachusetts#Highway_construction) and here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Springfield,_Massachusetts#Interstate_91_is_constructed,_amputating_Springfield_from_the_river).

On a related note, a roundabout is supposed to be going in at the northern intersection of CT140/CT159 in Windsor Locks, in conjunction with the conversion of one of the riverside factories into apartments, as well as in association with a new transit-oriented development effort triggered by the start of CT Rail service and the supposed-upgrade/relocation of the Windsor Locks rail stop.

(It wouldn't be hard to upgrade the current WNL station; but I'll be disappointed if it becomes even more challenging to park there, as that's my launch point for trips into NYC, and hopefully eventually for my commute into Montréal.)
Urban renewal makes no sense because of the US 5 freeway through West Springfield.

The Windsor Locks train station is being moved back to its original headhouse eventually. But I've heard nothing about that intersection being converted to a roundabout. I feel like that would be tricky because of the grade crossing, unless they are going to eliminate it.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on November 10, 2020, 03:47:45 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on November 10, 2020, 02:22:44 PM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on November 10, 2020, 01:37:57 PM
I thought that I-91 being located on the eastern side of the CT River was usually attributed to "urban renewal" goals in Springfield.

The subject is discussed in Wikipedia (I know; take it with grains of salt) here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Springfield,_Massachusetts#Highway_construction) and here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Springfield,_Massachusetts#Interstate_91_is_constructed,_amputating_Springfield_from_the_river).

On a related note, a roundabout is supposed to be going in at the northern intersection of CT140/CT159 in Windsor Locks, in conjunction with the conversion of one of the riverside factories into apartments, as well as in association with a new transit-oriented development effort triggered by the start of CT Rail service and the supposed-upgrade/relocation of the Windsor Locks rail stop.

(It wouldn't be hard to upgrade the current WNL station; but I'll be disappointed if it becomes even more challenging to park there, as that's my launch point for trips into NYC, and hopefully eventually for my commute into Montréal.)
Urban renewal makes no sense because of the US 5 freeway through West Springfield.

The Windsor Locks train station is being moved back to its original headhouse eventually. But I've heard nothing about that intersection being converted to a roundabout. I feel like that would be tricky because of the grade crossing, unless they are going to eliminate it.

Re urban renewal in Springfield -- remember that the US5 highway in West Springfield predates I-91.  I understood that the debate was whether to upgrade US5, or to build a new alignment through Springfield.  The latter won due to Springfield's claim of being more important, and having goals of new development brought about by the highway and clearing out the local version of slums.   The latter goals obviously never materialized.

Re the WNL station relocation: Technically, it'll be a new station, as I understand the historic station is destined for other use, but the new station is to be located very close to the historic station.

Re the roundabout:  I might be incorrect on the location.  A presentation deck on Phase One of the Windsor Locks TOD project can be found here (https://www.windsorlocksct.org/site/bos_03-21-19.Main.Street.Phase_1.pdf); I could have sworn remembering reading about a roundabout at the CT159/CT140 intersection, but that's not mentioned here.   Either I was mistaken, or it's buried in a document somewhere on either the ConnDOT or town of Windsor Locks websites.  (I remember seeing more recent plans than the above-linked deck, but I can't find them now.)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on November 10, 2020, 06:18:32 PM
I believe there's a signing project out next year which will redo I-91 and CT-40.

So this will be gone:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50573445333_2ab2e37fa5_c.jpg)

and two remaining non-reflective button copy signs SB will also be gone:
[url=https://flic.kr/p/2gd9p3h](https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48051480416_105cda9d2e_c.jpg)

[url=https://flic.kr/p/XyNpEB](https://live.staticflickr.com/4392/36470804875_b17bee91fb_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2k418m2)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on November 11, 2020, 08:29:24 AM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on November 10, 2020, 03:47:45 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on November 10, 2020, 02:22:44 PM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on November 10, 2020, 01:37:57 PM
I thought that I-91 being located on the eastern side of the CT River was usually attributed to "urban renewal" goals in Springfield.

The subject is discussed in Wikipedia (I know; take it with grains of salt) here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Springfield,_Massachusetts#Highway_construction) and here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Springfield,_Massachusetts#Interstate_91_is_constructed,_amputating_Springfield_from_the_river).

On a related note, a roundabout is supposed to be going in at the northern intersection of CT140/CT159 in Windsor Locks, in conjunction with the conversion of one of the riverside factories into apartments, as well as in association with a new transit-oriented development effort triggered by the start of CT Rail service and the supposed-upgrade/relocation of the Windsor Locks rail stop.

(It wouldn't be hard to upgrade the current WNL station; but I'll be disappointed if it becomes even more challenging to park there, as that's my launch point for trips into NYC, and hopefully eventually for my commute into Montréal.)
Urban renewal makes no sense because of the US 5 freeway through West Springfield.

The Windsor Locks train station is being moved back to its original headhouse eventually. But I've heard nothing about that intersection being converted to a roundabout. I feel like that would be tricky because of the grade crossing, unless they are going to eliminate it.
Re the roundabout:  I might be incorrect on the location.  A presentation deck on Phase One of the Windsor Locks TOD project can be found here (https://www.windsorlocksct.org/site/bos_03-21-19.Main.Street.Phase_1.pdf); I could have sworn remembering reading about a roundabout at the CT159/CT140 intersection, but that's not mentioned here.   Either I was mistaken, or it's buried in a document somewhere on either the ConnDOT or town of Windsor Locks websites.  (I remember seeing more recent plans than the above-linked deck, but I can't find them now.)

Oh, this intersection. I fully support a roundabout there. My car got hit while parked on Main St. by some jackass going 40 through that stretch. Anything to slow traffic down to 25 helps.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on November 12, 2020, 12:20:16 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on November 10, 2020, 06:18:32 PM
I believe there's a signing project out next year which will redo I-91 and CT-40.

Well, the good news is no exit renumbering for CT 40 unless CTDOT either decides to give a number to the Bailey Rd ramp or make Bailey Rd the thru route and give numbers to the 91 ramps.  The former scenario would make State St 1B and Bailey 1A, while the latter would make State St 1C and I-91 1 A/B.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on November 26, 2020, 12:24:36 PM
Several signs are about to be replaced, mostly in Berlin. Cement foundations are up everywhere on sections of CT routes 372, 9 and the Berlin Turnpike (US 5/CT 15). A new sign is up on the Turnpike south in Berlin. It's for the CT Route 9 off ramp, near the Mickey Finn's store at the bridge carrying CT Route 372.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on November 26, 2020, 10:50:10 PM
The new sign on the Berlin Tpke SB at CT 9 South was not replaced as part of the present sign replacement project, but instead was replaced as part of the state's spot overhead sign replacement project.  I got a shot of it a couple months ago and either posted it here (above, somewhere) and its also on my FLICKR page.

ConnDOT put out a press release about the upcoming replacement of I-91/CT 40 signage, which lists the new numbers for CT 40.  Press release is here:
https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/Construction-News-from-the-Connecticut-Department-of-Transportation/2020/Highway-Signs-and-Sign-Supports-on-Interstate-91-from-North-Haven-to-Meriden-and-on-Route-40

The #s for Route 40 won't change NB, but SB, the exits become 1D/State St, 1C/I-91 South, 1B/Bailey Rd, and 1A/I-91 North.  Alphabet soup for such a short highway.  I wouldn't have even bothered with it... just keep present Exit 1 as Exit 1, both North and South.  No new #s for I-91, most likely will wait for the rest of the signs to be replaced north of Meriden. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on November 27, 2020, 09:03:50 AM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on November 26, 2020, 12:24:36 PM
Several signs are about to be replaced, mostly in Berlin. Cement foundations are up everywhere on sections of CT routes 372, 9 and the Berlin Turnpike (US 5/CT 15). A new sign is up on the Turnpike south in Berlin. It's for the CT Route 9 off ramp, near the Mickey Finn's store at the bridge carrying CT Route 372.

Sounds like they are finally getting ready to start the first part of the CT 72/ north end of CT 9 signing project, which means the new numbers for CT 72 are coming soon.

As for CT 40: CTDOT inconsistency at its best.  Eliminate the endpoint numbers on CT 9 for I-84 but add them on CT 40 for I-91 and Bailey Rd?!?  Just like the proposed numbers on CT 9 round down even if the overpass is at MP xx.98 but on CT 2 the numbers are rounded up from MP xx.5 and above.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on November 27, 2020, 04:10:31 PM
Drove the length of the CT 8 and CT 9 sign replacement projects today.  Not much to report on either project.  For CT 8, new mile markers and reassurance shields are up along with some new offramp signs, but that's it.  For CT 9, no progress on sign replacement, except some new foundations.  No ground aluminum signs up yet... no mile markers, speed limits, nothing.   

Hopefully spring will yield some more visible progress.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on November 29, 2020, 01:34:34 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on November 27, 2020, 04:10:31 PM
Drove the length of the CT 8 and CT 9 sign replacement projects today.  Not much to report on either project.  For CT 8, new mile markers and reassurance shields are up along with some new offramp signs, but that's it.  For CT 9, no progress on sign replacement, except some new foundations.  No ground aluminum signs up yet... no mile markers, speed limits, nothing.   

Hopefully spring will yield some more visible progress.

Given that construction projects in Connecticut typically shut down between the end of November and the end of March, I wouldn't expect much progress between now and spring.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on December 01, 2020, 01:47:49 PM
https://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/exit-numbers-changing-on-route-9-other-connecticut-roadways/2373442/

Supposedly the re-signing (and exit number changes) start on Monday, 7 December for Routes 9, 17, and 82.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on December 01, 2020, 02:39:38 PM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on December 01, 2020, 01:47:49 PM
https://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/exit-numbers-changing-on-route-9-other-connecticut-roadways/2373442/

Supposedly the re-signing (and exit number changes) start on Monday, 7 December for Routes 9, 17, and 82.
Surprised Route 72 wasn't mentioned, seeing that project was actually released first.  In the case of 17 and 82, it's just a case of learning that the exits will have numbers.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: TheGrassGuy on December 02, 2020, 01:17:36 PM
Is 169 the most scenic state route in CT? Or is it overrated?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on December 02, 2020, 04:32:30 PM
I drove CT 169 for the first time this fall, south from Pomfret down to I-395.  It is one of the two roads in CT that are "national scenic byways" (the Merritt being the other), and of course there are dozens of other scenic roads in CT, just not on the national register.  Yes it is very scenic but not on the level of some state's national scenic byways, such as Crawford Notch or the Kanc in NH.  Guess it's all relative, depending on the state!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on December 02, 2020, 06:51:17 PM
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on December 02, 2020, 01:17:36 PM
Is 169 the most scenic state route in CT? Or is it overrated?
Depends if you count unsigned (400 and up) routes.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: TheGrassGuy on December 02, 2020, 09:22:28 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on December 02, 2020, 04:32:30 PM
I drove CT 169 for the first time this fall, south from Pomfret down to I-395.  It is one of the two roads in CT that are "national scenic byways" (the Merritt being the other), and of course there are dozens of other scenic roads in CT, just not on the national register.  Yes it is very scenic but not on the level of some state's national scenic byways, such as Crawford Notch or the Kanc in NH.  Guess it's all relative, depending on the state!

But do you think it's the most scenic route in Connecticut itself? Obviously more so than the Merritt Pkwy!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: yakra on December 05, 2020, 11:59:41 AM
Thing about CT82 is, I don't see any interchanges on it other than its terminus at CT9. What, are they gonna slap an exit number on that?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on December 05, 2020, 12:28:35 PM
Quote from: yakra on December 05, 2020, 11:59:41 AM
Thing about CT82 is, I don't see any interchanges on it other than its terminus at CT9. What, are they gonna slap an exit number on that?
Don't forget the WB loop ramp to I-395 SB.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: yakra on December 05, 2020, 02:26:15 PM
OOP!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on December 05, 2020, 03:46:04 PM
Quote from: Alps on December 05, 2020, 12:28:35 PM
Quote from: yakra on December 05, 2020, 11:59:41 AM
Thing about CT82 is, I don't see any interchanges on it other than its terminus at CT9. What, are they gonna slap an exit number on that?
Don't forget the WB loop ramp to I-395 SB.
And exit 28, downtown: https://goo.gl/maps/JvfE9nCnJkPvMZ766
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on December 05, 2020, 09:54:50 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on November 29, 2020, 01:34:34 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on November 27, 2020, 04:10:31 PM
Drove the length of the CT 8 and CT 9 sign replacement projects today.  Not much to report on either project.  For CT 8, new mile markers and reassurance shields are up along with some new offramp signs, but that's it.  For CT 9, no progress on sign replacement, except some new foundations.  No ground aluminum signs up yet... no mile markers, speed limits, nothing.   

Hopefully spring will yield some more visible progress.

Given that construction projects in Connecticut typically shut down between the end of November and the end of March, I wouldn't expect much progress between now and spring.

I was more referring to when the project ramps up in the spring, though since Rt 9 is my "home road", I'll travel it regularly throughout the winter and be ready to report any updates.  Many of the foundations are in (for the northern half), and by March/April, hopefully the signs will be ready to go, the gantries installed, and away we go.  For the southern end, I don't see any work until spring at the earliest, except, maybe, the removal of the SB Exit 11 "exit now" overhead, since the plans recommended that be first to go and replaced with a sheet aluminum temporary, until a new permanent gantry is good to go. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on December 06, 2020, 02:40:01 PM
Quote from: kurumi on December 05, 2020, 03:46:04 PM
Quote from: Alps on December 05, 2020, 12:28:35 PM
Quote from: yakra on December 05, 2020, 11:59:41 AM
Thing about CT82 is, I don't see any interchanges on it other than its terminus at CT9. What, are they gonna slap an exit number on that?
Don't forget the WB loop ramp to I-395 SB.
And exit 28, downtown: https://goo.gl/maps/JvfE9nCnJkPvMZ766

Might as well just slap an exit number on the CT 11 turnoff a la MA 140 for MA 24.  Label it Exit 16B and save 16A in case pigs fly and we need 16A for the CT 11 southward extension.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on December 07, 2020, 11:51:03 AM
Apologies for the double post, but according to this  article (https://www.wfsb.com/news/exit-signs-to-be-replaced-renumbered-on-a-few-ct-highways-starting-today/article_200c9d6c-389f-11eb-95e5-2b9c534548bf.html?fbclid=IwAR0ce0hm0Ep9kVaRYypaxKXgdBgctAGxa6cilr_GZ45sjBX30VfhW5ZEL74), it looks like CTDOT has revised CT 9's exit numbers and will number the exits on the Middletown portion of CT 17.  However, it makes no mention of the Glastonbury portion or give a chart for the CT 82 number.  Editorial comment:  MUCH better.  Exit 29 should be Exit 38, not 37, seeing MP 38 is essentially at the CT 175 overpass. And now the endpoints do get numbers.  If numbering endpoint exits is going to be the norm going forward, I just don't see how you get through the south end of I-91 without a super duper alphabet city or using Exit 0.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on December 07, 2020, 03:45:32 PM
Saw this too, on our local NBC affiliate's page. 
https://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/dot-to-begin-changing-exit-numbers-on-route-9-other-ct-roadways-today/2377691/?_osource=SocialFlowFB_CTBrand&fbclid=IwAR3uagEF1PoKdiotF6MpQxoScB4Oq3nygr6MAgy4QRyWvsi2SCx8647Ig68

In addition, it does change Exit 3 to Exit 4, which makes sense as its closer to MM 4.  In fact, when comparing to my exit list mileage, the new numbers match up much better than those in the contract plans from this summer. 

It is nice to see that they are trying some consistency, with now numbering endpoints, proper rounding, and such .  However, I think a little fudging should be implemented to eliminate some alphabet soup exits.  For instance, I could see Exit 2 staying Exit 2, then I-95 being Exits 1A-1B.  Its not much different than Mass not even bothering changing I-291 or I-391 and Maine keeping I-295 exits the same south of Falmouth. 

What will be interesting to see will be I-95 west of New Haven when its exits get changed.  Will they bother?  Or will it create more of a mess?  Same with I-91 in New Haven. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on December 08, 2020, 10:32:17 AM
New gantries have been delivered to near the old I-84 Exit 59 pull-through signage. Looks like it'll be replaced soon.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on December 08, 2020, 12:33:28 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on December 07, 2020, 03:45:32 PM
Saw this too, on our local NBC affiliate's page. 
https://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/dot-to-begin-changing-exit-numbers-on-route-9-other-ct-roadways-today/2377691/?_osource=SocialFlowFB_CTBrand&fbclid=IwAR3uagEF1PoKdiotF6MpQxoScB4Oq3nygr6MAgy4QRyWvsi2SCx8647Ig68

In addition, it does change Exit 3 to Exit 4, which makes sense as its closer to MM 4.  In fact, when comparing to my exit list mileage, the new numbers match up much better than those in the contract plans from this summer. 

It is nice to see that they are trying some consistency, with now numbering endpoints, proper rounding, and such .  However, I think a little fudging should be implemented to eliminate some alphabet soup exits.  For instance, I could see Exit 2 staying Exit 2, then I-95 being Exits 1A-1B.  Its not much different than Mass not even bothering changing I-291 or I-391 and Maine keeping I-295 exits the same south of Falmouth. 

What will be interesting to see will be I-95 west of New Haven when its exits get changed.  Will they bother?  Or will it create more of a mess?  Same with I-91 in New Haven.

I think this is announcing the start of the project. I don't think you'll see the exit numbers change for awhile, until after they get the new support structures installed and they're ready to start mounting the new signs. That's the approach they took when the renumbered exits on I-395 and Route 2A a few years back.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: The Ghostbuster on December 08, 2020, 04:44:12 PM
The story says that at CT 9's northern terminus, Interstate 84 west will become Exit 40A and Interstate 84 east will become Exit 40B. It was my understanding (and everyone else's) that the exits at CT 9's northern end would be de-numbered.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on December 08, 2020, 08:58:01 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 08, 2020, 04:44:12 PM
The story says that at CT 9's northern terminus, Interstate 84 west will become Exit 40A and Interstate 84 east will become Exit 40B. It was my understanding (and everyone else's) that the exits at CT 9's northern end would be de-numbered.

Seems CTDOT has decided to number endpoints after all.  The first evidence we saw of it was a couple weeks ago when the new numbers for CT 40 came out.  But now I wonder if they're going to re-work the east (log south) end of CT 72 to include numbers for the CT 9 ramps.  It would mean Columbus Blvd (Current 8 proposed 1B) would become 1D and CT 71 (Current 9 proposed 1A) would become 1C with the 9 ramps being 1 A-B
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on December 22, 2020, 03:10:25 PM
Not news, but a little insight as to US 6/44 from Farmington/West Hartford to Manchester and why the multiplexes go the way they do...

Recently I purchased a set of some 30 or 40 official Connecticut highway maps, from the 1950s right up to the last one printed.  I have a few gaps in the collection, but it is pretty cool to watch the progression of highway building in the state from the 50s to the 70s, including showing what may have been.  To the casual highway observer, it may seem odd that US 6 and 44 are multiplexed with I-84 and then as soon as you cross the river, US 44 diverts onto Connecticut Blvd and then US 6 stays with I-84 until reaching Exit 60 in Manchester, which is US 44.  So why doesn't US 6 part ways with I-84 sooner? 

Historically, before the interstates, US 6 crossed the Connecticut River on the Charter Oak Bridge.  It got there by taking a route on surface roads from Farmington (at present Exit 38) due east to the Brainard area of Hartford, via South Road, New Britain Ave, White St, Brown St, and Airport Rd.  After crossing the COB, US 6 stayed on with CT 15 until reaching what is today Exit 60.  Meanwhile, US 44 has always crossed at the Bulkely Bridge in Hartford, diverted onto Conn Blvd and Burnside Ave through East Hartford.  Upon reaching today's Exit 60, US 44 jumped onto what was then CT 15 and multiplexed for the run out to Willington, running over what is now CT 74 to present US 44.  US 44A was today's US 44 through Manchester and east.  When I-84 was built, US 6 was routed onto the interstate from present day Exit 38 to present day Exit 60.  The route of US 6 was already established to be cosigned with CT 15 out to present day Exit 60.  Sure, CHD/ConnDOT could have rerouted it to follow US 44 through East Hartford, but they didn't.  They also could have kept it on the surface road route through southern Hartford, but didn't.  Much of that route went to town control I believe, though some may have survived as unsigned routes.  At some point in the early 80s, perhaps around the I-86 to I-84 conversion (and removal of CT 15 east of today's Exit 58), US 44 was rerouted onto surface roads in Manchester and east, replacing US 44A. 

So there's a little insight into some of the routing of the US routes around Hartford.  Personally I'd like to see US 6 off I-84 as much as possible, but I guess the state just doesn't see the need for it, or doesn't want to take on the added burden of additional state highway mileage.  That's most likely why 6/202 don't go through Danbury proper or why the southern Hartford route of US  6 was decomissioned. 

(As an aside, I have some duplicates in my CT map collection and may be offering them for free available at some point early in 2021)

Wishing everyone a Merry Christmas, Happy Holiday, and Best Wishes for 2021!!! 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on December 22, 2020, 03:43:29 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on December 22, 2020, 03:10:25 PM
(As an aside, I have some duplicates in my CT map collection and may be offering them for free available at some point early in 2021)

Wishing everyone a Merry Christmas, Happy Holiday, and Best Wishes for 2021!!! 
(dibs)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on December 22, 2020, 06:21:16 PM
@shadyjay: CT Route 15 ends at Exit 57 WB in East Hartford. (Exit 58 is Silver Lane/Forbes Street/Burnside Avenue.) As for Danbury, US Route 6/202 is in the city from the NY border to I-84 Exit 4.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on December 22, 2020, 06:36:22 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on December 22, 2020, 06:21:16 PM
@shadyjay: CT Route 15 ends at Exit 57 WB in East Hartford. (Exit 58 is Silver Lane/Forbes Street/Burnside Avenue.) As for Danbury, US Route 6/202 is in the city from the NY border to I-84 Exit 4.

Yes, correct... but that's Roberts St, not Forbes Street.  Actually Forbes Street was an old I-84/CT 15/I-86 interchange between present Exits 58 & 59. 

For Danbury, was referring to US 6/202 going through the downtown section.  One of those old maps shows US 202 cosigned from Exit 4 to Exit 5, then local streets.  Back then US 202 took a route through Bethel over what is now CT 302 to get back to US 6, then was cosigned with US 6 to Farmington, then with CT 10 north.

By checking out Google Maps streetview, there is a very low railroad overpass 10'7" on Lake Ave, which I wonder if that was the reason for the rerouting out of the city, if only for one exit (when it went through Bethel) and later when it was rerouted to its present route. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on December 22, 2020, 07:20:20 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on December 22, 2020, 06:36:22 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on December 22, 2020, 06:21:16 PM
@shadyjay: CT Route 15 ends at Exit 57 WB in East Hartford. (Exit 58 is Silver Lane/Forbes Street/Burnside Avenue.) As for Danbury, US Route 6/202 is in the city from the NY border to I-84 Exit 4.

Yes, correct... but that's Roberts St, not Forbes Street.  Actually Forbes Street was an old I-84/CT 15/I-86 interchange between present Exits 58 & 59. 

For Danbury, was referring to US 6/202 going through the downtown section.  One of those old maps shows US 202 cosigned from Exit 4 to Exit 5, then local streets.  Back then US 202 took a route through Bethel over what is now CT 302 to get back to US 6, then was cosigned with US 6 to Farmington, then with CT 10 north.

By checking out Google Maps streetview, there is a very low railroad overpass 10'7" on Lake Ave, which I wonder if that was the reason for the rerouting out of the city, if only for one exit (when it went through Bethel) and later when it was rerouted to its present route.

Before I-84 opened through Danbury in 1961 US-6 and US-7 and US-202 came into Danbury from the west along Lake Avenue and West Street. In downtown Danbury, US-6 and US-7 briefly turned north on Main Street, then east onto White Street, past Western Connecticut State University, then split a couple of blocks east of the university. There, US-7 turned north onto Federal Road, while US-6 continued east on Newtown Road. At that time, US-202 turned south on Main Street, and followed what is now CT-53 to CT-302, before turning east onto 302.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on December 22, 2020, 11:58:39 PM
Not sure if US 6 was moved onto I-84 and off of Newtown Rd at a later date.  I remember seeing old label scarring on the McDonald's on Newtown Rd referring to exiting onto Route 6 as late as about 15-20 years ago before they remodeled the building to modern standards.  As for US 202, it wasn't rerouted to its modern route between Danbury and Avon until 1974.  CT 25 used to go all the way to US 44 at the Five Corners in Canton via a duplex with US 7 from Brookfield to New Milford.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: yakra on December 29, 2020, 04:31:56 PM
What's the status on the CT9 exit renumbering?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on December 29, 2020, 09:52:35 PM
Quote from: yakra on December 29, 2020, 04:31:56 PM
What's the status on the CT9 exit renumbering?

No outward signs of anything on the stretch I drove today (current Exits 23-28).  I'm surprised the CT 72 renumber hasn't taken place yet, seeing that it was put to contract first.  However, I do see quite a few overturned signs in the DOT maintenance area off of Woodford Ave in Plainville (though many are quite small to be full size BGS's). 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on December 29, 2020, 10:03:19 PM
Only thing I've seen on CT 9 (and several other roads, including I-691) is a large amount of light poles lying on the ground, sporadically spread.  This is not part of any replacement project.  On CT 9, I saw one down, then 10+ up, then another one down, etc etc.  Are that many getting hit or are they just failing? 

On I-691, I saw crews out the past couple days working on the ITMS, putting up high poles with cameras on them.  Crews were working the entire length of the road, from east of I-91 out to I-84.  There's a new VMS on CT 66 WB just before the start of the expressway (ground-mounted), and there will be others.


Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on December 30, 2020, 01:44:57 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on December 29, 2020, 10:03:19 PM
Only thing I've seen on CT 9 (and several other roads, including I-691) is a large amount of light poles lying on the ground, sporadically spread.  This is not part of any replacement project.  On CT 9, I saw one down, then 10+ up, then another one down, etc etc.  Are that many getting hit or are they just failing? 

On I-691, I saw crews out the past couple days working on the ITMS, putting up high poles with cameras on them.  Crews were working the entire length of the road, from east of I-91 out to I-84.  There's a new VMS on CT 66 WB just before the start of the expressway (ground-mounted), and there will be others.

Nice. That's all brand new for 691. I-291 is the only interstate without ITMS or cameras. And that's our state's newest complete Interstate.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on December 30, 2020, 04:15:12 PM
I-384 doesn't have any east of Exit 1.  I-395 north of Norwich doesn't have any either.  No need for it out there.

CT 9 from Middletown to I-84 and CT 72 are supposed to get it in 2021.  There are a few cameras in Middletown and Cromwell but they're spotty.


Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on December 30, 2020, 06:46:59 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on December 30, 2020, 01:44:57 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on December 29, 2020, 10:03:19 PM
Only thing I've seen on CT 9 (and several other roads, including I-691) is a large amount of light poles lying on the ground, sporadically spread.  This is not part of any replacement project.  On CT 9, I saw one down, then 10+ up, then another one down, etc etc.  Are that many getting hit or are they just failing? 

On I-691, I saw crews out the past couple days working on the ITMS, putting up high poles with cameras on them.  Crews were working the entire length of the road, from east of I-91 out to I-84.  There's a new VMS on CT 66 WB just before the start of the expressway (ground-mounted), and there will be others.

Nice. That's all brand new for 691. I-291 is the only interstate without ITMS or cameras. And that's our state's newest complete Interstate.

To my knowledge, there are no ITMS or cameras on I-384 as well. Anyone know if there are plans to install ITMS and cameras on 384?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on December 31, 2020, 07:37:22 PM
If it were up to me, I'd put ITMS, cameras and VMS along the entire stretch of US 6 from Bolton to Killingly.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on January 01, 2021, 01:58:59 AM
Now that I'm looking at 'em, there isn't one on I-384.  What I probably saw once was one of the cameras on I-84 near Exit 59 pointed down towards I-384 Exit 1. 

In reality, does I-384 need cameras?  I can see I-291, I-691, and CT 9 as they form a bypass route of sorts for I-84 and I-91, but I-384 doesn't fit that bill and is rarely, if ever, congested.  We all know it was designed/built for greater aspirations than dead-ending in the Notch.  Perhaps one day it will serve a greater purpose, but I'm not holding my breath for that!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on January 01, 2021, 01:21:17 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on January 01, 2021, 01:58:59 AM
Now that I'm looking at 'em, there isn't one on I-384.  What I probably saw once was one of the cameras on I-84 near Exit 59 pointed down towards I-384 Exit 1. 

In reality, does I-384 need cameras?  I can see I-291, I-691, and CT 9 as they form a bypass route of sorts for I-84 and I-91, but I-384 doesn't fit that bill and is rarely, if ever, congested.  We all know it was designed/built for greater aspirations than dead-ending in the Notch.  Perhaps one day it will serve a greater purpose, but I'm not holding my breath for that!

The State of Connecticut still owns most of the right-of-way to build a freeway between I-384 and the US-6 bypass around Willimantic in case there comes a time where opposition to the freeway goes away and the money to build it somehow magically appears. Not in my lifetime will that happen though.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on January 01, 2021, 02:27:07 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on January 01, 2021, 01:21:17 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on January 01, 2021, 01:58:59 AM
Now that I'm looking at 'em, there isn't one on I-384.  What I probably saw once was one of the cameras on I-84 near Exit 59 pointed down towards I-384 Exit 1. 

In reality, does I-384 need cameras?  I can see I-291, I-691, and CT 9 as they form a bypass route of sorts for I-84 and I-91, but I-384 doesn't fit that bill and is rarely, if ever, congested.  We all know it was designed/built for greater aspirations than dead-ending in the Notch.  Perhaps one day it will serve a greater purpose, but I'm not holding my breath for that!

The State of Connecticut still owns most of the right-of-way to build a freeway between I-384 and the US-6 bypass around Willimantic in case there comes a time where opposition to the freeway goes away and the money to build it somehow magically appears. Not in my lifetime will that happen though.
Do they? Granted, I'm just using the property lines displayed in Google Maps, but from either end of the completed freeway I saw nothing resembling a highway ROW, just normal property lines criss-crossing.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on January 01, 2021, 03:34:00 PM
Quote from: Alps on January 01, 2021, 02:27:07 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on January 01, 2021, 01:21:17 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on January 01, 2021, 01:58:59 AM
Now that I'm looking at 'em, there isn't one on I-384.  What I probably saw once was one of the cameras on I-84 near Exit 59 pointed down towards I-384 Exit 1. 

In reality, does I-384 need cameras?  I can see I-291, I-691, and CT 9 as they form a bypass route of sorts for I-84 and I-91, but I-384 doesn't fit that bill and is rarely, if ever, congested.  We all know it was designed/built for greater aspirations than dead-ending in the Notch.  Perhaps one day it will serve a greater purpose, but I'm not holding my breath for that!

The State of Connecticut still owns most of the right-of-way to build a freeway between I-384 and the US-6 bypass around Willimantic in case there comes a time where opposition to the freeway goes away and the money to build it somehow magically appears. Not in my lifetime will that happen though.
Do they? Granted, I'm just using the property lines displayed in Google Maps, but from either end of the completed freeway I saw nothing resembling a highway ROW, just normal property lines criss-crossing.

There's an app called On-X which is widely used by hunters. On-X shows all of the property boundaries and who owns each parcel. Interestingly enough, On-X also shows the State of Connecticut owning parcels of land around North Canaan that was to have been a bypass for US-7 around the town that would have connected to the Super-2 section of US-7 from the CT/MA state line to Sheffield, MA.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: sharkyfour on January 01, 2021, 03:39:44 PM
Quote from: Alps on January 01, 2021, 02:27:07 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on January 01, 2021, 01:21:17 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on January 01, 2021, 01:58:59 AM
Now that I'm looking at 'em, there isn't one on I-384.  What I probably saw once was one of the cameras on I-84 near Exit 59 pointed down towards I-384 Exit 1. 

In reality, does I-384 need cameras?  I can see I-291, I-691, and CT 9 as they form a bypass route of sorts for I-84 and I-91, but I-384 doesn't fit that bill and is rarely, if ever, congested.  We all know it was designed/built for greater aspirations than dead-ending in the Notch.  Perhaps one day it will serve a greater purpose, but I'm not holding my breath for that!

The State of Connecticut still owns most of the right-of-way to build a freeway between I-384 and the US-6 bypass around Willimantic in case there comes a time where opposition to the freeway goes away and the money to build it somehow magically appears. Not in my lifetime will that happen though.
Do they? Granted, I'm just using the property lines displayed in Google Maps, but from either end of the completed freeway I saw nothing resembling a highway ROW, just normal property lines criss-crossing.

After a court case a couple years ago, they did start the process of selling some of it off.  I'm not sure they had yet acquired land near Bolton Notch yet.  But they did buy up ROW through Andover and Coventry I think back in the early 1990's.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on January 02, 2021, 02:41:20 PM
When ConnDOT last tried to do something with that corridor the Army Corps of Engineers shot their plans down saying "no, the environmental impacts this will have on Hop River are unacceptable". So even if they were to eventually build something it would likely have to be on a different alignment.


As for the state owned ROW, it's visible on OSM as "Bolton Open Space", "Coventry Open Space", and "Andover Open Space".
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on January 02, 2021, 03:21:02 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on January 02, 2021, 02:41:20 PM
When ConnDOT last tried to do something with that corridor the Army Corps of Engineers shot their plans down saying "no, the environmental impacts this will have on Hop River are unacceptable". So even if they were to eventually build something it would likely have to be on a different alignment.


As for the state owned ROW, it's visible on OSM as "Bolton Open Space", "Coventry Open Space", and "Andover Open Space".

It wasn't so much the Corps of Engineers that objected to the alignment north of the Hop River, but moreso the EPA. When it comes to the issuance of Corps of Engineers permits, the EPA can block the Corps from issuing the required permits to get a freeway built. Over the past few decades, the EPA's Region 1 office (that covers New England) has generally been opposed to any new-terrain freeways within its jurisdiction and has blocked the Corps of Engineers from issuing permits for many planned freeways that are now effectively dead (e.g., the Route 11 extension, Super 7 between Norwalk and Danbury, the Circ in Vermont, and the Nashua Circ in New Hampshire to name a few). States abandoned these projects and redirected funds to projects they could complete, mainly repairing and improving existing routes.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on January 07, 2021, 12:34:55 PM
I found a couple of Youtube videos showing road trips along I-84 and CT-8 within the past 6 months. The videos show that ConnDOT's District 4 (covers west-central and northwest CT) has been leaning forward in striping exit gores within the district. One video shows exit gores on I-84 from Exit 26 in Cheshire to Exit 3 in Danbury now have striped exit gores (guessing they forgot about Exits 1 and 2). A second video shows exit gores are also striped on Route 8 from the Waterbury Mixmaster to Exit 15 in Derby.


A recent look at Google Maps also shows that exit gores on the freeway sections of US-7 through both Norwalk and the Danbury area are also striped.

I visited Connecticut and drove on these stretches of highway in July 2020 and only some of the aforementioned exit gores were striped at the time, so it looks like ConnDOT District 4 completed striping their exit gores during the late summer or fall.

The videos show no striping on older sections of pavement in the other ConnDOT districts, with newer pavement having striped exit gores. From that, I conclude that while District 4 has leaned forward in striping its exit ramp gores, it looks like the other three districts are phasing in exit gore striping as sections of highway are resurfaced.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on January 14, 2021, 11:18:47 AM
New gantry is up at I-84 before Exit 47. HOV and the left exit pull-through for CT 15 are up westbound.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on January 15, 2021, 02:09:17 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on January 14, 2021, 11:18:47 AM
New gantry is up at I-84 before Exit 47. HOV and the left exit pull-through for CT 15 are up westbound.

I'm assuming you mean 57.

Also saw the first piers for the CT 72/CT 9 sign replacement project in the ground.  They were for the gantry at the eastern terminus of CT 72 for the CT 9 directional BGS's. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on January 15, 2021, 10:38:12 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on January 15, 2021, 02:09:17 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on January 14, 2021, 11:18:47 AM
New gantry is up at I-84 before Exit 47. HOV and the left exit pull-through for CT 15 are up westbound.

I'm assuming you mean 57.

Also saw the first piers for the CT 72/CT 9 sign replacement project in the ground.  They were for the gantry at the eastern terminus of CT 72 for the CT 9 directional BGS's.
Yes.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on January 17, 2021, 06:41:28 PM
Here's a fun story: back in 1982, when the state still had tolls, the Connecticut DOT issued a new set of tokens that just happened to be almost exactly the same size (https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1982/11/18/040370.html?pageNumber=1) as New York City subway tokens, but cost less than ¼ as much so, inevitably, they started showing up in fareboxes. For 3 years the problem went unsolved but when tolls were abolished in 1985, the MTA was compensated 17.5 cents for each token that they had received.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on January 17, 2021, 07:16:29 PM
I recall reading about that.  However, I don't believe there ever was a "Connecticut Turnpike Authority".  I believe the turnpike was just run by the highway department, later the state DOT. 

Perhaps if there was a separate agency running the turnpike, the money collected in tolls would've gone solely for turnpike improvements.  If that was the case, many of the improvements of the 90s/2000s may have happened earlier, and we may have seen a widening east of the New Haven area by now.  Collectively, if tolls were introduced again to I-95, I'd be all for it if they stayed with the road itself, vs going into a general fund.  I'd pay $.50 or $1.00 every time I wanted to travel the shoreline if it meant a 3rd lane was coming. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: DJStephens on January 18, 2021, 07:22:36 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on January 17, 2021, 06:41:28 PM
Here's a fun story: back in 1982, when the state still had tolls, the Connecticut Turnpike Authority issued a new set of tokens that just happened to be almost exactly the same size (https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1982/11/18/040370.html?pageNumber=1) as New York City subway tokens, but cost less than ⅓ as much so, inevitably, they started showing up in fareboxes. For 3 years the problem went unsolved but when tolls were abolished in 1985, the MTA was compensated 17.5 cents for each token that they had received.

Believe there was a fiery pileup, early-mid eighties at one of the I-95 barrier toll booths that may have also hastened the end of tolls on that road. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on January 18, 2021, 08:49:44 AM
Quote from: DJStephens on January 18, 2021, 07:22:36 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on January 17, 2021, 06:41:28 PM
Here's a fun story: back in 1982, when the state still had tolls, the Connecticut Turnpike Authority issued a new set of tokens that just happened to be almost exactly the same size (https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1982/11/18/040370.html?pageNumber=1) as New York City subway tokens, but cost less than ⅓ as much so, inevitably, they started showing up in fareboxes. For 3 years the problem went unsolved but when tolls were abolished in 1985, the MTA was compensated 17.5 cents for each token that they had received.

Believe there was a fiery pileup, early-mid eighties at one of the I-95 barrier toll booths that may have also hastened the end of tolls on that road.

That was the reason for getting rid of tolls. The Connecticut DOT had little sympathy for the MTA, saying that their turnstyles would accept bottlecaps.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on January 18, 2021, 10:58:20 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on January 17, 2021, 07:16:29 PM
I recall reading about that.  However, I don't believe there ever was a "Connecticut Turnpike Authority".  I believe the turnpike was just run by the highway department, later the state DOT. 

Perhaps if there was a separate agency running the turnpike, the money collected in tolls would've gone solely for turnpike improvements.  If that was the case, many of the improvements of the 90s/2000s may have happened earlier, and we may have seen a widening east of the New Haven area by now.  Collectively, if tolls were introduced again to I-95, I'd be all for it if they stayed with the road itself, vs going into a general fund.  I'd pay $.50 or $1.00 every time I wanted to travel the shoreline if it meant a 3rd lane was coming.
There was a Greater Hartford Bridge Authority.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on January 18, 2021, 11:39:13 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on January 18, 2021, 08:49:44 AM
Quote from: DJStephens on January 18, 2021, 07:22:36 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on January 17, 2021, 06:41:28 PM
Here's a fun story: back in 1982, when the state still had tolls, the Connecticut Turnpike Authority issued a new set of tokens that just happened to be almost exactly the same size (https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1982/11/18/040370.html?pageNumber=1) as New York City subway tokens, but cost less than ⅓ as much so, inevitably, they started showing up in fareboxes. For 3 years the problem went unsolved but when tolls were abolished in 1985, the MTA was compensated 17.5 cents for each token that they had received.

Believe there was a fiery pileup, early-mid eighties at one of the I-95 barrier toll booths that may have also hastened the end of tolls on that road.

That was the reason for getting rid of tolls. The Connecticut DOT had little sympathy for the MTA, saying that their turnstyles would accept bottlecaps.

The Stratford toll plaza crash was only part of the reason why Connecticut got rid of tolls on the Connecticut Turnpike in 1985. Connecticut was required to de-toll the Connecticut Turnpike following the Mianus River Bridge collapse because federal funds were used to repair the bridge. Per Section 113(c) of the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956, Connecticut was required to remove tolls from the Turnpike once its construction bonds were paid off, which happened in 1985.

As for legislation to abolish tolls statewide in Connecticut, that was more attributed to the Stratford toll plaza crash, and allowing tolls on Connecticut's highways I would say is the third rail of state politics. Toll opponents always bring up that crash when lawmakers debate bringing back tolls. Almost 40 years later, the Stratford toll plaza crash is a memory that will not soon fade away.

As far as who managed the Connecticut Turnpike during its toll road days, it was the Connecticut Department of Transportation. There was never a turnpike authority to oversee operations of the Turnpike. Toll revenues went into the state's general fund and used for highway and non-highway expenditures, which also explains the lack of proper maintenance in the years running up to the Mianus River Bridge collapse.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on January 18, 2021, 11:55:23 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on January 18, 2021, 11:39:13 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on January 18, 2021, 08:49:44 AM
Quote from: DJStephens on January 18, 2021, 07:22:36 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on January 17, 2021, 06:41:28 PM
Here's a fun story: back in 1982, when the state still had tolls, the Connecticut Turnpike Authority issued a new set of tokens that just happened to be almost exactly the same size (https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1982/11/18/040370.html?pageNumber=1) as New York City subway tokens, but cost less than ⅓ as much so, inevitably, they started showing up in fareboxes. For 3 years the problem went unsolved but when tolls were abolished in 1985, the MTA was compensated 17.5 cents for each token that they had received.

Believe there was a fiery pileup, early-mid eighties at one of the I-95 barrier toll booths that may have also hastened the end of tolls on that road.

That was the reason for getting rid of tolls. The Connecticut DOT had little sympathy for the MTA, saying that their turnstyles would accept bottlecaps.

The Stratford toll plaza crash was only part of the reason why Connecticut got rid of tolls on the Connecticut Turnpike in 1985. Connecticut was required to de-toll the Connecticut Turnpike following the Mianus River Bridge collapse because federal funds were used to repair the bridge. Per Section 113(c) of the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956, Connecticut was required to remove tolls from the Turnpike once its construction bonds were paid off, which happened in 1985.

As for legislation to abolish tolls statewide in Connecticut, that was more attributed to the Stratford toll plaza crash, and allowing tolls on Connecticut's highways I would say is the third rail of state politics. Toll opponents always bring up that crash when lawmakers debate bringing back tolls. Almost 40 years later, the Stratford toll plaza crash is a memory that will not soon fade away.


As far as who managed the Connecticut Turnpike during its toll road days, it was the Connecticut Department of Transportation. There was never a turnpike authority to oversee operations of the Turnpike. Toll revenues went into the state's general fund and used for highway and non-highway expenditures, which also explains the lack of proper maintenance in the years running up to the Mianus River Bridge collapse.

Today, we have pay-by-plate so there's no need for toll plazas and hence no risk of crashes. The bigger issue is that people don't like tax increases. And given Connecticut's history, if they brought back tolls, I'm sure they'd find another way to squander it and then come back asking for another tax increase.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on January 18, 2021, 12:52:47 PM
The whole token debacle though is Gresham's Law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gresham%27s_law) in action; bad money drives out good.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on January 18, 2021, 06:10:48 PM
Wasn't there a lockbox that was passed? I remember hearing about it but now it seems nobody mentions it.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: The Ghostbuster on January 18, 2021, 06:15:43 PM
If Connecticut were to ever bring back tolls (not likely IMHO, but then, I'm from Wisconsin), I am sure they would all be charged electronically. As I have said before, toll booths and toll plazas from the 20th century are obsolete, and should remain in the 20th century.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on January 18, 2021, 09:45:44 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on January 18, 2021, 06:10:48 PM
Wasn't there a lockbox that was passed? I remember hearing about it but now it seems nobody mentions it.

Yes, voters in Connecticut overwhelmingly approved an amendment to the state's constitution in 2018 mandating that all transportation funds be spent only on transportation-related expenditures. If tolls were ever brought back, revenues would go into the state's Special Transportation Fund, not the General Fund.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on January 18, 2021, 10:41:48 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on January 18, 2021, 06:10:48 PM
Wasn't there a lockbox that was passed? I remember hearing about it but now it seems nobody mentions it.

It was, but it has a secret trap door that politicians can access at any time, plus there are easy ways to divert monies destined for it.  It's essentially a placebo in road funding.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on January 27, 2021, 03:18:13 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on January 18, 2021, 11:55:23 AM
Today, we have pay-by-plate so there's no need for toll plazas and hence no risk of crashes. The bigger issue is that people don't like tax increases. And given Connecticut's history, if they brought back tolls, I'm sure they'd find another way to squander it and then come back asking for another tax increase.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 18, 2021, 06:15:43 PM
If Connecticut were to ever bring back tolls (not likely IMHO, but then, I'm from Wisconsin), I am sure they would all be charged electronically. As I have said before, toll booths and toll plazas from the 20th century are obsolete, and should remain in the 20th century.

See Reply #3732 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=1898.msg2456739#msg2456739) regarding the latest re-tolling initiative via electronic toll collection.  In short: dead-on arrival when it was discovered that even the little piece of I-684 in CT was slated to have an AET gantry erected.  Westchester County, NY residents weren't having it.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on January 28, 2021, 11:35:55 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 27, 2021, 03:18:13 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on January 18, 2021, 11:55:23 AM
Today, we have pay-by-plate so there's no need for toll plazas and hence no risk of crashes. The bigger issue is that people don't like tax increases. And given Connecticut's history, if they brought back tolls, I'm sure they'd find another way to squander it and then come back asking for another tax increase.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 18, 2021, 06:15:43 PM
If Connecticut were to ever bring back tolls (not likely IMHO, but then, I'm from Wisconsin), I am sure they would all be charged electronically. As I have said before, toll booths and toll plazas from the 20th century are obsolete, and should remain in the 20th century.

See Reply #3732 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=1898.msg2456739#msg2456739) regarding the latest re-tolling initiative via electronic toll collection.  In short: dead-on arrival when it was discovered that even the little piece of I-684 in CT was slated to have an AET gantry erected.  Westchester County, NY residents weren't having it.
CT should annex the land occupying I-684 to NY to create the first enclave of a state in the US.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on January 28, 2021, 06:04:23 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on January 28, 2021, 11:35:55 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 27, 2021, 03:18:13 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on January 18, 2021, 11:55:23 AM
Today, we have pay-by-plate so there's no need for toll plazas and hence no risk of crashes. The bigger issue is that people don't like tax increases. And given Connecticut's history, if they brought back tolls, I'm sure they'd find another way to squander it and then come back asking for another tax increase.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 18, 2021, 06:15:43 PM
If Connecticut were to ever bring back tolls (not likely IMHO, but then, I'm from Wisconsin), I am sure they would all be charged electronically. As I have said before, toll booths and toll plazas from the 20th century are obsolete, and should remain in the 20th century.

See Reply #3732 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=1898.msg2456739#msg2456739) regarding the latest re-tolling initiative via electronic toll collection.  In short: dead-on arrival when it was discovered that even the little piece of I-684 in CT was slated to have an AET gantry erected.  Westchester County, NY residents weren't having it.
CT should annex the land occupying I-684 to NY to create the first enclave of a state in the US.
What is this about the Kentucky Bend now?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on January 28, 2021, 08:41:13 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 27, 2021, 03:18:13 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on January 18, 2021, 11:55:23 AM
Today, we have pay-by-plate so there's no need for toll plazas and hence no risk of crashes. The bigger issue is that people don't like tax increases. And given Connecticut's history, if they brought back tolls, I'm sure they'd find another way to squander it and then come back asking for another tax increase.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 18, 2021, 06:15:43 PM
If Connecticut were to ever bring back tolls (not likely IMHO, but then, I'm from Wisconsin), I am sure they would all be charged electronically. As I have said before, toll booths and toll plazas from the 20th century are obsolete, and should remain in the 20th century.

See Reply #3732 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=1898.msg2456739#msg2456739) regarding the latest re-tolling initiative via electronic toll collection.  In short: dead-on arrival when it was discovered that even the little piece of I-684 in CT was slated to have an AET gantry erected.  Westchester County, NY residents weren't having it.

True, but if Connecticut really wanted to press the issue, residents of Westchester County would have no way to stop Connecticut from placing a toll on its short section of I-684, since Westchester County residents can't vote in Connecticut, and the stretch of highway falls within the boundaries of Connecticut so the State of New York would have no say in the matter. The only thing Westchester County residents could do is go around the toll gantry using Route 22.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on January 29, 2021, 12:01:32 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on January 28, 2021, 08:41:13 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 27, 2021, 03:18:13 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on January 18, 2021, 11:55:23 AM
Today, we have pay-by-plate so there's no need for toll plazas and hence no risk of crashes. The bigger issue is that people don't like tax increases. And given Connecticut's history, if they brought back tolls, I'm sure they'd find another way to squander it and then come back asking for another tax increase.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 18, 2021, 06:15:43 PM
If Connecticut were to ever bring back tolls (not likely IMHO, but then, I'm from Wisconsin), I am sure they would all be charged electronically. As I have said before, toll booths and toll plazas from the 20th century are obsolete, and should remain in the 20th century.

See Reply #3732 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=1898.msg2456739#msg2456739) regarding the latest re-tolling initiative via electronic toll collection.  In short: dead-on arrival when it was discovered that even the little piece of I-684 in CT was slated to have an AET gantry erected.  Westchester County, NY residents weren't having it.

True, but if Connecticut really wanted to press the issue, residents of Westchester County would have no way to stop Connecticut from placing a toll on its short section of I-684, since Westchester County residents can't vote in Connecticut, and the stretch of highway falls within the boundaries of Connecticut so the State of New York would have no say in the matter. The only thing Westchester County residents could do is go around the toll gantry using Route 22.
While the residents of Westchester County would have no say; the Feds do.  One needs to remember that Interstates are federal highways.  Current Federal law prohibits the establishment of tolls on an existing free highway at state borders; a new bridge or tunnel crossing a navigable waterway being the lone exception (example: the new Scudder Falls Bridge/I-295 at NJ-PA). 

The I-684/Byram River crossing at the northern CT-NY border doesn't qualify for such; the Byram River is not considered to be a navigable waterway.

As I stated on my earlier reply; I'll restate it again here.  IMHO, Gov. Lamont jumped the shark when he included the short piece of I-684 in his tolling plans.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on January 29, 2021, 12:17:35 PM
If Connecticut got its OPEB costs under control, they'd be up to their ears in cash for highways.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on January 29, 2021, 02:29:15 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on January 29, 2021, 12:17:35 PM
If Connecticut got its OPEB costs under control, they'd be up to their ears in cash for highways.
What does OPEB stand for?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on January 29, 2021, 04:33:06 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on January 29, 2021, 02:29:15 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on January 29, 2021, 12:17:35 PM
If Connecticut got its OPEB costs under control, they'd be up to their ears in cash for highways.
What does OPEB stand for?

It's post retirement benefits I thought it included pensions, but it turns out it doesn't, it's mostly retiree health care.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on January 29, 2021, 07:25:21 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on January 29, 2021, 12:17:35 PM
If Connecticut got its OPEB costs under control, they'd be up to their ears in cash for highways.
You can say that about most states. They made way too many promises they could never keep, and it's bleeding them dry.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on January 29, 2021, 08:22:31 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on January 29, 2021, 07:25:21 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on January 29, 2021, 12:17:35 PM
If Connecticut got its OPEB costs under control, they'd be up to their ears in cash for highways.
You can say that about most states. They made way too many promises they could never keep, and it's bleeding them dry.

But Connecticut, along with Illinois and New Jersey, has made the most false promises.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on January 30, 2021, 09:18:02 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on January 29, 2021, 08:22:31 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on January 29, 2021, 07:25:21 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on January 29, 2021, 12:17:35 PM
If Connecticut got its OPEB costs under control, they'd be up to their ears in cash for highways.
You can say that about most states. They made way too many promises they could never keep, and it's bleeding them dry.

But Connecticut, along with Illinois and New Jersey, has made the most false promises.

Anyone see a pattern here? :hmmm:
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on January 30, 2021, 01:59:14 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on January 29, 2021, 08:22:31 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on January 29, 2021, 07:25:21 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on January 29, 2021, 12:17:35 PM
If Connecticut got its OPEB costs under control, they'd be up to their ears in cash for highways.
You can say that about most states. They made way too many promises they could never keep, and it's bleeding them dry.

But Connecticut, along with Illinois and New Jersey, has made the most false promises.
Please explain in a way that is at all relevant.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on January 30, 2021, 03:28:31 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on January 29, 2021, 08:22:31 PM
But Connecticut, along with Illinois and New Jersey, has made the most false promises.

False promises weren't made so much as money wasn't set aside for future needs.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on January 31, 2021, 09:12:15 PM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on January 30, 2021, 03:28:31 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on January 29, 2021, 08:22:31 PM
But Connecticut, along with Illinois and New Jersey, has made the most false promises.

False promises weren't made so much as money wasn't set aside for future needs.

I would respectfully disagree. When a government promises something it will never be able to afford, it's a promise that can't be kept. But... in the realm of modern American politics, he who promises the most handouts to the voters...wins (and never mind about how we're actually going to pay for that).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on January 31, 2021, 09:39:52 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on January 31, 2021, 09:12:15 PM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on January 30, 2021, 03:28:31 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on January 29, 2021, 08:22:31 PM
But Connecticut, along with Illinois and New Jersey, has made the most false promises.

False promises weren't made so much as money wasn't set aside for future needs.

I would respectfully disagree. When a government promises something it will never be able to afford, it's a promise that can't be kept. But... in the realm of modern American politics, he who promises the most handouts to the voters...wins (and never mind about how we're actually going to pay for that).
New York is constitutionally obligated to set aside for future needs (meaning that we could not do what many state did and just stop contributing in the years the stock market was doing well, only to have the bottom fall out when stocks stopped doing well; we can't steal from the fund to pay for other things, either), and we (at the state level anyways) don't have a problem in that area.  The promise is being kept here.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on February 01, 2021, 08:31:21 AM
Quote from: vdeane on January 31, 2021, 09:39:52 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on January 31, 2021, 09:12:15 PM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on January 30, 2021, 03:28:31 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on January 29, 2021, 08:22:31 PM
But Connecticut, along with Illinois and New Jersey, has made the most false promises.

False promises weren't made so much as money wasn't set aside for future needs.

I would respectfully disagree. When a government promises something it will never be able to afford, it's a promise that can't be kept. But... in the realm of modern American politics, he who promises the most handouts to the voters...wins (and never mind about how we're actually going to pay for that).
New York is constitutionally obligated to set aside for future needs (meaning that we could not do what many state did and just stop contributing in the years the stock market was doing well, only to have the bottom fall out when stocks stopped doing well; we can't steal from the fund to pay for other things, either), and we (at the state level anyways) don't have a problem in that area.  The promise is being kept here.

And if that worked as it should, New York wouldn't be running a $15 billion deficit this fiscal year (not to mention the $50 billion in debt racked up over the past FY), and they're begging for a bailout from the feds. Most other states which are constitutionally required to "Pay as You Go," haven't had such financial problems. In those states, if there's no money to pay for something, then that something doesn't happen.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/19/nyregion/budget-cuomo-ny.html
https://wskg.org/news/with-votes-cast-new-york-must-resolve-multibillion-dollar-deficit/
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on February 01, 2021, 09:11:06 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on February 01, 2021, 08:31:21 AM
Quote from: vdeane on January 31, 2021, 09:39:52 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on January 31, 2021, 09:12:15 PM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on January 30, 2021, 03:28:31 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on January 29, 2021, 08:22:31 PM
But Connecticut, along with Illinois and New Jersey, has made the most false promises.

False promises weren't made so much as money wasn't set aside for future needs.

I would respectfully disagree. When a government promises something it will never be able to afford, it's a promise that can't be kept. But... in the realm of modern American politics, he who promises the most handouts to the voters...wins (and never mind about how we're actually going to pay for that).
New York is constitutionally obligated to set aside for future needs (meaning that we could not do what many state did and just stop contributing in the years the stock market was doing well, only to have the bottom fall out when stocks stopped doing well; we can't steal from the fund to pay for other things, either), and we (at the state level anyways) don't have a problem in that area.  The promise is being kept here.

And if that worked as it should, New York wouldn't be running a $15 billion deficit this fiscal year (not to mention the $50 billion in debt racked up over the past FY), and they're begging for a bailout from the feds. Most other states which are constitutionally required to "Pay as You Go," haven't had such financial problems. In those states, if there's no money to pay for something, then that something doesn't happen.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/19/nyregion/budget-cuomo-ny.html
https://wskg.org/news/with-votes-cast-new-york-must-resolve-multibillion-dollar-deficit/

But once this budget crisis is over, New York will be in the clear, unlike in Connecticut and New Jersey which seem to always be teetering on the brink of insolvency even in times of prosperity, due to their massive pension shortfalls.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on February 01, 2021, 11:32:31 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on December 29, 2020, 10:03:19 PM
On I-691, I saw crews out the past couple days working on the ITMS, putting up high poles with cameras on them.  Crews were working the entire length of the road, from east of I-91 out to I-84.  There's a new VMS on CT 66 WB just before the start of the expressway (ground-mounted), and there will be others.

This traffic cam (?) was installed recently on I-91 at the CT Route 372 overpass in Cromwell:
(https://i.imgur.com/sgHryNG.jpg)

I saw a street light pole lying on the ground in Berlin. At the corner of Worthington Ridge (portions CT Route 372) and Frontage Road, close to Exit 22 NB of CT Route 9. I can't tell if it was knocked over or not.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on February 01, 2021, 01:00:13 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on February 01, 2021, 08:31:21 AM
Quote from: vdeane on January 31, 2021, 09:39:52 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on January 31, 2021, 09:12:15 PM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on January 30, 2021, 03:28:31 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on January 29, 2021, 08:22:31 PM
But Connecticut, along with Illinois and New Jersey, has made the most false promises.

False promises weren't made so much as money wasn't set aside for future needs.

I would respectfully disagree. When a government promises something it will never be able to afford, it's a promise that can't be kept. But... in the realm of modern American politics, he who promises the most handouts to the voters...wins (and never mind about how we're actually going to pay for that).
New York is constitutionally obligated to set aside for future needs (meaning that we could not do what many state did and just stop contributing in the years the stock market was doing well, only to have the bottom fall out when stocks stopped doing well; we can't steal from the fund to pay for other things, either), and we (at the state level anyways) don't have a problem in that area.  The promise is being kept here.

And if that worked as it should, New York wouldn't be running a $15 billion deficit this fiscal year (not to mention the $50 billion in debt racked up over the past FY), and they're begging for a bailout from the feds. Most other states which are constitutionally required to "Pay as You Go," haven't had such financial problems. In those states, if there's no money to pay for something, then that something doesn't happen.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/19/nyregion/budget-cuomo-ny.html
https://wskg.org/news/with-votes-cast-new-york-must-resolve-multibillion-dollar-deficit/
That's not due to public employees, though.  That's COIVID-related.  All states have been hit by the increased costs and decreased revenues of the pandemic.  I was reading an article about Wyoming talking about how they're looking at cuts so steep that they're practically disbanding the government.  NY's pension fund is solvent (unlike many other places, I'll admit).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: mariethefoxy on February 01, 2021, 05:02:56 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on February 01, 2021, 11:32:31 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on December 29, 2020, 10:03:19 PM
On I-691, I saw crews out the past couple days working on the ITMS, putting up high poles with cameras on them.  Crews were working the entire length of the road, from east of I-91 out to I-84.  There's a new VMS on CT 66 WB just before the start of the expressway (ground-mounted), and there will be others.

This traffic cam (?) was installed recently on I-91 at the CT Route 372 overpass in Cromwell:
(https://i.imgur.com/sgHryNG.jpg)

I saw a street light pole lying on the ground in Berlin. At the corner of Worthington Ridge (portions CT Route 372) and Frontage Road, close to Exit 22 NB of CT Route 9. I can't tell if it was knocked over or not.

off topic but is that horrid Red Lion hotel still there? that place was a health hazard
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RyanB06 on February 01, 2021, 05:21:26 PM
Last I heard it was shut down because the owners of the property owed a ton to the state in back taxes.

Re: the lamp pole; more than likely someone crashed into it. Happens a lot this time of year.

Finally, I recall someone posting about a few lengths of new gantry in the open area near the Roberts St. exit on I-84 East; the good news is that it isn't there anymore and now supports new signage for the Route 15 exit on I-84 West. Sadly that pretty new gantry hosts a ugly new sign for said exit. I don't have a picture of it as I was driving, but it looked like the sign shop put the 15 and I-91 route markers too close together and realized they had to slap a TO in what little space they left in between them. Kinda like this:

[15]TO(91)

I expect they'll probably be changing it at some point if they haven't already. Next time I'm out in East Hartford I'll have to look.

(Source: me, who drove it a couple weeks back on a trip home from one of Vernon's Polish bakeries)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on February 01, 2021, 11:41:20 PM
Quote from: RyanB06 on February 01, 2021, 05:21:26 PM
Last I heard it was shut down because the owners of the property owed a ton to the state in back taxes.

Yes, the Red Lion is still closed. Nothing has changed. CT Route 372 at the I-91 North on ramp.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on February 03, 2021, 12:38:49 AM
CT-8 Bridgeport to Shelton sign updates:

Some new BGS signs have sprouted up NB.  None SB yet.  An ATTRACTIONS sign is up for Exit 5.

"To CT-108 1 Mile" sign is up on the side of the road with no exit tab yet.  The button copy overheads are still up. Interestingly enough the old "To Ct 108" sign says 1/2 mile.  Since the new sign is not an overhead IDK where the Exit 9 Merritt Pkwy advance sign will go.

There's also a "Shelton Exits 11-14" BGS and a Park & Ride sign up too for Exit 8.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on February 03, 2021, 08:56:46 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on February 03, 2021, 12:38:49 AM
CT-8 Bridgeport to Shelton sign updates:

Some new BGS signs have sprouted up NB.  None SB yet.  An ATTRACTIONS sign is up for Exit 5.

"To CT-108 1 Mile" sign is up on the side of the road with no exit tab yet.  The button copy overheads are still up. Interestingly enough the old "To Ct 108" sign says 1/2 mile.  Since the new sign is not an overhead IDK where the Exit 9 Merritt Pkwy advance sign will go.

There's also a "Shelton Exits 11-14" BGS and a Park & Ride sign up too for Exit 8.

They are taking forever and a day on that project! A couple years ago, New York completed a full sign replacement project covering all 71 miles of its stretch of I-84 in less than a year. For this section covering 12 miles of Route 8 between I-95 and Shelton is in...what...its third year now?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on February 04, 2021, 03:43:43 PM
Route 8 Bridgeport to Shelton project plans are dated summer 2018, so it probably went out to bid in the fall, so they've had a couple construction seasons now to make some progress.  There should be more than there is, however. 

Then there's the state spot overhead sign replacement program.  Let's take a look at that real quick: 

The 2017 version at my last check had about 7 sites still to go.  This includes 3 sites within the Route 8 re-signing limits and 2 sites within the Route 9 (northernmost) re-signing.  So maybe those are held up because of those projects.  The other two sites not yet done are the missing gantry on US 7 South in Norwalk before I-95 (is this up yet?) and the I-95 SB gantry at Exit 75 (which had foundations put in a year ago and no progress yet with new gantry). 

Then there's the 2018 version.  That version is down to a single gantry to go up on I-95 spanning all lanes, replacing two individual gantries. 

There was no 2019 version.  The 2020 version I don't expect to see any progress with that yet. 

And finally....

This is page 169 of this thread... there are 169 towns in Connecticut.    :sombrero:
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on February 09, 2021, 09:04:24 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on February 04, 2021, 03:43:43 PM
  The other two sites not yet done are the missing gantry on US 7 South in Norwalk before I-95 (is this up yet?)   


It is as the middle sign says "South Norwalk" and the Marittime Aquarium is omitted.  But the sign bridge after that still has the old signage up so drivers see old and new driving through.

1)  Any new logo signs up in your travels?  I see a new FOOD EXIT 12 sign on CT-8 SB that was knocked down last year.  It was put up last summer.

2)  Why on I-84 EB in Danbury you have mismatching pull throughs for the mainline.
Before Exit 3 EB you have a pull through "I-84 EAST Waterbury"  the next pull through says "TO US-7 NORTH New Milford" (no I-84 mention at all) and then the third pull through goes back to "I-84 EAST to US-7 NORTH New Milford Waterbury."  Is that even allowed to not mention I-84 on a pull through and change it to another route?

3) Found on Historic Images there used to be another Exit off-ramp on I-84 EB to Columbus Ave in Danbury.  That was taken out during the widening in the early 1980s.  Also, Exit 1 never existed before the widening either. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on February 10, 2021, 03:29:26 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on February 09, 2021, 09:04:24 PM
1)  Any new logo signs up in your travels?  I see a new FOOD EXIT 12 sign on CT-8 SB that was knocked down last year.  It was put up last summer.

Haven't seen any.  I'm really not a huge fan of them, especially when they only have one logo on them.  The "Attractions" logo signs going up I am a huge fan of, as it simplifies things by putting a bunch of random signs together.  I-95 North Exit 83 has about a half dozen separate signs for its attractions, while southbound the signs have all been replaced with a single one that can list up to 6 attractions.  But signs for one food establishment seem like a waste. 

Quote2)  Why on I-84 EB in Danbury you have mismatching pull throughs for the mainline.
Before Exit 3 EB you have a pull through "I-84 EAST Waterbury"  the next pull through says "TO US-7 NORTH New Milford" (no I-84 mention at all) and then the third pull through goes back to "I-84 EAST to US-7 NORTH New Milford Waterbury."  Is that even allowed to not mention I-84 on a pull through and change it to another route?

There are a few quirks when those signs were replaced in that area.  For instance, WB Exit 1 the last two signs appear to be reversed, as the "exit now" up arrow is on the second to last sign, with the last one just displaying "Exit Only".  Same goes for EB.  I'm not a huge fan of the random "TO US 7 NORTH" pull-through.  Maybe it should have been modified, with the down arrows replaced with "STAY ON I-84 EAST" or something to that effect.  Also replacing "Hartford" with "Waterbury" has always seemed odd to me.  Too bad dual control cities aren't generally permitted anymore.  Also, the random pull-through on I-84 West that is only a pull-through reminds me of the random ones on I-91 in Hartford and Enfield. 

Quote3) Found on Historic Images there used to be another Exit off-ramp on I-84 EB to Columbus Ave in Danbury.  That was taken out during the widening in the early 1980s.  Also, Exit 1 never existed before the widening either. 

Interesting.  I've seen old maps also have a random rest area WB in the area.  Personally, I'd get rid of Exit 1 and widen to permit 3 continuous lanes from Exit 3 west to I-684. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on February 10, 2021, 05:37:01 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on February 10, 2021, 03:29:26 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on February 09, 2021, 09:04:24 PM
1)  Any new logo signs up in your travels?  I see a new FOOD EXIT 12 sign on CT-8 SB that was knocked down last year.  It was put up last summer.

Haven't seen any.  I'm really not a huge fan of them, especially when they only have one logo on them.  The "Attractions" logo signs going up I am a huge fan of, as it simplifies things by putting a bunch of random signs together.  I-95 North Exit 83 has about a half dozen separate signs for its attractions, while southbound the signs have all been replaced with a single one that can list up to 6 attractions.  But signs for one food establishment seem like a waste. 

Quote2)  Why on I-84 EB in Danbury you have mismatching pull throughs for the mainline.
Before Exit 3 EB you have a pull through "I-84 EAST Waterbury"  the next pull through says "TO US-7 NORTH New Milford" (no I-84 mention at all) and then the third pull through goes back to "I-84 EAST to US-7 NORTH New Milford Waterbury."  Is that even allowed to not mention I-84 on a pull through and change it to another route?

There are a few quirks when those signs were replaced in that area.  For instance, WB Exit 1 the last two signs appear to be reversed, as the "exit now" up arrow is on the second to last sign, with the last one just displaying "Exit Only".  Same goes for EB.  I'm not a huge fan of the random "TO US 7 NORTH" pull-through.  Maybe it should have been modified, with the down arrows replaced with "STAY ON I-84 EAST" or something to that effect.  Also replacing "Hartford" with "Waterbury" has always seemed odd to me.  Too bad dual control cities aren't generally permitted anymore.  Also, the random pull-through on I-84 West that is only a pull-through reminds me of the random ones on I-91 in Hartford and Enfield. 

Quote3) Found on Historic Images there used to be another Exit off-ramp on I-84 EB to Columbus Ave in Danbury.  That was taken out during the widening in the early 1980s.  Also, Exit 1 never existed before the widening either. 

Interesting.  I've seen old maps also have a random rest area WB in the area.  Personally, I'd get rid of Exit 1 and widen to permit 3 continuous lanes from Exit 3 west to I-684.

If my memory serves me correctly, a lot of the changes related to I-84 Exits 1 and 2 were completed during the '80s when Union Carbide set up its headquarters on the west side of Danbury. Union Carbide also ponied up around $50 million to widen I-84 to 3 lanes through Danbury around the same timeframe.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on February 11, 2021, 03:39:58 PM
Got a couple shots of the spot replacement sign on I-84 near Exits 57-58 in East Hartford.

Eastbound view, previously there was no sign here, and I have to wonder if the 1 1/4 mile advance on the overpass in the distance will be removed at some point...
http://(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50933661161_0159b2bcaf_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2kAQjXK)DSC02247 (https://flic.kr/p/2kAQjXK) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

And westbound, which shows the route markers close together on the Exit 57 sign.  It doesn't look "terrible".  I'm sure a "blanket" sign replacement in this area would modify the sign once again, eliminating the "Charter Oak Br" reference. 
http://(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50932970333_db8af38a0c_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2kALMAV)DSC02250 (https://flic.kr/p/2kALMAV) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

And here's a couple from the I-91 Exit 29 relocation project, taken on CT 15 South.  The Exit 87 sign is new but the pull-through was moved from the old gantry, and will most likely be replaced at some point.  The overpass is the new 2-lane left exit from I-91 North to CT 15 North.
http://(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50932970303_a6bc55f446_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2kALMAp)DSC02251 (https://flic.kr/p/2kALMAp) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

And now at Exit 87.  As evident by the new sign, with Brainard Airport still listed, this was a spot replacement. 
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50933784322_df36ec37e5_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2kAQXzd)DSC02253 (https://flic.kr/p/2kAQXzd) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

On the ramp at Exit 87, with a second access to I-91 South.  This is a new installation, leaving out the airport. 
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50932970278_1e6b6720b1_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2kALMzY)DSC02254 (https://flic.kr/p/2kALMzY) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr


Crews were out working on the Exit 29 project, as well as the I-84 West Hartford "add a lane" project.  Not much new to report on the I-84 sign replacement from Exit 40-56, outside of a couple new town line signs (the surface road version), Attractions logo signs (in the miniature sheet aluminum version), and a couple new reassurance shields. 

On Route 9, some progress in the sign replacement SB in New Britain, as two monotube posts were up to support new gantries.  Just the posts... no overhead structure yet.  And no new signs.  However at Exit 22 NB, a "Lane Ends" sign was put up erroneously where a "Merging Traffic" sign should go.  Entering CT 9 SB from CT 99 SB at Exit 18, a couple "SOUTH 9" shields with the "9" angled wrong... I hope to god that's not a sign (no pun intented :-)) of things to come!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: southshore720 on February 11, 2021, 05:57:47 PM
I still think they should've corrected the control city for I-384 to Bolton and then had a supplemental sign "To US 6; Providence RI; USE I-384 EAST"  The dream of continuous highway access into RI is all but dead.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on February 12, 2021, 01:06:56 PM
Quote from: southshore720 on February 11, 2021, 05:57:47 PM
I still think they should've corrected the control city for I-384 to Bolton and then had a supplemental sign "To US 6; Providence RI; USE I-384 EAST"  The dream of continuous highway access into RI is all but dead.

This was a "one-off" sign replacement, and, unfortunately, I have a feeling that ConnDOT will change the destination when a full-blown I-84 sign replacement comes in that area.  The oldest signs in the state are now on I-84 in Manchester, dating back to the early 80s when the highway was rebuilt/widened  and I-384 built.

However, a part of me thinks Providence is OK for I-384.  Why?  Well, technically that route does take you to Providence.  Granted, you have to take a surface road (US 6) for most of the way, but it still is a direct route to Providence.  After all, I-84 is signed as "Boston" but stops in Sturbridge, then you have to take the Mass Pike.  I-95's control city for some of Mass. is signed as Boston, yet I-95 doesn't enter Boston and (from the north) you have to take US 1 (which isn't a freeway the whole way).  From the south, you take I-93. 

So, should I-384 get a new control city?  Perhaps, but instead of Bolton, I'd use Willimantic, or just keep Providence. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on February 12, 2021, 01:13:16 PM
Having Boston and Bolton -- differing by one letter and 100x the population -- would look a little strange on the diagrammatic sign.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on February 12, 2021, 04:45:37 PM
Got a shot of those odd looking 9s on the Exit 18 onramp to CT 9 South in Cromwell today.  I really hope these were replaced as part of a spot replacement and not part of the Exits 18-24 resigning project, cause if more of them sprout up.... ugh!

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50937002081_a8c39d77ec_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2kB8s6P)CT9SBonramp-Exit18 (https://flic.kr/p/2kB8s6P) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: odditude on February 13, 2021, 01:27:51 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on February 12, 2021, 04:45:37 PM
Got a shot of those odd looking 9s on the Exit 18 onramp to CT 9 South in Cromwell today.  I really hope these were replaced as part of a spot replacement and not part of the Exits 18-24 resigning project, cause if more of them sprout up.... ugh!

i've seen off-axis 6s on/around I-76 and I-676 in Philly as well - definitely an eyesore.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on February 16, 2021, 03:04:26 PM
Quote from: RyanB06 on February 01, 2021, 05:21:26 PM
Last I heard it was shut down because the owners of the property owed a ton to the state in back taxes.

Re: the lamp pole; more than likely someone crashed into it. Happens a lot this time of year.

Finally, I recall someone posting about a few lengths of new gantry in the open area near the Roberts St. exit on I-84 East; the good news is that it isn't there anymore and now supports new signage for the Route 15 exit on I-84 West. Sadly that pretty new gantry hosts a ugly new sign for said exit. I don't have a picture of it as I was driving, but it looked like the sign shop put the 15 and I-91 route markers too close together and realized they had to slap a TO in what little space they left in between them. Kinda like this:

[15]TO(91)

I expect they'll probably be changing it at some point if they haven't already. Next time I'm out in East Hartford I'll have to look.

(Source: me, who drove it a couple weeks back on a trip home from one of Vernon's Polish bakeries)
Yeah, it's up and yeah, that test is a bit too close together.
The eastbound diagramatic and the rest of the westbound signage is good. I've heard they're going to replace the rest of that stretch in the summer.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on February 16, 2021, 03:14:33 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on February 12, 2021, 01:06:56 PM
Quote from: southshore720 on February 11, 2021, 05:57:47 PM
I still think they should've corrected the control city for I-384 to Bolton and then had a supplemental sign "To US 6; Providence RI; USE I-384 EAST"  The dream of continuous highway access into RI is all but dead.

This was a "one-off" sign replacement, and, unfortunately, I have a feeling that ConnDOT will change the destination when a full-blown I-84 sign replacement comes in that area.  The oldest signs in the state are now on I-84 in Manchester, dating back to the early 80s when the highway was rebuilt/widened  and I-384 built.

However, a part of me thinks Providence is OK for I-384.  Why?  Well, technically that route does take you to Providence.  Granted, you have to take a surface road (US 6) for most of the way, but it still is a direct route to Providence.  After all, I-84 is signed as "Boston" but stops in Sturbridge, then you have to take the Mass Pike.  I-95's control city for some of Mass. is signed as Boston, yet I-95 doesn't enter Boston and (from the north) you have to take US 1 (which isn't a freeway the whole way).  From the south, you take I-93. 

So, should I-384 get a new control city?  Perhaps, but instead of Bolton, I'd use Willimantic, or just keep Providence.
I've said this several times before, but US 6 should just follow I-384 at exit 59. Then when exit numbers are replaced they can be based off of US 6s mileage. Then for supplemental signage you could have a BGS saying "Bolton, Willimantic, keep right"
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on February 16, 2021, 04:36:14 PM
There are currently no projects to cover the Exits 57-65 section of signs on I-84.  There are some spot replacements here n' there, but nothing on the docket, at least through the upcoming bids in 2021.  The current I-84 sign project is from Exits 39A-56 and will replace the last of the button copy on I-84.  The 1/4 mile Exit 59 diagrammatic attached to an overpass will be replaced with... get this... a ground diagrammatic, as part of the 2020 spot replacement project. 

I doubt US 6 would ever replace I-384.  I'd be more of a fan of having US 6 leave I-84 with US 44 at Connecticut Blvd in East Hartford, then have US 6/44 cosigned from there east to Exit 60 (they're already cosigned east of there).  The fact that US 6 stays on I-84, while US 44 exits, harkens back to when US 6 crossed the Connecticut River on the Charter Oak Bridge, then the only way it could get to Middle Tpke West to Manchester was via what is now I-84 Exit 60. 

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on February 16, 2021, 06:06:39 PM
Personally, I'd rather see US 6 follow Silver Lane, Spencer St, and Center St.  Yes, there would be some slight one way routing idiosyncrasies between the Bulkeley Bridge and Main St.  The EB mainline would exit onto East River Dr then follow Pitkin St to Main St, while the westbound mainline would stay on Main St and utilize the 84 WB onramp.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on February 16, 2021, 09:39:09 PM
I really hate CT 2 being signed on the Founder's Bridge and since much of US 6 gets lost in the I-84 shuffle through Hartford, I'd put it on Farmington Ave and thru downtown, leaving town on the Founders Bridge.  Then it could take the East River Drive->Silver->Spencer->Center route.  Route 2 would then "officially" begin/end at the Mixmaster. 

I'd leave out Bolton completely from any Exit 59 signage.  As kurumi suggested, it could confuse someone thinking it was Boston.  There's less confusion of it appearing on the Exit 66/Tunnel Rd sign (a local road vs an interstate). 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on February 18, 2021, 07:45:15 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on February 16, 2021, 09:39:09 PM
I really hate CT 2 being signed on the Founder's Bridge and since much of US 6 gets lost in the I-84 shuffle through Hartford, I'd put it on Farmington Ave and thru downtown, leaving town on the Founders Bridge.  Then it could take the East River Drive->Silver->Spencer->Center route.  Route 2 would then "officially" begin/end at the Mixmaster. 

I'd leave out Bolton completely from any Exit 59 signage.  As kurumi suggested, it could confuse someone thinking it was Boston.  There's less confusion of it appearing on the Exit 66/Tunnel Rd sign (a local road vs an interstate).
Tunnel Rd. is actually SR 533, which IMO should be signed as CT 85.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on February 21, 2021, 04:39:46 PM
Finally, I-91 North Exit 15 gets a full size extruded aluminum guide sign!
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50967225996_b1bf993a66_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2kDNmBN)91NB-Exit15-4 (https://flic.kr/p/2kDNmBN) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

This project was an addition to the 2018 spot sign replacement project, hence why it has the same outline shields (similar to Mass) as those others replaced recently.  By my count, that leaves just two signs being replaced with one on I-95 in Bridgeport to complete the 2018 project.  The 2017 project still has half dozen+ sites to go, a good portion of them within the confines of other sign replacement projects (CT 8, CT 9-New Britain).  Replacing the I-95 South gantry at Exit 75 in SE CT is also in the 2017 project.  Outside of new supports, nothing has happened at that location in quite some time.  Maybe they're trying to finish the 2018 project and will go back to finish 2017, if its the same contractor.  As a side note, there was no 2019 project.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on February 22, 2021, 03:23:52 PM
I've noticed on this sign and on the new one's on I-84 in East Hartford that they are using SR shields with thin border and not thick ones. IIRC I-395s replacement signs used thick borders.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on February 22, 2021, 05:30:03 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on February 22, 2021, 03:23:52 PM
I've noticed on this sign and on the new one's on I-84 in East Hartford that they are using SR shields with thin border and not thick ones. IIRC I-395s replacement signs used thick borders.

As I noted above...

QuoteThis project was an addition to the 2018 spot sign replacement project, hence why it has the same outline shields (similar to Mass) as those others replaced recently.

I don't know why the outline shields are being used and hope that its just a one-off (or in this case, a 12-off as there's ~ 12 sites/signs in the contract) and not status quo for blanket sign replacements (such as CT 9, upcoming CT 2, etc)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on February 22, 2021, 08:01:31 PM
How do signs get screwed up? We can launch a rover into space and have it land in a five mile target zone on another planet seven months later, but can't print a proper 9 on a sign? Seems like there are tons of these errors on brand new signs. I thought this stuff was all computerized to make it less likely to mess it up.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on February 22, 2021, 10:23:51 PM
And going north at that same exit, the CT 99 North sign has a north which is larger than the width of the "99" shield.  It just looks awkward.  But the 9's in that shield looked normal.  Now, let's wonder how many 9's were printed wrong, whether they'll be all put up, and whether or not a ConnDOT official will sign off on the contract in the field after viewing those 9's. 

When CT 8 signs were replaced from Thomaston to Winsted, they mistakingly put up CT 202 shields (instead of US 202 shields).  I can't remember which shield the contract plans had, but they were later replaced with the proper shields, after some time with the incorrect ones in place.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on February 23, 2021, 12:36:19 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on February 22, 2021, 10:23:51 PM
And going north at that same exit, the CT 99 North sign has a north which is larger than the width of the "99" shield.  It just looks awkward.  But the 9's in that shield looked normal.  Now, let's wonder how many 9's were printed wrong, whether they'll be all put up, and whether or not a ConnDOT official will sign off on the contract in the field after viewing those 9's. 

When CT 8 signs were replaced from Thomaston to Winsted, they mistakingly put up CT 202 shields (instead of US 202 shields).  I can't remember which shield the contract plans had, but they were later replaced with the proper shields, after some time with the incorrect ones in place.
I only saw the one lazy 9.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on February 23, 2021, 04:14:37 PM
Anyone have updates on the sign replacements/exit renumberings on Routes 9 and 72?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on February 23, 2021, 04:28:40 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on February 23, 2021, 04:14:37 PM
Anyone have updates on the sign replacements/exit renumberings on Routes 9 and 72?

From Feb. 11:
QuoteOn Route 9, some progress in the sign replacement SB in New Britain, as two monotube posts were up to support new gantries.  Just the posts... no overhead structure yet.  And no new signs.  However at Exit 22 NB, a "Lane Ends" sign was put up erroneously where a "Merging Traffic" sign should go.  Entering CT 9 SB from CT 99 SB at Exit 18, a couple "SOUTH 9" shields with the "9" angled wrong... I hope to god that's not a sign (no pun intented :-)) of things to come!

Nothing new on CT 72 or SSR 571 as of Sunday, except a couple foundations.  Nothing new on CT 15 either.  Southern project (south of Exit 18) has only stakes marking new foundation locations.  I am keeping the CT 9 South Exit 11 "exit now" gantry as a pacesetter, since according to the contract plans, that was going to be first to go, to be replaced with a sheet aluminum until the new gantry/sign goes up.  I travel CT 9's southern half once every few days and the northern half every couple months or so.  If something changes, I'll post it. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on February 23, 2021, 09:34:19 PM
I travel the portion of CT 72 through New Britain frequently, and other than the couple of piers for the new CT 9 "Exit"  now gantry (which if CTDOT wants to maintain consistency with its sudden change of heart to add numbers to termini ramps should number these, but I digress), and a replacement ground mounted BGS for the Ellis St exit on the ramp from 72 East to 9 South, I've seen no outward signs of replacement.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: SectorZ on February 24, 2021, 08:28:45 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on February 12, 2021, 04:45:37 PM
Got a shot of those odd looking 9s on the Exit 18 onramp to CT 9 South in Cromwell today.  I really hope these were replaced as part of a spot replacement and not part of the Exits 18-24 resigning project, cause if more of them sprout up.... ugh!

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50937002081_a8c39d77ec_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2kB8s6P)CT9SBonramp-Exit18 (https://flic.kr/p/2kB8s6P) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

https://www.lowellsun.com/2021/02/23/lowell-city-council-hears-rourke-bridge-options/

In Massachusetts, the lazy nines are sometimes etched in concrete.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on February 28, 2021, 05:50:57 PM
Here's a shocker: The Merritt Parkway has fewer accidents per mile than Connecticut's Interstate Highways
https://www.cga.ct.gov/2002/rpt/2002-R-0501.htm

I think it's due to the lack of trucks.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on February 28, 2021, 11:33:00 PM
Noticed this in the highway log: Connecticut designated a new highway in 2018. Say hello to SSR 440, which leads from CT 155 to a DOT maintenance garage in Middletown.

(https://i.imgur.com/a5nNdn6.png)

Blink and you'll miss it: SSR 440 is only 0.07 miles long.

(Don't blink and you'll miss it anyway: it's not signed.)

Also, in the past few years, CT has relinquished a few SSR's: 410 (Aircraft Rd, Middletown); 430 (Eagleville Rd, Storrs), and 433 (Ft. Shantok Rd, Montville)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on March 12, 2021, 04:53:45 PM
Quote from: kurumi on February 28, 2021, 11:33:00 PM
Noticed this in the highway log: Connecticut designated a new highway in 2018. Say hello to SSR 440, which leads from CT 155 to a DOT maintenance garage in Middletown.

(https://i.imgur.com/a5nNdn6.png)

Blink and you'll miss it: SSR 440 is only 0.07 miles long.

(Don't blink and you'll miss it anyway: it's not signed.)

Also, in the past few years, CT has relinquished a few SSR's: 410 (Aircraft Rd, Middletown); 430 (Eagleville Rd, Storrs), and 433 (Ft. Shantok Rd, Montville)

That has to be the shortest state road in Connecticut. Essentially it's a long driveway to the DOT maintenance yard.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on March 12, 2021, 07:44:33 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on March 12, 2021, 04:53:45 PM
Quote from: kurumi on February 28, 2021, 11:33:00 PM
Noticed this in the highway log: Connecticut designated a new highway in 2018. Say hello to SSR 440, which leads from CT 155 to a DOT maintenance garage in Middletown.

(https://i.imgur.com/a5nNdn6.png)

Blink and you'll miss it: SSR 440 is only 0.07 miles long.

(Don't blink and you'll miss it anyway: it's not signed.)

Also, in the past few years, CT has relinquished a few SSR's: 410 (Aircraft Rd, Middletown); 430 (Eagleville Rd, Storrs), and 433 (Ft. Shantok Rd, Montville)

That has to be the shortest state road in Connecticut. Essentially it's a long driveway to the DOT maintenance yard.

I think it's adorable.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: The Ghostbuster on March 13, 2021, 11:42:34 AM
Why even give it a number? Are there any other state routes that are this short in Connecticut?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on March 13, 2021, 12:10:09 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 13, 2021, 11:42:34 AM
Why even give it a number? Are there any other state routes that are this short in Connecticut?
Some states number every road they maintain (NJ is another). It makes it easier to inventory. Difference in NJ is all the formerly secret routes have been revealed.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on March 13, 2021, 12:13:55 PM
Its a number the regular public isn't really meant to see, and since it leads to a state garage, it only makes sense that it gets put into the state fold of maintenance.  I drive by it regularly.  Too bad the state didn't take Paddock Road, as that road is literally so bad right now (potholes and such, most have been there pre-winter).  Middletown's ability to upkeep its roads is sub-par.  Saybrook Road is still concrete and I've heard there's a battle between the state and city for that road.  The town wants to give it to the state but the state doesn't want it.  Until then, it remains concrete.  It probably lost its state maintenance in the 1950s as the portion of Rt 9 from Exit 10 to Exit 18 was opened. 

What I'd like to see happen is the state get Saybrook Rd right up to the Rt 17 connector and make it all Rt 154.  Then Rt 155 (shown in the map above) can be extended the short 1/4 mile distance from Rt 9 to Saybrook Rd. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: SectorZ on March 13, 2021, 12:31:25 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on March 13, 2021, 12:13:55 PM
Its a number the regular public isn't really meant to see, and since it leads to a state garage, it only makes sense that it gets put into the state fold of maintenance.  I drive by it regularly.  Too bad the state didn't take Paddock Road, as that road is literally so bad right now (potholes and such, most have been there pre-winter).  Middletown's ability to upkeep its roads is sub-par.  Saybrook Road is still concrete and I've heard there's a battle between the state and city for that road.  The town wants to give it to the state but the state doesn't want it.  Until then, it remains concrete.  It probably lost its state maintenance in the 1950s as the portion of Rt 9 from Exit 10 to Exit 18 was opened. 

What I'd like to see happen is the state get Saybrook Rd right up to the Rt 17 connector and make it all Rt 154.  Then Rt 155 (shown in the map above) can be extended the short 1/4 mile distance from Rt 9 to Saybrook Rd.

Saybrook Rd, the concrete part, is the only thing I have cycled on that was legitimately terrifying to do so. It looks like they improved the shoulders at least recently when I was down there last autumn.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on March 13, 2021, 12:40:07 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on March 13, 2021, 12:31:25 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on March 13, 2021, 12:13:55 PM
Its a number the regular public isn't really meant to see, and since it leads to a state garage, it only makes sense that it gets put into the state fold of maintenance.  I drive by it regularly.  Too bad the state didn't take Paddock Road, as that road is literally so bad right now (potholes and such, most have been there pre-winter).  Middletown's ability to upkeep its roads is sub-par.  Saybrook Road is still concrete and I've heard there's a battle between the state and city for that road.  The town wants to give it to the state but the state doesn't want it.  Until then, it remains concrete.  It probably lost its state maintenance in the 1950s as the portion of Rt 9 from Exit 10 to Exit 18 was opened. 

What I'd like to see happen is the state get Saybrook Rd right up to the Rt 17 connector and make it all Rt 154.  Then Rt 155 (shown in the map above) can be extended the short 1/4 mile distance from Rt 9 to Saybrook Rd.

Saybrook Rd, the concrete part, is the only thing I have cycled on that was legitimately terrifying to do so. It looks like they improved the shoulders at least recently when I was down there last autumn.

Not to get fictional, I'd love to see CT 99 extended via a concurrency with CT 9, then use Hartford Ave to Main St and have it follow Main St Ext and Saybrook Rd and take over CT 154 north of US 1.  Also would love to see CT 17 use Main St and stay off of CT 9, and the 155 extension. 

I've noticed a few new concrete piers on CT 72 up to the Corbin Ave exit, plus a couple of vertical poles for the new gantries on CT 9 where the 2 lanes go to 5 southbound in New Britain.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on March 13, 2021, 12:45:07 PM
I hope ConnDOT will do something with CT 17 if their latest plans for getting rid of the lights come to fruition.  Otherwise, you're going to have 1/2 mile to get over 2 lanes from the merge at Exit 13 to get to new Exit 16, which will probably have its decelleration lane begin before Exit 15.  Yes, send it South Main to Main St. 

(My CT 99 has it multiplexing with Rt 9 between today's Exits 13-18... one less route on Main St)

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on March 13, 2021, 01:02:24 PM
Quote from: Alps on March 13, 2021, 12:10:09 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 13, 2021, 11:42:34 AM
Why even give it a number? Are there any other state routes that are this short in Connecticut?
Some states number every road they maintain (NJ is another). It makes it easier to inventory. Difference in NJ is all the formerly secret routes have been revealed.
New Mexico has a couple of signed state routes that are just a few hundred feet in length.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on March 13, 2021, 02:24:41 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on March 13, 2021, 01:02:24 PM
Quote from: Alps on March 13, 2021, 12:10:09 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 13, 2021, 11:42:34 AM
Why even give it a number? Are there any other state routes that are this short in Connecticut?
Some states number every road they maintain (NJ is another). It makes it easier to inventory. Difference in NJ is all the formerly secret routes have been revealed.
New Mexico has a couple of signed state routes that are just a few hundred feet in length.
Virginia does that with its institutional 3xx routes. Makes no sense to me, you're following the sign for the college or park, not the 386 or whatever shield.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on March 13, 2021, 03:04:21 PM
Quote from: Alps on March 13, 2021, 02:24:41 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on March 13, 2021, 01:02:24 PM
Quote from: Alps on March 13, 2021, 12:10:09 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 13, 2021, 11:42:34 AM
Why even give it a number? Are there any other state routes that are this short in Connecticut?
Some states number every road they maintain (NJ is another). It makes it easier to inventory. Difference in NJ is all the formerly secret routes have been revealed.
New Mexico has a couple of signed state routes that are just a few hundred feet in length.
Virginia does that with its institutional 3xx routes. Makes no sense to me, you're following the sign for the college or park, not the 386 or whatever shield.
And what's even more bizarre about New Mexico is there are a few signed state routes that are "orphaned" from the rest of the state road network. The one that comes to mind is State Highway 2001 that goes to the Space Museum in Alamogordo. It's 0.4 miles long, running from Scenic Drive to the Space Museum, yet Scenic Drive is owned and maintained by the City of Alamogordo. The nearest state-owned highway to Highway 2001 is the intersection of US-54/70 and US-82. From the end of Highway 2001 to the 54/70/82 intersection requires a 3.5 mile drive over city streets in Alamogrodo.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on March 14, 2021, 05:39:23 PM
Sign updates CT-8:
A new sign bridge is up on CT-8. 
SB has Exit 13 3/4 Mile and the NB side I haven't seen it yet but it's up.  IDK if that's part of a spor replacement project or the Exit 1-15 sign replacement project.


and I found this beauty today in Wilton.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51037437217_96a8b999d0_c.jpg)
Any idea how old it is?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on March 17, 2021, 10:16:45 PM
Latest iteration of plans to redo Hartford's interstates: https://ctmirror.org/2021/03/17/theres-a-new-plan-for-realigning-hartfords-highways-is-the-third-time-the-charm/

EDIT: Here's the source document referenced in that news article: https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/review?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3Af5bf80b9-3447-4854-b8dd-db124a843dfd#pageNum=105

The short version is:
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on March 18, 2021, 11:50:35 AM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on March 17, 2021, 10:16:45 PM
Latest iteration of plans to redo Hartford's interstates: https://ctmirror.org/2021/03/17/theres-a-new-plan-for-realigning-hartfords-highways-is-the-third-time-the-charm/

I like this.

Improved river access; moves I-84 off the Bulkeley Bridge; makes better use of valuable, well-situated land in East Hartford across the river; even adds a NW highway bypass of Hartford!

Interesting stuff:
* new I-891 uses part of leftover I-84
* but it still uses the viaduct - same replace/depress/tunnel decisions remain. But it wouldn't be a boulevard
* they'd have to redo the I-91/COB interchange again
* and possibly add a span to the COB
* extended CT 2 uses part of the I-284 corridor
* possible to combine I-891 and CT 2 at same interchange with I-91?
* probably some type of Cthulhu interchange at CT 2 / I-84 (formerly CT 15)
* I-284 designation for CT 2 north of I-84 might make sense

I've had a plan for awhile that moves I-84 south to the COB with a straight shot across to West Hartford (or the "use 691" option). Leftover 84 is I-584 up to around SR 504, then boulevard leading to Capitol area. CT 2 goes into EH as is, then just curves onto Founders Bridge. Bulkeley Bridge is US 6/44 only; mixmaster is gone.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on March 18, 2021, 05:14:56 PM
Quote from: kurumi on March 18, 2021, 11:50:35 AM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on March 17, 2021, 10:16:45 PM
Latest iteration of plans to redo Hartford's interstates: https://ctmirror.org/2021/03/17/theres-a-new-plan-for-realigning-hartfords-highways-is-the-third-time-the-charm/

I like this.

Improved river access; moves I-84 off the Bulkeley Bridge; makes better use of valuable, well-situated land in East Hartford across the river; even adds a NW highway bypass of Hartford!

Interesting stuff:
* new I-891 uses part of leftover I-84
* but it still uses the viaduct - same replace/depress/tunnel decisions remain. But it wouldn't be a boulevard
* they'd have to redo the I-91/COB interchange again
* and possibly add a span to the COB
* extended CT 2 uses part of the I-284 corridor
* possible to combine I-891 and CT 2 at same interchange with I-91?
* probably some type of Cthulhu interchange at CT 2 / I-84 (formerly CT 15)
* I-284 designation for CT 2 north of I-84 might make sense

I've had a plan for awhile that moves I-84 south to the COB with a straight shot across to West Hartford (or the "use 691" option). Leftover 84 is I-584 up to around SR 504, then boulevard leading to Capitol area. CT 2 goes into EH as is, then just curves onto Founders Bridge. Bulkeley Bridge is US 6/44 only; mixmaster is gone.
* These maps are useless. No detail, no data, no nothing. I can't even really tell where I-891 is supposed to end at I-91 or CT 2. And why 891? Why not 491?

* Good luck getting any new ROW. That's what kills me about these kinds of plans. They have no regard for the fact that NIMBYs will block everything.

* Why not just revive I-291 minus the split off CT 9? Or I-491?

* I have long wanted a CT 2 extension to I-91 via the I-284 ROW.

* Why isn't light rail being considered? Or an E-W commuter rail?

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on March 18, 2021, 05:27:50 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 18, 2021, 05:14:56 PM
Quote from: kurumi on March 18, 2021, 11:50:35 AM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on March 17, 2021, 10:16:45 PM
Latest iteration of plans to redo Hartford's interstates: https://ctmirror.org/2021/03/17/theres-a-new-plan-for-realigning-hartfords-highways-is-the-third-time-the-charm/

I like this.

Improved river access; moves I-84 off the Bulkeley Bridge; makes better use of valuable, well-situated land in East Hartford across the river; even adds a NW highway bypass of Hartford!

Interesting stuff:
* new I-891 uses part of leftover I-84
* but it still uses the viaduct - same replace/depress/tunnel decisions remain. But it wouldn't be a boulevard
* they'd have to redo the I-91/COB interchange again
* and possibly add a span to the COB
* extended CT 2 uses part of the I-284 corridor
* possible to combine I-891 and CT 2 at same interchange with I-91?
* probably some type of Cthulhu interchange at CT 2 / I-84 (formerly CT 15)
* I-284 designation for CT 2 north of I-84 might make sense

I've had a plan for awhile that moves I-84 south to the COB with a straight shot across to West Hartford (or the "use 691" option). Leftover 84 is I-584 up to around SR 504, then boulevard leading to Capitol area. CT 2 goes into EH as is, then just curves onto Founders Bridge. Bulkeley Bridge is US 6/44 only; mixmaster is gone.
* These maps are useless. No detail, no data, no nothing. I can't even really tell where I-891 is supposed to end at I-91 or CT 2. And why 891? Why not 491?

* Good luck getting any new ROW. That's what kills me about these kinds of plans. They have no regard for the fact that NIMBYs will block everything.

* Why not just revive I-291 minus the split off CT 9? Or I-491?

* I have long wanted a CT 2 extension to I-91 via the I-284 ROW.

* Why isn't light rail being considered? Or an E-W commuter rail?

To reroute I-84 from Flatbush Avenue to the COB would involve plowing through through Trinity College and miles of dense residential neighborhoods before encountering a lot of commercial/industrial properties near the I-91/US-5/CT-15 interchange at the west end of the COB. There are also a high school and an elementary school that sit directly in the path that I-84 would take under that concept.

On the east side of the Connecticut River, I would truncate CT-2 at US-5/CT-15 and reconfigure the ramps to take WB CT-2 traffic onto the COB, and then north onto I-91 to reach downtown Hartford, then convert the Founders Bridge into a boulevard to eliminate the Mixmaster. I would keep I-91 west of the Connecticut River and place it underground on its present alignment through downtown Hartford.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on March 18, 2021, 05:38:52 PM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on March 17, 2021, 10:16:45 PM
Latest iteration of plans to redo Hartford's interstates: https://ctmirror.org/2021/03/17/theres-a-new-plan-for-realigning-hartfords-highways-is-the-third-time-the-charm/

EDIT: Here's the source document referenced in that news article: https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/review?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3Af5bf80b9-3447-4854-b8dd-db124a843dfd#pageNum=105

The short version is:

  • Realign I-84 south of downtown Hartford
  • Put I-91 in a tunnel, and create an urban boulevard on top
  • Replace current I-84 alignment with another boulevard
  • Demolish the Mixmaster in East Hartford, and redevelop the land freed up
  • Create a multi-use trail in a rail ROW leading northwest out of downtown Hartford
Finally got around to looking at it hahahahahahahahaneverhappening
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: SectorZ on March 18, 2021, 06:47:36 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on March 18, 2021, 05:27:50 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 18, 2021, 05:14:56 PM
Quote from: kurumi on March 18, 2021, 11:50:35 AM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on March 17, 2021, 10:16:45 PM
Latest iteration of plans to redo Hartford's interstates: https://ctmirror.org/2021/03/17/theres-a-new-plan-for-realigning-hartfords-highways-is-the-third-time-the-charm/

I like this.

Improved river access; moves I-84 off the Bulkeley Bridge; makes better use of valuable, well-situated land in East Hartford across the river; even adds a NW highway bypass of Hartford!

Interesting stuff:
* new I-891 uses part of leftover I-84
* but it still uses the viaduct - same replace/depress/tunnel decisions remain. But it wouldn't be a boulevard
* they'd have to redo the I-91/COB interchange again
* and possibly add a span to the COB
* extended CT 2 uses part of the I-284 corridor
* possible to combine I-891 and CT 2 at same interchange with I-91?
* probably some type of Cthulhu interchange at CT 2 / I-84 (formerly CT 15)
* I-284 designation for CT 2 north of I-84 might make sense

I've had a plan for awhile that moves I-84 south to the COB with a straight shot across to West Hartford (or the "use 691" option). Leftover 84 is I-584 up to around SR 504, then boulevard leading to Capitol area. CT 2 goes into EH as is, then just curves onto Founders Bridge. Bulkeley Bridge is US 6/44 only; mixmaster is gone.
* These maps are useless. No detail, no data, no nothing. I can't even really tell where I-891 is supposed to end at I-91 or CT 2. And why 891? Why not 491?

* Good luck getting any new ROW. That's what kills me about these kinds of plans. They have no regard for the fact that NIMBYs will block everything.

* Why not just revive I-291 minus the split off CT 9? Or I-491?

* I have long wanted a CT 2 extension to I-91 via the I-284 ROW.

* Why isn't light rail being considered? Or an E-W commuter rail?

To reroute I-84 from Flatbush Avenue to the COB would involve plowing through through Trinity College and miles of dense residential neighborhoods before encountering a lot of commercial/industrial properties near the I-91/US-5/CT-15 interchange at the west end of the COB. There are also a high school and an elementary school that sit directly in the path that I-84 would take under that concept.

On the east side of the Connecticut River, I would truncate CT-2 at US-5/CT-15 and reconfigure the ramps to take WB CT-2 traffic onto the COB, and then north onto I-91 to reach downtown Hartford, then convert the Founders Bridge into a boulevard to eliminate the Mixmaster. I would keep I-91 west of the Connecticut River and place it underground on its present alignment through downtown Hartford.

I believe, looking at the plans, that almost all of the re-routed 84 is underground. Along with the new portion of freeway that is 891, all of 91 between 5/15 and current 84, and a chunk of 2.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on March 18, 2021, 06:51:12 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on March 14, 2021, 05:39:23 PM
Sign updates CT-8:
A new sign bridge is up on CT-8. 
SB has Exit 13 3/4 Mile and the NB side I haven't seen it yet but it's up.  IDK if that's part of a spor replacement project or the Exit 1-15 sign replacement project.

There is a spot replacement site that is 1/2 mile before Exit 14, northbound.  It is scheduled to span both directions and have an Exit 13 1/2 mile sign on the southbound side.  This is probably the sign you speak of. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on March 18, 2021, 08:06:06 PM
$17 billion?! That's almost as much as the Big Dig. This is not going to happen.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on March 18, 2021, 09:34:41 PM
Quote from: kurumi on March 18, 2021, 11:50:35 AM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on March 17, 2021, 10:16:45 PM
Latest iteration of plans to redo Hartford's interstates: https://ctmirror.org/2021/03/17/theres-a-new-plan-for-realigning-hartfords-highways-is-the-third-time-the-charm/

I like this.

Improved river access; moves I-84 off the Bulkeley Bridge; makes better use of valuable, well-situated land in East Hartford across the river; even adds a NW highway bypass of Hartford!

Interesting stuff:
* new I-891 uses part of leftover I-84
* but it still uses the viaduct - same replace/depress/tunnel decisions remain. But it wouldn't be a boulevard
* they'd have to redo the I-91/COB interchange again
* and possibly add a span to the COB
* extended CT 2 uses part of the I-284 corridor
* possible to combine I-891 and CT 2 at same interchange with I-91?
* probably some type of Cthulhu interchange at CT 2 / I-84 (formerly CT 15)
* I-284 designation for CT 2 north of I-84 might make sense

I've had a plan for awhile that moves I-84 south to the COB with a straight shot across to West Hartford (or the "use 691" option). Leftover 84 is I-584 up to around SR 504, then boulevard leading to Capitol area. CT 2 goes into EH as is, then just curves onto Founders Bridge. Bulkeley Bridge is US 6/44 only; mixmaster is gone.

I would keep US 6 on I-84 over the COB, but it's the perfect opportunity to reroute it onto Silver Lane/Spencer St/West Center St since there would be a direct exit onto Silver Lane and no confusing routing just east of the Bulkeley Bridge if you tried that now.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on March 18, 2021, 10:57:14 PM
The Bulkley Bridge isn't going anywhere because its on the NRHP. That being said, I think it's completely underpowered for the amount of traffic it serves and for the fact that it's playing double duty as both Interstate and surface street access over the river.

The highest priority should be moving I-84 over to a new bridge and restoring local access between Connecticut Blvd. and Morgan St. Then I would add in another sfc street bridge linking Jennings Rd. to US 5 in the vicinity of King St. and one in the South Meadows linking Maxim Rd. to Willow St. The lack of local access bridges in CT has always bothered me.

Also, they want to send I-84 over the COB where we're already spending north of $100M to fix I-91 N Exit 29. Why can't the tunnel stick close to the original alignment? What is the traffic flow efficiency benefit of sending it further south?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: SectorZ on March 19, 2021, 08:25:21 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 18, 2021, 08:06:06 PM
$17 billion?! That's almost as much as the Big Dig. This is not going to happen.

The Big Dig started in 1988, so $17B is really only half the cost of the Big Dig indexing to inflation. Connecticut also has less of a "don't kill the job mentality" than Massachusetts (barely though), so overruns should be a smaller problem with less corruptible people working on it.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on March 19, 2021, 08:30:12 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on March 19, 2021, 08:25:21 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 18, 2021, 08:06:06 PM
$17 billion?! That's almost as much as the Big Dig. This is not going to happen.

The Big Dig started in 1988, so $17B is really only half the cost of the Big Dig indexing to inflation. Connecticut also has less of a "don't kill the job mentality" than Massachusetts (barely though), so overruns should be a smaller problem with less corruptible people working on it.

The Big Dig's cost was $22 billion once construction ended in 2006, inflation adjusted back to 1988. And we know that megaprojects like these tend to go overbudget.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: SectorZ on March 19, 2021, 11:01:17 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 19, 2021, 08:30:12 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on March 19, 2021, 08:25:21 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 18, 2021, 08:06:06 PM
$17 billion?! That's almost as much as the Big Dig. This is not going to happen.

The Big Dig started in 1988, so $17B is really only half the cost of the Big Dig indexing to inflation. Connecticut also has less of a "don't kill the job mentality" than Massachusetts (barely though), so overruns should be a smaller problem with less corruptible people working on it.

The Big Dig's cost was $22 billion once construction ended in 2006, inflation adjusted back to 1988. And we know that megaprojects like these tend to go overbudget.

But they go overbudget more in Massachusetts because of graft, lazy politicians, and lazier voters. Not every state is the embarrassment that Massachusetts is when it comes to these matters. It's still billions less than the cost of the Big Dig. Think about it, digging a tunnel under Hartford is a buttload easier than in Boston, given Hartford doesn't have an underground transportation system. Connecticut's only malfunction is its inability to properly spend money and its belief that they think they can tax themselves into prosperity, driving a net population loss in the state.

Also, the feds may be more interested in helping because Hartford matters more to long-distance travel and transportation than Boston does. As well, Boston did OK with an elevated highway splitting it in two. Hartford has not.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on March 19, 2021, 03:54:57 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on March 19, 2021, 11:01:17 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 19, 2021, 08:30:12 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on March 19, 2021, 08:25:21 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 18, 2021, 08:06:06 PM
$17 billion?! That's almost as much as the Big Dig. This is not going to happen.

The Big Dig started in 1988, so $17B is really only half the cost of the Big Dig indexing to inflation. Connecticut also has less of a "don't kill the job mentality" than Massachusetts (barely though), so overruns should be a smaller problem with less corruptible people working on it.

The Big Dig's cost was $22 billion once construction ended in 2006, inflation adjusted back to 1988. And we know that megaprojects like these tend to go overbudget.

But they go overbudget more in Massachusetts because of graft, lazy politicians, and lazier voters. Not every state is the embarrassment that Massachusetts is when it comes to these matters. It's still billions less than the cost of the Big Dig. Think about it, digging a tunnel under Hartford is a buttload easier than in Boston, given Hartford doesn't have an underground transportation system. Connecticut's only malfunction is its inability to properly spend money and its belief that they think they can tax themselves into prosperity, driving a net population loss in the state.

Also, the feds may be more interested in helping because Hartford matters more to long-distance travel and transportation than Boston does. As well, Boston did OK with an elevated highway splitting it in two. Hartford has not.

Connecticut doesn't have any politicians comparable in clout like Massachusetts did with Tip O'Neil and Ted Kennedy in the 80s.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on March 19, 2021, 07:06:56 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 19, 2021, 03:54:57 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on March 19, 2021, 11:01:17 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 19, 2021, 08:30:12 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on March 19, 2021, 08:25:21 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 18, 2021, 08:06:06 PM
$17 billion?! That's almost as much as the Big Dig. This is not going to happen.

The Big Dig started in 1988, so $17B is really only half the cost of the Big Dig indexing to inflation. Connecticut also has less of a "don't kill the job mentality" than Massachusetts (barely though), so overruns should be a smaller problem with less corruptible people working on it.

The Big Dig's cost was $22 billion once construction ended in 2006, inflation adjusted back to 1988. And we know that megaprojects like these tend to go overbudget.

But they go overbudget more in Massachusetts because of graft, lazy politicians, and lazier voters. Not every state is the embarrassment that Massachusetts is when it comes to these matters. It's still billions less than the cost of the Big Dig. Think about it, digging a tunnel under Hartford is a buttload easier than in Boston, given Hartford doesn't have an underground transportation system. Connecticut's only malfunction is its inability to properly spend money and its belief that they think they can tax themselves into prosperity, driving a net population loss in the state.

Also, the feds may be more interested in helping because Hartford matters more to long-distance travel and transportation than Boston does. As well, Boston did OK with an elevated highway splitting it in two. Hartford has not.

Connecticut doesn't have any politicians comparable in clout like Massachusetts did with Tip O'Neil and Ted Kennedy in the 80s.

And the political will is just not there. You notice that ConnDOT soends millions upon millions of dollars each year to pay consultants to perform "studies." And then those "studies" get put up on a shelf where they're forgotten. For example, how many "studies" did ConnDOT pay for about bringing back tolls to the state's highways? More than I can count.

In the end, they're just going to keep on patching up the existing roads and viaducts in and around Hartford until they either fall down, or people in power actually grow a spine and make the hard decisions to move things forward.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on March 19, 2021, 08:08:18 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on March 19, 2021, 07:06:56 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 19, 2021, 03:54:57 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on March 19, 2021, 11:01:17 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 19, 2021, 08:30:12 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on March 19, 2021, 08:25:21 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 18, 2021, 08:06:06 PM
$17 billion?! That's almost as much as the Big Dig. This is not going to happen.

The Big Dig started in 1988, so $17B is really only half the cost of the Big Dig indexing to inflation. Connecticut also has less of a "don't kill the job mentality" than Massachusetts (barely though), so overruns should be a smaller problem with less corruptible people working on it.

The Big Dig's cost was $22 billion once construction ended in 2006, inflation adjusted back to 1988. And we know that megaprojects like these tend to go overbudget.

But they go overbudget more in Massachusetts because of graft, lazy politicians, and lazier voters. Not every state is the embarrassment that Massachusetts is when it comes to these matters. It's still billions less than the cost of the Big Dig. Think about it, digging a tunnel under Hartford is a buttload easier than in Boston, given Hartford doesn't have an underground transportation system. Connecticut's only malfunction is its inability to properly spend money and its belief that they think they can tax themselves into prosperity, driving a net population loss in the state.

Also, the feds may be more interested in helping because Hartford matters more to long-distance travel and transportation than Boston does. As well, Boston did OK with an elevated highway splitting it in two. Hartford has not.

Connecticut doesn't have any politicians comparable in clout like Massachusetts did with Tip O'Neil and Ted Kennedy in the 80s.

And the political will is just not there. You notice that ConnDOT soends millions upon millions of dollars each year to pay consultants to perform "studies." And then those "studies" get put up on a shelf where they're forgotten. For example, how many "studies" did ConnDOT pay for about bringing back tolls to the state's highways? More than I can count.

In the end, they're just going to keep on patching up the existing roads and viaducts in and around Hartford until they either fall down, or people in power actually grow a spine and make the hard decisions to move things forward.

Or until someone discovers that the state's pension fund invested $10,000 in bitcoin in 2011, and it's now worth $10 billion.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on March 21, 2021, 02:13:14 PM
CT-8 Signing project....again:
Look closely at the pic, you'll see new poles.  So these signs will be gone soon.  In this project it seems the poles go up and then the signs and thennnn they'll move onto another spot.  So this non-reflective relic will be gone soon.  That will leave 5 NRBC signs left in the state. 
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51055547853_67a8738695_c.jpg)

Also, drove on I-84 and it seems like the Farmington to Hartford signing project is going as I see the ramp BGS signs being replaced with new GOD AWFUL BGSs.  I hope it's not one of those projects where the signs look "off."  It's Highway gothic font but the control cities FONt is too thin and too closely spaced together.  Ugh. 

I believe Exit 43 or 44, Exit 48 to I-84 WB has these new ones.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on March 22, 2021, 06:14:26 PM
New signage on CT 9 South in New Britain.  Surprised the 28 tab isn't as wide as the 28A tab to accommodate the future 36B number, and no WEST above the 72.  There are also supports up for the Exit Now sign as well. (https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51064206597_ef70d09a74_z.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on March 22, 2021, 09:01:23 PM
Finally the 2017 spot sign replacement contract is being pecked away at.  The above sign, and the "Exit now" are both part of that contract, as is two sites on Route 8 in Bridgeport and one on I-95 South in East Lyme.  Passed through Route 8 today and noticed active construction in the area of these spot replacements in Bridgeport.  The foundations for them, and many new overheads in the blanket sign replacement from Bridgeport to Shelton in place.   

For the Route 8 Bridgeport-Shelton project, here's the only new guide sign in place:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51064508696_418efe4504_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2kNoXnJ)DSC02634 (https://flic.kr/p/2kNoXnJ) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

This is northbound for Exit 8, just past the 8/25 split.  I believe that route marker is an outline shield, similar to those put up in the 2018 spot replacement project, and similar to those found on Massachusetts guide signs. 

Project-wide, the only other new signs observed were some "extruded aluminum" town line and Park & Ride signs (which are now going sheet aluminum elsewhere), and reassurance shields and mile markers.  Some onramps observed had posts up to support new signs (also extruded aluminum).  Luckily the sheet aluminum for onramp signage was abandoned after being put up on Route 8 from Derby to Waterbury.  I understand having to cut costs on sign replacement projects, but when the predecessor signs lasted for some 30 years, I think it was worth the $$$ spent.  I doubt the sheet aluminum onramp signs will last a fraction of that time frame! 

Approaching Exit 14... this sign is new, but again, its another of the 2017 contract spot replacements:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51064601547_bfd007fd6e_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2kNpqYB)DSC02635 (https://flic.kr/p/2kNpqYB) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

Like the Route 9 New Britain sign that JP posted, the CT route shields are non-outline, which is how they should be.  For some reason, the 2018 project started the outline shields.  Hopefully it does not continue, as this is CT... not Mass!

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on March 22, 2021, 10:14:24 PM
Traditionally SR shields on non-button copy signs had been the non-outlined variety. I-395s new signs use the correct outline thickness.
Unfortunately it also looks like the I-91 Exit 26-29 and CT 15 89-91 sign replacement will use non-outlined shields.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on March 23, 2021, 11:43:11 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on March 22, 2021, 09:01:23 PM
For the Route 8 Bridgeport-Shelton project, here's the only new guide sign in place:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51064508696_418efe4504_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2kNoXnJ)
DSC02634 (https://flic.kr/p/2kNoXnJ) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr
I realize the image is somewhat blurred but that SR 108 shield looks more like an MA shield (is that a offset thin black outline or just a blur?) rather than a CT shield.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on March 23, 2021, 03:11:13 PM
Yes, I stated that in my post.   

QuoteThis is northbound for Exit 8, just past the 8/25 split.  I believe that route marker is an outline shield, similar to those put up in the 2018 spot replacement project, and similar to those found on Massachusetts guide signs.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on March 23, 2021, 07:20:06 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 18, 2021, 08:06:06 PM
$17 billion?! That's almost as much as the Big Dig. This is not going to happen.

Well, when you look at the scope, it would essentially be the Hartford equivalent of the Big Dig. Arguably a larger and more complex project even.

So yeah, the proposition comes with that kind of price tag. And yeah, this is never going to be anything more than a snazzy-looking rendering in a PDF.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on March 23, 2021, 08:36:48 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on March 23, 2021, 07:20:06 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 18, 2021, 08:06:06 PM
$17 billion?! That's almost as much as the Big Dig. This is not going to happen.

Well, when you look at the scope, it would essentially be the Hartford equivalent of the Big Dig
. Arguably a larger and more complex project even.

So yeah, the proposition comes with that kind of price tag. And yeah, this is never going to be anything more than a snazzy-looking rendering in a PDF.
But Hartford is a much smaller metro area, so proportionally, it's a way bigger project.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on March 23, 2021, 10:25:12 PM
File that Hartford project in the "I Have A Dream" category.  I think they should've gone through with the lowering of the Aetna viaduct.  Sure, would be nice to do all that but I just don't see it happening, not in anyone's lifetime.   The tunneling involved with a new route of I-84 through "south of downtown" to the Charter Oak Bridge would be quite the undertaking, and then you have to have it meet the COB at a new interchange, widen the COB (again) and widen CT 15 out to present I-84 (again).  For I-91, you'd have to, what, either lower the grade or tunnel next to the river?  And do all this while there's still no means of a thru traffic bypass.  If I-291 had been built, or I-491/I-86 for that matter, that could've taken some load off while you build all this.  At least with the Big Dig, there were ways around the city on freeways if you wanted to avoid the construction.  But in Hartford, there's no Route 128 or I-291 to fall back on. 

I'd go with the "lowered" route of I-84 as a means to replace the Aetna viaduct and I would consolidate the East Hartford mixmaster (remove the ramps to/from Governor St, move I-84's westbound lanes left to eliminate the 2 left exits, etc).  That's a little more realistic than what has been proposed.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on March 23, 2021, 11:28:46 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on March 23, 2021, 10:25:12 PM
File that Hartford project in the "I Have A Dream" category.  I think they should've gone through with the lowering of the Aetna viaduct.  Sure, would be nice to do all that but I just don't see it happening, not in anyone's lifetime.   The tunneling involved with a new route of I-84 through "south of downtown" to the Charter Oak Bridge would be quite the undertaking, and then you have to have it meet the COB at a new interchange, widen the COB (again) and widen CT 15 out to present I-84 (again).  For I-91, you'd have to, what, either lower the grade or tunnel next to the river?  And do all this while there's still no means of a thru traffic bypass.  If I-291 had been built, or I-491/I-86 for that matter, that could've taken some load off while you build all this.  At least with the Big Dig, there were ways around the city on freeways if you wanted to avoid the construction.  But in Hartford, there's no Route 128 or I-291 to fall back on. 

I'd go with the "lowered" route of I-84 as a means to replace the Aetna viaduct and I would consolidate the East Hartford mixmaster (remove the ramps to/from Governor St, move I-84's westbound lanes left to eliminate the 2 left exits, etc).  That's a little more realistic than what has been proposed.

If I-291 had been built, Hartford residents would be left with rusty pipes what with all the road salt running into their water supplies.

I wonder why nobody has suggested utilizing the Whitehead Highway. You'd need a very short tunnel under Bushnell Park. It would allow them to close off the I-84 viaduct during construction.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on March 24, 2021, 12:05:05 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 23, 2021, 11:28:46 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on March 23, 2021, 10:25:12 PM
File that Hartford project in the "I Have A Dream" category.  I think they should've gone through with the lowering of the Aetna viaduct.  Sure, would be nice to do all that but I just don't see it happening, not in anyone's lifetime.   The tunneling involved with a new route of I-84 through "south of downtown" to the Charter Oak Bridge would be quite the undertaking, and then you have to have it meet the COB at a new interchange, widen the COB (again) and widen CT 15 out to present I-84 (again).  For I-91, you'd have to, what, either lower the grade or tunnel next to the river?  And do all this while there's still no means of a thru traffic bypass.  If I-291 had been built, or I-491/I-86 for that matter, that could've taken some load off while you build all this.  At least with the Big Dig, there were ways around the city on freeways if you wanted to avoid the construction.  But in Hartford, there's no Route 128 or I-291 to fall back on. 

I'd go with the "lowered" route of I-84 as a means to replace the Aetna viaduct and I would consolidate the East Hartford mixmaster (remove the ramps to/from Governor St, move I-84's westbound lanes left to eliminate the 2 left exits, etc).  That's a little more realistic than what has been proposed.

If I-291 had been built, Hartford residents would be left with rusty pipes what with all the road salt running into their water supplies.

I wonder why nobody has suggested utilizing the Whitehead Highway. You'd need a very short tunnel under Bushnell Park. It would allow them to close off the I-84 viaduct during construction.

There would be more work to do on the existing part. Here's "I-484" eastbound leaving Pulaski Circle. One lane, low clearance: https://goo.gl/maps/ekxhzckuSK6c3phG9
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on March 24, 2021, 12:22:35 AM
Quote from: kurumi on March 24, 2021, 12:05:05 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 23, 2021, 11:28:46 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on March 23, 2021, 10:25:12 PM
File that Hartford project in the "I Have A Dream" category.  I think they should've gone through with the lowering of the Aetna viaduct.  Sure, would be nice to do all that but I just don't see it happening, not in anyone's lifetime.   The tunneling involved with a new route of I-84 through "south of downtown" to the Charter Oak Bridge would be quite the undertaking, and then you have to have it meet the COB at a new interchange, widen the COB (again) and widen CT 15 out to present I-84 (again).  For I-91, you'd have to, what, either lower the grade or tunnel next to the river?  And do all this while there's still no means of a thru traffic bypass.  If I-291 had been built, or I-491/I-86 for that matter, that could've taken some load off while you build all this.  At least with the Big Dig, there were ways around the city on freeways if you wanted to avoid the construction.  But in Hartford, there's no Route 128 or I-291 to fall back on. 

I'd go with the "lowered" route of I-84 as a means to replace the Aetna viaduct and I would consolidate the East Hartford mixmaster (remove the ramps to/from Governor St, move I-84's westbound lanes left to eliminate the 2 left exits, etc).  That's a little more realistic than what has been proposed.

If I-291 had been built, Hartford residents would be left with rusty pipes what with all the road salt running into their water supplies.

I wonder why nobody has suggested utilizing the Whitehead Highway. You'd need a very short tunnel under Bushnell Park. It would allow them to close off the I-84 viaduct during construction.

There would be more work to do on the existing part. Here's "I-484" eastbound leaving Pulaski Circle. One lane, low clearance: https://goo.gl/maps/ekxhzckuSK6c3phG9

But surely this would be way less expensive than that $17 billion monstrosity.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on March 24, 2021, 11:29:47 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 23, 2021, 11:28:46 PM

If I-291 had been built, Hartford residents would be left with rusty pipes what with all the road salt running into their water supplies.

I wonder why nobody has suggested utilizing the Whitehead Highway. You'd need a very short tunnel under Bushnell Park. It would allow them to close off the I-84 viaduct during construction.

1. You have no way to prove that would happen

2. Bushnell Park is America's oldest public park. If they actually did construct I-484 the tunnel would have been buried with cut-and-cover, tearing up the park for months. Maybe now, they could do it with a TBM.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on March 24, 2021, 11:40:38 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on March 23, 2021, 10:25:12 PM
File that Hartford project in the "I Have A Dream" category.  I think they should've gone through with the lowering of the Aetna viaduct.  Sure, would be nice to do all that but I just don't see it happening, not in anyone's lifetime.   The tunneling involved with a new route of I-84 through "south of downtown" to the Charter Oak Bridge would be quite the undertaking, and then you have to have it meet the COB at a new interchange, widen the COB (again) and widen CT 15 out to present I-84 (again).  For I-91, you'd have to, what, either lower the grade or tunnel next to the river?  And do all this while there's still no means of a thru traffic bypass.  If I-291 had been built, or I-491/I-86 for that matter, that could've taken some load off while you build all this.  At least with the Big Dig, there were ways around the city on freeways if you wanted to avoid the construction.  But in Hartford, there's no Route 128 or I-291 to fall back on. 

I'd go with the "lowered" route of I-84 as a means to replace the Aetna viaduct and I would consolidate the East Hartford mixmaster (remove the ramps to/from Governor St, move I-84's westbound lanes left to eliminate the 2 left exits, etc).  That's a little more realistic than what has been proposed.

I-91 could be rerouted in this fashion:

-Temporary carriageway leading south from Exit 34, over a temporary bridge across the river, and to the East Hartford mixmaster.
-Add TEMP I-91 signs along CT 2 to CT 3 and over the Putnam Bridge

I-84 could be rerouted in this fashion:
-Add TEMP I-84 signs along CT 15, over the Charter Oak Br., and onto I-91. Signage continues onto CT 9 at Exit 22 and through New Britain.

If they can construct a temp routing for CT to fix the Waterbury mixmaster, they can do it here.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on March 24, 2021, 12:26:01 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 24, 2021, 11:40:38 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on March 23, 2021, 10:25:12 PM
File that Hartford project in the "I Have A Dream" category.  I think they should've gone through with the lowering of the Aetna viaduct.  Sure, would be nice to do all that but I just don't see it happening, not in anyone's lifetime.   The tunneling involved with a new route of I-84 through "south of downtown" to the Charter Oak Bridge would be quite the undertaking, and then you have to have it meet the COB at a new interchange, widen the COB (again) and widen CT 15 out to present I-84 (again).  For I-91, you'd have to, what, either lower the grade or tunnel next to the river?  And do all this while there's still no means of a thru traffic bypass.  If I-291 had been built, or I-491/I-86 for that matter, that could've taken some load off while you build all this.  At least with the Big Dig, there were ways around the city on freeways if you wanted to avoid the construction.  But in Hartford, there's no Route 128 or I-291 to fall back on. 

I'd go with the "lowered" route of I-84 as a means to replace the Aetna viaduct and I would consolidate the East Hartford mixmaster (remove the ramps to/from Governor St, move I-84's westbound lanes left to eliminate the 2 left exits, etc).  That's a little more realistic than what has been proposed.

I-91 could be rerouted in this fashion:

-Temporary carriageway leading south from Exit 34, over a temporary bridge across the river, and to the East Hartford mixmaster.
-Add TEMP I-91 signs along CT 2 to CT 3 and over the Putnam Bridge

I-84 could be rerouted in this fashion:
-Add TEMP I-84 signs along CT 15, over the Charter Oak Br., and onto I-91. Signage continues onto CT 9 at Exit 22 and through New Britain.


If they can construct a temp routing for CT to fix the Waterbury mixmaster, they can do it here.

Or to simplify it, use I-691.  This is when I wished they connected the southern end of the CT 15 expressway to CT 9 near CCSU
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on March 24, 2021, 12:54:37 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 24, 2021, 11:29:47 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 23, 2021, 11:28:46 PM

If I-291 had been built, Hartford residents would be left with rusty pipes what with all the road salt running into their water supplies.

I wonder why nobody has suggested utilizing the Whitehead Highway. You'd need a very short tunnel under Bushnell Park. It would allow them to close off the I-84 viaduct during construction.

1. You have no way to prove that would happen

2. Bushnell Park is America's oldest public park. If they actually did construct I-484 the tunnel would have been buried with cut-and-cover, tearing up the park for months. Maybe now, they could do it with a TBM.

The EPA said that's what would've happened.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on March 24, 2021, 04:21:34 PM
In regards to I-291, what's to say they couldn't do mitigation efforts to allow both I-291 and the reservoirs to coexist?  When CT 66 was widened through Middlefield, it brought the road closer to Mt Higby Reservoir, which is Middletown's water supply.  I'm sure something could've been worked out.  Extra large shoulders?  Extensive drainage so "road debris" didn't drift into the water supply?  There's got to be interstates across this country which traverse a reservoir.  If they really wanted to, I-291 could've been built somehow. 

Sure, TEMP 84 and TEMP 91 could be posted, but you're talking a lot of traffic utilizing single lane ramps and emptying into already-high trafficked arteries.  As such, look at 15 between I-91 and I-84.... its not signed as an interstate, but serves a major purpose as a connector from 91N->84E and 84W->91S.  Back in the 80s, these connections were served with both CT 15 and the Founders Bridge, with the latter connections severed when I-91 (SB) was first lowered and the pedestrian plaza built.  Throwing a TEMP 91 into the Mixmaster... okay, it could be done, but with the slew of left exits/entrances and lane drops, not to mention the poor geometry, it would be hectic. 

Ideally, I-86/I-491 would have been built and could serve as the perfect "TEMP 84".  If it had been built, the connection with I-91 and with CT 2 would've been built sooner and most likely the Putnam Bridge would've been replaced and/or widened. 

The TEMP 8 at the Mixmaster in Waterbury does seem to be working quite well and was a perfect way to divert traffic and accomplish the bridge/viaduct work in a reduced time.  Work on I-84 itself has required lane closures, including the permanent one westbound which, after a nice break due to the pandemic, is once again snarling traffic. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: SectorZ on March 24, 2021, 04:47:27 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 24, 2021, 12:54:37 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 24, 2021, 11:29:47 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 23, 2021, 11:28:46 PM

If I-291 had been built, Hartford residents would be left with rusty pipes what with all the road salt running into their water supplies.

I wonder why nobody has suggested utilizing the Whitehead Highway. You'd need a very short tunnel under Bushnell Park. It would allow them to close off the I-84 viaduct during construction.

1. You have no way to prove that would happen

2. Bushnell Park is America's oldest public park. If they actually did construct I-484 the tunnel would have been buried with cut-and-cover, tearing up the park for months. Maybe now, they could do it with a TBM.

The EPA said that's what would've happened.

** I-190 (Massachusetts edition) around the salt-free Wachusett Reservoir enters the chat **
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on March 24, 2021, 05:05:45 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on March 24, 2021, 04:47:27 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 24, 2021, 12:54:37 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 24, 2021, 11:29:47 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 23, 2021, 11:28:46 PM

If I-291 had been built, Hartford residents would be left with rusty pipes what with all the road salt running into their water supplies.

I wonder why nobody has suggested utilizing the Whitehead Highway. You'd need a very short tunnel under Bushnell Park. It would allow them to close off the I-84 viaduct during construction.

1. You have no way to prove that would happen

2. Bushnell Park is America's oldest public park. If they actually did construct I-484 the tunnel would have been buried with cut-and-cover, tearing up the park for months. Maybe now, they could do it with a TBM.

The EPA said that's what would've happened.

** I-190 (Massachusetts edition) around the salt-free Wachusett Reservoir enters the chat **

MassDOT used a lot of costly mitigation measures, most importantly those very wide shoulders. Fitting 8 lanes (vs 4 for 190) and extra wide shoulders probably would've been prohibitively expensive.

I'm sure Connecticut considered all the ideas we can think of and probably more to get the highway built and finally gave up because none of them were practical
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: The Ghostbuster on March 25, 2021, 08:25:27 PM
Couldn't an Interstate 84 tunnel be built more or less following the existing alignment of Interstate 84? The Big Dig tunnel was mostly built beneath the pre-existing Interstate 93 Central Artery.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on March 25, 2021, 09:39:58 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 25, 2021, 08:25:27 PM
Couldn't an Interstate 84 tunnel be built more or less following the existing alignment of Interstate 84? The Big Dig tunnel was mostly built beneath the pre-existing Interstate 93 Central Artery.

If we're going to ignore costs, why not go the whole way and give every Hartford resident a helicopter?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on March 26, 2021, 07:14:26 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on March 21, 2021, 02:13:14 PM

Also, drove on I-84 and it seems like the Farmington to Hartford signing project is going as I see the ramp BGS signs being replaced with new GOD AWFUL BGSs.  I hope it's not one of those projects where the signs look "off."  It's Highway gothic font but the control cities FONt is too thin and too closely spaced together.  Ugh. 

I believe Exit 43 or 44, Exit 48 to I-84 WB has these new ones

Here's the one from Exit 49 WB.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51005434060_a845a29ec1.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on March 26, 2021, 08:09:46 PM
Foundations have been installed for new ground BGSs at the I-91 on-ramp at Great Meadow road and for the Exit 25N supplemental signage.

GMaps links to locations:

On-ramp: https://maps.app.goo.gl/4PwNEWQLi5kjPwPw9 (https://maps.app.goo.gl/4PwNEWQLi5kjPwPw9)

Putnam Bridge sign: I-91
https://maps.app.goo.gl/ySSqs9XgMqh1xtRs8 (https://maps.app.goo.gl/ySSqs9XgMqh1xtRs8)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on March 27, 2021, 07:38:42 PM
How do signs get messed up? Isn't it all standardized and done by a computer? I've never seen the place where the signs are made.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on March 27, 2021, 08:03:02 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on March 27, 2021, 07:38:42 PM
How do signs get messed up? Isn't it all standardized and done by a computer? I've never seen the place where the signs are made.
Computers still have humans inputting the info. It's only as good as the quality control.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on March 27, 2021, 08:33:49 PM
Quote from: Alps on March 27, 2021, 08:03:02 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on March 27, 2021, 07:38:42 PM
How do signs get messed up? Isn't it all standardized and done by a computer? I've never seen the place where the signs are made.
Computers still have humans inputting the info. It's only as good as the quality control.
But wouldn't the computer know all of the rules and formats for the signs? I assumed like a lot of things it's just all templated so the human just plugs in text or highway numbers and the computer does the rest.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on March 27, 2021, 10:51:05 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on March 27, 2021, 08:33:49 PM
Quote from: Alps on March 27, 2021, 08:03:02 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on March 27, 2021, 07:38:42 PM
How do signs get messed up? Isn't it all standardized and done by a computer? I've never seen the place where the signs are made.
Computers still have humans inputting the info. It's only as good as the quality control.
But wouldn't the computer know all of the rules and formats for the signs? I assumed like a lot of things it's just all templated so the human just plugs in text or highway numbers and the computer does the rest.
Nope. The human has to manually check all spacings.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on March 30, 2021, 07:09:01 PM
What was really funny about the "Token War" is that the press covered it like a war.

When 10 people were arrested for trying to use the turnpike tokens, the New York Times Headline read:

CITY TAKES FIRST PRISONERS IN 17 1/2¦ TOKEN WAR

The first prisoners were taken in the war of the tokens yesterday morning, and hours later, Mayor Koch called Gov. William A. O'Neill of Connecticut in an effort to resolve the six-day dispute. But the diplomatic efforts failed.

And in 1985, after Connecticut abolished tolls and agreed to pay New York 17 ½ cents for each token, the AP said:
Peace at Last in the Great Token War
NEW YORK (AP) _ New York City and Connecticut have agreed to beat their tokens into ploughshares, ending hostilities over a 17 ½ -cent Connecticut Turnpike token that just happened to fit the city's 90-cent subway turnstiles.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: bluecountry on April 07, 2021, 09:55:35 PM
Whats going on with I-91 construction now just south of Hartford?

Are there any plans to finally take care of that awful merge with 15 in Hartford?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on April 07, 2021, 11:58:55 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on April 07, 2021, 09:55:35 PM
Whats going on with I-91 construction now just south of Hartford?

Are there any plans to finally take care of that awful merge with 15 in Hartford?

Yup. https://i-91charteroakbridge.com/en
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on April 12, 2021, 10:16:16 AM
Speaking of I-91, the ramp from I-84 East to I-91 South is closed from now until June.  Detours point you to Route 2 to Route 3 to get to I-91 South.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on April 12, 2021, 11:47:11 AM
Quote from: kurumi on April 07, 2021, 11:58:55 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on April 07, 2021, 09:55:35 PM
Whats going on with I-91 construction now just south of Hartford?

Are there any plans to finally take care of that awful merge with 15 in Hartford?

Yup. https://i-91charteroakbridge.com/en

Connecticut just can't kick its left hand exit habit can it?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on April 12, 2021, 12:02:46 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on April 12, 2021, 11:47:11 AM
Quote from: kurumi on April 07, 2021, 11:58:55 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on April 07, 2021, 09:55:35 PM
Whats going on with I-91 construction now just south of Hartford?

Are there any plans to finally take care of that awful merge with 15 in Hartford?

Yup. https://i-91charteroakbridge.com/en

Connecticut just can't kick its left hand exit habit can it?
Would you rather be stuck in a 2 mile backup for a weak-sauce ramp?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on April 12, 2021, 12:21:05 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 12, 2021, 12:02:46 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on April 12, 2021, 11:47:11 AM
Quote from: kurumi on April 07, 2021, 11:58:55 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on April 07, 2021, 09:55:35 PM
Whats going on with I-91 construction now just south of Hartford?

Are there any plans to finally take care of that awful merge with 15 in Hartford?

Yup. https://i-91charteroakbridge.com/en

Connecticut just can't kick its left hand exit habit can it?
Would you rather be stuck in a 2 mile backup for a weak-sauce ramp?
I'm just surprised. Most states are removing them as fast as they can. Highway engineers consider them the work of Satan.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on April 12, 2021, 01:26:25 PM
And CT did remove a couple down in New Haven when they were doing the work for the Q Bridge project (which means there's now a massively overpowered flyover sending traffic to the boulevard where the CT 34 freeway was), so it's interesting that they're adding one here.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on April 12, 2021, 03:20:33 PM
Personally, I think they should've moved the Exit 29 ramp to where the Exit 27 ramp is currently.  And the fact that the CT 15 South to I-91 South ramp isn't being altered one bit as part of this project seems ridiculous to me... it should be a 2-lane ramp as well, and enter I-91 South on the right, not left.  The existing CT 15 South ramp to Brainard Rd, which has an I-91 South "second option" ramp should've been made 2 lanes.  But I digress........

A lot on I-84 could be eliminated fairly easily, and probably will be in time.  Some were meant for roads which never got built, such as the Flatbush Freeway and the Sisson Ave ramps.  Those with CT 8 in Waterbury will probably be eliminated some day when that whole mixmaster is replaced.  And eventually the one big one remaining on I-95 North at I-395 in East Lyme will go.  A couple on I-91 in the New Haven area could probably go... Willow St was another freeway that never happened.  I have no problem with the left exit in Groton at I-95 North Exit 86. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on April 12, 2021, 03:39:21 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on April 12, 2021, 03:20:33 PM
Personally, I think they should've moved the Exit 29 ramp to where the Exit 27 ramp is currently.  And the fact that the CT 15 South to I-91 South ramp isn't being altered one bit as part of this project seems ridiculous to me... it should be a 2-lane ramp as well, and enter I-91 South on the right, not left.  The existing CT 15 South ramp to Brainard Rd, which has an I-91 South "second option" ramp should've been made 2 lanes.  But I digress........

A lot on I-84 could be eliminated fairly easily, and probably will be in time.  Some were meant for roads which never got built, such as the Flatbush Freeway and the Sisson Ave ramps.  Those with CT 8 in Waterbury will probably be eliminated some day when that whole mixmaster is replaced.  And eventually the one big one remaining on I-95 North at I-395 in East Lyme will go.  A couple on I-91 in the New Haven area could probably go... Willow St was another freeway that never happened.  I have no problem with the left exit in Groton at I-95 North Exit 86.

Even those two where 84 merges and diverges with 7?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on April 12, 2021, 04:09:38 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on April 12, 2021, 03:39:21 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on April 12, 2021, 03:20:33 PM
Personally, I think they should've moved the Exit 29 ramp to where the Exit 27 ramp is currently.  And the fact that the CT 15 South to I-91 South ramp isn't being altered one bit as part of this project seems ridiculous to me... it should be a 2-lane ramp as well, and enter I-91 South on the right, not left.  The existing CT 15 South ramp to Brainard Rd, which has an I-91 South "second option" ramp should've been made 2 lanes.  But I digress........

A lot on I-84 could be eliminated fairly easily, and probably will be in time.  Some were meant for roads which never got built, such as the Flatbush Freeway and the Sisson Ave ramps.  Those with CT 8 in Waterbury will probably be eliminated some day when that whole mixmaster is replaced.  And eventually the one big one remaining on I-95 North at I-395 in East Lyme will go.  A couple on I-91 in the New Haven area could probably go... Willow St was another freeway that never happened.  I have no problem with the left exit in Groton at I-95 North Exit 86.

Even those two where 84 merges and diverges with 7?

Back around 2000 I attended a public meeting where the Connecticut DOT proposed reconfiguring the two I-84 interchanges with US-7 to eliminate the left-hand exits that was part of a larger proposal to widen I-84 from the New York state line to Waterbury. Like most other big-ticket projects in Connecticut, the plans for this were placed on a shelf at DOT headquarters, never to be seen or heard of again. The concept at the time was to widen I-84 from 6 to 8 lanes through Danbury, and from 4 to 6 lanes for the remainder of the New York-Waterbury corridor. The left-hand ramps to US-7 would have been moved to right-hand exit/entrance with new flyover bridges and braided ramps to Exits 4 and 6 (US-6 west and US-6 east, respectively) to eliminate the weaving that causes the congestion and traffic crashes in those areas. The last DOT estimate for the entire New York-Waterbury corridor before they shelved the plan was around $5 billion. I don't know how they came up with that number, but I think it's grossly overestimated given that from Exit 8 to Exit 18, I-84's median is wide enough to accommodate an additional lane in each direction without the need to acquire new ROW. I would think the interchanges with US-7 would be the most costly components of reworking I-84 through Danbury, but I would see each interchange being a couple hundred million. The Rochambeau Bridge that is already wide enough to accommodate at least an additional lane of traffic in each direction is being completely rebuilt at a cost of around $60 million. So I don't get where they came up with $5 billion from. If they're including the replacement of the Waterbury Mixmaster in that estimate, then $5 billion might be more believable.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on April 12, 2021, 04:15:01 PM
Here's a thought experiment: what highway improvements would be made if Connecticut wasn't drowning in pension liabilities?

8 lanes on i-95 through Fairfield County seems like a given.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on April 12, 2021, 06:17:54 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on April 12, 2021, 10:16:16 AM
Speaking of I-91, the ramp from I-84 East to I-91 South is closed from now until June.  Detours point you to Route 2 to Route 3 to get to I-91 South.
Or just take I-691. (Or I-484, the inner roadgeek whispers)

Quote from: kernals12 on April 12, 2021, 11:47:11 AM
Quote from: kurumi on April 07, 2021, 11:58:55 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on April 07, 2021, 09:55:35 PM
Whats going on with I-91 construction now just south of Hartford?

Are there any plans to finally take care of that awful merge with 15 in Hartford?

Yup. https://i-91charteroakbridge.com/en

Connecticut just can't kick its left hand exit habit can it?
Left hand slip ramps that can maintain speed between adjacent freeways are not a problem. Left exits requiring you to slow down are.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Rothman on April 12, 2021, 06:18:38 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on April 12, 2021, 04:15:01 PM
Here's a thought experiment: what highway improvements would be made if Connecticut wasn't drowning in pension liabilities?

8 lanes on i-95 through Fairfield County seems like a given.
Fictional.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on April 12, 2021, 06:30:39 PM
No reason to get rid of the left hand one in East Lyme.  It's a vestige from the original turnpike; the I-95 portion was added later.  Another one that needs to be fixed is the I-84/CT 72 complex in Plainville.  Many an accident has occurred there amongst all the weaving (and the sharp corners west of the split). You actually have 3 left exits in a row heading eastbound.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on April 12, 2021, 07:16:21 PM
Well, for East Lyme, what needs to happen is more lanes coming into the split.  Ideally, it would be 4, with 2 for I-95, 1 for I-395, and an option lane.  I've seen plans which have Exit 76 converted to a right hand exit, and that's probably what will happen eventually, as it'll be a full scale reconstruction through the area. 

The I-84/CT 72 Plainville "gap" got better when it was widened, but its very curvy through there and there's not much you can do about that due to the natural features of the area.  I'd get rid of Slater Road's left exit, for sure.  What I really can't stand is these left exits to surface roads (Park Rd, Flatbush, Sisson, Governor, all meant for freeways). 

I'm surprised the I-691/I-91 Meriden project retains the I-691 left exits to I-91, especially 691EB to 91NB.  Since I-691 has a wide variable median in the area, I would think I-691 EB could be shifted north and permit a ramp to 91 NB to be a "flyover".  Probably not in there to minimize costs. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on April 12, 2021, 07:28:31 PM
Quote from: Rothman on April 12, 2021, 06:18:38 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on April 12, 2021, 04:15:01 PM
Here's a thought experiment: what highway improvements would be made if Connecticut wasn't drowning in pension liabilities?

8 lanes on i-95 through Fairfield County seems like a given.
Fictional.
The only way for it not to be fictional is if you cite the list of what CT has proposed and shelved due to $.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on April 12, 2021, 08:04:34 PM
Almost all of Connecticut's unfinished freeways are unfinished due to lack of funds. Even Super 7 was given the green light by a federal judge in 1980 and would've long been finished by the time my family moved to Ridgefield in 2000.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on April 12, 2021, 09:06:39 PM
NIMBYs. Gold Coast NIMBYs. Sorry. Just not going to happen, ever.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on April 13, 2021, 07:53:48 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on April 12, 2021, 03:20:33 PM
Personally, I think they should've moved the Exit 29 ramp to where the Exit 27 ramp is currently.  And the fact that the CT 15 South to I-91 South ramp isn't being altered one bit as part of this project seems ridiculous to me... it should be a 2-lane ramp as well, and enter I-91 South on the right, not left.  The existing CT 15 South ramp to Brainard Rd, which has an I-91 South "second option" ramp should've been made 2 lanes.  But I digress........

A lot on I-84 could be eliminated fairly easily, and probably will be in time.  Some were meant for roads which never got built, such as the Flatbush Freeway and the Sisson Ave ramps.  Those with CT 8 in Waterbury will probably be eliminated some day when that whole mixmaster is replaced.  And eventually the one big one remaining on I-95 North at I-395 in East Lyme will go.  A couple on I-91 in the New Haven area could probably go... Willow St was another freeway that never happened.  I have no problem with the left exit in Groton at I-95 North Exit 86.
Remember that you can also use Exit 87 to reach I-91 S. That is probably the reason for the one-lane ramp for Exit 86. Personally, I don't see why they can't make the center lane an option lane and have it zipper merge further down. Then you wouldn't have people cutting over at the last minute. Also, more signage directing traffic to use Exit 87 if 86 is backed up would help.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: deathtopumpkins on April 13, 2021, 08:29:53 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on April 12, 2021, 04:09:38 PMBack around 2000 I attended a public meeting where the Connecticut DOT proposed reconfiguring the two I-84 interchanges with US-7 to eliminate the left-hand exits that was part of a larger proposal to widen I-84 from the New York state line to Waterbury. Like most other big-ticket projects in Connecticut, the plans for this were placed on a shelf at DOT headquarters, never to be seen or heard of again. The concept at the time was to widen I-84 from 6 to 8 lanes through Danbury, and from 4 to 6 lanes for the remainder of the New York-Waterbury corridor. The left-hand ramps to US-7 would have been moved to right-hand exit/entrance with new flyover bridges and braided ramps to Exits 4 and 6 (US-6 west and US-6 east, respectively) to eliminate the weaving that causes the congestion and traffic crashes in those areas. The last DOT estimate for the entire New York-Waterbury corridor before they shelved the plan was around $5 billion. I don't know how they came up with that number, but I think it's grossly overestimated given that from Exit 8 to Exit 18, I-84's median is wide enough to accommodate an additional lane in each direction without the need to acquire new ROW. I would think the interchanges with US-7 would be the most costly components of reworking I-84 through Danbury, but I would see each interchange being a couple hundred million. The Rochambeau Bridge that is already wide enough to accommodate at least an additional lane of traffic in each direction is being completely rebuilt at a cost of around $60 million. So I don't get where they came up with $5 billion from. If they're including the replacement of the Waterbury Mixmaster in that estimate, then $5 billion might be more believable.

CTDOT is proceeding with widening I-84 from the NY line through Danbury, including rebuilding virtually every interchange up to exit 8. It's in design right now, and will include changes to the US 7 interchanges, though specific concepts are still being developed. There has been discussion of moving to right-hand entrances and exits, but that's all I can say now.

Waterbury recently got a major widening and reconstruction project on I-84 east of the Mixmaster, and the Mixmaster itself is currently getting a rehab (though no real changes).

The state can't afford to rebuild 30+ miles of interstate in one go, so they're doing it piecemeal. The plans were not just "placed on a shelf at DOT headquarters, never to be seen or heard of again."
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on April 13, 2021, 10:00:35 AM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on April 13, 2021, 08:29:53 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on April 12, 2021, 04:09:38 PMBack around 2000 I attended a public meeting where the Connecticut DOT proposed reconfiguring the two I-84 interchanges with US-7 to eliminate the left-hand exits that was part of a larger proposal to widen I-84 from the New York state line to Waterbury. Like most other big-ticket projects in Connecticut, the plans for this were placed on a shelf at DOT headquarters, never to be seen or heard of again. The concept at the time was to widen I-84 from 6 to 8 lanes through Danbury, and from 4 to 6 lanes for the remainder of the New York-Waterbury corridor. The left-hand ramps to US-7 would have been moved to right-hand exit/entrance with new flyover bridges and braided ramps to Exits 4 and 6 (US-6 west and US-6 east, respectively) to eliminate the weaving that causes the congestion and traffic crashes in those areas. The last DOT estimate for the entire New York-Waterbury corridor before they shelved the plan was around $5 billion. I don't know how they came up with that number, but I think it's grossly overestimated given that from Exit 8 to Exit 18, I-84's median is wide enough to accommodate an additional lane in each direction without the need to acquire new ROW. I would think the interchanges with US-7 would be the most costly components of reworking I-84 through Danbury, but I would see each interchange being a couple hundred million. The Rochambeau Bridge that is already wide enough to accommodate at least an additional lane of traffic in each direction is being completely rebuilt at a cost of around $60 million. So I don't get where they came up with $5 billion from. If they're including the replacement of the Waterbury Mixmaster in that estimate, then $5 billion might be more believable.

CTDOT is proceeding with widening I-84 from the NY line through Danbury, including rebuilding virtually every interchange up to exit 8. It's in design right now, and will include changes to the US 7 interchanges, though specific concepts are still being developed. There has been discussion of moving to right-hand entrances and exits, but that's all I can say now.

Waterbury recently got a major widening and reconstruction project on I-84 east of the Mixmaster, and the Mixmaster itself is currently getting a rehab (though no real changes).

The state can't afford to rebuild 30+ miles of interstate in one go, so they're doing it piecemeal. The plans were not just "placed on a shelf at DOT headquarters, never to be seen or heard of again."

Okay, it was 21 years ago when I attended that public meeting concerning I-84 between New York and Waterbury, so it sounds like they've come up with a way forward for getting the reconstruction and widening done. I recall that part of 2000 proposal was to remove the freeway stub at Route 34 in Newtown, replace the Directional-T interchange with a diamond interchange, and build a rest area on some of the land freed up with the stub's removal. Is that still part of the plan?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on April 13, 2021, 10:46:59 AM
ctmirror.org/2018/02/22/ct-could-widen-i-95-without-seizing-private-land-but-can-it-afford-the-work/amp/

A few years ago, the governor said it would be possible to widen 95 from Bridgeport to the New York border to 7 lanes without any eminent domain.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on April 13, 2021, 11:39:02 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on April 13, 2021, 10:46:59 AM
ctmirror.org/2018/02/22/ct-could-widen-i-95-without-seizing-private-land-but-can-it-afford-the-work/amp/

A few years ago, the governor said it would be possible to widen 95 from Bridgeport to the New York border to 7 lanes without any eminent domain.

That wouldn't do a whole lot of good, as it would mean 4 lanes in one direction, while keeping 3 in the other. I don't buy that they can widen I-95 without acquiring additional ROW, as the current ROW through Fairfield County is pretty tight as it is, and some sections of I-95 in Fairfield County don't even have shoulders.  You might be able to add a fourth lane in each direction with restriping in some spots where the median barrier was reconstructed, but then you sacrifice your left and right shoulders, so drivers have nowhere to pull off if their vehicle breaks down. Not a good solution IMHO.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jmacswimmer on April 13, 2021, 11:56:40 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on April 13, 2021, 11:39:02 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on April 13, 2021, 10:46:59 AM
ctmirror.org/2018/02/22/ct-could-widen-i-95-without-seizing-private-land-but-can-it-afford-the-work/amp/

A few years ago, the governor said it would be possible to widen 95 from Bridgeport to the New York border to 7 lanes without any eminent domain.
That wouldn't do a whole lot of good, as it would mean 4 lanes in one direction, while keeping 3 in the other. I don't buy that they can widen I-95 without acquiring additional ROW, as the current ROW through Fairfield County is pretty tight as it is, and some sections of I-95 in Fairfield County don't even have shoulders.  You might be able to add a fourth lane in each direction with restriping in some spots where the median barrier was reconstructed, but then you sacrifice your left and right shoulders, so drivers have nowhere to pull off if their vehicle breaks down. Not a good solution IMHO.

Would this have been a permanent 4th lane in only one direction, or a reversible center lane with zipper barrier?  It would probably take the entire mid-day period between rush hours to reverse the lane from southbound to northbound :-D
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on April 13, 2021, 12:06:11 PM
Quote from: jmacswimmer on April 13, 2021, 11:56:40 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on April 13, 2021, 11:39:02 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on April 13, 2021, 10:46:59 AM
ctmirror.org/2018/02/22/ct-could-widen-i-95-without-seizing-private-land-but-can-it-afford-the-work/amp/

A few years ago, the governor said it would be possible to widen 95 from Bridgeport to the New York border to 7 lanes without any eminent domain.
That wouldn't do a whole lot of good, as it would mean 4 lanes in one direction, while keeping 3 in the other. I don't buy that they can widen I-95 without acquiring additional ROW, as the current ROW through Fairfield County is pretty tight as it is, and some sections of I-95 in Fairfield County don't even have shoulders.  You might be able to add a fourth lane in each direction with restriping in some spots where the median barrier was reconstructed, but then you sacrifice your left and right shoulders, so drivers have nowhere to pull off if their vehicle breaks down. Not a good solution IMHO.

Would this have been a permanent 4th lane in only one direction, or a reversible center lane with zipper barrier?  It would probably take the entire mid-day period between rush hours to reverse the lane from southbound to northbound :-D

The extra lane would be westbound in some places and eastbound in others.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on April 13, 2021, 12:17:03 PM
I'm also sure that if the funds are available, ConnDOT would relish a battle to duplicate the Merritt. If New Jersey can put 16 lanes on the GSP, then we can put 8 on the Merritt. If twice as many people could enjoy the beauty of that iconic Parkway, that would be a good thing.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jmacswimmer on April 13, 2021, 12:31:04 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on April 13, 2021, 12:06:11 PM
The extra lane would be westbound in some places and eastbound in others.

Interesting...I would think this would just create more bottlenecks each time the extra lane ends and "switches sides".

Quote from: kernals12 on April 13, 2021, 12:17:03 PM
I'm also sure that if the funds are available, ConnDOT would relish a battle to duplicate the Merritt. If New Jersey can put 16 lanes on the GSP, then we can put 8 on the Merritt. If twice as many people could enjoy the beauty of that iconic Parkway, that would be a good thing.

I don't disagree the Merritt needs widening/modernizing, but I imagine the Merritt Parkway Conservancy would fight that tooth & nail?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on April 13, 2021, 01:57:22 PM
As we've discussed before the Garden State Parkway is a different beast, especially the Driscoll Bridge, compared to the Merritt. The Merritt would be right in the middle of Fairfield County and its richest sections. There are so many bridges that would have to be torn down, trees knocked down, I can't see anyone going for it.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on April 13, 2021, 02:17:23 PM
You wouldn't need to do anything to the bridges. Currently, the Merritt takes up 150 feet of a 300 foot right of way. That extra space to the South was reserved for future expansion. You'd leave the current Merritt alone while building a 2nd one to the South. Then once you're finished, the existing eastbound lanes would become westbound express lanes in a 2-2-2-2 configuration.

Yes there would be howls of protest from NIMBYs, but I think the public would side with the state.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on April 13, 2021, 03:35:07 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on April 13, 2021, 02:17:23 PM
You wouldn't need to do anything to the bridges. Currently, the Merritt takes up 150 feet of a 300 foot right of way. That extra space to the South was reserved for future expansion. You'd leave the current Merritt alone while building a 2nd one to the South. Then once you're finished, the existing eastbound lanes would become westbound express lanes in a 2-2-2-2 configuration.

Yes there would be howls of protest from NIMBYs, but I think the public would side with the state.


I think you greatly underestimate the strength of Fairfield County's wealth on this one. They would win out with ease through lawsuits upon lawsuits and the court of public opinion.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on April 13, 2021, 04:12:39 PM
RE:  The Merritt, just look at what they're going through trying to complete the partial US 7 expressway interchange in Norwalk.  The Merritt Parkway Conservancy is fighting it tooth and nail.  And that's just completing a partial interchange. 

You would definitely have to modify some bridges if you were going to add another carriageway and convert the existing roadway to WB/SB only.  Some have openings in the bridges for only one direction.  Just tell me how would you modify this one without the MPC flipping out:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.2407885,-73.117612,3a,49y,50.44h,87.73t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCrQ3at6_1Njq9kzHIXgy7A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

If the MPC was as proactive back in the early 80s as they are today, we probably would not have the present CT 15/25 and CT 15/8 interchanges as they sit today, what with flyovers and such:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.2371552,-73.1538577,3a,75y,99.32h,84.97t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sghMvuDKuGzZ6EUFxmISomQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Though I have to think, the flyovers at the CT 15/8 interchange could probably become loop ramps, if they needed to make some concessions.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Rothman on April 13, 2021, 04:15:42 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on April 13, 2021, 02:17:23 PM
You wouldn't need to do anything to the bridges. Currently, the Merritt takes up 150 feet of a 300 foot right of way. That extra space to the South was reserved for future expansion. You'd leave the current Merritt alone while building a 2nd one to the South. Then once you're finished, the existing eastbound lanes would become westbound express lanes in a 2-2-2-2 configuration.

Yes there would be howls of protest from NIMBYs, but I think the public would side with the state.
Um...I'll take that bet.

You're way out of touch with how people feel about the CT parkways.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on April 13, 2021, 04:19:39 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on April 13, 2021, 03:35:07 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on April 13, 2021, 02:17:23 PM
You wouldn't need to do anything to the bridges. Currently, the Merritt takes up 150 feet of a 300 foot right of way. That extra space to the South was reserved for future expansion. You'd leave the current Merritt alone while building a 2nd one to the South. Then once you're finished, the existing eastbound lanes would become westbound express lanes in a 2-2-2-2 configuration.

Yes there would be howls of protest from NIMBYs, but I think the public would side with the state.


I think you greatly underestimate the strength of Fairfield County's wealth on this one. They would win out with ease through lawsuits upon lawsuits and the court of public opinion.

The Merritt's congestion is notorious, and is a massive source of annoyance for Fairfield County commuters. I definitely think ConnDOT would win in the court of public opinion.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Rothman on April 13, 2021, 04:21:40 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on April 13, 2021, 04:19:39 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on April 13, 2021, 03:35:07 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on April 13, 2021, 02:17:23 PM
You wouldn't need to do anything to the bridges. Currently, the Merritt takes up 150 feet of a 300 foot right of way. That extra space to the South was reserved for future expansion. You'd leave the current Merritt alone while building a 2nd one to the South. Then once you're finished, the existing eastbound lanes would become westbound express lanes in a 2-2-2-2 configuration.

Yes there would be howls of protest from NIMBYs, but I think the public would side with the state.


I think you greatly underestimate the strength of Fairfield County's wealth on this one. They would win out with ease through lawsuits upon lawsuits and the court of public opinion.

The Merritt's congestion is notorious, and is a massive source of annoyance for Fairfield County commuters. I definitely think ConnDOT would win in the court of public opinion.
No way.  People accept the congestion and want to preserve the character of the parkways.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on April 13, 2021, 04:24:58 PM
Quote from: Rothman on April 13, 2021, 04:21:40 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on April 13, 2021, 04:19:39 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on April 13, 2021, 03:35:07 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on April 13, 2021, 02:17:23 PM
You wouldn't need to do anything to the bridges. Currently, the Merritt takes up 150 feet of a 300 foot right of way. That extra space to the South was reserved for future expansion. You'd leave the current Merritt alone while building a 2nd one to the South. Then once you're finished, the existing eastbound lanes would become westbound express lanes in a 2-2-2-2 configuration.

Yes there would be howls of protest from NIMBYs, but I think the public would side with the state.


I think you greatly underestimate the strength of Fairfield County's wealth on this one. They would win out with ease through lawsuits upon lawsuits and the court of public opinion.

The Merritt's congestion is notorious, and is a massive source of annoyance for Fairfield County commuters. I definitely think ConnDOT would win in the court of public opinion.
No way.  People accept the congestion and want to preserve the character of the parkways.

This would conserve the character of the parkway. In fact, it would provide twice as parkway to love.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on April 13, 2021, 04:29:06 PM
Fairfield County commuters would happily sit in traffic rather than see the Merritt destroyed from its looks. Some might argue it already looks too modern with the signage and the aforementioned ramps at exit 51.

Twice as much parkway to love won't matter to them.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Rothman on April 13, 2021, 04:33:29 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on April 13, 2021, 04:24:58 PM
Quote from: Rothman on April 13, 2021, 04:21:40 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on April 13, 2021, 04:19:39 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on April 13, 2021, 03:35:07 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on April 13, 2021, 02:17:23 PM
You wouldn't need to do anything to the bridges. Currently, the Merritt takes up 150 feet of a 300 foot right of way. That extra space to the South was reserved for future expansion. You'd leave the current Merritt alone while building a 2nd one to the South. Then once you're finished, the existing eastbound lanes would become westbound express lanes in a 2-2-2-2 configuration.

Yes there would be howls of protest from NIMBYs, but I think the public would side with the state.


I think you greatly underestimate the strength of Fairfield County's wealth on this one. They would win out with ease through lawsuits upon lawsuits and the court of public opinion.

The Merritt's congestion is notorious, and is a massive source of annoyance for Fairfield County commuters. I definitely think ConnDOT would win in the court of public opinion.
No way.  People accept the congestion and want to preserve the character of the parkways.

This would conserve the character of the parkway. In fact, it would provide twice as parkway to love.
Keep tilting against that windmill.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: cl94 on April 13, 2021, 06:37:53 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on April 13, 2021, 04:24:58 PM
Quote from: Rothman on April 13, 2021, 04:21:40 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on April 13, 2021, 04:19:39 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on April 13, 2021, 03:35:07 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on April 13, 2021, 02:17:23 PM
You wouldn't need to do anything to the bridges. Currently, the Merritt takes up 150 feet of a 300 foot right of way. That extra space to the South was reserved for future expansion. You'd leave the current Merritt alone while building a 2nd one to the South. Then once you're finished, the existing eastbound lanes would become westbound express lanes in a 2-2-2-2 configuration.

Yes there would be howls of protest from NIMBYs, but I think the public would side with the state.


I think you greatly underestimate the strength of Fairfield County's wealth on this one. They would win out with ease through lawsuits upon lawsuits and the court of public opinion.

The Merritt's congestion is notorious, and is a massive source of annoyance for Fairfield County commuters. I definitely think ConnDOT would win in the court of public opinion.
No way.  People accept the congestion and want to preserve the character of the parkways.

This would conserve the character of the parkway. In fact, it would provide twice as parkway to love.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha yeah, no. The Merritt is sacred. You can't cut an effing tree along the road without a laundry list of complaints. There is no way in hell that it will ever be widened.

The backlash to the CT 8 and CT 25 interchanges was massive and those were just two spot projects. Do you really think people will agree to widening the entire road?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: mtantillo on April 13, 2021, 06:38:33 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on April 13, 2021, 04:24:58 PM
Quote from: Rothman on April 13, 2021, 04:21:40 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on April 13, 2021, 04:19:39 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on April 13, 2021, 03:35:07 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on April 13, 2021, 02:17:23 PM
You wouldn't need to do anything to the bridges. Currently, the Merritt takes up 150 feet of a 300 foot right of way. That extra space to the South was reserved for future expansion. You'd leave the current Merritt alone while building a 2nd one to the South. Then once you're finished, the existing eastbound lanes would become westbound express lanes in a 2-2-2-2 configuration.

Yes there would be howls of protest from NIMBYs, but I think the public would side with the state.


I think you greatly underestimate the strength of Fairfield County's wealth on this one. They would win out with ease through lawsuits upon lawsuits and the court of public opinion.

The Merritt's congestion is notorious, and is a massive source of annoyance for Fairfield County commuters. I definitely think ConnDOT would win in the court of public opinion.
No way.  People accept the congestion and want to preserve the character of the parkways.

This would conserve the character of the parkway. In fact, it would provide twice as parkway to love.

Nope.

Thank you, next.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on April 13, 2021, 07:17:11 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on April 13, 2021, 03:35:07 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on April 13, 2021, 02:17:23 PM
You wouldn't need to do anything to the bridges. Currently, the Merritt takes up 150 feet of a 300 foot right of way. That extra space to the South was reserved for future expansion. You'd leave the current Merritt alone while building a 2nd one to the South. Then once you're finished, the existing eastbound lanes would become westbound express lanes in a 2-2-2-2 configuration.

Yes there would be howls of protest from NIMBYs, but I think the public would side with the state.


I think you greatly underestimate the strength of Fairfield County's wealth on this one. They would win out with ease through lawsuits upon lawsuits and the court of public opinion.
Might I remind you that the Merritt Parkway goes through one of the wealthiest areas in the country, with a lot of people who have an endless amount of cash to pay for the best lawyers just to keep ConnDOT from making any substantive changes to the Parkway. Note that more than 30 years after the US-7 freeway was extended past the Parkway, they're still fighting over whether or not to complete the 7/15 interchange.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: cl94 on April 13, 2021, 08:05:24 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on April 13, 2021, 07:17:11 PM
Might I remind you that the Merritt Parkway goes through one of the wealthiest areas in the country, with a lot of people who have an endless amount of cash to pay for the best lawyers just to keep ConnDOT from making any substantive changes to the Parkway. Note that more than 30 years after the US-7 freeway was extended past the Parkway, they're still fighting over whether or not to complete the 7/15 interchange.

I don't think that interchange will ever be completed. The original interchange and the ones at 8 and 25 caused a massive uproar even before the MPC was powerful. ConnDOT is not allowed to change the appearance of the road.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on April 13, 2021, 08:17:37 PM
Quote from: cl94 on April 13, 2021, 08:05:24 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on April 13, 2021, 07:17:11 PM
Might I remind you that the Merritt Parkway goes through one of the wealthiest areas in the country, with a lot of people who have an endless amount of cash to pay for the best lawyers just to keep ConnDOT from making any substantive changes to the Parkway. Note that more than 30 years after the US-7 freeway was extended past the Parkway, they're still fighting over whether or not to complete the 7/15 interchange.

I don't think that interchange will ever be completed. The original interchange and the ones at 8 and 25 caused a massive uproar even before the MPC was powerful. ConnDOT is not allowed to change the appearance of the road.

As far as I can tell, the MPC has been powerful since the 70s when they supposedly were able to block 8 lanes on the Merritt.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: The Ghostbuster on April 13, 2021, 08:55:01 PM
Does the Merritt Parkway really need to be 8 lanes wide? Or would 6 lanes be sufficient, in the unlikely event that a widening proposal isn't shot down? What are the present-day traffic counts on the Merritt Parkway?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on April 13, 2021, 09:04:46 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 13, 2021, 08:55:01 PM
Does the Merritt Parkway really need to be 8 lanes wide? Or would 6 lanes be sufficient, in the unlikely event that a widening proposal isn't shot down? What are the present-day traffic counts on the Merritt Parkway?

Adding a lane in each direction to the existing Merritt is not possible. You'd need to replace all 69 of the famous art deco bridges, it'd just be far too expensive and disruptive (and unpopular). Building a second Merritt in the surplus right of way to the south would however be pretty simple. In which case you might as well add 4 lanes, because if you built 2, you'd wind up with this weird 2-2-2 configuration.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on April 13, 2021, 09:06:50 PM
Your comment literally proves our points.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Conn_Roadgeek on April 13, 2021, 09:23:01 PM
Kernals, the simple act of making the Merritt 8 lanes wide will completely ruin it's character and set half the state alight. You're definitely off the mark on this one.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on April 13, 2021, 09:26:53 PM
Quote from: CT_Roads on April 13, 2021, 09:23:01 PM
Kernals, the simple act of making the Merritt 8 lanes wide will completely ruin it's character and set half the state alight. You're definitely off the mark on this one.
You can duplicate all the bridges onto this 2nd Merritt. And based on the anecdotes I've seen, people are really annoyed by the traffic. And the original Merritt was designed with this expansion in mind, hence the reserved right of way to the south.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Rothman on April 13, 2021, 09:29:31 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on April 13, 2021, 09:26:53 PM
Quote from: CT_Roads on April 13, 2021, 09:23:01 PM
Kernals, the simple act of making the Merritt 8 lanes wide will completely ruin it's character and set half the state alight. You're definitely off the mark on this one.
You can duplicate all the bridges onto this 2nd Merritt. And based on the anecdotes I've seen, people are really annoyed by the traffic. And the original Merritt was designed with this expansion in mind, hence the reserved right of way to the south.
Stating the same incorrect points over and over is really not a good move.  Might want to think about the broader consequences of doing such.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on April 13, 2021, 09:40:23 PM
I'm not even sure what his nonsense about building two new carriageways in reserved ROW is about.  I just did a search and could only find one reference (https://www.americanscientist.org/article/the-merritt-parkway-and-other-driving-respites) to such a thing, and looking it over on Google Maps, I can't find anywhere where two new carriageways could be fit in without taking property, relocating utilities, etc.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on April 13, 2021, 09:45:50 PM
Quote from: vdeane on April 13, 2021, 09:40:23 PM
I'm not even sure what his nonsense about building two new carriageways in reserved ROW is about.  I just did a search and could only find one reference (https://www.americanscientist.org/article/the-merritt-parkway-and-other-driving-respites) to such a thing, and looking it over on Google Maps, I can't find anywhere where two new carriageways could be fit in without taking property, relocating utilities, etc.
https://kurumi.com/roads/ct/merrittpkwy.html
https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/Merritt-Parkway-Trail-Study/Study-Area
https://www.amherst.edu/users/B/hfbloomer56/merrittpkytrl/node/117945
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: noelbotevera on April 13, 2021, 09:48:17 PM
Y'know, how about we like, ignore him? Considering his viewpoint of "hating public transit" is stupid (news flash: public transit ain't going anywhere), I don't see the reason to reason with him.

I've seen the Merritt. It's narrow, it's old. You may as well try and build a bridge across the Long Island Sound while you're at it.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on April 13, 2021, 09:49:24 PM
In the 80s, Bridgeport Businessman Francis D'Addario was a big booster of duplicating the Merritt. Here you can see him with a mock up of what it would've looked like
(https://i.imgur.com/VKm8A8h.png)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on April 13, 2021, 10:06:33 PM
Well..... moving on from the Merritt dualization pipedream  :pan:......

Some concrete (pun intended?) work on the Route 9 sign replacement project - southern section was observed today with new concrete foundations in the ground at the Exit 11 onramps in Middletown.  Thank god the experiment to convert onramp signage to sheet aluminum was just that, only making it to the Route 8 - middle section and some spots here n' there. 

Nothing on the mainline yet, though there's some work taking place just before Exit 9, which could be for the new overhead that will replace the ground-mount.  Hard to tell as I always come through that section after dark.  No other progress to report, outside of stakes in place in the approximate location for new guide signs.... there's just one stake per sign (more of a generalization than the usual two stakes where each foundation will go). 

Haven't checked on the central or northern sections yet for progress there, but soon hopefully. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on April 13, 2021, 10:49:44 PM
No one in Greenwich and New Canaan care how long your commute on the Merritt takes, and if the people in those towns don't want changes to the Merritt then that is what we'll get. And you could widen 95 to 12 lanes and it would still look like that at rush hour, in the summer, and around holidays. It was so much nicer during the lockdown a year ago lol.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on April 14, 2021, 07:40:37 AM
Whatever. If the state had the money, I think Super 7 would get extended from Brookfield to New Milford, CT 11 would be finished, and 384 would be a freeway to the Rhode Island border. How about that?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on April 14, 2021, 08:39:16 AM
I think the best course of action would be for the state to create a CT Parkway Authority as a public benefit corporation, appoint the members of the Conservancy to its board of directors, and transfer to it the ownership of the Merritt and WC Parkways.

Then ConnDOT should consider the feasibility of new Interstate corridor between I-84 and CT 15, possibly cutting across the entire state.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on April 14, 2021, 09:38:20 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 14, 2021, 08:39:16 AM
I think the best course of action would be for the state to create a CT Parkway Authority as a public benefit corporation, appoint the members of the Conservancy to its board of directors, and transfer to it the ownership of the Merritt and WC Parkways.

Then ConnDOT should consider the feasibility of new Interstate corridor between I-84 and CT 15, possibly cutting across the entire state.

You mean revive the old Peekskill-New Haven Expressway plan? That would definitely not be feasible. Even in 1969, ConnDOT could reassure Ridgefielders that it was "just a line on a map".
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on April 14, 2021, 10:03:15 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on April 14, 2021, 07:40:37 AM
Whatever. If the state had the money, I think Super 7 would get extended from Brookfield to New Milford, CT 11 would be finished, and 384 would be a freeway to the Rhode Island border. How about that?

Uhh...nope.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on April 14, 2021, 10:21:09 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on April 14, 2021, 09:38:20 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 14, 2021, 08:39:16 AM
I think the best course of action would be for the state to create a CT Parkway Authority as a public benefit corporation, appoint the members of the Conservancy to its board of directors, and transfer to it the ownership of the Merritt and WC Parkways.

Then ConnDOT should consider the feasibility of new Interstate corridor between I-84 and CT 15, possibly cutting across the entire state.

You mean revive the old Peekskill-New Haven Expressway plan? That would definitely not be feasible. Even in 1969, ConnDOT could reassure Ridgefielders that it was "just a line on a map".

More like Peekskill to Jamestown. Have it end at RI 138.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on April 14, 2021, 05:11:06 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on April 14, 2021, 10:03:15 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on April 14, 2021, 07:40:37 AM
Whatever. If the state had the money, I think Super 7 would get extended from Brookfield to New Milford, CT 11 would be finished, and 384 would be a freeway to the Rhode Island border. How about that?

Uhh...nope.
That sounds reasonable to me. What's your nope? I'd add the NW loop of I-291.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on April 14, 2021, 05:27:21 PM
Quote from: Alps on April 14, 2021, 05:11:06 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on April 14, 2021, 10:03:15 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on April 14, 2021, 07:40:37 AM
Whatever. If the state had the money, I think Super 7 would get extended from Brookfield to New Milford, CT 11 would be finished, and 384 would be a freeway to the Rhode Island border. How about that?

Uhh...nope.
That sounds reasonable to me. What's your nope? I'd add the NW loop of I-291.

The only way you could finish 291 is if you put heating coils into the part that goes near the Hartford reservoirs to eliminate the use of road salt.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: The Ghostbuster on April 14, 2021, 09:04:54 PM
Even if the state of Connecticut had an infinite amount of money to spend, I highly doubt anything would be any different transportation-wise. Everything that could-have/should-have been built would still not be constructed, not even one inch. Please correct me if any of you think I'm mistaken in my assumption about transportation in Connecticut.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on April 14, 2021, 09:49:08 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 14, 2021, 09:04:54 PM
Even if the state of Connecticut had an infinite amount of money to spend, I highly doubt anything would be any different transportation-wise. Everything that could-have/should-have been built would still not be constructed, not even one inch. Please correct me if any of you think I'm mistaken in my assumption about transportation in Connecticut.
Maybe the gas tax would be lower instead?  :-D
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on April 14, 2021, 09:53:56 PM
Quote from: Alps on April 14, 2021, 09:49:08 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 14, 2021, 09:04:54 PM
Even if the state of Connecticut had an infinite amount of money to spend, I highly doubt anything would be any different transportation-wise. Everything that could-have/should-have been built would still not be constructed, not even one inch. Please correct me if any of you think I'm mistaken in my assumption about transportation in Connecticut.
Maybe the gas tax would be lower instead?  :-D

Probably not.  Once a tax is enacted, it's almost impossible to get rid of it unless it's replaced with another tax.  In 1991, the legislature passed a "temporary"  state income tax.  30 years later it's still there.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on April 14, 2021, 09:54:56 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on April 14, 2021, 09:53:56 PM
Quote from: Alps on April 14, 2021, 09:49:08 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 14, 2021, 09:04:54 PM
Even if the state of Connecticut had an infinite amount of money to spend, I highly doubt anything would be any different transportation-wise. Everything that could-have/should-have been built would still not be constructed, not even one inch. Please correct me if any of you think I'm mistaken in my assumption about transportation in Connecticut.
Maybe the gas tax would be lower instead?  :-D

Probably not.  Once a tax is enacted, it's almost impossible to get rid of it unless it's replaced with another tax.  In 1991, the legislature passed a "temporary"  state income tax.  30 years later it's still there.

Yeah no, Governor Lowell Weicker was very clear at the time that he intended the income tax be permanent.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on April 15, 2021, 03:01:10 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on April 14, 2021, 05:27:21 PM
Quote from: Alps on April 14, 2021, 05:11:06 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on April 14, 2021, 10:03:15 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on April 14, 2021, 07:40:37 AM
Whatever. If the state had the money, I think Super 7 would get extended from Brookfield to New Milford, CT 11 would be finished, and 384 would be a freeway to the Rhode Island border. How about that?

Uhh...nope.
That sounds reasonable to me. What's your nope? I'd add the NW loop of I-291.

The only way you could finish 291 is if you put heating coils into the part that goes near the Hartford reservoirs to eliminate the use of road salt.
Or just use sand instead.
My modern vision to complete the beltway has always been closer to a parkway than a freeway but with 12' lanes and full shoulders.
It would have a 55mph speed limit, a wooded landscape and a drainage system designed to lead runoff away from the reservoirs.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on April 15, 2021, 04:16:39 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 15, 2021, 03:01:10 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on April 14, 2021, 05:27:21 PM
Quote from: Alps on April 14, 2021, 05:11:06 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on April 14, 2021, 10:03:15 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on April 14, 2021, 07:40:37 AM
Whatever. If the state had the money, I think Super 7 would get extended from Brookfield to New Milford, CT 11 would be finished, and 384 would be a freeway to the Rhode Island border. How about that?

Uhh...nope.
That sounds reasonable to me. What's your nope? I'd add the NW loop of I-291.

The only way you could finish 291 is if you put heating coils into the part that goes near the Hartford reservoirs to eliminate the use of road salt.
Or just use sand instead.
My modern vision to complete the beltway has always been closer to a parkway than a freeway but with 12' lanes and full shoulders.
It would have a 55mph speed limit, a wooded landscape and a drainage system designed to lead runoff away from the reservoirs.

Would trucks be allowed?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on April 16, 2021, 08:54:36 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on April 15, 2021, 04:16:39 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 15, 2021, 03:01:10 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on April 14, 2021, 05:27:21 PM
Quote from: Alps on April 14, 2021, 05:11:06 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on April 14, 2021, 10:03:15 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on April 14, 2021, 07:40:37 AM
Whatever. If the state had the money, I think Super 7 would get extended from Brookfield to New Milford, CT 11 would be finished, and 384 would be a freeway to the Rhode Island border. How about that?

Uhh...nope.
That sounds reasonable to me. What's your nope? I'd add the NW loop of I-291.

The only way you could finish 291 is if you put heating coils into the part that goes near the Hartford reservoirs to eliminate the use of road salt.
Or just use sand instead.
My modern vision to complete the beltway has always been closer to a parkway than a freeway but with 12' lanes and full shoulders.
It would have a 55mph speed limit, a wooded landscape and a drainage system designed to lead runoff away from the reservoirs.

Would trucks be allowed?
Yes, as the bridges would be built to Interstate standards.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on April 16, 2021, 05:59:00 PM
Where would the 291 NW loop terminate? 84/9 interchange? And then why not build the SE portion and terminate it at 91/9 then you can renumber the 9 segment on the SW side and just have a full 291 beltway around Hartford.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: The Ghostbuster on April 16, 2021, 09:02:43 PM
Forget about your fantasies about constructing the long-canceled Interstate 291 western loop of Hartford. I highly doubt even one inch of new roadway will ever be constructed in Connecticut.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on April 17, 2021, 01:16:22 AM
Quote from: connroadgeek on April 16, 2021, 05:59:00 PM
Where would the 291 NW loop terminate? 84/9 interchange? And then why not build the SE portion and terminate it at 91/9 then you can renumber the 9 segment on the SW side and just have a full 291 beltway around Hartford.
I don't know that much about CT politics, but while both pieces could have been built with limitless money and political will, I feel like the NW loop was closer to reality.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on April 17, 2021, 09:54:04 AM
Quote from: Alps on April 17, 2021, 01:16:22 AM
I don't know that much about CT politics, but while both pieces could have been built with limitless money and political will, I feel like the NW loop was closer to reality.

I think that politically the SE side would actually be closer to reality....but we're talking about "a snowball's chance in hell" versus "a snowflake's chance in hell" -- both politically impossible, but one slightly more impossible than the other.

The Hartford metro area lacks decent infrastructure to go between the northern suburbs and the western suburbs, but there are a lot of affluent residents in that area who like their park or pastoral settings to the extent that the legal battles would be prohibitive.

I don't disagree -- the natural element is one of the nice things about living in the area -- but before I started WFH (years before the pandemic), I was being asked to commute from near BDL to Route 6 in Farmington near the Bristol line.  That commute required going through Hartford, or spending about an hour mostly on 2-lane roads.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Old Dominionite on April 19, 2021, 02:59:45 PM
The I-91 Charter Oak Bridge Project got me thinking. Why does ConnDOT continue to sign CT 15 all the way to East Hartford? The concurrency with US 5 along the Berlin Turnpike is no longer necessary (it hasn't been necessary in fact for 50+ years). It makes more sense if CT 15 terminated at US 5 in Meriden and a new Interstate designation (e.g. a revived I-491) was approved to connect I-91 and I-84 via the Charter Oak Bridge. I've always been struck that this connection, which is part of a primary route between New York and Boston, lacks an Interstate designation, especially after the "new" toll-free Charter Oak Bridge opened in the early 1990s.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: SectorZ on April 19, 2021, 03:43:39 PM
Quote from: Old Dominionite on April 19, 2021, 02:59:45 PM
The I-91 Charter Oak Bridge Project got me thinking. Why does ConnDOT continue to sign CT 15 all the way to East Hartford? The concurrency with US 5 along the Berlin Turnpike is no longer necessary (it hasn't been necessary in fact for 50+ years). It makes more sense if CT 15 terminated at US 5 in Meriden and a new Interstate designation (e.g. a revived I-491) was approved to connect I-91 and I-84 via the Charter Oak Bridge. I've always been struck that this connection, which is part of a primary route between New York and Boston, lacks an Interstate designation, especially after the "new" toll-free Charter Oak Bridge opened in the early 1990s.

I don't think anyone in Connecticut's decision-making lineage would have an answer to that why. When they cut 15 from the state border to E. Hartford they should have just gone all the way to Meriden. What's left un-numbered between where US 5 breaks off east of the Charter Oak and I-84 could just be an unsigned 4XX route with "To I-84 East/91 South" on the appropriate sides.

I think it's the nostalgia boner that states (like mine with 128) have with "important" state routes and not killing them off where appropriate.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on April 19, 2021, 04:04:28 PM
Quote from: Old Dominionite on April 19, 2021, 02:59:45 PM
The I-91 Charter Oak Bridge Project got me thinking. Why does ConnDOT continue to sign CT 15 all the way to East Hartford? The concurrency with US 5 along the Berlin Turnpike is no longer necessary (it hasn't been necessary in fact for 50+ years). It makes more sense if CT 15 terminated at US 5 in Meriden and a new Interstate designation (e.g. a revived I-491) was approved to connect I-91 and I-84 via the Charter Oak Bridge. I've always been struck that this connection, which is part of a primary route between New York and Boston, lacks an Interstate designation, especially after the "new" toll-free Charter Oak Bridge opened in the early 1990s.
CT 15 between the Berlin Tpke and the COB is not build to Interstate standards, and so you would be signing less than a mile of freeway as I-491.

So if they did truncate CT 15 back to I-91/I-691 they would probably sign it as CT 314 or not at all.

If anything, CT 3 should be signed I-491, considering that's what it was supposed to be originally.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on April 19, 2021, 06:35:17 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 19, 2021, 04:04:28 PM
Quote from: Old Dominionite on April 19, 2021, 02:59:45 PM
The I-91 Charter Oak Bridge Project got me thinking. Why does ConnDOT continue to sign CT 15 all the way to East Hartford? The concurrency with US 5 along the Berlin Turnpike is no longer necessary (it hasn't been necessary in fact for 50+ years). It makes more sense if CT 15 terminated at US 5 in Meriden and a new Interstate designation (e.g. a revived I-491) was approved to connect I-91 and I-84 via the Charter Oak Bridge. I've always been struck that this connection, which is part of a primary route between New York and Boston, lacks an Interstate designation, especially after the "new" toll-free Charter Oak Bridge opened in the early 1990s.
CT 15 between the Berlin Tpke and the COB is not build to Interstate standards, and so you would be signing less than a mile of freeway as I-491.

So if they did truncate CT 15 back to I-91/I-691 they would probably sign it as CT 314 or not at all.

If anything, CT 3 should be signed I-491, considering that's what it was supposed to be originally.
CT 15 should end at US 5 in Meriden at the end of the parkway portion.  You'd only have a very short stretch (about a half mile) between where US 5 leaves on Main St after the COB and I-84 that you could leave unsigned as an SR. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on April 20, 2021, 09:50:20 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on April 19, 2021, 06:35:17 PM
CT 15 should end at US 5 in Meriden at the end of the parkway portion.  You'd only have a very short stretch (about a half mile) between where US 5 leaves on Main St after the COB and I-84 that you could leave unsigned as an SR. 

Of course, one could take the view that US 5 is a redundant highway and the designation ought to be retired, and therefore CT15 should be retained.  (Although...is 84 east of East Hartford still secretly also CT 15?)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on April 20, 2021, 11:43:30 AM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on April 20, 2021, 09:50:20 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on April 19, 2021, 06:35:17 PM
CT 15 should end at US 5 in Meriden at the end of the parkway portion.  You'd only have a very short stretch (about a half mile) between where US 5 leaves on Main St after the COB and I-84 that you could leave unsigned as an SR. 

Of course, one could take the view that US 5 is a redundant highway and the designation ought to be retired, and therefore CT15 should be retained.  (Although...is 84 east of East Hartford still secretly also CT 15?)

No, the CT-15 designation was removed from I-84 between E. Hartford and Massachusetts when that section's designation was reverted from I-86 to I-84 back in the 1980s.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: The Ghostbuster on April 20, 2021, 12:32:31 PM
CT 15 is fine the way it presently is. Also, if CT 15 eventually gets mileage-based exits, the interchange at CT 175 should get a number too.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on April 20, 2021, 02:31:07 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 20, 2021, 12:32:31 PM
CT 15 is fine the way it presently is. Also, if CT 15 eventually gets mileage-based exits, the interchange at CT 175 should get a number too.

In that case, the interchange at CT 9/CT 372 should get one as well.  Wish they'd do it at the same time NYSDOT redoes the Hutch
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on April 20, 2021, 04:37:56 PM
I believe the Hutch is currently getting new signs/exit #s, so that ship has sailed.  It would've been nice to see the new #s when the signs were just replaced recently on the Merritt (from sheet alumnium to extruded aluminum, so they won't come apart at the seams so easily), but that didn't happen. 

I don't see the problem with the 5/15 multiplex.  It does seem that ConnDOT doesn't like to post US 5 along with CT 15 on the signs in Hartford, probably since the exit #s/ mileage is all CT 15's... not US 5.  To separate them more, you could have US 5 go straight at the north end of the Berlin Tpke, thru Hartford, replacing CT 159 and so on and giving present US 5 on the east side of the river another #... 17 or my 99.  Or just keep it the way it is for now.  The Berlin Tpke is 5/15 and will always be that.

RE:  CT 9 resigning, drove the northern half of the resigning project over the weekend.  The only sign to report is the previously-reported spot sign replacement (and the gantry for the 2nd spot replacement is half-installed, half-on site.  There are a lot more new foundations in, some will support overheads, some ground mounts.  These were visible down to Exit 19.  And yes, there are 1 or 2 new foundations for ground mounts in Middletown on the southernmost resigning.  But within the 3 projects, no new sheet signs up yet.. I used to remember the sheets went up first, then the foundations and such, but that doesn't seem to be the case here.  We're just in the very beginning of the construction season so there's plenty of time for progress yet to come.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on April 21, 2021, 10:46:35 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on April 20, 2021, 02:31:07 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 20, 2021, 12:32:31 PM
CT 15 is fine the way it presently is. Also, if CT 15 eventually gets mileage-based exits, the interchange at CT 175 should get a number too.

In that case, the interchange at CT 9/CT 372 should get one as well.  Wish they'd do it at the same time NYSDOT redoes the Hutch

Since the Berlin Turnpike is co-signed as US-5 and CT-15, which route's mileage would the Rt 9/372 interchange get? I would argue the exit number should be based on US-5's mileage since a US route takes precedence over a state route.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on April 21, 2021, 04:06:57 PM
Given CT 15's numbers appear further north, starting with #85 in Wethersfield, and those numbers continue CT 15's sequence, I'd say any exit on the Berlin Turnpike should get CT 15's mileage/numbers.  After all, US 5 joins the CT 15 mainline and separates from it via exits at both ends. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Old Dominionite on April 21, 2021, 05:00:37 PM
I don't think the 9/372 and 175 interchanges along the Berlin Turnpike require exit numbers. The Turnpike is a four-lane divided highway with lots of signalized intersections and driveways. It's not a high-speed arterial. I don't think exit numbers here provide any additional navigational benefit to the motorist.

I do think it makes a little more sense to number the exits from the Berlin Turnpike/Maple Ave split up to I-84. These exits are numbered now, but there was a period of time through the 1980s/early 1990s when they weren't.

So, I suggested earlier that CT 15 terminate at US 5 in Meriden. I still maintain this. I don't think the long concurrency with US 5 is necessary anymore, and I think the I-91/I-84 connection via the Charter Oak Bridge should receive an Interstate designation (signed or unsigned). Because I have nothing better to do at the moment, I offer an exit list below based on all of these thoughts.  :D

US 5 (sans CT 15) - Wethersfield to Hartford (mileage-based exits)

Exit 30: CT 314 (northbound only)
Exit 32: CT 99 (northbound/southbound)
Exit 33A: I-91 South (northbound/southbound)
Exit 33B: Brainard Rd (northbound/southbound)
Exit 34: I-91 North (northbound only)

"I-491" begins at the I-91 interchange in Hartford and runs east/west over the Charter Oak Bridge concurrent with US 5   (sequential-based exits given the length of the road segment)

Exit 1: I-91 South (southbound only)
Exit 2: US 5 North (northbound/southbound) - northbound exit also includes access to CT 2
Exit 3: Silver Lane (northbound only)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Rothman on April 21, 2021, 05:03:28 PM
Fictional...
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on April 21, 2021, 05:49:22 PM
The 9/372 and 175 exits won't get numbers, otherwise you'd have to give interchanges such as CT 10/ CT 322 in Milldale and US 6/CT 10 numbers as well.  The future numbers using CT 15 mileage would be:

79: CT 99 SOUTH
80A: I-91 SOUTH
80B: Brainard Rd/Airport Rd
81: I-91 NORTH (NB ONLY)
82 (A/B/C NB): US 5 NORTH/CT 2/East River Dr
83 (NB ONLY): Silver Lane
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on April 21, 2021, 06:20:28 PM
Some states do number interchanges that appear along divided arterials. Iowa comes to mind. This is a rare occurrence in CT and my guess is that they're not going to add numbers to interchanges that aren't already numbered.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on April 22, 2021, 08:43:37 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on April 21, 2021, 05:49:22 PM
The 9/372 and 175 exits won't get numbers, otherwise you'd have to give interchanges such as CT 10/ CT 322 in Milldale and US 6/CT 10 numbers as well.  The future numbers using CT 15 mileage would be:
Neither of those two examples are full interchanges the way CT 15 @ 175 is.
I wouldn't number the connection to CT 9 unless its modified to be free-flowing without stoplights. It's also not a direct interchange, thanks to CT 372.
At the very least they should put up mileposts along the Berlin Tpke.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on April 22, 2021, 12:29:14 PM
Quote from: Alps on April 21, 2021, 06:20:28 PM
Some states do number interchanges that appear along divided arterials. Iowa comes to mind. This is a rare occurrence in CT and my guess is that they're not going to add numbers to interchanges that aren't already numbered.

New York assigns exit numbers to both at-grade intersections and interchanges along some of its parkways.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on April 22, 2021, 08:53:21 PM
CT can't even build the full interchange of US-7 and CT-15 because of community issues.  People sued and stopped construction around 2007...2007! It's 2021 and not a shovel in the ground yet.  And to top it off, a stoplight option on the US-7 Expressway actually made it to the top 2 options....stoplights!!  Can you imagine!?!? 

So the talk about the beltway happening is laughable. Even, the tunnel is laughable. 

Even if the community is for it, I don't think the DOT can actually handle it.  Look at I-84 between Danbury and Waterbury.  The state dropped the ball.  Again, a study was done in 2000 recommending widening and nothing.  Then 9 years later an EIS was started and then stopped.  It's been 21 years since that study. 

The state is cheap.  I-91 through Middletown and CT-15 and I-691 won't even be 3-thru lanes.  It'll still narrow down to two.  The state just can't do things.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on April 23, 2021, 09:56:08 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on April 22, 2021, 08:53:21 PM
CT can't even build the full interchange of US-7 and CT-15 because of community issues.  People sued and stopped construction around 2007...2007! It's 2021 and not a shovel in the ground yet.  And to top it off, a stoplight option on the US-7 Expressway actually made it to the top 2 options....stoplights!!  Can you imagine!?!? 

So the talk about the beltway happening is laughable. Even, the tunnel is laughable. 

Even if the community is for it, I don't think the DOT can actually handle it.  Look at I-84 between Danbury and Waterbury.  The state dropped the ball.  Again, a study was done in 2000 recommending widening and nothing.  Then 9 years later an EIS was started and then stopped.  It's been 21 years since that study. 

The state is cheap.  I-91 through Middletown and CT-15 and I-691 won't even be 3-thru lanes.  It'll still narrow down to two.  The state just can't do things.

Yet they add new taxes and raise existing ones year after year, but no one can give you an honest answer on where the money's going. Definitely not in Connecticut's roads, so where does the money go?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on April 23, 2021, 10:56:37 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on April 23, 2021, 09:56:08 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on April 22, 2021, 08:53:21 PM
CT can't even build the full interchange of US-7 and CT-15 because of community issues.  People sued and stopped construction around 2007...2007! It's 2021 and not a shovel in the ground yet.  And to top it off, a stoplight option on the US-7 Expressway actually made it to the top 2 options....stoplights!!  Can you imagine!?!? 

So the talk about the beltway happening is laughable. Even, the tunnel is laughable. 

Even if the community is for it, I don't think the DOT can actually handle it.  Look at I-84 between Danbury and Waterbury.  The state dropped the ball.  Again, a study was done in 2000 recommending widening and nothing.  Then 9 years later an EIS was started and then stopped.  It's been 21 years since that study. 

The state is cheap.  I-91 through Middletown and CT-15 and I-691 won't even be 3-thru lanes.  It'll still narrow down to two.  The state just can't do things.

Yet they add new taxes and raise existing ones year after year, but no one can give you an honest answer on where the money's going. Definitely not in Connecticut's roads, so where does the money go?

The great mountain of pension liabilities
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on April 23, 2021, 08:49:36 PM
Another of the 2017 spot sign replacement sites went up within the past week, I-95 South at Exit 75 in East Lyme.  The installation of this one leaves just 3 sites from the 2017 project to go:  another on Route 9 South in New Britain and two on Route 8 in Bridgeport. 

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51135052939_bb5c762586_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2kUCvHM)95SB-Exit75 (https://flic.kr/p/2kUCvHM) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on April 23, 2021, 09:07:20 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on April 23, 2021, 08:49:36 PM
Another of the 2017 spot sign replacement sites went up within the past week, I-95 South at Exit 75 in East Lyme.  The installation of this one leaves just 3 sites from the 2017 project to go:  another on Route 9 South in New Britain and two on Route 8 in Bridgeport. 

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51135052939_bb5c762586_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2kUCvHM)95SB-Exit75 (https://flic.kr/p/2kUCvHM) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr
Stupid Flanders
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on April 24, 2021, 07:35:38 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on April 23, 2021, 09:07:20 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on April 23, 2021, 08:49:36 PM
Another of the 2017 spot sign replacement sites went up within the past week, I-95 South at Exit 75 in East Lyme.  The installation of this one leaves just 3 sites from the 2017 project to go:  another on Route 9 South in New Britain and two on Route 8 in Bridgeport. 

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51135052939_bb5c762586_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2kUCvHM)95SB-Exit75 (https://flic.kr/p/2kUCvHM) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr
Stupid Flanders

Looks like they left enough space in the exit tab for the eventual conversion to mile-based exit number. I'm guessing the new exit number would be 88A, since Exit 75 is at MP 88.05, and the I-395 split (Exit 76) is at MP 88.48 and would presumptively be Exit 88B after the conversion.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Old Dominionite on April 25, 2021, 06:30:11 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on April 22, 2021, 08:53:21 PM
CT can't even build the full interchange of US-7 and CT-15 because of community issues.  People sued and stopped construction around 2007...2007! It's 2021 and not a shovel in the ground yet.  And to top it off, a stoplight option on the US-7 Expressway actually made it to the top 2 options....stoplights!!  Can you imagine!?!? 

So the talk about the beltway happening is laughable. Even, the tunnel is laughable. 

Even if the community is for it, I don't think the DOT can actually handle it.  Look at I-84 between Danbury and Waterbury.  The state dropped the ball.  Again, a study was done in 2000 recommending widening and nothing.  Then 9 years later an EIS was started and then stopped.  It's been 21 years since that study. 

The state is cheap.  I-91 through Middletown and CT-15 and I-691 won't even be 3-thru lanes.  It'll still narrow down to two.  The state just can't do things.

Unfortunately, your cynicism is spot on. Having grown up in central Connecticut, I share it. It's why I have very little faith that the recent plans to relocate I-84 and I-91 through Hartford will ever come to fruition.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: bluecountry on April 26, 2021, 08:52:23 AM
Quote from: kurumi on April 07, 2021, 11:58:55 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on April 07, 2021, 09:55:35 PM
Whats going on with I-91 construction now just south of Hartford?

Are there any plans to finally take care of that awful merge with 15 in Hartford?

Yup. https://i-91charteroakbridge.com/en

When will it be done?

Quote from: vdeane on April 12, 2021, 01:26:25 PM
And CT did remove a couple down in New Haven when they were doing the work for the Q Bridge project (which means there's now a massively overpowered flyover sending traffic to the boulevard where the CT 34 freeway was), so it's interesting that they're adding one here.

Yea WHY did they make it a left hand exit?
I do not understand?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: bluecountry on April 26, 2021, 08:53:08 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on April 22, 2021, 08:53:21 PM
CT can't even build the full interchange of US-7 and CT-15 because of community issues.  People sued and stopped construction around 2007...2007! It's 2021 and not a shovel in the ground yet.  And to top it off, a stoplight option on the US-7 Expressway actually made it to the top 2 options....stoplights!!  Can you imagine!?!? 

So the talk about the beltway happening is laughable. Even, the tunnel is laughable. 

Even if the community is for it, I don't think the DOT can actually handle it.  Look at I-84 between Danbury and Waterbury.  The state dropped the ball.  Again, a study was done in 2000 recommending widening and nothing.  Then 9 years later an EIS was started and then stopped.  It's been 21 years since that study. 

The state is cheap.  I-91 through Middletown and CT-15 and I-691 won't even be 3-thru lanes.  It'll still narrow down to two.  The state just can't do things.

1.  What is the proposed 7/15 interchange?
2.  I always wondered why the 7/15 exit is the most exposed, least scenic part of the Merrit.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on April 26, 2021, 10:46:57 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on April 22, 2021, 08:53:21 PM
CT can't even build the full interchange of US-7 and CT-15 because of community issues.  People sued and stopped construction around 2007...2007! It's 2021 and not a shovel in the ground yet.  And to top it off, a stoplight option on the US-7 Expressway actually made it to the top 2 options....stoplights!!  Can you imagine!?!? 

So the talk about the beltway happening is laughable. Even, the tunnel is laughable. 

Even if the community is for it, I don't think the DOT can actually handle it.  Look at I-84 between Danbury and Waterbury.  The state dropped the ball.  Again, a study was done in 2000 recommending widening and nothing.  Then 9 years later an EIS was started and then stopped.  It's been 21 years since that study. 

The state is cheap.  I-91 through Middletown and CT-15 and I-691 won't even be 3-thru lanes.  It'll still narrow down to two.  The state just can't do things.

Having lived in Connecticut for 15 years, I can tell you that despite being a blue-blood Democratic stronghold that claims to espouse the "progressive" agenda, Connecticut is a place where there is incredible resistance to any kind of change whatsoever. In fact you'll see in some articles Connecticut is referred to "The Land of Steady Habits," as there are a lot of people (with a lot of money to afford big-time lawyers) in the state that fight to keep things just the way they are. Connecticut has always been like that, and I don't see that culture changing any time soon. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on April 26, 2021, 04:00:42 PM
CT DOT RANT ALERT: many things that have bugged me over the years

Quote from: shadyjay on April 12, 2021, 03:20:33 PM
Personally, I think they should've moved the Exit 29 ramp to where the Exit 27 ramp is currently.  And the fact that the CT 15 South to I-91 South ramp isn't being altered one bit as part of this project seems ridiculous to me... it should be a 2-lane ramp as well, and enter I-91 South on the right, not left.  The existing CT 15 South ramp to Brainard Rd, which has an I-91 South "second option" ramp should've been made 2 lanes.  But I digress........

That's CT for you.  They don't do it 100%.  They are inconsistent in their projects.  Eliminate left exits here but add them there.  It's that way with a lot of things, not just left exits.
Actually I think the Q-Bridge project was even partly half-assed.  Exit 46 SB should leave the highway before the I-91 SB on-ramp.  It should be similar the way Exit 25 on I-84 EB leaves before the Exit 23 on-ramp enters to prevent weaving.

Also note: CT doesn't like option lanes either.  I-91 SB for I-95 NB there's def room for the option lane it's just not striped that way.  They make drivers for I-95 NB get into the far left lane when they don't really have to.  WHY!?!?! Who the F knows.

With I-91 NB at US-5/15, I do believe it will be a repeat of what happens on I-84 EB at US-7 (Exit 7) in Danbury.  The left exit will create a slow down with people changing lanes. 

Why is I-91 SB through the I-691/CT-15 interchange only 2-lanes still with left exits left in tact in spots?  Have you seen the plans?! Redic. 

CT-9 NB Middletown: Why are they proposing NB LEFT on-ramps and off-ramps.  Since it uses the same ROW, can't they switch it?  Have the exits and entrances be on the right and go under the NB lanes?? I think it'll take the same amount of space and make the curvature of the ramps not as sharp.

CT DOT also screwed up the CT-34/CT-8 inerchange.  It used to be 2-thru lanes for CT-34 EB.  Now the left lane turns into a left-turn only lane for CT-115, forcing people to change lanes for CT-34.  Lots of near misses and sidewipes b/c the guidedots through the intersection go from the center to the left lane. 

CT-34 @ CT-15, there will still be stop signs at some entrance ramps b/c they don't want to spend the money to widen the bridges.

And what's the trend of taking away channelizing right turns and free flow movments!?!  I've noticed at least 4 taken away over the past few years.

All these questions b/c everything is half assed to keep costs down pls we are "the land of steady habits."  Lefts exits and no turn lanes are ok still.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on April 26, 2021, 07:48:34 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on April 26, 2021, 04:00:42 PM
CT DOT RANT ALERT: many things that have bugged me over the years

Quote from: shadyjay on April 12, 2021, 03:20:33 PM
Personally, I think they should've moved the Exit 29 ramp to where the Exit 27 ramp is currently.  And the fact that the CT 15 South to I-91 South ramp isn't being altered one bit as part of this project seems ridiculous to me... it should be a 2-lane ramp as well, and enter I-91 South on the right, not left.  The existing CT 15 South ramp to Brainard Rd, which has an I-91 South "second option" ramp should've been made 2 lanes.  But I digress........

That's CT for you.  They don't do it 100%.  They are inconsistent in their projects.  Eliminate left exits here but add them there.  It's that way with a lot of things, not just left exits.
Actually I think the Q-Bridge project was even partly half-assed.  Exit 46 SB should leave the highway before the I-91 SB on-ramp.  It should be similar the way Exit 25 on I-84 EB leaves before the Exit 23 on-ramp enters to prevent weaving.

Also note: CT doesn't like option lanes either.  I-91 SB for I-95 NB there's def room for the option lane it's just not striped that way.  They make drivers for I-95 NB get into the far left lane when they don't really have to.  WHY!?!?! Who the F knows.

With I-91 NB at US-5/15, I do believe it will be a repeat of what happens on I-84 EB at US-7 (Exit 7) in Danbury.  The left exit will create a slow down with people changing lanes. 

Why is I-91 SB through the I-691/CT-15 interchange only 2-lanes still with left exits left in tact in spots?  Have you seen the plans?! Redic. 

CT-9 NB Middletown: Why are they proposing NB LEFT on-ramps and off-ramps.  Since it uses the same ROW, can't they switch it?  Have the exits and entrances be on the right and go under the NB lanes?? I think it'll take the same amount of space and make the curvature of the ramps not as sharp.

CT DOT also screwed up the CT-34/CT-8 inerchange.  It used to be 2-thru lanes for CT-34 EB.  Now the left lane turns into a left-turn only lane for CT-115, forcing people to change lanes for CT-34.  Lots of near misses and sidewipes b/c the guidedots through the intersection go from the center to the left lane. 

CT-34 @ CT-15, there will still be stop signs at some entrance ramps b/c they don't want to spend the money to widen the bridges.

And what's the trend of taking away channelizing right turns and free flow movments!?!  I've noticed at least 4 taken away over the past few years.

All these questions b/c everything is half assed to keep costs down pls we are "the land of steady habits."  Lefts exits and no turn lanes are ok still.
There is an option lane for I-84 W @ Exit 54.

I think the intent with the left ramps for CT 9 in Middletown is to limit the encroachment into the park along the river. They are trying to modify the freeway without increasing its footprint. I would rather them re-route CT 9 through Portland and then back across the river south of downtown, then strip out the CT 17 freeway and boulevard the old CT 9 freeway. That would give better access to the riverfront and divert through traffic out of downtown.

As long as CT 15 is signed for the left lanes very early before the split, I think it will be fine. What I don't understand is how they neglected to fix Exit 86 on CT 15 S.  That is a far more dangerous ramp because of stopped traffic in the center lane cutting over late. They should make the center lane an option lane and then having it zipper merge before it joins I-91.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on April 26, 2021, 10:01:10 PM
There will be signs almost back to Exit 26 for the 2-lane (1 dedicated/1 option) APL for Exit 29.  So there will be adequate signage it seems for the new left exit. 

Regarding Route 9, there's been so many alternatives thrown around over the past 20-30 years, I think they're just trying to get the thing built with the least increase in footprint, as RobbieL stated.  At least keeping "Exit" 15 northbound and adding a roundabout was thrown out... that would've sent Route 9 South on a roller coaster ride... up over Hartford Ave, down to get under the railroad, then back up to cross over the Washington st ramp.  The city wasn't a fan of that, as it would've blocked the view of the riverfront, which is the same reason why they weren't a fan of P&W parking freight cars along deKoven Drive, which blocked the view of the river as well.  And me also being a railroad guy I understand why P&W did it, but also why the city was ticked off.

Yes, getting Route 9 into Portland would be the ideal way to go, but you'd be looking at decades of studies, planning, design, and not to mention objection from Portland, plus major land acquisition and the cost of having to build not just one, but two bridges.  It would relieve Arrigoni Bridge traffic significantly and make Portland more accessible, but by the time shovels would be in the ground for such a project, our children's children's children would be driving.  I would gladly pay a toll in Middletown on Route 9 ** IF I KNEW THE FUNDS WERE GOING INTO A SECURE FUND TO SOLVE THE ROUTE 9 PROBLEM **. Same thing with I-95... with Route 11... etc...  But CT has a past history of transportation money going into the general state fund, and that's a problem.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on April 26, 2021, 10:08:32 PM
Here's another ConnDOT/state of CT WTF moment:

In 1998, the speed limit was finally increased to 65 MPH.  A couple weeks prior to the change, the state went around and replaced almost every single speed limit sign with new "Speed Limit 65" signs, then tacked on a "5" overlay until the day when it went to 65.  Then the "5" came off.  Now most other states when they have changed speed limits have kept their existing Speed Limit signs and put a "6" over the first "5".  But why did CT go through and install all new speed limit signs and waste money on "5" overlays that were only up for a couple weeks?  There was nothing wrong with the old speed limit signs (they had the smaller numerals).  The new ones installed larger "65" numerals.  Now they've gone back to the smaller numerals for new "65" and "55" signs.

And why do we need a sign every mile saying "Speed Limit 65"?  In most other states, you get a reassurance speed limit sign when there's an onramp.  Even on rural sections of CT highways, there's a speed limit sign every mile.  And on rural Route 9 in Haddam, I counted 3 within a mile.  I mean, really?  Is that necessary?  I think of Vermont which only has speed limit signs after every exit, and their exits are 5 to 15 miles apart.  Also, MA & VT used overlays on their speed limit signs when they went from 55 to 65. 


And a history question:  There has been photographic proof that the Connecticut Turnpike (I-95) had a speed limit of 60 (west of New Haven), prior to the NSL55 act.  Did any other highway in CT ever have a 60 or 65 MPH limit prior to 1974?  Did Route 9 have a speed limit of 65 ever prior to 1974? 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Roadgeekteen on April 26, 2021, 10:11:43 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on April 26, 2021, 10:08:32 PM
Here's another ConnDOT/state of CT WTF moment:

In 1998, the speed limit was finally increased to 65 MPH.  A couple weeks prior to the change, the state went around and replaced almost every single speed limit sign with new "Speed Limit 65" signs, then tacked on a "5" overlay until the day when it went to 65.  Then the "5" came off.  Now most other states when they have changed speed limits have kept their existing Speed Limit signs and put a "6" over the first "5".  But why did CT go through and install all new speed limit signs and waste money on "5" overlays that were only up for a couple weeks?  There was nothing wrong with the old speed limit signs (they had the smaller numerals).  The new ones installed larger "65" numerals.  Now they've gone back to the smaller numerals for new "65" and "55" signs.

And why do we need a sign every mile saying "Speed Limit 65"?  In most other states, you get a reassurance speed limit sign when there's an onramp.  Even on rural sections of CT highways, there's a speed limit sign every mile.  And on rural Route 9 in Haddam, I counted 3 within a mile.  I mean, really?  Is that necessary?  I think of Vermont which only has speed limit signs after every exit, and their exits are 5 to 15 miles apart.  Also, MA & VT used overlays on their speed limit signs when they went from 55 to 65. 


And a history question:  There has been photographic proof that the Connecticut Turnpike (I-95) had a speed limit of 60 (west of New Haven), prior to the NSL55 act.  Did any other highway in CT ever have a 60 or 65 MPH limit prior to 1974?  Did Route 9 have a speed limit of 65 ever prior to 1974?
Maybe they are worried that people will forget the speed limit?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on April 26, 2021, 10:16:38 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on April 26, 2021, 10:08:32 PM
Here's another ConnDOT/state of CT WTF moment:

In 1998, the speed limit was finally increased to 65 MPH.  A couple weeks prior to the change, the state went around and replaced almost every single speed limit sign with new "Speed Limit 65" signs, then tacked on a "5" overlay until the day when it went to 65.  Then the "5" came off.  Now most other states when they have changed speed limits have kept their existing Speed Limit signs and put a "6" over the first "5".  But why did CT go through and install all new speed limit signs and waste money on "5" overlays that were only up for a couple weeks?  There was nothing wrong with the old speed limit signs (they had the smaller numerals).  The new ones installed larger "65" numerals.  Now they've gone back to the smaller numerals for new "65" and "55" signs.

And why do we need a sign every mile saying "Speed Limit 65"?  In most other states, you get a reassurance speed limit sign when there's an onramp.  Even on rural sections of CT highways, there's a speed limit sign every mile.  And on rural Route 9 in Haddam, I counted 3 within a mile.  I mean, really?  Is that necessary?  I think of Vermont which only has speed limit signs after every exit, and their exits are 5 to 15 miles apart.  Also, MA & VT used overlays on their speed limit signs when they went from 55 to 65. 


And a history question:  There has been photographic proof that the Connecticut Turnpike (I-95) had a speed limit of 60 (west of New Haven), prior to the NSL55 act.  Did any other highway in CT ever have a 60 or 65 MPH limit prior to 1974?  Did Route 9 have a speed limit of 65 ever prior to 1974? 

They oversign certain things but yet not one BGS or BYS extruded aluminum sign on CT-9 saying there's traffic lights ahead. Just regular diamond signs. You'd think since CT-9 is a full freeway they'd add them?! MASS would they have a lot of extruded aluminum warning signs.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on April 26, 2021, 10:24:19 PM
I wrote to ConnDOT years ago about that, and they thought what they had was adequate.  HA!   I love the still-remaining and still-functioning "STOP AHEAD" lighted sign about 500' away from the first light southbound, beneath the Arrigoni Bridge.  That's vintage!

And another thing I love about Route 9 right now... they replaced the MERGING TRAFFIC  symbol diamond with the NO MERGE/ADD LANE diamond at the onramp from Rt 17 in Middletown, northbound.  Its a Merritt Parkway-style onramp with a stop sign!  Someone really goofed there.  There's always accidents at that location, even before that sign was put up.  Further north at Exit 22, instead of a MERGING TRAFFIC sign, they have a 'LANE ENDS' sign.  Not sure what that's about!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on April 27, 2021, 12:04:35 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on April 26, 2021, 10:24:19 PM
I wrote to ConnDOT years ago about that, and they thought what they had was adequate.  HA!   I love the still-remaining and still-functioning "STOP AHEAD" lighted sign about 500' away from the first light southbound, beneath the Arrigoni Bridge.  That's vintage!

And another thing I love about Route 9 right now... they replaced the MERGING TRAFFIC  symbol diamond with the NO MERGE/ADD LANE diamond at the onramp from Rt 17 in Middletown, northbound.  Its a Merritt Parkway-style onramp with a stop sign!  Someone really goofed there.  There's always accidents at that location, even before that sign was put up.  Further north at Exit 22, instead of a MERGING TRAFFIC sign, they have a 'LANE ENDS' sign.  Not sure what that's about!

Oh excellent with the CT-17 on-ramp.
The signage must be political. Speed Limit and Ped Xing signs are in abundance bc that's the thing people always complain about. If there's an accident it's always about speed. Politicians and media work together it seems. One can't live w/o the other.

And the curve signage project is done. Not one curve sign on the loop ramp from I-95 to CT-8/25. On that loop you go up then down and then up again in a tight radius. Not one sign.

Btw. New Exit 4 Exit Only and Exit 5 1Mile sign up on CT-8 NB
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: sharkyfour on April 27, 2021, 12:09:29 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on April 26, 2021, 10:08:32 PM
Here's another ConnDOT/state of CT WTF moment:

In 1998, the speed limit was finally increased to 65 MPH.  A couple weeks prior to the change, the state went around and replaced almost every single speed limit sign with new "Speed Limit 65" signs, then tacked on a "5" overlay until the day when it went to 65.  Then the "5" came off.  Now most other states when they have changed speed limits have kept their existing Speed Limit signs and put a "6" over the first "5".  But why did CT go through and install all new speed limit signs and waste money on "5" overlays that were only up for a couple weeks?  There was nothing wrong with the old speed limit signs (they had the smaller numerals).  The new ones installed larger "65" numerals.  Now they've gone back to the smaller numerals for new "65" and "55" signs.

And why do we need a sign every mile saying "Speed Limit 65"?  In most other states, you get a reassurance speed limit sign when there's an onramp.  Even on rural sections of CT highways, there's a speed limit sign every mile.  And on rural Route 9 in Haddam, I counted 3 within a mile.  I mean, really?  Is that necessary?  I think of Vermont which only has speed limit signs after every exit, and their exits are 5 to 15 miles apart.  Also, MA & VT used overlays on their speed limit signs when they went from 55 to 65. 


And a history question:  There has been photographic proof that the Connecticut Turnpike (I-95) had a speed limit of 60 (west of New Haven), prior to the NSL55 act.  Did any other highway in CT ever have a 60 or 65 MPH limit prior to 1974?  Did Route 9 have a speed limit of 65 ever prior to 1974?

I'm wondering if where they replaced the entire sign (which was most signs in the state), if it was out of necessity/end of useful life of the signs.  I have seen come 55 signs that got overlaid with a "6", such as these on I-95 in Old Lyme/Old Saybrook.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.31952,-72.3441222,3a,15y,229.56h,89.74t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGNhffNS-r3mVhB_FHKSB8w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on April 27, 2021, 11:27:24 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on April 26, 2021, 10:08:32 PM
Here's another ConnDOT/state of CT WTF moment:

In 1998, the speed limit was finally increased to 65 MPH.  A couple weeks prior to the change, the state went around and replaced almost every single speed limit sign with new "Speed Limit 65" signs, then tacked on a "5" overlay until the day when it went to 65.  Then the "5" came off.  Now most other states when they have changed speed limits have kept their existing Speed Limit signs and put a "6" over the first "5".  But why did CT go through and install all new speed limit signs and waste money on "5" overlays that were only up for a couple weeks?  There was nothing wrong with the old speed limit signs (they had the smaller numerals).  The new ones installed larger "65" numerals.  Now they've gone back to the smaller numerals for new "65" and "55" signs.

And why do we need a sign every mile saying "Speed Limit 65"?  In most other states, you get a reassurance speed limit sign when there's an onramp.  Even on rural sections of CT highways, there's a speed limit sign every mile.  And on rural Route 9 in Haddam, I counted 3 within a mile.  I mean, really?  Is that necessary?  I think of Vermont which only has speed limit signs after every exit, and their exits are 5 to 15 miles apart.  Also, MA & VT used overlays on their speed limit signs when they went from 55 to 65. 


And a history question:  There has been photographic proof that the Connecticut Turnpike (I-95) had a speed limit of 60 (west of New Haven), prior to the NSL55 act.  Did any other highway in CT ever have a 60 or 65 MPH limit prior to 1974?  Did Route 9 have a speed limit of 65 ever prior to 1974?

Having lived in Connecticut his entire life, my dad told me there were stretches of I-84 and Route 8 that had a 70 MPH speed limit prior to the NSL55 act in 1974.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on April 27, 2021, 01:03:14 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on April 27, 2021, 11:27:24 AM
Having lived in Connecticut his entire life, my dad told me there were stretches of I-84 and Route 8 that had a 70 MPH speed limit prior to the NSL55 act in 1974.

(https://i.imgur.com/dyWtpoo.png)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Avalanchez71 on April 27, 2021, 02:16:35 PM
The traffic wasn't that bad in Connecticut.  Even the many sections of two-lane US 1 seemed very adequate.  Did the Coronavirus contribute to this?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on April 27, 2021, 02:36:41 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on April 27, 2021, 02:16:35 PM
The traffic wasn't that bad in Connecticut.  Even the many sections of two-lane US 1 seemed very adequate.  Did the Coronavirus contribute to this?
No, I think it was just all the New Yorkers that started flooding into Connecticut following the opening of the Connecticut Turnpike.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on April 27, 2021, 03:17:23 PM
I think out of all the states CT has the most UNexpanded road network in relation to population.  One lane roads, lack of divided boulevards, 2-lane roads that drop down to one lane, lack of turn lanes, lack of channelized right turn lanes, lack of free flow movements, lack of expressways and freeways, lack of lanes in general.  Other roads in other states may have more congestion but as a state as a whole CT I think has the most unexpanded road network.

And don't forget CT was the LAST state to go to 65mph.  That right there speaks volumes.  The land of steady habits strikes again.

On another note:
Virtual public meetings are now on the CT DOT website.
One that got me was the public hearing on statewide road diets.  Ummmm based on these last few posts in this thread that is the last thing we need.
https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/General/CTDOT-VPIM-Library

I watched the Exit 27A I-95 one in Bridgeport.  They are adding a second lane for the off-ramp which is great.  However, NO new extruded aluminum warning signs saying how sharp the curve is.  None!  That's a big issue as the geometry is horrible on that loop ramp.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51143970910_d226be5431_c.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Roadgeekteen on April 27, 2021, 03:53:39 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on April 27, 2021, 03:17:23 PM
I think out of all the states CT has the most UNexpanded road network in relation to population.  One lane roads, lack of divided boulevards, 2-lane roads that drop down to one lane, lack of turn lanes, lack of channelized right turn lanes, lack of free flow movements, lack of expressways and freeways, lack of lanes in general.  Other roads in other states may have more congestion but as a state as a whole CT I think has the most unexpanded road network.

And don't forget CT was the LAST state to go to 65mph.  That right there speaks volumes.  The land of steady habits strikes again.
Case in point CT 11, which is now on year 50 of being incomplete.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on April 27, 2021, 04:34:01 PM
Quote from: sharkyfour on April 27, 2021, 12:09:29 AM
I'm wondering if where they replaced the entire sign (which was most signs in the state), if it was out of necessity/end of useful life of the signs.  I have seen come 55 signs that got overlaid with a "6", such as these on I-95 in Old Lyme/Old Saybrook.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.31952,-72.3441222,3a,15y,229.56h,89.74t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGNhffNS-r3mVhB_FHKSB8w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192


That is one of only a few examples where they retained the existing sign and overlayed the "6".  But most everywhere else, the larger numerals came into being again, after having been phased out in the late 80s. 

An example of the 1998-replacement speed limit signs:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3285598,-72.3869402,3a,36.5y,349.16h,83.36t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEtBRYqe2hew5eZHTpqvSjQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

An example of the late 80s-1997 speed limit signs, which are now the standard once again for sign replacement projects, and have been for the past 10+ years:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5380165,-72.9696631,3a,40.1y,90.83h,87.48t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sW4Mb-3hMAKLpVMAFPe0uUQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

It is possible speed limit signs are on a more regimented replacement schedule than the rest of the signs.  If that's the case, they all were to go bad at the same time, hence the large scale replacement in 1998 just weeks before the speed limit change?  And that warranted the overlaying of "55" over the "65" if only for a couple weeks?

I checked my archives to find the photo I took in VT on I-91 way up in the Northeast Kingdom years ago, which had a typical VT Speed Limit 65/Minimum 40 post-exit sign, and the only part of the sign that was white was the "65".  Alas, I couldn't find it, but it and the signs of that era were back when button copy was still status quo north of White River Jct, mileage signs post-exit had Mile/KM, and onramp signs featured extruded aluminum signs, vs the present makeup of sheet aluminum markers & town blades.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on April 27, 2021, 05:01:01 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on April 27, 2021, 03:17:23 PM

And don't forget CT was the LAST state to go to 65mph.  That right there speaks volumes.  The land of steady habits strikes again.

Not entirely accurate...Connecticut was the last state in the Continental US. Alaska raised their speed limit from 60 to 65 after Connecticut. Hawaii raised its maximum speed limit to 60 MPH (from 55 MPH) in 2017.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Roadgeekteen on April 27, 2021, 05:01:37 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on April 27, 2021, 05:01:01 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on April 27, 2021, 03:17:23 PM

And don't forget CT was the LAST state to go to 65mph.  That right there speaks volumes.  The land of steady habits strikes again.

Not entirely accurate...Connecticut was the last state in the Continental US. Alaska raised their speed limit from 60 to 65 after Connecticut. Hawaii raised its maximum speed limit to 60 MPH (from 55 MPH) in 2017.
Hawaii has been 60 since the early 2000s, Saddle Road was increased in 2017 I think.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on April 28, 2021, 08:51:23 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on April 27, 2021, 03:17:23 PM
I think out of all the states CT has the most UNexpanded road network in relation to population.  One lane roads, lack of divided boulevards, 2-lane roads that drop down to one lane, lack of turn lanes, lack of channelized right turn lanes, lack of free flow movements, lack of expressways and freeways, lack of lanes in general.  Other roads in other states may have more congestion but as a state as a whole CT I think has the most unexpanded road network.

And don't forget CT was the LAST state to go to 65mph.  That right there speaks volumes.  The land of steady habits strikes again.

On another note:
Virtual public meetings are now on the CT DOT website.
One that got me was the public hearing on statewide road diets.  Ummmm based on these last few posts in this thread that is the last thing we need.
https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/General/CTDOT-VPIM-Library

I watched the Exit 27A I-95 one in Bridgeport.  They are adding a second lane for the off-ramp which is great.  However, NO new extruded aluminum warning signs saying how sharp the curve is.  None!  That's a big issue as the geometry is horrible on that loop ramp.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51143970910_d226be5431_c.jpg)
Oh look, proper option lane signage.

Quote from: shadyjay on April 27, 2021, 04:34:01 PM
Quote from: sharkyfour on April 27, 2021, 12:09:29 AM
I'm wondering if where they replaced the entire sign (which was most signs in the state), if it was out of necessity/end of useful life of the signs.  I have seen come 55 signs that got overlaid with a "6", such as these on I-95 in Old Lyme/Old Saybrook.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.31952,-72.3441222,3a,15y,229.56h,89.74t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGNhffNS-r3mVhB_FHKSB8w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192


That is one of only a few examples where they retained the existing sign and overlayed the "6".  But most everywhere else, the larger numerals came into being again, after having been phased out in the late 80s. 

An example of the 1998-replacement speed limit signs:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3285598,-72.3869402,3a,36.5y,349.16h,83.36t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEtBRYqe2hew5eZHTpqvSjQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

An example of the late 80s-1997 speed limit signs, which are now the standard once again for sign replacement projects, and have been for the past 10+ years:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5380165,-72.9696631,3a,40.1y,90.83h,87.48t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sW4Mb-3hMAKLpVMAFPe0uUQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

It is possible speed limit signs are on a more regimented replacement schedule than the rest of the signs.  If that's the case, they all were to go bad at the same time, hence the large scale replacement in 1998 just weeks before the speed limit change?  And that warranted the overlaying of "55" over the "65" if only for a couple weeks?

I checked my archives to find the photo I took in VT on I-91 way up in the Northeast Kingdom years ago, which had a typical VT Speed Limit 65/Minimum 40 post-exit sign, and the only part of the sign that was white was the "65".  Alas, I couldn't find it, but it and the signs of that era were back when button copy was still status quo north of White River Jct, mileage signs post-exit had Mile/KM, and onramp signs featured extruded aluminum signs, vs the present makeup of sheet aluminum markers & town blades.

ConnDOT is the worst with replacing any aluminum signage. Go look at I-84 in Manchester and Vernon. It's a cornucopia of signs from many different years. They don't care.

On another note, the first APL gantry for I-91 Exit 29 was being installed last light.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on April 28, 2021, 02:30:01 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on April 27, 2021, 03:17:23 PM

I watched the Exit 27A I-95 one in Bridgeport.  They are adding a second lane for the off-ramp which is great.  However, NO new extruded aluminum warning signs saying how sharp the curve is.  None!  That's a big issue as the geometry is horrible on that loop ramp.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51143970910_d226be5431_c.jpg)

WHY WHY WHY does CTDOT continue to insist on putting CT 25 before CT 8?!? :banghead:  Aside from the fact that 25 is not even needed south of the 8/25 split, A. It's not MUTCD compliant to put the higher number before the lower number and B. Most people know the road as Route 8 anyway, so why put the lesser known number first (at least when MassDOT used to do it for 95/128, they put the interstate before the state route. although most Bostonians still refer to the road as 128)?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on April 28, 2021, 07:53:04 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on April 28, 2021, 02:30:01 PMA. It's not MUTCD compliant to put the higher number before the lower number
(citation needed)
05 Route systems shall be given preference in this order: Interstate, United States, State, and county. The preference shall be given by installing the highest-priority legend on the top or the left of the sign.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on April 28, 2021, 09:23:30 PM
Why is the 25-8 text not centered on its section of the sign? I'd rather have the control cities be Waterbury and Torrington if there have to be two, though just having Waterbury makes the sign symmetrical. Shelton is bigger than both Torrington and Trumbull as well so that could be a better control city.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Roadgeekteen on April 28, 2021, 10:18:25 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on April 28, 2021, 09:23:30 PM
Why is the 25-8 text not centered on its section of the sign? I'd rather have the control cities be Waterbury and Torrington if there have to be two, though just having Waterbury makes the sign symmetrical. Shelton is bigger than both Torrington and Trumbull as well so that could be a better control city.
I wouldn't use Torrington as it's past Waterbury and smaller.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on April 28, 2021, 11:24:42 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on April 28, 2021, 10:18:25 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on April 28, 2021, 09:23:30 PM
Why is the 25-8 text not centered on its section of the sign? I'd rather have the control cities be Waterbury and Torrington if there have to be two, though just having Waterbury makes the sign symmetrical. Shelton is bigger than both Torrington and Trumbull as well so that could be a better control city.
I wouldn't use Torrington as it's past Waterbury and smaller.

The reason why Trumbull and Waterbury are used is that Trumbull is the control for CT 25 and Waterbury for CT 8 north of the split.  But CT 8 should come first before CT 25 on the signage (and moving beyond MUTCD) because A. Reassurance signs on the concurrency have CT 8 shields on top of CT 25 shields; B. Enhanced mile markers use the CT 8 shield on them; C. The CT Highway Log inventories it under CT 8, and D. Traffic reporters refer to it as the "825 connector".  So yes, CT 8 is indeed the more prominent route and should be on the left with CT 25 on the right.  In that case, Waterbury would be first and Trumbull second. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on April 29, 2021, 12:56:20 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on April 28, 2021, 11:24:42 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on April 28, 2021, 10:18:25 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on April 28, 2021, 09:23:30 PM
Why is the 25-8 text not centered on its section of the sign? I'd rather have the control cities be Waterbury and Torrington if there have to be two, though just having Waterbury makes the sign symmetrical. Shelton is bigger than both Torrington and Trumbull as well so that could be a better control city.
I wouldn't use Torrington as it's past Waterbury and smaller.

The reason why Trumbull and Waterbury are used is that Trumbull is the control for CT 25 and Waterbury for CT 8 north of the split.  But CT 8 should come first before CT 25 on the signage (and moving beyond MUTCD) because A. Reassurance signs on the concurrency have CT 8 shields on top of CT 25 shields; B. Enhanced mile markers use the CT 8 shield on them; C. The CT Highway Log inventories it under CT 8, and D. Traffic reporters refer to it as the "825 connector".  So yes, CT 8 is indeed the more prominent route and should be on the left with CT 25 on the right.  In that case, Waterbury would be first and Trumbull second. 
You may see it yet. I take it the signs below are designed based on the existing legend showing 25-8. (Unless that is in error.) There's a chance for ConnDOT to review and advise.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on April 29, 2021, 09:07:39 AM
Also, that image doesn't appear to come from any sort of official contract plans.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on April 30, 2021, 08:56:22 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on April 28, 2021, 02:30:01 PM
WHY WHY WHY does CTDOT continue to insist on putting CT 25 before CT 8?!?

Habit. People are used to referring to it as the "25-8 connector". And while 8 is the longer route, 25 is the favored movement where they split.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on May 01, 2021, 02:05:41 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on April 30, 2021, 08:56:22 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on April 28, 2021, 02:30:01 PM
WHY WHY WHY does CTDOT continue to insist on putting CT 25 before CT 8?!?

Habit. People are used to referring to it as the "25-8 connector". And while 8 is the longer route, 25 is the favored movement where they split.

In the 1950s and 1960s, the DOT, city of Bridgeport, et al. were calling the proposed expressway "Route 25". The Route 8 concept arrived a little later. (Before 1951, Route 8 didn't even go to Bridgeport as a surface route.)

Land of Steady Habits and all.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on May 03, 2021, 10:51:36 AM
Quote from: kurumi on May 01, 2021, 02:05:41 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on April 30, 2021, 08:56:22 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on April 28, 2021, 02:30:01 PM
WHY WHY WHY does CTDOT continue to insist on putting CT 25 before CT 8?!?

Habit. People are used to referring to it as the "25-8 connector". And while 8 is the longer route, 25 is the favored movement where they split.

In the 1950s and 1960s, the DOT, city of Bridgeport, et al. were calling the proposed expressway "Route 25". The Route 8 concept arrived a little later. (Before 1951, Route 8 didn't even go to Bridgeport as a surface route.)

Land of Steady Habits and all.
It goes back to when Route 25 was proposed to be a freeway from I-95 to I-84 in Newtown. Of course, opposition from residents in Monroe and Newtown halted construction of the Route 25 freeway north of Route 111, save for the freeway stub and oversized interchange on I-84 at Route 34. At the time, Route 8 ended in Stratford, following what is now Route 110 from Shelton to I-95/US-1 in Stratford. Bridgeport Avenue in Shelton was previously Route 65; the Route 8 designation was shifted to Bridgeport Avenue around when they started building the Route 8 freeway between Bridgeport and Shelton, and Route 110 took over the former Route 8 alignment between Shelton and Stratford.

The point being, planning for the Route 25 freeway began before they came up with the idea of building a freeway for Route 8 that would connect what is now the 25/8 Connector to the Commodore Hull Bridge. But once the 25 freeway got going, it was a logical conclusion to extend a freeway along the Bridgeport Avenue corridor from the Commodore Hull Bridge to meet the new 25 freeway and I-95.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: zzyzx on May 04, 2021, 07:14:49 PM
Looks like the 5/15 Charter Oak Bridge project will be getting some new signs soon, according to interstatesignways on Tik-Tok (don't judge, there's actually quite a few road geek related content on there):

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210504/ddfc0180d0b0a84e32c2e938831a6e29.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on May 05, 2021, 02:45:09 PM
Quote from: zzyzx on May 04, 2021, 07:14:49 PM
Looks like the 5/15 Charter Oak Bridge project will be getting some new signs soon, according to interstatesignways on Tik-Tok (don't judge, there's actually quite a few road geek related content on there):

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210504/ddfc0180d0b0a84e32c2e938831a6e29.jpg)

That looks like new signage for CT 2 Exit 4 (future 1E) westbound
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on May 05, 2021, 02:59:26 PM
Looks like ConnDOT will be undertaking a resurfacing project on I-84 in Windham County, the same type of project they performed on the 12-lane stretch in East Hartford.
Basically, they're going to perform traditional crack sealing and then apply a special bonding epoxy over the entire surface.
I'm assuming they will also do line scoring and painting.

https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/Construction-News-from-the-Connecticut-Department-of-Transportation/2021/Pavement-Preservation-Project-on-I-84-in-Willington-Ashford-Union (https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/Construction-News-from-the-Connecticut-Department-of-Transportation/2021/Pavement-Preservation-Project-on-I-84-in-Willington-Ashford-Union)

Tilcon did the East Hartford job, this time its Palmer Paving Corp.

And it looks like I-84 WB between Exit 66 and 62 will FINALLY be getting permanent lines.

https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/Construction-News-from-the-Connecticut-Department-of-Transportation/2021/Pavement-Marking-Project-on-Various-State-Routes (https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/Construction-News-from-the-Connecticut-Department-of-Transportation/2021/Pavement-Marking-Project-on-Various-State-Routes)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on May 05, 2021, 06:45:03 PM
The first new sign is up on CT 72.  It was raining, but I did not get a shot.  Single chorded truss for the Westbound 1/2 mile advance for CT 372 (Corbin Ave) with the new Exit 2 tab.  All other signage refers to it as Exit 7, but it looks like the changeover is under way.

UPDATE: The Exit Now sign for the same exit has been changed over.  Seems they may be doing it the opposite of MA and starting at the South/East end and working their way up, then doubling back toward New Britain.  Will be curious to see what happens with the signage for current Exit 2, and whether we get the 33 A/B treatment on 84 (the New Britain Ave exit should really be CT 72 Exit 4 and not an I-84 exit).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on May 06, 2021, 11:14:48 AM
How did that girl get into the sign shop? Crazy how that sign is way bigger than she is. Wish the 15 in the CT-15 shield was the same font size as the 5 in the US-5 shield next to it.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: storm2k on May 06, 2021, 11:21:25 AM
Quote from: connroadgeek on May 06, 2021, 11:14:48 AM
How did that girl get into the sign shop? Crazy how that sign is way bigger than she is. Wish the 15 in the CT-15 shield was the same font size as the 5 in the US-5 shield next to it.

She works there. I believe it was the official TikTok for the company.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on May 06, 2021, 12:04:26 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on May 05, 2021, 06:45:03 PM
The first new sign is up on CT 72.  It was raining, but I did not get a shot.  Single chorded truss for the Westbound 1/2 mile advance for CT 372 (Corbin Ave) with the new Exit 2 tab.  All other signage refers to it as Exit 7, but it looks like the changeover is under way.

If they're taking the same approach on Rt 72 as they did on I-395, you'll probably see the new exit numbers overlaid on the existing signage soon to avoid confusion with a mix of signs showing old and new exit numbers.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on May 06, 2021, 12:32:09 PM
For mileage based exit numbers what happens when you add mileage before exit 1? Do they have to renumber every exit in that case? Also think the "OLD EXIT XX" signs are a waste because exits can be referred to by the destination (i.e. route or street name) so people aren't going to be that confused.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on May 06, 2021, 05:30:18 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on May 06, 2021, 12:32:09 PM
For mileage based exit numbers what happens when you add mileage before exit 1? Do they have to renumber every exit in that case? Also think the "OLD EXIT XX" signs are a waste because exits can be referred to by the destination (i.e. route or street name) so people aren't going to be that confused.
If they added mileage before Exit 1, you'd have to renumber exits to add the new mileage to the existing exit numbers. Point in fact, the exits on I-69 between Indy and the Michigan state line had to be renumbered when the first sections of the extension to Evansville opened.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: DJStephens on May 07, 2021, 08:17:26 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 28, 2021, 08:51:23 AM
ConnDOT is the worst with replacing any aluminum signage. Go look at I-84 in Manchester and Vernon. It's a cornucopia of signs from many different years. They don't care.

Believe me, there is worse.  New Mexico - and Texas.  New Mexico, while it doesn't largely embrace clearview is having problems with the surface of sheet signage actually burning and turning black/brown from the suns' heat.  Texas has spent literally billions on clearview waste and sign clutter. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on May 07, 2021, 09:55:44 AM
Quote from: DJStephens on May 07, 2021, 08:17:26 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 28, 2021, 08:51:23 AM
ConnDOT is the worst with replacing any aluminum signage. Go look at I-84 in Manchester and Vernon. It's a cornucopia of signs from many different years. They don't care.

Believe me, there is worse.  New Mexico - and Texas.  New Mexico, while it doesn't largely embrace clearview is having problems with the surface of sheet signage actually burning and turning black/brown from the suns' heat.  Texas has spent literally billions on clearview waste and sign clutter.

NMDOT has already replaced the signs at the Big-I that were only abut 10 years old because of the "burning" of the signs' surfaces from the sun. The new signs that have been up for about 5 or 6 years appear to be holding up a lot better than the previous signs. But...when you decide to do things on the cheap, you get what you pay for.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on May 09, 2021, 08:26:51 PM
Was able to snap a couple of pics of the aforementioned new signage on CT 72 (forgive the raindrops).  The 1 mile advance and the gore sign still refer to Exit 7

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51169078568_438cee2cbe.jpg)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51168180267_b834f12ef1.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on May 09, 2021, 09:56:09 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on May 09, 2021, 08:26:51 PM
Was able to snap a couple of pics of the aforementioned new signage on CT 72 (forgive the raindrops).  The 1 mile advance and the gore sign still refer to Exit 7

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51169078568_438cee2cbe.jpg)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51168180267_b834f12ef1.jpg)
those looking for the museum of american art will be lost for a little while
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Roadgeekteen on May 09, 2021, 09:57:39 PM
Quote from: Alps on May 09, 2021, 09:56:09 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on May 09, 2021, 08:26:51 PM
Was able to snap a couple of pics of the aforementioned new signage on CT 72 (forgive the raindrops).  The 1 mile advance and the gore sign still refer to Exit 7

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51169078568_438cee2cbe.jpg)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51168180267_b834f12ef1.jpg)
those looking for the museum of american art will be lost for a little while
Most people would just use gps
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on May 10, 2021, 11:08:39 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on May 09, 2021, 08:26:51 PM
Was able to snap a couple of pics of the aforementioned new signage on CT 72 (forgive the raindrops).  The 1 mile advance and the gore sign still refer to Exit 7

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51169078568_438cee2cbe.jpg)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51168180267_b834f12ef1.jpg)
I know that such is just a generic square route shield (vs. the heavy black CTDOT outline) but that CT 372 shield just doesn't look right IMHO.  A rectangular shield and/or taller Series C numerals would be a better application here.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: storm2k on May 10, 2021, 11:40:43 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 10, 2021, 11:08:39 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on May 09, 2021, 08:26:51 PM
Was able to snap a couple of pics of the aforementioned new signage on CT 72 (forgive the raindrops).  The 1 mile advance and the gore sign still refer to Exit 7

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51169078568_438cee2cbe.jpg)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51168180267_b834f12ef1.jpg)
I know that such is just a generic square route shield (vs. the heavy black CTDOT outline) but that CT 372 shield just doesn't look right IMHO.  A rectangular shield and/or taller Series C numerals would be a better application here.

I'm more annoyed about how they wedged that arrow in there. I know a lot of DOTs do that, but it annoys me.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on May 10, 2021, 11:50:53 AM
Quote from: storm2k on May 10, 2021, 11:40:43 AM
I'm more annoyed about how they wedged that arrow in there. I know a lot of DOTs do that, but it annoys me.
Such has been CTDOT practice for a long time.  I see some merit in doing such if there were multiple sign panels on one gantry & space was limited on right-most sign.  However, given that the above is a single-panel gantry; would either a wider panel with the arrow positioned to the right or a taller panel with the right-arrow positioned below the legend make that much of a difference in terms of wind-loads?  It's not like the Corbin Ave message is as long as Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious  :)

While such certainly needs to be considered in terms of overall structural design; its seems IMHO that the wind-loads issue (read: excuse) is becoming an overused reason for such oddball-looking signs.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on May 10, 2021, 05:05:58 PM
There's nothing wrong with that arrow.  It looks a heck of a lot better than what Mass does (see example below) ... the arrow is lost in the text.... though its probably a matter of preference.  Growing up in CT, I've always been used to the arrow to the right of the shield... or centered at the bottom of all text.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48448891727_6e76269e78_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2gPgezr)93NB-Exit38 (https://flic.kr/p/2gPgezr) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

I'm more concerned with that route marker... it appears its a 2-digit wide marker with 3 digits squished in there.  There's a lot of 3-digit state routes along Route 9 which are under this same contract, and I hope they don't get the same treatment, though I do prefer this to the outline shield style.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: The Ghostbuster on May 10, 2021, 05:13:35 PM
Be sure to post pictures when/if more exit signs get renumbered to mileage-based. Much obliged!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on May 10, 2021, 10:22:58 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 10, 2021, 05:13:35 PM
Be sure to post pictures when/if more exit signs get renumbered to mileage-based. Much obliged!

It will be interesting to see what exit tabs the signs on the Route 9 resigning from Cromwell to Berlin/New Britain to Farmington get.  The contract plans have sequential numbers, but then the Route 9 resigning from Middletown to I-95 goes back to the northern section and replaces the tabs with the mile-based numbers.  Given all 3 contracts are in progress at the same time, I hope they don't waste the time and just put up the new signs with the correct #s.  ConnDOT is trying to save money by switching a lot of extruded signs to sheet aluminum on these projects (park & ride, town lines, exit services), so it would seem logical to save more $ by doing it right the first time.

Regarding the southern project, tonight I observed new foundations installed from Middletown/Exit 11 down to Exit 7 in Haddam, southbound.  I drive by what I believe is the project's staging area regularly so when I see signs being staged, I'll try to get some shots.  We're still a little bit off from that, though.  Still no new sheet aluminums up, and the "first sign" of the project, the Exit 11 "exit now" overhead sign southbound remains up.  It was stated in the contract plans that this would be first to go early in the project and replaced with a temp sheet sign due to the overhead support structure's deterioration.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on May 11, 2021, 10:01:03 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on May 10, 2021, 05:05:58 PM
There's nothing wrong with that arrow.  It looks a heck of a lot better than what Mass does (see example below) ... the arrow is lost in the text.... though its probably a matter of preference.  Growing up in CT, I've always been used to the arrow to the right of the shield... or centered at the bottom of all text.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48448891727_6e76269e78_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2gPgezr)93NB-Exit38 (https://flic.kr/p/2gPgezr) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr
FWIW, that typical MA example is actually closer to what's been shown in past & present MUTCD graphics (see below, granted there's no route shield in the example) has the arrow centered to the right (or left if a LEFT exit) with respect to both (or all) of the control city/street name legend(s).

(https://epg.modot.org/files/thumb/3/3a/903.8.43.jpg/590px-903.8.43.jpg.png)

Nonetheless & as you mentioned, such is more of personal preference largely based on what one has seen on a regular basis in their area; you grew up in CT IIRC & I grew up in MA.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on May 12, 2021, 03:14:58 PM
Wow that exit 38 sign in Massachusetts looks just like the new Corbin Ave one! Even the gantry is the same.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: bob7374 on May 14, 2021, 12:02:38 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 10, 2021, 05:13:35 PM
Be sure to post pictures when/if more exit signs get renumbered to mileage-based. Much obliged!
Here's the above sign with its new number, photo courtesy of Paul Schlichtman:
(https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i93signsps521z.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on May 14, 2021, 09:16:24 PM
And we have the first new overhead on CT 9 for Exit 29.....

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51180476980_98089a861c_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2kYDjGU)DSC02665 (https://flic.kr/p/2kYDjGU) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

As can be seen, the old exit # is in use on the new sign, so I guess they really are going to put up the new signs with the old numbers, then change out the exit tabs.  I also guess that overlaying the old number on top is too logical.   Lots of new foundations are in place north of Exit 18 to I-84 so at some point, there will be a mass installation.  Within the abandoned ramps of the Stack, I observed a 4-chord truss piece and support post - though that could be for the I-84 resigning project.  Still just a single post up southbound at Exit 28 in New Britain, where a second installation will go - that is part of the state's spot overhead replacement, not part of the CT 9 resigning. 

This is the only new sign northbound.  Southbound, there is a new Lane Ends overhead just after I-91 in Cromwell.  I didn't get a pic of that, as I went a different way home, given the time (and the notorious backups on CT 9 South in Middletown in the afternoon).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on May 14, 2021, 10:10:10 PM
Got a (distant) shot of the APL on I-91 just before the COB interchange.  Hopefully it's a rough draft; why is Hartford used as a control when you have already crossed the city line?  Plus, there's an older sign about 100 feet later that (correctly) uses Springfield.  Also saw an erroneous temporary CT 5 sign under a CT 2 sign northbound on the bridge where it crosses over I-91. 
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51180395250_6614c20b06_w.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on May 14, 2021, 10:57:54 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on May 14, 2021, 09:16:24 PM
And we have the first new overhead on CT 9 for Exit 29.....

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51180476980_98089a861c_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2kYDjGU)DSC02665 (https://flic.kr/p/2kYDjGU) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

As can be seen, the old exit # is in use on the new sign, so I guess they really are going to put up the new signs with the old numbers, then change out the exit tabs.  I also guess that overlaying the old number on top is too logical.   Lots of new foundations are in place north of Exit 18 to I-84 so at some point, there will be a mass installation.  Within the abandoned ramps of the Stack, I observed a 4-chord truss piece and support post - though that could be for the I-84 resigning project.  Still just a single post up southbound at Exit 28 in New Britain, where a second installation will go - that is part of the state's spot overhead replacement, not part of the CT 9 resigning. 

This is the only new sign northbound.  Southbound, there is a new Lane Ends overhead just after I-91 in Cromwell.  I didn't get a pic of that, as I went a different way home, given the time (and the notorious backups on CT 9 South in Middletown in the afternoon).

The arrow is off center and again with the 2di shield for a 3di route. Is it that hard?
I do believe it’s the person designing the signs and not the fabricator.

I saw the plans for the I-84 signing and most of the ramp BGS plans have the control city spaces very close together. “I-84 West Waterbury” Waterbury’s font is smaller and too close together on many.

In the button copy years design errors were very few now, it seems almost every sign has something. Is it the skills of the designer? With computers you’d think it’ll be better. I really think it’s the designer and not the fabricator.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on May 15, 2021, 12:57:55 AM
Yeah those I-84 West signs are pretty awful.  This one is near the entrance from High St in Hartford.  (once again, got caught in a shower when I took this)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51180739390_132ab333ed_z.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on May 15, 2021, 02:40:45 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on May 15, 2021, 12:57:55 AM
Yeah those I-84 West signs are pretty awful.  This one is near the entrance from High St in Hartford.  (once again, got caught in a shower when I took this)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51180739390_132ab333ed_z.jpg)
Other than Waterbury being one size too small, that looks fine.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Rothman on May 15, 2021, 09:41:02 AM
Drove from Norwalk up into MA yesterday, Merritt Parkway to I-91.  The speed differential between the left and right lanes was noticeably greater since my last trip.  75+ in left lane; 60-65 in the right, if that.  55 mph speed limit.  Saw one cop, going SB.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on May 15, 2021, 07:35:56 PM
The 1/2 mile EB single gantry for Corbin Ave (Exit 2) on CT 72 is up.  Saw it going the other way.  Same design as the WB sign.  Otherwise, no new signage, though I did see a new pier on CT 9 north near the 72 split.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on May 16, 2021, 08:07:31 PM
The plans are up for the new I-84 Exit 11 redo....and so are the sign plans.  WHY? WHY? WHY?  What is with the narrow font?? 
Is it that hard to design a sign now? I don't understand it.  First with the I-84 Farmington to Hartford plans and now here.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51184546624_41e9c766a6_c.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on May 16, 2021, 08:30:02 PM
Exit 11 redo?  First I'm hearing of this, and I can't find any plans.  Not a fan of the "bid board".

EDIT:
Just found the "scoping" page with a project map and the project concept map.  So I'm guessing the old proposal to "reduce the profile" of this interchange is gone and what we'll have is the "stub" remaining in place, with just some widening and the only new ramp is the slip from 34W->84. 
https://portal.ct.gov/CEQ/DOT/Scoping-Notice/Major-Intersection-Improvements---Newtown--Route-34

Can't find any sign plans. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on May 16, 2021, 10:02:58 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on May 16, 2021, 08:30:02 PM
Exit 11 redo?  First I'm hearing of this, and I can't find any plans.  Not a fan of the "bid board".

EDIT:
Just found the "scoping" page with a project map and the project concept map.  So I'm guessing the old proposal to "reduce the profile" of this interchange is gone and what we'll have is the "stub" remaining in place, with just some widening and the only new ramp is the slip from 34W->84. 
https://portal.ct.gov/CEQ/DOT/Scoping-Notice/Major-Intersection-Improvements---Newtown--Route-34

Can't find any sign plans. 

In the era of transparency, the bid board sucks.  makes it worse.  The same with the STA, its hard to see the new submissions. 

Exit 11 off-ramp will be two lanes until just before the stop light where it will be three lanes. the left lane will turn into two left-turn lanes and the right lane will be just a right-turn lane.  IDK why but the DOT gets it wrong every time! Wouldn't it make sense to make the right lane an option lane for the right-turn lane and for one of the left-turn lanes?  Instead of making drivers change lanes to access either  of the two left turn lanes?!?

The Exit 11 on-ramp will also have a APL sign before the east/west split.  The ramp curves won't be as sharp either especially on the off-ramp.  I'd link it but the new bid board doesn't allow you to.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on May 17, 2021, 12:19:34 AM
Quote from: Rothman on May 15, 2021, 09:41:02 AM
Drove from Norwalk up into MA yesterday, Merritt Parkway to I-91.  The speed differential between the left and right lanes was noticeably greater since my last trip.  75+ in left lane; 60-65 in the right, if that.  55 mph speed limit.  Saw one cop, going SB.

There is no speed enforcement on the parkway ever.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Rothman on May 17, 2021, 08:40:37 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on May 17, 2021, 12:19:34 AM
Quote from: Rothman on May 15, 2021, 09:41:02 AM
Drove from Norwalk up into MA yesterday, Merritt Parkway to I-91.  The speed differential between the left and right lanes was noticeably greater since my last trip.  75+ in left lane; 60-65 in the right, if that.  55 mph speed limit.  Saw one cop, going SB.

There is no speed enforcement on the parkway ever.
I was happy to keep up with traffic in the left lane.  Even if there was enforcement, they couldn't catch us all...
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on May 17, 2021, 10:20:26 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on May 16, 2021, 10:02:58 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on May 16, 2021, 08:30:02 PM
Exit 11 redo?  First I'm hearing of this, and I can't find any plans.  Not a fan of the "bid board".

EDIT:
Just found the "scoping" page with a project map and the project concept map.  So I'm guessing the old proposal to "reduce the profile" of this interchange is gone and what we'll have is the "stub" remaining in place, with just some widening and the only new ramp is the slip from 34W->84. 
https://portal.ct.gov/CEQ/DOT/Scoping-Notice/Major-Intersection-Improvements---Newtown--Route-34

Can't find any sign plans. 

In the era of transparency, the bid board sucks.  makes it worse.  The same with the STA, its hard to see the new submissions. 

Exit 11 off-ramp will be two lanes until just before the stop light where it will be three lanes. the left lane will turn into two left-turn lanes and the right lane will be just a right-turn lane.  IDK why but the DOT gets it wrong every time! Wouldn't it make sense to make the right lane an option lane for the right-turn lane and for one of the left-turn lanes?  Instead of making drivers change lanes to access either  of the two left turn lanes?!?

The Exit 11 on-ramp will also have a APL sign before the east/west split.  The ramp curves won't be as sharp either especially on the off-ramp.  I'd link it but the new bid board doesn't allow you to.

The long-term plan is for the oversized interchange and freeway stub at Exit 11 to be downsized to a diamond interchange. To make that happen, the freeway stub would be dismantled, and Wasserman way would be extended a short distance north, past Route 34 to intersect I-84, where the Directional-T interchange currently sits. CONNDOT's plan was to build a rest area on the land freed up with the downsized interchange. Not sure when that will happen, but the project that CONNDOT recently advertised is for spot improvements to the existing interchanges and adjacent roadways. Of particular note is the reconfiguration of the Route 34 intersection with Toddy Hill Road, which is an absolute clusterf**k during peak travel times.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on May 17, 2021, 11:04:36 AM
I-91 NB Exit 29 permanently becomes a left exit on 5/26.

Portable VMSs in the work site say so.

CT 2 Exit 5B is going away forever on Thursday. CT 2 and 3 are getting IMS upgrades, among other things.
https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/Construction-News-from-the-Connecticut-Department-of-Transportation/2021/Intermittent-Nightly-Lane-Closures-on-Route-2-in-East-Hartford-Hartford-and-Glastonbury (https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/Construction-News-from-the-Connecticut-Department-of-Transportation/2021/Intermittent-Nightly-Lane-Closures-on-Route-2-in-East-Hartford-Hartford-and-Glastonbury)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on May 17, 2021, 03:35:18 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on May 16, 2021, 10:02:58 PM
In the era of transparency, the bid board sucks.  makes it worse.  The same with the STA, its hard to see the new submissions. 

Exit 11 off-ramp will be two lanes until just before the stop light where it will be three lanes. the left lane will turn into two left-turn lanes and the right lane will be just a right-turn lane.  IDK why but the DOT gets it wrong every time! Wouldn't it make sense to make the right lane an option lane for the right-turn lane and for one of the left-turn lanes?  Instead of making drivers change lanes to access either  of the two left turn lanes?!?

The Exit 11 on-ramp will also have a APL sign before the east/west split.  The ramp curves won't be as sharp either especially on the off-ramp.  I'd link it but the new bid board doesn't allow you to.


Finally found it.  It irks me that you just can't search by "Transportation, Dept of" since that "organization" is greyed out.  You have to widdle the overall selection first, before you can select the organization.  I had to search and type "Route 34" and found it that way. 

While the Bid Board may not be the best user interface, we are lucky that they at least kept the downloading/viewing of contract plans available, without having to sign up, send for a CD, register as a contractor, etc, like some other states.


And... wow.... the new I-91 NB Exit 29 opening already?  They were able to make a lot of progress last year with reduced traffic levels.  Haven't been through the project area in a while, but Thursday I just may be heading up that way.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on May 18, 2021, 08:49:06 PM
I found another wooded sign in the wild.  Newington/West Hartford town line.  I forget which road it's on.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51181553311_a41379ed20_c.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on May 19, 2021, 04:26:30 PM
Looks like CTDOT has put some overlays on the new signage on CT 72.  Drove it eastbound today and got this.  Looking in the rearview it looked like the westbound signage was overlain as well. 
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51190024936_1417fccf10.jpg)[/url]
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on May 19, 2021, 04:56:19 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on May 19, 2021, 04:26:30 PM
Looks like CTDOT has put some overlays on the new signage on CT 72.  Drove it eastbound today and got this.  Looking in the rearview it looked like the westbound signage was overlain as well. 
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51190024936_1417fccf10.jpg)[/url]
So they slapped the old exit number over the new one? Is that what I'm seeing in the picture?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on May 19, 2021, 05:35:08 PM
Hmmm.... the contract plans show a flat-out changeover to mile-based exits on Rt 72, while the adjacent Rt 9 contract shows the existing numbers used, and the southern project will replace the tabs (the tabs.... not overlays).  It would make more sense to have the Rt 72 signs installed with the new numbers from the get-go, and have the Rt 9 northern projects have the new numbers, with the old ones overlayed.  But... you know...
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on May 19, 2021, 08:27:46 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on May 19, 2021, 05:35:08 PM
Hmmm.... the contract plans show a flat-out changeover to mile-based exits on Rt 72, while the adjacent Rt 9 contract shows the existing numbers used, and the southern project will replace the tabs (the tabs.... not overlays).  It would make more sense to have the Rt 72 signs installed with the new numbers from the get-go, and have the Rt 9 northern projects have the new numbers, with the old ones overlayed.  But... you know...

From the state that puts in new left exits.  IDC if you can put in a left exit and have the mainline on the right, if you switch it, it still takes up the same amount of space.  Looking at you Route 9 Middletown proposal. And I-91 too, to some degree.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on May 19, 2021, 08:51:14 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on May 19, 2021, 04:56:19 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on May 19, 2021, 04:26:30 PM
Looks like CTDOT has put some overlays on the new signage on CT 72.  Drove it eastbound today and got this.  Looking in the rearview it looked like the westbound signage was overlain as well. 
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51190024936_1417fccf10.jpg)[/url]
So they slapped the old exit number over the new one? Is that what I'm seeing in the picture?

They did the same thing westbound.  They put 7's over the 2's on the signs in the other pics I took last week (I did ending up driving 72 westbound this evening).  Once again makes no sense (just like putting Hartford as a control for I-91 on the new COB APL when you're already across the city line).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on May 19, 2021, 11:00:46 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on May 19, 2021, 05:35:08 PM
Hmmm.... the contract plans show a flat-out changeover to mile-based exits on Rt 72, while the adjacent Rt 9 contract shows the existing numbers used, and the southern project will replace the tabs (the tabs.... not overlays).  It would make more sense to have the Rt 72 signs installed with the new numbers from the get-go, and have the Rt 9 northern projects have the new numbers, with the old ones overlayed.  But... you know...

That what they did when they replaced signs on I-395. As new signs with new exit numbers started going up, they overlaid the new exit numbers on the old sign tabs. I sure hope that Connecticut is not using this as a way to shirk its way out of converting Route 72 to mile-based exit numbers.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on May 22, 2021, 10:01:18 PM
A couple new ones from Route 9 South in Cromwell:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51195554817_5b28fd01d6_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2kZYAPB)CT9SB-Exit20merge (https://flic.kr/p/2kZYAPB) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51196264316_e55b4241df_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2m13eJm)CT9SB-Exit19-adv (https://flic.kr/p/2m13eJm) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

The Exit 19 sign was put up in the past week or so, replacing a bridge-mount. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on May 24, 2021, 03:41:25 PM
I noticed another signing project for CT-8 in Bridgeport.  "Replace highway signs and supports." Advertising will be in April of 2022.  What will it be?  The last of the old signs are being replaced now.

and this project on US-6 @ I-84 in Farmington.
https://www.farmington-ct.org/home/showpublisheddocument/17248/637081993574670000
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on May 24, 2021, 07:06:35 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on May 24, 2021, 03:41:25 PM
I noticed another signing project for CT-8 in Bridgeport.  "Replace highway signs and supports." Advertising will be in April of 2022.  What will it be?  The last of the old signs are being replaced now.

There are a handful of signs/supports that don't seem to be in the contract for the present B'pt-Shelton project.  Its only one or two signs and I'm not sure if that warrants a whole other contract.... but it could be for full Route 8 exit renumbering to mileage.  Overlays don't seem to be ConnDOT's thing, for some reason, otherwise we would have had all our exits converted by now.  If the Route 9 central and northern sign replacement projects hold true, they will put up the new sign, then replace the perfectly-good exit tab with a new one with the new exit number. 

Quoteand this project on US-6 @ I-84 in Farmington.
https://www.farmington-ct.org/home/showpublisheddocument/17248/637081993574670000

Of course this project gets rid of another free-flow movement.  Actually, for someone who has used the South Road loop to get from Rt 4 East to Rt 9 South, the turn onto I-84 East is quite "sketch" with US 6 East traffic heading straight at you. 

I for one would like to see Rt 9 extended north to Farmington Ave, to make the 4->9 connection easier. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on May 25, 2021, 08:44:09 AM
The new ramp for northbound I-91 exit 29 opens tomorrow:
https://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/after-years-of-traffic-new-i-91n-exit-29-in-hartford-opening-soon/2493256/
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on May 25, 2021, 11:04:00 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on May 24, 2021, 07:06:35 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on May 24, 2021, 03:41:25 PM
I noticed another signing project for CT-8 in Bridgeport.  "Replace highway signs and supports." Advertising will be in April of 2022.  What will it be?  The last of the old signs are being replaced now.

There are a handful of signs/supports that don't seem to be in the contract for the present B'pt-Shelton project.  Its only one or two signs and I'm not sure if that warrants a whole other contract.... but it could be for full Route 8 exit renumbering to mileage.  Overlays don't seem to be ConnDOT's thing, for some reason, otherwise we would have had all our exits converted by now.  If the Route 9 central and northern sign replacement projects hold true, they will put up the new sign, then replace the perfectly-good exit tab with a new one with the new exit number. 

Quoteand this project on US-6 @ I-84 in Farmington.
https://www.farmington-ct.org/home/showpublisheddocument/17248/637081993574670000

Of course this project gets rid of another free-flow movement.  Actually, for someone who has used the South Road loop to get from Rt 4 East to Rt 9 South, the turn onto I-84 East is quite "sketch" with US 6 East traffic heading straight at you. 

I for one would like to see Rt 9 extended north to Farmington Ave, to make the 4->9 connection easier.

They'll never build anything north of The Stack. Too much opposition.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Old Dominionite on May 26, 2021, 10:51:41 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on May 18, 2021, 08:49:06 PM
I found another wooded sign in the wild.  Newington/West Hartford town line.  I forget which road it's on.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51181553311_a41379ed20_c.jpg)

Main St/South St. I grew up nearby. That sign is so old that it makes me wonder whether it might even date from the era of CT 176A...
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on May 26, 2021, 11:50:43 PM
Anyone drive the new I-91 exit 29 today? Saw a quick glimpse on local news and saw what appeared to be a CT-5 shield instead of US-5. Don't know why CT has such a hard time differentiating between the two shields, but they've made this mistake with US-1 as well.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on May 27, 2021, 12:55:39 AM
Quote from: connroadgeek on May 26, 2021, 11:50:43 PM
Anyone drive the new I-91 exit 29 today? Saw a quick glimpse on local news and saw what appeared to be a CT-5 shield instead of US-5. Don't know why CT has such a hard time differentiating between the two shields, but they've made this mistake with US-1 as well.
I plan to be there this weekend.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on May 27, 2021, 10:13:15 PM
YouTube video featuring I-91NB Exit 29:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zm4vqd_-Kr8

(Not mine; found it on reddit)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on May 27, 2021, 11:34:46 PM
Nice video of the new ramp opening. Saw the CT-5 sign on the right side below a CT-2 sign at 5:53. Also kind of crazy how on Tuesday exit 90 looks normal, then the next day it suddenly looks like a new construction site had sprung up with barriers and overhead sign modifications. The construction crews did all that in one overnight period of work?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: mariethefoxy on May 28, 2021, 01:49:22 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on May 24, 2021, 03:41:25 PM
I noticed another signing project for CT-8 in Bridgeport.  "Replace highway signs and supports." Advertising will be in April of 2022.  What will it be?  The last of the old signs are being replaced now.

and this project on US-6 @ I-84 in Farmington.
https://www.farmington-ct.org/home/showpublisheddocument/17248/637081993574670000

That highway is named after my freind's great uncle. I wonder if theyre gunna keep the Henry Mucci Highway signs during the replacement
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on May 28, 2021, 03:50:07 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on May 26, 2021, 11:50:43 PM
Anyone drive the new I-91 exit 29 today? Saw a quick glimpse on local news and saw what appeared to be a CT-5 shield instead of US-5. Don't know why CT has such a hard time differentiating between the two shields, but they've made this mistake with US-1 as well.

I've seen that CT 5 shield.  It's most likely a wooden construction-issued sign and I wouldn't be too worried about it staying for the long term.



In other CT 9 news...

The temporary ground sign at Exit 11 SB is now up.  It reads  "EXIT 11/ TO  17 / Durham / ->".  Its a sheet aluminum sign that is meant to be temporary since, according to the contract plans, the overhead support at Exit 11 is going to get removed ASAP.  The permanent replacement will be overhead.  What's interesting about the temporary sign is that the "17" is not in any shield and "155" was omitted.  "Randolph Rd" will no longer appear on the permanent signs, though I suggested to ConnDOT it should stay and put "TO 17 SOUTH/DURHAM" on a separate auxiliary sign. 

We shall see.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on May 28, 2021, 05:46:40 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on May 28, 2021, 03:50:07 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on May 26, 2021, 11:50:43 PM
Anyone drive the new I-91 exit 29 today? Saw a quick glimpse on local news and saw what appeared to be a CT-5 shield instead of US-5. Don't know why CT has such a hard time differentiating between the two shields, but they've made this mistake with US-1 as well.

I've seen that CT 5 shield.  It's most likely a wooden construction-issued sign and I wouldn't be too worried about it staying for the long term.

I'm more worried that the Hartford control for I-91 on the APL BGS's will remain DESPITE THE FACT THAT YOU'VE ALREADY CROSSED THE CITY LINE :banghead:
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Old Dominionite on May 30, 2021, 03:24:34 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on May 28, 2021, 05:46:40 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on May 28, 2021, 03:50:07 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on May 26, 2021, 11:50:43 PM
Anyone drive the new I-91 exit 29 today? Saw a quick glimpse on local news and saw what appeared to be a CT-5 shield instead of US-5. Don't know why CT has such a hard time differentiating between the two shields, but they've made this mistake with US-1 as well.

I've seen that CT 5 shield.  It's most likely a wooden construction-issued sign and I wouldn't be too worried about it staying for the long term.

I'm more worried that the Hartford control for I-91 on the APL BGS's will remain DESPITE THE FACT THAT YOU'VE ALREADY CROSSED THE CITY LINE :banghead:

I assume the "Hartford"  here refers to downtown, where most Hartford-bound traffic is heading. I think it makes sense to post either "Hartford"  or "Downtown Hartford"  at Exit 29 to point motorists in the right direction.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Old Dominionite on May 30, 2021, 03:27:28 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on May 22, 2021, 10:01:18 PM
A couple new ones from Route 9 South in Cromwell:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51195554817_5b28fd01d6_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2kZYAPB)CT9SB-Exit20merge (https://flic.kr/p/2kZYAPB) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51196264316_e55b4241df_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2m13eJm)CT9SB-Exit19-adv (https://flic.kr/p/2m13eJm) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

The Exit 19 sign was put up in the past week or so, replacing a bridge-mount.

I dislike the usage of a square shield for a three-digit route on a BGS. Is this becoming a statewide trend as signs are being replaced?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on May 31, 2021, 12:42:27 PM
Quote from: Old Dominionite on May 30, 2021, 03:27:28 PM
I dislike the usage of a square shield for a three-digit route on a BGS. Is this becoming a statewide trend as signs are being replaced?

Different regions and projects tend to use different sign specs.  The signage for the CT 72 and CT 9 projects seem to be using this, including the ones Jay and I posted further up the page.  I'm not a fan either, but at least they're not using the black borders like they did on I-395 and the parts of CT 8 that have been completed.   
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on May 31, 2021, 07:53:54 PM
There doesn't seem to be any standard whatsoever with recent sign replacement projects.  With every one that comes out, something has changed over the previous, and a lot of it is in the name of cost cutting.  One prime example of this is the new town line signs, which are being replaced with sheet aluminum ones - the same style as you see on 2-lane roads in CT.  Unfortunately, the "service bar" being incorporated into the extruded signs themselves are being discontinued, in favor of the service symbols on a sheet aluminum (ConnDOT is blaming this on the extra space forcing a redesign in the sign as far as wind and the elements go).  Also gone are "TOWN ... NEXT ## EXITS"  and  " TOWN A .... # MILES / TOWN B ... ## MILES". 

You also have the brief attempt to make entrance guide signs of the sheet aluminum variety.  Looks like only CT 8 in the Naugatuck Valley got this treatment, and a few spot locations here n' there. 

Where the verdict lands on state shields remains to be seen.  Thick boardered reassurance shields appeared on upper CT 8 sign replacements but not lower CT 8.  The thick border appeared on I-395 guide signs, but now CT 9 and CT 372 projects seem to go back to normal shields without borders, and apparently without rectangles.  Then there are the spot sign replacements which have "Mass-style" outline shields. 

I saw no problem with the way signs were replaced on the I-395 projects, and I noted those signs when I contacted ConnDOT about the CT 9 resigning project.  The main issue, again, as to why some signs that were extruded are now sheet, is $$$.  But at least, can we standardize on a route shield?  Or maybe its time for a new route shield?  And that will take us back to cost...cost...cost....
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: wytout on June 01, 2021, 11:00:55 AM
Driving the New I91 NB Exit 29 Flyover onto the COB 6/1/2021.

The APL's have most of their arrows temporarily removed as the flyover only has one lane right now but will eventually have 2.
I want to gripe a little bit about the state route shields on the new BGS's for this project.  the numbers are smaller than they should be and are of type C instead of Type D which is standard for all shields on BGS 1, 2 and 3D. (compare to the standard size type D font on the US route shield).

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51217919161_2492470e7e_z.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51217919146_d88987d09b_z.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51218682704_0e6c56509e_z.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51218682679_83bafe504e_z.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51217204117_f934923c3d_z.jpg)

Old Ramp Closed.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51218129418_f3035b32ed_z.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on June 01, 2021, 11:47:36 AM
Quote from: wytout on June 01, 2021, 11:00:55 AM
Driving the New I91 NB Exit 29 Flyover onto the COB 6/1/2021.

The APL's have most of their arrows temporarily removed as the flyover only has one lane right now but will eventually have 2.
I want to gripe a little bit about the state route shields on the new BGS's for this project.  the numbers are smaller than they should be and are of type C instead of Type D which is standard for all shields on BGS 1, 2 and 3D. (compare to the standard size type D font on the US route shield).

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51217919161_2492470e7e_z.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51217919146_d88987d09b_z.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51218682704_0e6c56509e_z.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51218682679_83bafe504e_z.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51217204117_f934923c3d_z.jpg)

Old Ramp Closed.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51218129418_f3035b32ed_z.jpg)

I still don't understand the logic behind moving the I-91 NB to US-5/CT-15 NB ramp from the right side to the left. Conventional wisdom would tell me that it would make more sense to eliminate left-hand exits, rather than create them. Maybe someone knows something that I don't, but it doesn't make sense to me.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: paul02474 on June 01, 2021, 11:56:00 AM
Quote from: wytout on June 01, 2021, 11:00:55 AM

I still don't understand the logic behind moving the I-91 NB to US-5/CT-15 NB ramp from the right side to the left. Conventional wisdom would tell me that it would make more sense to eliminate left-hand exits, rather than create them. Maybe someone knows something that I don't, but it doesn't make sense to me.

This isn't just another exit. Given the amount of traffic using I-91 to reach I-84 heading toward Boston, it could be the predominant traffic flow. If not, it is making way for a steady stream of Boston drivers.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: wytout on June 01, 2021, 12:08:36 PM
Quote from: paul02474 on June 01, 2021, 11:56:00 AM
Quote from: wytout on June 01, 2021, 11:00:55 AM

I still don't understand the logic behind moving the I-91 NB to US-5/CT-15 NB ramp from the right side to the left. Conventional wisdom would tell me that it would make more sense to eliminate left-hand exits, rather than create them. Maybe someone knows something that I don't, but it doesn't make sense to me.

This isn't just another exit. Given the amount of traffic using I-91 to reach I-84 heading toward Boston, it could be the predominant traffic flow. If not, it is making way for a steady stream of Boston drivers.

Agreed, this is one place where a very large percentage of "through" traffic is making it's way from 91 NB to 84EB via the COB, and due to the curve in I91, the "left exit" is really more of a "straight through" movement.  The old right hander would back up  onto 91 on the least traveled days of the year, never mind busy seasons.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on June 01, 2021, 01:27:59 PM
Interesting that the APL only recognizes CT 15 but the smaller sign has both 5 and 15.  My gripes are with the controls.  I've already spouted off ad nauseum about how Hartford should not be a control for I-91 since you've already crossed the city line (should be Springfield and Waterbury [which is understandable for 84 west, although long distance traffic would've used I-691]), but I thought using bridges as controls was no longer en vogue; even I-84 Exit 54 no longer references the Founders Bridge. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on June 01, 2021, 03:50:58 PM
Quote from: paul02474 on June 01, 2021, 11:56:00 AM
Quote from: wytout on June 01, 2021, 11:00:55 AM

I still don't understand the logic behind moving the I-91 NB to US-5/CT-15 NB ramp from the right side to the left. Conventional wisdom would tell me that it would make more sense to eliminate left-hand exits, rather than create them. Maybe someone knows something that I don't, but it doesn't make sense to me.

This isn't just another exit. Given the amount of traffic using I-91 to reach I-84 heading toward Boston, it could be the predominant traffic flow. If not, it is making way for a steady stream of Boston drivers.

I still don't think it's going to work.  The backups will still occur as people maneuver to the correct lane before the exit, similar to I-84 East @ US-7 North split in Danbury. 

I drove the ramp over the weekend and it's a fatal accident waiting happen.  The left lane now comes to a complete stop as people merge over to the left lane to exit.  And because it's still only ONE lane, what happened on the right with the old exit, now happens on the left which makes it even more dangerous. The left lane is a dead stop while the right two lanes continue to move faster.  On top of that, I noticed traffic stayed slow until you got to the top of the incline on the new exit.  I think that will continue when the second lane opens.  I also think given what I just said, they should have waited and opened both lanes at once.  I even saw a rear-ender when I drove by too. Not good.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on June 01, 2021, 04:49:54 PM
In reference to the 2nd photo above which shows "5-15 North/Charter Oak Bridge", that's meant more of an auxiliary sign, replacing the former standalone ground mount sign that said "Charter Oak Bridge".  I'm not sure why, but ConnDOT seems to fluctuate signing US 5 with CT 15 at this interchange.  Original signs just said "CT 15", then in the 90s button copy replacements added "US 5", then replacements removed "US 5" again. 

"Hartford" being used a control city within the city limits... well, I think its the right call.  Not too many people are going to get off Exit 27 to go to Hartford proper.  The loss of the "3 LEFT EXIT" combo sign prior to Exit 29 may have spurred this.  That, and the fact that CT is transitioning to much smaller town line signs and omitting "NEXT ## EXITS" or "EXITS ##-##".  I think such a sign is useful and should appear before Exit 27, as a standalone sign..... "HARTFORD NEXT # EXITS/DOWNTOWN USE EXIT 29A or 32B".  Its tough though, given two exits in the middle that don't go to Hartford (28 and 29) and the fact that 3/4 of Hartford's exits are left exits. 

Perhaps opening the ramp on the eve of Memorial Day weekend was a little much... you're looking at a big traffic change for motorists, and some online map providers are slow to update ramp locations.  Remember, most people these days just go by what their phone/GPS tells them to do... never mind the big green signs staring at them.  Give it time, and it will work.

Yes, left exits are not ideal, but with the lay of the land here, your options are limited.  The only other option I could see is having the exit diverge where Exit 27 is now, but then you'd have to get over a lane or two so that you wouldn't be forced back to I-91.  Then you'd have to find a new way for 15 NB motorists to get to Brainard Rd since that ramp would cut off access.  Outside of a complete redo of the roadway configuration of 91 and 15 through the area, your options are limited.  Would it have made more sense to do what Meriden does and have 15 on the inside and 91 on the outside?  That would've been years and years of road work.  At least ConnDOT has fast-tracked this project, and the low volumes of 2020 more than likely accelerated the work.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on June 01, 2021, 09:23:31 PM
Those APL signs are such a waste of space. Half the height of the sign is just arrows. Can't have a service bar because of wind loading or whatever BS excuse, but we can have a giant 6 foot tall sign that is half empty space?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: DrSmith on June 01, 2021, 09:57:06 PM
Also appears Brainard airport is being demoted from the exit signage
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Roadgeekteen on June 01, 2021, 10:40:32 PM
Quote from: DrSmith on June 01, 2021, 09:57:06 PM
Also appears Brainard airport is being demoted from the exit signage
Doesn't it have no commercial flights?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JJBers on June 02, 2021, 12:17:37 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 01, 2021, 10:40:32 PM
Quote from: DrSmith on June 01, 2021, 09:57:06 PM
Also appears Brainard airport is being demoted from the exit signage
Doesn't it have no commercial flights?
I don't think so. It really doesn't do anything since Bradley is just 25 minutes north on I-91 and is much larger.
Quote from: wytout on June 01, 2021, 11:00:55 AM
Driving the New I91 NB Exit 29 Flyover onto the COB 6/1/2021.

The APL's have most of their arrows temporarily removed as the flyover only has one lane right now but will eventually have 2.
I want to gripe a little bit about the state route shields on the new BGS's for this project.  the numbers are smaller than they should be and are of type C instead of Type D which is standard for all shields on BGS 1, 2 and 3D. (compare to the standard size type D font on the US route shield).

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51217919161_2492470e7e_z.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51217919146_d88987d09b_z.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51218682704_0e6c56509e_z.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51218682679_83bafe504e_z.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51217204117_f934923c3d_z.jpg)

Old Ramp Closed.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51218129418_f3035b32ed_z.jpg)
It's neat how they're redoing the intersection to flow better since it's always been terrible at rush hour. I've probably lost days of my life just sitting there waiting to get onto CT 15 from I-91 north.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on June 02, 2021, 01:25:44 AM
Brainard has been only general aviation and some private corporate for as long as I can remember. It's the only airport where I've done takeoff and landing (Cessna 152, with instructor, age 14. Too bad it's such an expensive hobby)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on June 02, 2021, 07:47:52 AM
Some concepts for I-84 Danbury:

https://www.i84danbury.com/concepts/?fbclid=IwAR0FECSOQHcEzHgN67FrA_kKd0eY4EKEDg8g0LHqrG3FWFVx2P9zH8hkmZs
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on June 02, 2021, 09:59:07 AM
Quote from: JJBers on June 02, 2021, 12:17:37 AM
It's neat how they're redoing the intersection to flow better since it's always been terrible at rush hour. I've probably lost days of my life just sitting there waiting to get onto CT 15 from I-91 north.

There was a secret to beating that: Get off Exit 27, turn around in one of the lots on Brainard Rd, then get back on Route 15 northbound.  Saved me a couple times.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on June 02, 2021, 02:27:43 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on June 01, 2021, 11:47:36 AM
Quote from: wytout on June 01, 2021, 11:00:55 AM
Driving the New I91 NB Exit 29 Flyover onto the COB 6/1/2021.

The APL's have most of their arrows temporarily removed as the flyover only has one lane right now but will eventually have 2.
I want to gripe a little bit about the state route shields on the new BGS's for this project.  the numbers are smaller than they should be and are of type C instead of Type D which is standard for all shields on BGS 1, 2 and 3D. (compare to the standard size type D font on the US route shield).

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51217919161_2492470e7e_z.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51217919146_d88987d09b_z.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51218682704_0e6c56509e_z.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51218682679_83bafe504e_z.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51217204117_f934923c3d_z.jpg)

Old Ramp Closed.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51218129418_f3035b32ed_z.jpg)

I still don't understand the logic behind moving the I-91 NB to US-5/CT-15 NB ramp from the right side to the left. Conventional wisdom would tell me that it would make more sense to eliminate left-hand exits, rather than create them. Maybe someone knows something that I don't, but it doesn't make sense to me.
Couple reasons:

1. It's a 2-3 split with a generous 4 to 5 lane approach, as opposed to just an offramp. Hopefully this also corrects the queue-jumping issue with the old ramp

2. There is no steep grade as with the old ramp (a stop-gap solution I suggested on here was to impose a truck/school bus ban and have them all routed via the Putnam Bridge and CT 2)

3. There is no weave necessary to stay on 5/15 north, however, now there's a weave from Exit 29 to Exit 90, and traffic on 5/15 NB must move over a lane to stay on 91N as the right lane is now exit only.

The biggest mystery to me is why Exit 87 on 5/15 SB wasn't widened, or at least given an option lane with a zipper merge. The only reason I can think of is the footprint for the flyover ramp is too large to accommodate another 12' wide lane.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on June 02, 2021, 05:15:24 PM
Is it possible that ConnDOT plans a southbound "congestion buster" in the future to alleviate the Exit 87 merge?  Probably not, as traffic doesn't back up on I-91 as much southbound, but my suggestion would be to widen the "secondary ramp" to the south, smooth the curve, add 2 lanes to it, and thus it would enter I-91 South on the right.  I-91 South could be widened from 3 to 4 lanes south from the Rt 15 overpass down to Rt 3/Exit 25.  You wouldn't have the trucks in the far left lane trying to get 2 lanes over, tying up everything, and I-91 South could have a consistant 3 lanes through this area (I'd get rid of the Exit 27 "Exit Only" lane and with the removal of the ramp from 5/15 South, shift I-91 South lanes over to the left).

I should draw up a map.  Another time.  Not now.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on June 02, 2021, 08:52:53 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on June 02, 2021, 07:47:52 AM
Some concepts for I-84 Danbury:

https://www.i84danbury.com/concepts/?fbclid=IwAR0FECSOQHcEzHgN67FrA_kKd0eY4EKEDg8g0LHqrG3FWFVx2P9zH8hkmZs

I just checked out option 7 and it has a tunnel between exits 3-4. Concept 6 is a waste. Concept 1 is ok but they dropped the EB exit 7 on-ramp and exit 8 off ramp combo from a previous study. In an earlier study exit 8 would exit before the exit 7 in-ramp
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on June 02, 2021, 09:16:25 PM
I wonder what happened to concepts 2-5.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on June 03, 2021, 12:27:56 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on June 02, 2021, 05:15:24 PM
Is it possible that ConnDOT plans a southbound "congestion buster" in the future to alleviate the Exit 87 merge?  Probably not, as traffic doesn't back up on I-91 as much southbound, but my suggestion would be to widen the "secondary ramp" to the south, smooth the curve, add 2 lanes to it, and thus it would enter I-91 South on the right.  I-91 South could be widened from 3 to 4 lanes south from the Rt 15 overpass down to Rt 3/Exit 25.  You wouldn't have the trucks in the far left lane trying to get 2 lanes over, tying up everything, and I-91 South could have a consistant 3 lanes through this area (I'd get rid of the Exit 27 "Exit Only" lane and with the removal of the ramp from 5/15 South, shift I-91 South lanes over to the left).

I should draw up a map.  Another time.  Not now.

I just came home that way on Memorial Day. Exit 87 was backed up like nothing else. No one was following the signs to the next exit and I merged right into 91 with no issue at all. I say leave things as they are.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: deathtopumpkins on June 03, 2021, 08:44:16 AM
Quote from: vdeane on June 02, 2021, 09:16:25 PM
I wonder what happened to concepts 2-5.

Quote from: i84danbury.comAs concepts are developed, they will be added to this page.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on June 03, 2021, 11:20:51 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on June 02, 2021, 08:52:53 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on June 02, 2021, 07:47:52 AM
Some concepts for I-84 Danbury:

https://www.i84danbury.com/concepts/?fbclid=IwAR0FECSOQHcEzHgN67FrA_kKd0eY4EKEDg8g0LHqrG3FWFVx2P9zH8hkmZs

I just checked out option 7 and it has a tunnel between exits 3-4. Concept 6 is a waste. Concept 1 is ok but they dropped the EB exit 7 on-ramp and exit 8 off ramp combo from a previous study. In an earlier study exit 8 would exit before the exit 7 in-ramp

I think Option 7 doesn't stand a snowball's chance in a blast furnace for ever getting selected for construction. It would cut right through a residential neighborhood with some fairly rough terrain. But...I think ConnDOT put it in there to show folks what the realm of the possible is, and it gives them something to compare their preferred alternative (whatever that may be) against when they prepare the EIS for the project.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: The Ghostbuster on June 03, 2021, 11:45:44 AM
If I lived in the area, I would support Concept 1. Moving the left-handed ramps to the right-hand side seems like a no-brainer to me. Concept 6 seems too limited to me, and I don't see Concept 7 being constructed in a city the size of Danbury.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on June 03, 2021, 02:10:05 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on June 03, 2021, 08:44:16 AM
Quote from: vdeane on June 02, 2021, 09:16:25 PM
I wonder what happened to concepts 2-5.

Quote from: i84danbury.comAs concepts are developed, they will be added to this page.
Then shouldn't concepts 6-7 be concepts 2-3?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: deathtopumpkins on June 03, 2021, 03:20:42 PM
Quote from: vdeane on June 03, 2021, 02:10:05 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on June 03, 2021, 08:44:16 AM
Quote from: vdeane on June 02, 2021, 09:16:25 PM
I wonder what happened to concepts 2-5.

Quote from: i84danbury.comAs concepts are developed, they will be added to this page.
Then shouldn't concepts 6-7 be concepts 2-3?

Concepts are not numbered in the order they are added to the website. The concepts were already broadly conceived, and numbered in a logical order. Now detailed materials (map, summary, etc.) are being developed and added to the website. Some concepts take longer to flesh out all the details than others. Once all of them have been added to the website, the numbering will make more sense.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on June 03, 2021, 05:36:24 PM
I think concept 1 is best. The one thing I would add to it is the new Segar St ramp from concept 6 to solve the 84 E/B exit 4 weaving, though with the new right handed flyunder ramps for W/B exit 3 I'm not sure there would be enough real estate to fit all of the new ramps.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on June 03, 2021, 06:17:20 PM
Drove CT 9 up to New Britain yesterday afternoon and the CT 72 expressway to Plainville to check on sign replacement progress.  A couple new supports and a new Exit 20N south sign.  All sign progress on CT 9-72 will be posted on my FLICKR page in a new album: 
CT 9-72 SIGN REPLACEMENT
https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/albums/72157719337442409/with/51223215146/

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51223215146_5faa0f6caa_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2m3qngQ)CT9SB-Exit20N (https://flic.kr/p/2m3qngQ) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on June 03, 2021, 08:28:51 PM
That arrow jammed in there looks funny but I guess that's the new standard based on the recent sign contracts.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on June 07, 2021, 02:01:56 PM
Quote from: Alps on June 03, 2021, 12:27:56 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on June 02, 2021, 05:15:24 PM
Is it possible that ConnDOT plans a southbound "congestion buster" in the future to alleviate the Exit 87 merge?  Probably not, as traffic doesn't back up on I-91 as much southbound, but my suggestion would be to widen the "secondary ramp" to the south, smooth the curve, add 2 lanes to it, and thus it would enter I-91 South on the right.  I-91 South could be widened from 3 to 4 lanes south from the Rt 15 overpass down to Rt 3/Exit 25.  You wouldn't have the trucks in the far left lane trying to get 2 lanes over, tying up everything, and I-91 South could have a consistant 3 lanes through this area (I'd get rid of the Exit 27 "Exit Only" lane and with the removal of the ramp from 5/15 South, shift I-91 South lanes over to the left).

I should draw up a map.  Another time.  Not now.

I just came home that way on Memorial Day. Exit 87 was backed up like nothing else. No one was following the signs to the next exit and I merged right into 91 with no issue at all. I say leave things as they are.
I've suggested an option lane with a taper merge further down the ramp.
The goal is to prevent traffic from cutting in. That is what is causing the congestion. Or use Exit 86 and not wait at all in that mess.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on June 07, 2021, 02:05:45 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on June 02, 2021, 07:47:52 AM
Some concepts for I-84 Danbury:

https://www.i84danbury.com/concepts/?fbclid=IwAR0FECSOQHcEzHgN67FrA_kKd0eY4EKEDg8g0LHqrG3FWFVx2P9zH8hkmZs
My concept: a bypass leading east from around Exit 7 to where US 7 branches north to Brookfield.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: The Ghostbuster on June 08, 2021, 11:45:15 AM
Can you draw a diagram of the exact routing of your bypass?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on June 09, 2021, 12:01:54 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 08, 2021, 11:45:15 AM
Can you draw a diagram of the exact routing of your bypass?
I think he means from exit 3 to Exit 7, around the south side.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on June 09, 2021, 08:19:15 AM
Quote from: Alps on June 09, 2021, 12:01:54 AM
I think he means from exit 3 to Exit 7, around the south side.
Which would be insane because that cuts right through the center of Danbury. It wouldn't be a bypass it would be a new routing for 7 that would eliminate the overlap with 84.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on June 09, 2021, 03:40:09 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on June 02, 2021, 07:47:52 AM
Some concepts for I-84 Danbury:

https://www.i84danbury.com/concepts/?fbclid=IwAR0FECSOQHcEzHgN67FrA_kKd0eY4EKEDg8g0LHqrG3FWFVx2P9zH8hkmZs
I can see both Concepts 1 & 6 becoming reality.  Concept 7, as others have stated, is a non-starter IMHO; such appears to be a thinking outside the box exercise.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on June 09, 2021, 06:02:45 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on June 09, 2021, 08:19:15 AM
Quote from: Alps on June 09, 2021, 12:01:54 AM
I think he means from exit 3 to Exit 7, around the south side.
Which would be insane because that cuts right through the center of Danbury. It wouldn't be a bypass it would be a new routing for 7 that would eliminate the overlap with 84.
"south side" != "center"
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on June 09, 2021, 11:05:22 PM
Quote from: Alps on June 09, 2021, 06:02:45 PM
"south side" != "center"
84-7 tracks along the northwestern side of the city. By definition anything that goes around the south side of the current alignment would cut through the heart of the city. Unless you mean going around the south side of Danbury which would result in ramming the bypass through Bethel which is very densely populated and would require demolishing hundreds of homes and businesses.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on June 10, 2021, 12:19:40 AM
Quote from: connroadgeek on June 09, 2021, 11:05:22 PM
Quote from: Alps on June 09, 2021, 06:02:45 PM
"south side" != "center"
84-7 tracks along the northwestern side of the city. By definition anything that goes around the south side of the current alignment would cut through the heart of the city. Unless you mean going around the south side of Danbury which would result in ramming the bypass through Bethel which is very densely populated and would require demolishing hundreds of homes and businesses.
let's ask the OP
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on June 10, 2021, 08:43:58 AM
Quote from: connroadgeek on June 09, 2021, 11:05:22 PM
Quote from: Alps on June 09, 2021, 06:02:45 PM
"south side" != "center"
84-7 tracks along the northwestern side of the city. By definition anything that goes around the south side of the current alignment would cut through the heart of the city. Unless you mean going around the south side of Danbury which would result in ramming the bypass through Bethel which is very densely populated and would require demolishing hundreds of homes and businesses.
Which is why that will never happen in a million years. Look at how long they've been fighting over finishing Super 7 between Norwalk and Danbury. The state already owns the strip of land needed to build it, but it'll never get built because there will always be someone with very deep pockets hiring the best lawyers money can buy to fight it.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Avalanchez71 on June 10, 2021, 09:49:12 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on June 10, 2021, 08:43:58 AM
Quote from: connroadgeek on June 09, 2021, 11:05:22 PM
Quote from: Alps on June 09, 2021, 06:02:45 PM
"south side" != "center"
84-7 tracks along the northwestern side of the city. By definition anything that goes around the south side of the current alignment would cut through the heart of the city. Unless you mean going around the south side of Danbury which would result in ramming the bypass through Bethel which is very densely populated and would require demolishing hundreds of homes and businesses.
Which is why that will never happen in a million years. Look at how long they've been fighting over finishing Super 7 between Norwalk and Danbury. The state already owns the strip of land needed to build it, but it'll never get built because there will always be someone with very deep pockets hiring the best lawyers money can buy to fight it.

It is a good thing that they have an avenue to fight.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on June 14, 2021, 09:09:41 PM
Didn't get a pic, but while driving eastbound on the Willow Brook Connector (SR 571) today, I noticed a new Exit Now sign for CT 71 on the westbound side that is now numbered as Exit 1 (the old gore sign remains).  There's also a new BGS for the entrance from CT 71 much in the squished together font that CTDOT is using on new signage in the Hartford area for I-84.

UPDATE: The eastbound 1/2 mile, Exit Now, and gore sign have all be updated.  Drove it westbound, but sun glare prevented me from getting a decent pic.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: zzyzx on June 17, 2021, 01:46:56 AM
We all knew this was going to happen...

https://www.wfsb.com/news/new-i-91-exit-meant-to-ease-traffic-congestion-is-still-causing-back-ups/article_bbf82b14-ced7-11eb-ac0a-b784a2348b4a.html?block_id=994127 (https://www.wfsb.com/news/new-i-91-exit-meant-to-ease-traffic-congestion-is-still-causing-back-ups/article_bbf82b14-ced7-11eb-ac0a-b784a2348b4a.html?block_id=994127)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on June 17, 2021, 06:23:08 AM
Quote from: zzyzx on June 17, 2021, 01:46:56 AM
We all knew this was going to happen...

https://www.wfsb.com/news/new-i-91-exit-meant-to-ease-traffic-congestion-is-still-causing-back-ups/article_bbf82b14-ced7-11eb-ac0a-b784a2348b4a.html?block_id=994127 (https://www.wfsb.com/news/new-i-91-exit-meant-to-ease-traffic-congestion-is-still-causing-back-ups/article_bbf82b14-ced7-11eb-ac0a-b784a2348b4a.html?block_id=994127)
For the billionth time:

1. It's still only one lane, and quite frankly, it moves at a steady pace once past the gore.
2. The widening before the gore hasn't been completed yet (will be a 3-2 split with a least a mile of approach lane(s))
3. People need to stop cutting in at the last minute
4. Through traffic flow is already better.

Stop condemning the project before it's completed.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Old Dominionite on June 17, 2021, 09:35:48 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on June 03, 2021, 06:17:20 PM
Drove CT 9 up to New Britain yesterday afternoon and the CT 72 expressway to Plainville to check on sign replacement progress.  A couple new supports and a new Exit 20N south sign.  All sign progress on CT 9-72 will be posted on my FLICKR page in a new album: 
CT 9-72 SIGN REPLACEMENT
https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/albums/72157719337442409/with/51223215146/

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51223215146_5faa0f6caa_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2m3qngQ)CT9SB-Exit20N (https://flic.kr/p/2m3qngQ) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

Took this route hundreds of times during my high school years. If nothing else, I'm glad the new sign omits "Springfield" as a control city.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on June 17, 2021, 10:47:55 PM
I don't know how I feel of going to single control cities.  Springfield wasn't needed southbound, but northbound it seems more necessary.  Maybe personal preference, since Rt 9 is my "home road" and taking that exit northbound, many times I was heading to Vermont. 

Tonight's update:
New signs are going up on the on/off ramps in Essex/Deep River/Chester/Haddam.  Observed some new signs on the NB ramps for [old/existing] Exits 4,6,9.  These are all sheet aluminum signs.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on June 18, 2021, 12:13:54 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on June 17, 2021, 10:47:55 PM
I don't know how I feel of going to single control cities.  Springfield wasn't needed southbound, but northbound it seems more necessary.  Maybe personal preference, since Rt 9 is my "home road" and taking that exit northbound, many times I was heading to Vermont. 

Tonight's update:
New signs are going up on the on/off ramps in Essex/Deep River/Chester/Haddam.  Observed some new signs on the NB ramps for [old/existing] Exits 4,6,9.  These are all sheet aluminum signs.

Any sings of new exit numbers yet?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on June 18, 2021, 12:45:48 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on June 17, 2021, 10:47:55 PM
I don't know how I feel of going to single control cities.  Springfield wasn't needed southbound, but northbound it seems more necessary.  Maybe personal preference, since Rt 9 is my "home road" and taking that exit northbound, many times I was heading to Vermont. 

Tonight's update:
New signs are going up on the on/off ramps in Essex/Deep River/Chester/Haddam.  Observed some new signs on the NB ramps for [old/existing] Exits 4,6,9.  These are all sheet aluminum signs.

I'm sure they'll also get rid of N.Y. City on southbound signage to I-91 South.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on June 18, 2021, 06:44:24 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on June 18, 2021, 12:13:54 PM
Any sings of new exit numbers yet?

Negative, at least between I-95 and Exit 15.  Everything new to the north is getting existing numbers put on for now. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on June 18, 2021, 07:08:11 PM
I think the single control cities simplifies things. Not saying it's good or bad, but on the approach to the junction you might have an EXIT 20 // I-91 // Hartford // New Haven // 1 MILE sign, so not introducing new control cities at the actual junction keeps it consistent with the approach signage.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on June 19, 2021, 02:54:14 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on June 18, 2021, 06:44:24 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on June 18, 2021, 12:13:54 PM
Any sings of new exit numbers yet?

Negative, at least between I-95 and Exit 15.  Everything new to the north is getting existing numbers put on for now.

I've driven Route 9 north of I-91 this week and other than the number on the Willow Brook, no new signage has been posted in the last couple weeks.  Same with Route 72 (the preview of coming attractions at Corbin Ave is over for now).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on June 26, 2021, 08:24:26 PM
Nothing new on CT 72 to report in either direction.   

However.... the big news is in Berlin, with Exits 21, 22, and 24 having quite a bit of signage replaced.  No new overheads, so all new signage in this area is ground-based.  The Exit 22 "exit now" sign is now ground-mounted, with the old cruciform cantilever still up.  And new ground signage for Exit 24 (example below).  No new signs observed in the southbound direction, however posts are up for a 1 mile Exit 20/I-91 Jct advance.  South of Middletown to Old Saybrook, foundation installation continues NB and crews have been installing some new signs on on/off ramps.  On highway, no new sheet aluminum signs up yet. 

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51273106378_14186fd42a_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2m7Q5cu)DSC03072 (https://flic.kr/p/2m7Q5cu) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

More signs at:  https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/albums/72157719337442409
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on June 27, 2021, 08:22:31 PM
New signs on US-7 in Norwalk.  Added was an extra I-95 EXIT ONLY sign and ATTRACTIONS sign as the Maritime Aquarium will be removed from the older overheads and it'll now be on the new LOGO sign.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51273707152_d3724a969c_z.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on June 28, 2021, 02:32:06 PM
Is that a US-44 sign peaking out from underneath CT-74?  Does that mean an I-86 sign also lurks under??  I thought this sign was replaced and they did discover a I-86 shield under it? Or was that another location?  I drove by this sign last week.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8602012,-72.1708653,3a,15y,249.59h,95.75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spDX6S5t7KPWqoyaS8WOM7g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on June 28, 2021, 03:07:07 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on June 27, 2021, 08:22:31 PM
New signs on US-7 in Norwalk.  Added was an extra I-95 EXIT ONLY sign and ATTRACTIONS sign as the Maritime Aquarium will be removed from the older overheads and it'll now be on the new LOGO sign.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51273707152_d3724a969c_z.jpg)

Hmmm... thought that was supposed to be a full width support with signs for I-95 North and South Norwalk exits?  (if the sign in the distance is the "exit now" for I-95 South).


QuoteIs that a US-44 sign peaking out from underneath CT-74?  Does that mean an I-86 sign also lurks under??  I thought this sign was replaced and they did discover a I-86 shield under it? Or was that another location?  I drove by this sign last week.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8602012,-72.1708653,3a,15y,249.59h,95.75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spDX6S5t7KPWqoyaS8WOM7g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

It appears that is the location of the lurking "US 44 TO I-86" sign.  But I guess it was replaced.  At least according to Steve Alpert's US 44 page:
https://www.alpsroads.net/roads/ct/us_44/
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JJBers on June 30, 2021, 02:59:09 PM
I passed by the Mansfield DoT maintenance facility yesterday and noticed a bunch of BGS signs, so I'm assuming the US 6 Bypass in Willimantic is going to have its signs replaced sometime soon. I'm not sure if they'll add new exit numbers or just maintain a lack of numbers.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on June 30, 2021, 07:16:26 PM
Finally got some shots of the new signs on SR 571 (Willow Brook Connector) with the newly numbered exit.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51282536179_4a0c90ef7a.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51282827045_99f1c6e595.jpg)

Not a fan of the font here
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51281980128_f487ddbfb2.jpg)

And this monstrosity's days are obviously numbered:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51282536184_52e1218143.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on July 01, 2021, 04:55:06 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on June 30, 2021, 07:16:26 PM

Not a fan of the font here
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51281980128_f487ddbfb2.jpg)


It's in the plans that way..for some reason all the ramp BGS signs are like that.  Even for I-84 in Hartford, and new Exit 11 contract for I-84 has a BGS like that at the ramps.  I don't understand how is it so hard to get font and spacing correct nowadays??!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on July 01, 2021, 09:10:12 PM
I don't think it's terrible... at least its extruded aluminum and not one of those sheet aluminum ramp signs!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: wytout on July 02, 2021, 07:16:04 AM
I don't care about the overall tight spacing, but what the hell is up w these route markers. Same thing on the new signage at the COB. 1 and 2 di shields with type c numbers that are way to small relative to the square size.

Thought we finally standardized route shields in this state per the newest sign catalogs. 1 and 2 di should be squares with type d numbers. Wide shields for 3 di, type d if there is a 1 in the route number, type c if there isn't.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: sharkyfour on July 02, 2021, 09:13:16 AM
Quote from: JJBers on June 30, 2021, 02:59:09 PM
I passed by the Mansfield DoT maintenance facility yesterday and noticed a bunch of BGS signs, so I'm assuming the US 6 Bypass in Willimantic is going to have its signs replaced sometime soon. I'm not sure if they'll add new exit numbers or just maintain a lack of numbers.

I'll have to drive by and check it out.  I don't remember hearing about any contract going out for their replacement...  Did I miss that?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on July 03, 2021, 01:53:25 AM
ConnDOT posted its 2020 highway log recently.

In Newington, CT designated a new secret route in 2020: SSR 494, Myra Cohen Way, leading from SR 505 (also secret) to the Cedar Street CTfastrak (Bus Rapid Transit) station. The 0.18-mile connector opened in 2015 with the busway, as a town road. The state reportedly took it over last year in order to expand parking and other amenities at the station.

Also sometime in 2020 (no route change notices online, unfortunately), SSR 403, the double-decker Bradley International Airport access road, was dropped from the state highway system.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on July 03, 2021, 02:10:10 AM
Quote from: kurumi on July 03, 2021, 01:53:25 AM
Also sometime in 2020 (no route change notices online, unfortunately), SSR 403, the double-decker Bradley International Airport access road, was dropped from the state highway system.

That's fascinating since... they can't have turned it back to the town of Windsor Locks, can they?

I would guess CAA has assumed maintenance of it.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on July 03, 2021, 09:38:39 AM
Central Connecticut is getting showered (https://transportation.house.gov/committee-activity/issue/member-designated-projects) with earmark money thanks to Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro who is the chair of the appropriations committee. Here's what's coming in the INVEST Act recently passed by the house:

I-91/I-691/Rt 15 Interchange Improvement Project (I guess Connecticut will soon be losing some more of its trademark left hand ramps)
I-95 West Haven Bridge Replacement and Operational Lane Project
Middletown Route 9 Signal Removal and Upgrade Project

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RyanB06 on July 03, 2021, 10:39:25 AM
Also in the INVEST Act is money for improving Exit 17 on I-84 West in Middlebury, so that will be interesting to see unfold.

All I have to say about the Route 9 money is: THANK GOD. The backups coming to the traffic lights from Cromwell are so bad people are using the breakdown lane to get over the Arrigoni Bridge. (Of course, the ongoing construction doesn't help that situation, but still it's ridiculous.) Maybe this will be the motivation the city of Middletown needs to finally play ball.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on July 03, 2021, 11:32:31 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on July 03, 2021, 09:38:39 AM
Central Connecticut is getting showered (https://transportation.house.gov/committee-activity/issue/member-designated-projects) with earmark money thanks to Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro who is the chair of the appropriations committee. Here's what's coming in the INVEST Act recently passed by the house:

I-91/I-691/Rt 15 Interchange Improvement Project (I guess Connecticut will soon be losing some more of its trademark left hand ramps)


You'd think so, but no... in fact they're gaining one!  A left exit from CT 15 North to I-91 North will be built where CT 15 North crosses over I-91 at Exit 16.  And the two on I-691 will remain, along with the left entrances.  I-691 will actually lose a lane (!) westbound and reduce to a single lane.  I guess this will make it more pronounced where I-691 ends and CT 66 begins. 

Wonder which bridge in West Haven?  The West River Bridge was already replaced and that was a biggie.  Unless they mean a conventional overpass replacement... perhaps this one:  https://www.google.com/maps/@41.2792229,-72.9613253,3a,75y,55.24h,85.76t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suWKLLfr2uo13au1H7znOKg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Then an operational lane could be added from Exit 42 merge to Exit 43 exit. 

Route 9 money!  Hopefully.  I'll believe this project when I see it, as we've all been waiting patiently for 30 + years to get rid of the lights.  I still have to wonder, after looking at both the northbound left exit plans and the plan for the widening of the Exit 13 onramp, if CT 17 will be rerouted as part of this project.  It doesn't leave motorists a lot of room to get over left to stay on CT 17 North, but it is more room than if that Exit 15 "roundabout" option was chosen. 

In reality, the Middletown mess really needs to be fixed by either (1) routing Route 9 to Portland and back via two bridges over the CT River;  (2) constructing a new bridge over the CT River to better handle thru traffic, and having this bridge meet Route 9 with a full interchange, closing the other intersections.  Perhaps a "northern" bridge route would do wonders to relieve some traffic.  Yeah yeah, I know... I know....
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on July 03, 2021, 01:16:19 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on July 03, 2021, 11:32:31 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on July 03, 2021, 09:38:39 AM
Central Connecticut is getting showered (https://transportation.house.gov/committee-activity/issue/member-designated-projects) with earmark money thanks to Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro who is the chair of the appropriations committee. Here's what's coming in the INVEST Act recently passed by the house:

I-91/I-691/Rt 15 Interchange Improvement Project (I guess Connecticut will soon be losing some more of its trademark left hand ramps)


You'd think so, but no... in fact they're gaining one!  A left exit from CT 15 North to I-91 North will be built where CT 15 North crosses over I-91 at Exit 16.  And the two on I-691 will remain, along with the left entrances.  I-691 will actually lose a lane (!) westbound and reduce to a single lane.  I guess this will make it more pronounced where I-691 ends and CT 66 begins. 

Wonder which bridge in West Haven?  The West River Bridge was already replaced and that was a biggie.  Unless they mean a conventional overpass replacement... perhaps this one:  https://www.google.com/maps/@41.2792229,-72.9613253,3a,75y,55.24h,85.76t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suWKLLfr2uo13au1H7znOKg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Then an operational lane could be added from Exit 42 merge to Exit 43 exit. 

Route 9 money!  Hopefully.  I'll believe this project when I see it, as we've all been waiting patiently for 30 + years to get rid of the lights.  I still have to wonder, after looking at both the northbound left exit plans and the plan for the widening of the Exit 13 onramp, if CT 17 will be rerouted as part of this project.  It doesn't leave motorists a lot of room to get over left to stay on CT 17 North, but it is more room than if that Exit 15 "roundabout" option was chosen. 

In reality, the Middletown mess really needs to be fixed by either (1) routing Route 9 to Portland and back via two bridges over the CT River;  (2) constructing a new bridge over the CT River to better handle thru traffic, and having this bridge meet Route 9 with a full interchange, closing the other intersections.  Perhaps a "northern" bridge route would do wonders to relieve some traffic.  Yeah yeah, I know... I know....

Oh wow, and that's in addition to the one they recently added on the Charter Oak Bridge. I think there's a budding strange new respect for left hand ramps among highway engineers.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Rothman on July 03, 2021, 06:12:58 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on July 03, 2021, 01:16:19 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on July 03, 2021, 11:32:31 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on July 03, 2021, 09:38:39 AM
Central Connecticut is getting showered (https://transportation.house.gov/committee-activity/issue/member-designated-projects) with earmark money thanks to Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro who is the chair of the appropriations committee. Here's what's coming in the INVEST Act recently passed by the house:

I-91/I-691/Rt 15 Interchange Improvement Project (I guess Connecticut will soon be losing some more of its trademark left hand ramps)


You'd think so, but no... in fact they're gaining one!  A left exit from CT 15 North to I-91 North will be built where CT 15 North crosses over I-91 at Exit 16.  And the two on I-691 will remain, along with the left entrances.  I-691 will actually lose a lane (!) westbound and reduce to a single lane.  I guess this will make it more pronounced where I-691 ends and CT 66 begins. 

Wonder which bridge in West Haven?  The West River Bridge was already replaced and that was a biggie.  Unless they mean a conventional overpass replacement... perhaps this one:  https://www.google.com/maps/@41.2792229,-72.9613253,3a,75y,55.24h,85.76t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suWKLLfr2uo13au1H7znOKg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Then an operational lane could be added from Exit 42 merge to Exit 43 exit. 

Route 9 money!  Hopefully.  I'll believe this project when I see it, as we've all been waiting patiently for 30 + years to get rid of the lights.  I still have to wonder, after looking at both the northbound left exit plans and the plan for the widening of the Exit 13 onramp, if CT 17 will be rerouted as part of this project.  It doesn't leave motorists a lot of room to get over left to stay on CT 17 North, but it is more room than if that Exit 15 "roundabout" option was chosen. 

In reality, the Middletown mess really needs to be fixed by either (1) routing Route 9 to Portland and back via two bridges over the CT River;  (2) constructing a new bridge over the CT River to better handle thru traffic, and having this bridge meet Route 9 with a full interchange, closing the other intersections.  Perhaps a "northern" bridge route would do wonders to relieve some traffic.  Yeah yeah, I know... I know....

Oh wow, and that's in addition to the one they recently added on the Charter Oak Bridge. I think there's a budding strange new respect for left hand ramps among highway engineers.
Nah.  Forget it, kernals12.  It's CT.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on July 06, 2021, 07:04:16 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on June 18, 2021, 12:13:54 PMAny sings of new exit numbers yet?
I didn't know exit numbers could... sing.  :-D

One of the best & common typo.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on July 06, 2021, 07:34:38 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on July 03, 2021, 11:32:31 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on July 03, 2021, 09:38:39 AM
Central Connecticut is getting showered (https://transportation.house.gov/committee-activity/issue/member-designated-projects) with earmark money thanks to Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro who is the chair of the appropriations committee. Here's what's coming in the INVEST Act recently passed by the house:

I-91/I-691/Rt 15 Interchange Improvement Project (I guess Connecticut will soon be losing some more of its trademark left hand ramps)


Wonder which bridge in West Haven?  The West River Bridge was already replaced and that was a biggie.  Unless they mean a conventional overpass replacement... perhaps this one:  https://www.google.com/maps/@41.2792229,-72.9613253,3a,75y,55.24h,85.76t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suWKLLfr2uo13au1H7znOKg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Then an operational lane could be added from Exit 42 merge to Exit 43 exit. 


Yes, it's the bridge that carries I-95 over the New Haven Line immediately west of the newly-rebuilt bridge over the West River. According to a news article in the New Haven Register, the new bridge will have three 12-foot travel lanes, plus full inside and outside shoulders in each direction. An "operational lane" will be added in the southbound direction, but it appears this will be a lengthened deceleration lane for Exit 43. The article states that 2,200 feet of roadway will also be reconstructed and widened. By doing a cursory measurement on Google Earth, that would mean that I-95 would be reconstructed and brought up to the current standard cross-section from just west of the West River Bridge to the First Avenue (CT Route 122) overpass.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on July 06, 2021, 08:41:34 PM
Oh... so its that bridge
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.2841614,-72.9462851,3a,75y,250.14h,71.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPhmvnhXJ8AVvqgqu-TDiNg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

And I bet that's why that Exit 42 sign in the distance got "left behind"!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on July 06, 2021, 10:06:57 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on July 06, 2021, 08:41:34 PM
Oh... so its that bridge
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.2841614,-72.9462851,3a,75y,250.14h,71.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPhmvnhXJ8AVvqgqu-TDiNg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

And I bet that's why that Exit 42 sign in the distance got "left behind"!

Correct.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on July 07, 2021, 10:15:02 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 06, 2021, 07:04:16 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on June 18, 2021, 12:13:54 PMAny sings of new exit numbers yet?
I didn't know exit numbers could... sing.  :-D

One of the best & common typo.

To answer your question seriously: There was on CT 72 when the Corbin Ave signage went up with the EXIT 2 tab, but the 2's were overlain with 7's.  Numbers won't change until each highway is complete.  CT 9 is showing some progress, but CT 72 hasn't shown much progress in the past month or so (no signs in the maintenance area on Woodford Ave in Plainville). 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on July 08, 2021, 11:02:24 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on July 07, 2021, 10:15:02 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 06, 2021, 07:04:16 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on June 18, 2021, 12:13:54 PMAny sings of new exit numbers yet?
I didn't know exit numbers could... sing.  :-D

One of the best & common typo.

To answer your question seriously: There was on CT 72 when the Corbin Ave signage went up with the EXIT 2 tab, but the 2's were overlain with 7's.  Numbers won't change until each highway is complete.  CT 9 is showing some progress, but CT 72 hasn't shown much progress in the past month or so (no signs in the maintenance area on Woodford Ave in Plainville).

Look at how long they've spent replacing signs on Route 8. That project has been going on for how many years now and they're still nowhere near finished. And they're not even renumbering the exits on Route 8 when they get the sign replacements done...whenever that may be.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on July 11, 2021, 05:37:19 PM
Drove the length of CT 9 today to check on any signing updates.  Not much to report... what I shot is on my FLICKR 9/72 RESIGNING CONTRACT page
https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/albums/72157719337442409

The middle contract (Exits 18-24) seems to have the most progress still being made.  This includes some new supports for ground signs, removal of since-replaced gantries/signs, and additional new foundations for overheads.  The middle contract also includes replacing signs on the Berlin Tpke within the town of Berlin.

The northern contract (Exit 25 to I-84) hasn't seen any progress in the past two weeks, outside of maybe some overhead foundations here n' there.  Perhaps they're working on the CT 72 portion right now... didn't head out that way this time.

The southern contract (I-95 to Exit 16) continues with installing ramp signs.  Several offramps have ramp signs which leave out the arrows, leaving which way to turn up to the motorist.  Not sure how the arrows will be added (the contract plans show them).... they'll probably have to replace the whole sign.  An example is shown below:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51304439987_0b9fc3a479_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2maAEA8)DSC03083 (https://flic.kr/p/2maAEA8) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

Foundations continue to be dug on CT 9 for new signs within the contract limits.  Didn't observe any new ramp signs on the connectors which are part of this project:  CT 17 and CT 82.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on July 21, 2021, 04:28:52 PM
Quick sign update: a new ground mount 1 mile advance for Exit 7 (future 2) is now up.  Looks really obscured, as it's tucked in right next to the 84 East overpass.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51329541559_350349ab1a_z.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on July 30, 2021, 05:04:31 PM
Some decent overhead photos of I-91 / CT 15 construction in Hartford and East Hartford: https://i-91charteroakbridge.com/en/announcements/87-what-s-happening-now
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on July 30, 2021, 09:01:44 PM
Let us pause for a moment of silence.  The Christian Lane CT 9 North monstrosity a few posts above is no more.  It has officially been replaced with a much smaller BGS much like the newer ones depicted.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: The Ghostbuster on July 31, 2021, 12:28:19 PM
Thank you my fellow roadgeeks! Now back to the news in Connecticut.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on August 01, 2021, 02:17:48 PM
I drove the Merritt Parkway for the first time last week (twice actually), and I loved it. I just don't understand why they can't add breakdown lanes.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: DJ Particle on August 01, 2021, 10:01:08 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 01, 2021, 02:17:48 PM
I drove the Merritt Parkway for the first time last week (twice actually), and I loved it. I just don't understand why they can't add breakdown lanes.

Because they wanted to make it appear more scenic.  It's basically designed to be a park in the form of a freeway.  However, like most of the Mid-Cape Highway on Cape Cod, there's enough of a dirt/grass shoulder if by chance you do break down.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 02, 2021, 01:39:40 PM
Drove the length of Route 9 today to check on sign replacement:

Southern contract, I-95 to Exit 16: 
Many new sheet aluminum signs up, including speed limits, reassurance shields, town line markers, and... mile markers! 

Middle contract, Exit 18 to Exit 24:
New extruded aluminum guide signs up for Exits 18, 19, 20.  No sheet aluminum signs.  New entrance signs up at Exit 23.

Northern contract, Exit 25 to I-84:
Not much progress.  Crews seen installing new Exit 29 guide signs. 


A sampling of new:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51353622154_622fda9425_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2meWJJw)CT9NB-DeepRiverT/L (https://flic.kr/p/2meWJJw) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51353111283_ccd3cbfa44_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2meU7Sp)CT9NB-Exit18-2 (https://flic.kr/p/2meU7Sp) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51353111153_f27639160c_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2meU7Qa)CT9SB-Exit20S (https://flic.kr/p/2meU7Qa) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

And the rest....

https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/sets/72157719337442409/with/51353622154/
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: The Ghostbuster on August 02, 2021, 05:55:45 PM
So they replaced the signs on CT 9 with the existing sequential numbers? I would have hoped that the new signs would have had mileage-based numbers, but it appears that will have to wait.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on August 02, 2021, 08:23:42 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 02, 2021, 05:55:45 PM
So they replaced the signs on CT 9 with the existing sequential numbers? I would have hoped that the new signs would have had mileage-based numbers, but it appears that will have to wait.

They tried it on CT 72 at one exit and it lasted a week.  Changes will be made once the highway re-signing is complete.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 02, 2021, 11:17:04 PM
The renumbering of all exits on CT 9 is actually part of the southern contract.  The middle and northern contracts are retaining their existing exit numbers.  Then when the southern contract comes in, the plans state the brand new exit tabs will be replaced with new ones with the mile-based numbers.  This could be why we're seeing sheet aluminum signs go up first on the southern contract and extruded aluminum signs on the other two.  Still seems like a waste and that the new signs should be designed with the new exit numbers from the get-go, overlayed with the existing sequential numbers.  Then when the southern contract comes in, they can remove the overlays. 

But this is coming from the same DOT that has just released a contract to replace signs on I-91 from Exit 9 in North Haven to Exit 18 in Meriden.  The Exits 16-18 signs are being replaced, even though they'll replace them again in a few years after they rebuild the I-91/I-691/CT 15 interchange, moving all the ramps around.  What is cool about those contract plans for the Exits 9-18 project is that they will be adding the Wilbur Cross Pkwy logo to the southbound I-91 signs for Exit 17. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on August 03, 2021, 10:16:06 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on August 02, 2021, 11:17:04 PM
The renumbering of all exits on CT 9 is actually part of the southern contract.  The middle and northern contracts are retaining their existing exit numbers.  Then when the southern contract comes in, the plans state the brand new exit tabs will be replaced with new ones with the mile-based numbers.  This could be why we're seeing sheet aluminum signs go up first on the southern contract and extruded aluminum signs on the other two.  Still seems like a waste and that the new signs should be designed with the new exit numbers from the get-go, overlayed with the existing sequential numbers.  Then when the southern contract comes in, they can remove the overlays. 

But this is coming from the same DOT that has just released a contract to replace signs on I-91 from Exit 9 in North Haven to Exit 18 in Meriden.  The Exits 16-18 signs are being replaced, even though they'll replace them again in a few years after they rebuild the I-91/I-691/CT 15 interchange, moving all the ramps around.  What is cool about those contract plans for the Exits 9-18 project is that they will be adding the Wilbur Cross Pkwy logo to the southbound I-91 signs for Exit 17.
The Wilbur Cross Parkway has a logo? When did that come out? I've never seen a logo for the Wilbur Cross Parkway before...only the Merritt.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on August 03, 2021, 01:05:43 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on August 03, 2021, 10:16:06 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on August 02, 2021, 11:17:04 PM
The renumbering of all exits on CT 9 is actually part of the southern contract.  The middle and northern contracts are retaining their existing exit numbers.  Then when the southern contract comes in, the plans state the brand new exit tabs will be replaced with new ones with the mile-based numbers.  This could be why we're seeing sheet aluminum signs go up first on the southern contract and extruded aluminum signs on the other two.  Still seems like a waste and that the new signs should be designed with the new exit numbers from the get-go, overlayed with the existing sequential numbers.  Then when the southern contract comes in, they can remove the overlays. 

But this is coming from the same DOT that has just released a contract to replace signs on I-91 from Exit 9 in North Haven to Exit 18 in Meriden.  The Exits 16-18 signs are being replaced, even though they'll replace them again in a few years after they rebuild the I-91/I-691/CT 15 interchange, moving all the ramps around.  What is cool about those contract plans for the Exits 9-18 project is that they will be adding the Wilbur Cross Pkwy logo to the southbound I-91 signs for Exit 17.
The Wilbur Cross Parkway has a logo? When did that come out? I've never seen a logo for the Wilbur Cross Parkway before...only the Merritt.

Found this on Alpsroads

(https://www.alpsroads.net/roads/ct/ct_15/wilbur.jpg)

Any link to the project plans?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 03, 2021, 05:08:34 PM
The elusive Wilbur Cross Parkway logo is not posted on any guide signs at present, but these plans, released recently for ConnDOT's I-91 Exits 9-18 sign replacement show it will soon make it to the spotlight.  Strange, though, that the control city will also be "W. Cross Pkwy". 

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51355681763_85621fc8c9_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2mf8hZ2)wcp (https://flic.kr/p/2mf8hZ2) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

No direct link to the contract plans... you have to navigate through the CTsource Bid Board...
https://portal.ct.gov/DAS/CTSource/BidBoard

Then put the following in the *green* search bar:  0100-0180
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on August 03, 2021, 05:09:28 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on August 03, 2021, 01:05:43 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on August 03, 2021, 10:16:06 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on August 02, 2021, 11:17:04 PM
The renumbering of all exits on CT 9 is actually part of the southern contract.  The middle and northern contracts are retaining their existing exit numbers.  Then when the southern contract comes in, the plans state the brand new exit tabs will be replaced with new ones with the mile-based numbers.  This could be why we're seeing sheet aluminum signs go up first on the southern contract and extruded aluminum signs on the other two.  Still seems like a waste and that the new signs should be designed with the new exit numbers from the get-go, overlayed with the existing sequential numbers.  Then when the southern contract comes in, they can remove the overlays. 

But this is coming from the same DOT that has just released a contract to replace signs on I-91 from Exit 9 in North Haven to Exit 18 in Meriden.  The Exits 16-18 signs are being replaced, even though they'll replace them again in a few years after they rebuild the I-91/I-691/CT 15 interchange, moving all the ramps around.  What is cool about those contract plans for the Exits 9-18 project is that they will be adding the Wilbur Cross Pkwy logo to the southbound I-91 signs for Exit 17.
The Wilbur Cross Parkway has a logo? When did that come out? I've never seen a logo for the Wilbur Cross Parkway before...only the Merritt.

Found this on Alpsroads

(https://www.alpsroads.net/roads/ct/ct_15/wilbur.jpg)

Any link to the project plans?
Alrighty then...the Wilbur Cross Parkway has its own shield. First time I've seen one. Where was that picture taken?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on August 03, 2021, 05:11:16 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on August 03, 2021, 05:08:34 PM
The elusive Wilbur Cross Parkway logo is not posted on any guide signs at present, but these plans, released recently for ConnDOT's I-91 Exits 9-18 sign replacement show it will soon make it to the spotlight.  Strange, though, that the control city will also be "W. Cross Pkwy". 

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51355681763_85621fc8c9_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2mf8hZ2)wcp (https://flic.kr/p/2mf8hZ2) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

No direct link to the contract plans... you have to navigate through the CTsource Bid Board...
https://portal.ct.gov/DAS/CTSource/BidBoard

Then put the following in the search bar:  0100-0180
It seems to be duplicative to have the Wilbur Cross Parkway shield and below it "W. Cross Parkway." They should put a control city instead.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 03, 2021, 05:15:36 PM
That WCP shield in the wild was on CT 63 in New Haven, approaching CT 15 Exit 59.  It's gone now, with an intersection reconstruction project. 

Only other spot where I can recall seeing that shield was at the south (US 1) end of the Milford Parkway.  It got removed when the Milford Pkwy got new signs (and exit numbers) several years back.  That's not to say a backroad to the WCP doesn't have a WCP shield somewhere, similar to the backwoods of Greenwich, which hung on to old CT 15 state outline shields and other oddities for many years (and may still).


Any ideas for a proper control city for Exit 17 southbound?  Honestly, since its not found anywhere else and not posted on the parkway itself, the shield isn't necessary.  You could sign it also as "New Haven" but that could confuse some people.  If you're going to New Haven, most people are going to the New Haven that's accessible off I-91 or I-95.  You could sign it "NY City" but that would freak out the truckers.  There's not really a good control city to post for CT 15 South directly from I-91 South. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Old Dominionite on August 03, 2021, 06:28:21 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on August 02, 2021, 01:39:40 PM
Drove the length of Route 9 today to check on sign replacement:

Southern contract, I-95 to Exit 16: 
Many new sheet aluminum signs up, including speed limits, reassurance shields, town line markers, and... mile markers! 

Middle contract, Exit 18 to Exit 24:
New extruded aluminum guide signs up for Exits 18, 19, 20.  No sheet aluminum signs.  New entrance signs up at Exit 23.

Northern contract, Exit 25 to I-84:
Not much progress.  Crews seen installing new Exit 29 guide signs. 


A sampling of new:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51353622154_622fda9425_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2meWJJw)CT9NB-DeepRiverT/L (https://flic.kr/p/2meWJJw) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51353111283_ccd3cbfa44_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2meU7Sp)CT9NB-Exit18-2 (https://flic.kr/p/2meU7Sp) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51353111153_f27639160c_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2meU7Qa)CT9SB-Exit20S (https://flic.kr/p/2meU7Qa) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

And the rest....

https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/sets/72157719337442409/with/51353622154/

The "99"  and "372"  signs are awful. Not only is the font size too small, the contractor can't even center it properly in the square! I'm glad I no longer drive on Route 9 daily. These signs would drive me nuts.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: SectorZ on August 03, 2021, 07:50:55 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on August 03, 2021, 05:11:16 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on August 03, 2021, 05:08:34 PM
The elusive Wilbur Cross Parkway logo is not posted on any guide signs at present, but these plans, released recently for ConnDOT's I-91 Exits 9-18 sign replacement show it will soon make it to the spotlight.  Strange, though, that the control city will also be "W. Cross Pkwy". 

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51355681763_85621fc8c9_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2mf8hZ2)wcp (https://flic.kr/p/2mf8hZ2) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

No direct link to the contract plans... you have to navigate through the CTsource Bid Board...
https://portal.ct.gov/DAS/CTSource/BidBoard

Then put the following in the search bar:  0100-0180
It seems to be duplicative to have the Wilbur Cross Parkway shield and below it "W. Cross Parkway." They should put a control city instead.

Conspiracy theory on this one, the state would rather not list a control city since a trucker *may* see that and ignore the truck restriction part underneath. Just my two cents. Doubt I am right but I could be.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Old Dominionite on August 03, 2021, 08:16:49 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on August 03, 2021, 07:50:55 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on August 03, 2021, 05:11:16 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on August 03, 2021, 05:08:34 PM
The elusive Wilbur Cross Parkway logo is not posted on any guide signs at present, but these plans, released recently for ConnDOT's I-91 Exits 9-18 sign replacement show it will soon make it to the spotlight.  Strange, though, that the control city will also be "W. Cross Pkwy". 

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51355681763_85621fc8c9_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2mf8hZ2)wcp (https://flic.kr/p/2mf8hZ2) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

No direct link to the contract plans... you have to navigate through the CTsource Bid Board...
https://portal.ct.gov/DAS/CTSource/BidBoard

Then put the following in the search bar:  0100-0180
It seems to be duplicative to have the Wilbur Cross Parkway shield and below it "W. Cross Parkway." They should put a control city instead.

Conspiracy theory on this one, the state would rather not list a control city since a trucker *may* see that and ignore the truck restriction part underneath. Just my two cents. Doubt I am right but I could be.

Perhaps, but the state has inconsistent signing practices. Control cities appear at US 7 and CT 25 SB, but not at CT 25 NB or CT 8. Also, control cities appear on nearly all CT 15 onramps, including at busy truck arteries like CT 34.

I think the state should keep the parkway shields off all guide signs, and only place them beneath CT 15 reassurance shields. I’m ambivalent about posting any control cities at all on CT 15.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on August 03, 2021, 10:58:52 PM
Parkway south should be signed with N.Y. City as the control city. No reason it should be any different than I-95. That yellow "passenger vehicles only" panel should be white since it's a regulatory sign.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: storm2k on August 04, 2021, 12:03:45 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on August 03, 2021, 05:08:34 PM
The elusive Wilbur Cross Parkway logo is not posted on any guide signs at present, but these plans, released recently for ConnDOT's I-91 Exits 9-18 sign replacement show it will soon make it to the spotlight.  Strange, though, that the control city will also be "W. Cross Pkwy". 

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51355681763_85621fc8c9_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2mf8hZ2)wcp (https://flic.kr/p/2mf8hZ2) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

No direct link to the contract plans... you have to navigate through the CTsource Bid Board...
https://portal.ct.gov/DAS/CTSource/BidBoard

Then put the following in the *green* search bar:  0100-0180

Basically following NJDOT rules for roads like this it feels like. The Turnpike and Parkway are listed with "NJ Turnpike" or "GS Parkway" (or "Garden State Parkway") in almost all situations for control cities even though they post their shields. Also, that no trucks panel should be black on white, not black on yellow. It's a regulation, not a warning.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on August 04, 2021, 12:43:43 AM
Quote from: storm2k on August 04, 2021, 12:03:45 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on August 03, 2021, 05:08:34 PM
The elusive Wilbur Cross Parkway logo is not posted on any guide signs at present, but these plans, released recently for ConnDOT's I-91 Exits 9-18 sign replacement show it will soon make it to the spotlight.  Strange, though, that the control city will also be "W. Cross Pkwy". 

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51355681763_85621fc8c9_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2mf8hZ2)wcp (https://flic.kr/p/2mf8hZ2) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

No direct link to the contract plans... you have to navigate through the CTsource Bid Board...
https://portal.ct.gov/DAS/CTSource/BidBoard

Then put the following in the *green* search bar:  0100-0180

Basically following NJDOT rules for roads like this it feels like. The Turnpike and Parkway are listed with "NJ Turnpike" or "GS Parkway" (or "Garden State Parkway") in almost all situations for control cities even though they post their shields. Also, that no trucks panel should be black on white, not black on yellow. It's a regulation, not a warning.
Also A C Expwy is its own destination. It seems to just be a thing that is done with named roads.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Old Dominionite on August 04, 2021, 04:07:22 AM
Randomly came across and saw the movie "Jacknife"  with Robert DeNiro and Ed Harris on Amazon Prime. While I thought the movie overall features some great acting, it also features some great shots of CT roadways circa 1988 (the movie was almost completely filmed on location in central/western Connecticut).

Of note:
- Route 8 in the Beacon Falls/Naugatuck area
- I-84 in downtown Waterbury (seen through the windows of a tractor trailer cab)
- Route 8 northbound in Thomaston prior to Exit 38
- Route 8 southbound in Watertown prior to Exit 37
- Route 66 westbound in Meriden at the I-91/I-691 interchange
- Broad Street (Route 5) in Meriden

Guide signs can be briefly seen in many of the expressway shots. Clearly, these signs all date from when the expressways were originally built, and given that it was 1988, they were on the cusp of being replaced. The shot from Route 66 shows a pull-through sign "recently"  modified with a I-691 shield.

Anyway, the movie was decent, but brought back vivid memories of Connecticut's roads as I primarily remember them as a kid.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on August 04, 2021, 08:09:53 AM
Quote from: Old Dominionite on August 04, 2021, 04:07:22 AM
Randomly came across and saw the movie "Jacknife"  with Robert DeNiro and Ed Harris on Amazon Prime. While I thought the movie overall features some great acting, it also features some great shots of CT roadways circa 1988 (the movie was almost completely filmed on location in central/western Connecticut).

Of note:
- Route 8 in the Beacon Falls/Naugatuck area
- I-84 in downtown Waterbury (seen through the windows of a tractor trailer cab)
- Route 8 northbound in Thomaston prior to Exit 38
- Route 8 southbound in Watertown prior to Exit 37
- Route 66 westbound in Meriden at the I-91/I-691 interchange
- Broad Street (Route 5) in Meriden

Guide signs can be briefly seen in many of the expressway shots. Clearly, these signs all date from when the expressways were originally built, and given that it was 1988, they were on the cusp of being replaced. The shot from Route 66 shows a pull-through sign "recently"  modified with a I-691 shield.

Anyway, the movie was decent, but brought back vivid memories of Connecticut's roads as I primarily remember them as a kid.
Another interesting observation, the scene on southbound Route 8 was at a time when most of Route 8 still had its original concrete surface. They started overlaying Route 8's concrete surface with asphalt in the 1990s, and I don't think there are any sections of Route 8 left that are still concrete.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on August 05, 2021, 07:01:11 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/CUIGnVU.png)


ConnDOT made this chart in 2018 to illustrate usable ROW along I-95 in Fairfield County. I don't understand what's so hard about adding an extra lane in each direction, in fact given the area in blue, it looks like they could fit 12 lanes. Is it the interchanges that are the problem?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on August 05, 2021, 10:53:51 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 05, 2021, 07:01:11 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/CUIGnVU.png)


ConnDOT made this chart in 2018 to illustrate usable ROW along I-95 in Fairfield County. I don't understand what's so hard about adding an extra lane in each direction, in fact given the area in blue, it looks like they could fit 12 lanes. Is it the interchanges that are the problem?
The bridges are probably the biggest issue. You'd hope as they replace overpasses they'd widen them out to accommodate future widening like they did with the Exit 73 Society Rd replacement bridge.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on August 06, 2021, 01:38:45 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on August 03, 2021, 05:08:34 PM
The elusive Wilbur Cross Parkway logo is not posted on any guide signs at present, but these plans, released recently for ConnDOT's I-91 Exits 9-18 sign replacement show it will soon make it to the spotlight.  Strange, though, that the control city will also be "W. Cross Pkwy". 

I approve of this highly. Long live the West Cross Parkway!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on August 06, 2021, 09:03:47 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on August 03, 2021, 07:50:55 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on August 03, 2021, 05:11:16 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on August 03, 2021, 05:08:34 PM
The elusive Wilbur Cross Parkway logo is not posted on any guide signs at present, but these plans, released recently for ConnDOT's I-91 Exits 9-18 sign replacement show it will soon make it to the spotlight.  Strange, though, that the control city will also be "W. Cross Pkwy". 

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51355681763_85621fc8c9_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2mf8hZ2)wcp (https://flic.kr/p/2mf8hZ2) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

No direct link to the contract plans... you have to navigate through the CTsource Bid Board...
https://portal.ct.gov/DAS/CTSource/BidBoard

Then put the following in the search bar:  0100-0180
It seems to be duplicative to have the Wilbur Cross Parkway shield and below it "W. Cross Parkway." They should put a control city instead.

Conspiracy theory on this one, the state would rather not list a control city since a trucker *may* see that and ignore the truck restriction part underneath. Just my two cents. Doubt I am right but I could be.
In this case, it might be an overhead clearance issue.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: TheDon102 on August 06, 2021, 04:34:27 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 05, 2021, 07:01:11 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/CUIGnVU.png)


ConnDOT made this chart in 2018 to illustrate usable ROW along I-95 in Fairfield County. I don't understand what's so hard about adding an extra lane in each direction, in fact given the area in blue, it looks like they could fit 12 lanes. Is it the interchanges that are the problem?

I don't know if I necessarily believe that chart, and just because they have the ROW doesn't mean they can just pave over it without some kind of backlash, not many people wanna live that close to the freeway. Extreme example is I-95 in Chester PA, where the houses might as well be apart of the highway.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on August 06, 2021, 05:14:45 PM
Quote from: TheDon102 on August 06, 2021, 04:34:27 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 05, 2021, 07:01:11 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/CUIGnVU.png)


ConnDOT made this chart in 2018 to illustrate usable ROW along I-95 in Fairfield County. I don't understand what's so hard about adding an extra lane in each direction, in fact given the area in blue, it looks like they could fit 12 lanes. Is it the interchanges that are the problem?

I don't know if I necessarily believe that chart, and just because they have the ROW doesn't mean they can just pave over it without some kind of backlash, not many people wanna live that close to the freeway. Extreme example is I-95 in Chester PA, where the houses might as well be apart of the highway.

Why can't they make a quiet asphalt???  :angry:
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on August 06, 2021, 06:38:25 PM
Quote from: TheDon102 on August 06, 2021, 04:34:27 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 05, 2021, 07:01:11 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/CUIGnVU.png)


ConnDOT made this chart in 2018 to illustrate usable ROW along I-95 in Fairfield County. I don't understand what's so hard about adding an extra lane in each direction, in fact given the area in blue, it looks like they could fit 12 lanes. Is it the interchanges that are the problem?

I don't know if I necessarily believe that chart, and just because they have the ROW doesn't mean they can just pave over it without some kind of backlash, not many people wanna live that close to the freeway. Extreme example is I-95 in Chester PA, where the houses might as well be apart of the highway.
ROW includes a lot more than just the road. It includes signs, structures, grading down to the highway, possible easements that require being kept in a natural state, sound walls, environmental remediation... This chart is meaningless without doing a thorough engineering study.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on August 09, 2021, 12:29:07 PM
2 updates:

CT-8 signing project:
The SB Exit 7 "exit now" sign that was replaced a couple years ago as part of a spot replacement is being replaced today as we speak.  The new sign has the addition of "E. Main St" on it. 
Lots of new poles and the only new sign I saw was this:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51366248126_2d6fd46341_z.jpg)


CT-15/US-7 project:

A poster child for what's wrong with transportation and NIMBYism, the DOT is actually beginning work on making the deceleration lane longer for Exit 40B SB.

http://7-15norwalk.com/documents/Exit-40B-Improvements.pdf
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: yakra on August 09, 2021, 11:07:56 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on August 09, 2021, 12:29:07 PM
A poster child for what's wrong with transportation and NIMBYism, the DOT is actually beginning work on making the deceleration lane longer for Exit 40B SB.

http://7-15norwalk.com/documents/Exit-40B-Improvements.pdf
What's wrong with this? It looks like for once people said yes to something, however small, in their backyard.

Is it that ConnDOT is focusing on small potatoes like this when
Quote from: http://7-15norwalk.com/documents/Exit-40B-Improvements.pdf
it is important to note that a future project, the Route 7/15 interchange, will likely reconfigure this area
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on August 10, 2021, 12:24:28 AM
Quote from: yakra on August 09, 2021, 11:07:56 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on August 09, 2021, 12:29:07 PM
A poster child for what's wrong with transportation and NIMBYism, the DOT is actually beginning work on making the deceleration lane longer for Exit 40B SB.

http://7-15norwalk.com/documents/Exit-40B-Improvements.pdf
What's wrong with this? It looks like for once people said yes to something, however small, in their backyard.

Is it that ConnDOT is focusing on small potatoes like this when
Quote from: http://7-15norwalk.com/documents/Exit-40B-Improvements.pdf
it is important to note that a future project, the Route 7/15 interchange, will likely reconfigure this area
it's that that will never happen, that is what that is
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on August 10, 2021, 04:20:49 PM
Quote from: Alps on August 06, 2021, 06:38:25 PM
Quote from: TheDon102 on August 06, 2021, 04:34:27 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 05, 2021, 07:01:11 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/CUIGnVU.png)


ConnDOT made this chart in 2018 to illustrate usable ROW along I-95 in Fairfield County. I don't understand what's so hard about adding an extra lane in each direction, in fact given the area in blue, it looks like they could fit 12 lanes. Is it the interchanges that are the problem?

I don't know if I necessarily believe that chart, and just because they have the ROW doesn't mean they can just pave over it without some kind of backlash, not many people wanna live that close to the freeway. Extreme example is I-95 in Chester PA, where the houses might as well be apart of the highway.
ROW includes a lot more than just the road. It includes signs, structures, grading down to the highway, possible easements that require being kept in a natural state, sound walls, environmental remediation... This chart is meaningless without doing a thorough engineering study.

To that point, interstate highway standards require there be enough right-of-way to maintain appropriate clear zones adjacent to the highway. In other words, you can't build the highway right up to the ROW boundary and still meet interstate standards for that reason and the reasons mentioned above. 

I realize that most of the Connecticut Turnpike portion of I-95 falls well below interstate standards, but...those substandard sections have to be brought up to interstate standards when they are reconstructed.

Think of it like an old house. A lot of things may not be up to code, but your local building inspector will normally let you leave things the way they are until you do a big remodel (unless an item out of code is an immediate life/health/safety concern, then the inspector can issue an emergency order for you to address that item). That's how the FHWA treats the Connecticut Turnpike. They know it's not up to interstate standards, but they're okay with ConnDOT leaving it be until it's time to replace bridges or major pavement work needs to be done, at which point the FHWA will tell ConnDOT to bring that stretch of highway up to interstate standards.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on August 11, 2021, 10:18:39 AM
Noticed an odd-looking device hanging over the I-84 E on-ramp from Buckland St. in Manchester. It looked like some kind of traffic counting device, but there was a sign that said "Clearence 16' Emissions Testing Device".

Is CT DOT experimenting with on-road emissions testing?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 11, 2021, 05:24:22 PM
Wasn't expecting this so soon, but.... the CT 2/3/11/17 Resigning & Conversion to Mileage-based exits contract is out and available for viewing on the CT Bid Board!

Some changes of note: 
*   "East Haddam" becomes the primary control city on CT 16.  I wonder if they meant "East Hampton"
*   "Business Route" gets removed from the signs in Marlborough and Colchester
*   CT 11 mile based exits count up from the probably-never-gonna-happen I-95/I-395 interchange
*   CT 3 & 17 get mile based exits counting up from their southern terminus. 
*   No mention of signage for the "Governor St" ramps.  They don't even get an exit number.  Wonder why?
*   There are dual signs eastbound on CT 2 at the CT 17/94 exits... methinks a future project is in the works, since the plans say "future sign" and have an exit only tab for that
     future sign on the CT 94 exit.  That whole area needs a complete reworking, but knowing ConnDOT, it'll just be an operational lane-type addition, rather than solving the root
     of the problem:  the left exit.

Contract plans continue to "cheap out", only showing overheads.  To see the ground signage, you have to hunt through the contract "special provisions".  Didn't see any mention of any blue logo attractions signs.  There really isn't too much to do off that part of CT 2 anyway. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on August 11, 2021, 06:36:36 PM
Yay for them using Worcester instead of Providence for 395 North, seeing 395 goes nowhere near Providence. 

I would've used Middletown as a second control for the CT 16 exit westbound.  No one in their right mind would take 2 all the way up to Marlborough and double back on 66.  Plus, most Colchester Center traffic would have exited on 85. 

Why do they use continue to insist on using CT 11 for New London, especially westbound, when 395 to 32 (via SR 693) is the most viable option?

At the westbound 84 split, you have Hartford as a control for 84/91 and "Downtown Hartford" as the control for 2 West.  I probably would have used Waterbury and Springfield to avoid confusion. 

On Route 3, shouldn't 13B be for 2 East and 13C for 2 West, seeing the eastbound lanes come before the westbound lanes? 

Another item: these look like different exit numbers than in the original plans.  The I-395 exits in the original plans were 37 A-B, but are 36 and 37 here.  Also some fudging EB for CT 17 and CT 94, with 94 being fudged up to 6 where the original plans had them as 5A and 5B EB and 94 as 5 WB. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on August 11, 2021, 07:20:51 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on August 10, 2021, 04:20:49 PM
Quote from: Alps on August 06, 2021, 06:38:25 PM
Quote from: TheDon102 on August 06, 2021, 04:34:27 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 05, 2021, 07:01:11 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/CUIGnVU.png)


ConnDOT made this chart in 2018 to illustrate usable ROW along I-95 in Fairfield County. I don't understand what's so hard about adding an extra lane in each direction, in fact given the area in blue, it looks like they could fit 12 lanes. Is it the interchanges that are the problem?

I don't know if I necessarily believe that chart, and just because they have the ROW doesn't mean they can just pave over it without some kind of backlash, not many people wanna live that close to the freeway. Extreme example is I-95 in Chester PA, where the houses might as well be apart of the highway.
ROW includes a lot more than just the road. It includes signs, structures, grading down to the highway, possible easements that require being kept in a natural state, sound walls, environmental remediation... This chart is meaningless without doing a thorough engineering study.

To that point, interstate highway standards require there be enough right-of-way to maintain appropriate clear zones adjacent to the highway. In other words, you can't build the highway right up to the ROW boundary and still meet interstate standards for that reason and the reasons mentioned above. 

I realize that most of the Connecticut Turnpike portion of I-95 falls well below interstate standards, but...those substandard sections have to be brought up to interstate standards when they are reconstructed.

Think of it like an old house. A lot of things may not be up to code, but your local building inspector will normally let you leave things the way they are until you do a big remodel (unless an item out of code is an immediate life/health/safety concern, then the inspector can issue an emergency order for you to address that item). That's how the FHWA treats the Connecticut Turnpike. They know it's not up to interstate standards, but they're okay with ConnDOT leaving it be until it's time to replace bridges or major pavement work needs to be done, at which point the FHWA will tell ConnDOT to bring that stretch of highway up to interstate standards.
What is the reasoning behind that rule?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 11, 2021, 08:43:51 PM
Also, button copy enthusiasts, get your photos now (or within the next year or so)....

This project will essentially remove button copy from the last of the state routes (not counting an isolated exit here or there on CT 15).  That means surviving button copy not yet targeted for replacement is I-91 north of Hartford to Enfield (late 1980s/early 90s), I-291 (1994), and I-95 in Branford & Guilford (1993, replaced 1958 original). 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on August 11, 2021, 09:36:28 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 11, 2021, 07:20:51 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on August 10, 2021, 04:20:49 PM

To that point, interstate highway standards require there be enough right-of-way to maintain appropriate clear zones adjacent to the highway. In other words, you can't build the highway right up to the ROW boundary and still meet interstate standards for that reason and the reasons mentioned above. 

I realize that most of the Connecticut Turnpike portion of I-95 falls well below interstate standards, but...those substandard sections have to be brought up to interstate standards when they are reconstructed.

Think of it like an old house. A lot of things may not be up to code, but your local building inspector will normally let you leave things the way they are until you do a big remodel (unless an item out of code is an immediate life/health/safety concern, then the inspector can issue an emergency order for you to address that item). That's how the FHWA treats the Connecticut Turnpike. They know it's not up to interstate standards, but they're okay with ConnDOT leaving it be until it's time to replace bridges or major pavement work needs to be done, at which point the FHWA will tell ConnDOT to bring that stretch of highway up to interstate standards.
What is the reasoning behind that rule?
Which rule specifically? That existing roads can be left as is? Money.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on August 12, 2021, 02:55:05 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on August 11, 2021, 06:36:36 PM
On Route 3, shouldn't 13B be for 2 East and 13C for 2 West, seeing the eastbound lanes come before the westbound lanes? 

Another item: these look like different exit numbers than in the original plans.  The I-395 exits in the original plans were 37 A-B, but are 36 and 37 here.  Also some fudging EB for CT 17 and CT 94, with 94 being fudged up to 6 where the original plans had them as 5A and 5B EB and 94 as 5 WB. 

I'm surprised to see exit 36 and 37 for I-395 SB and NB, since they're ramps of the same interchange -- an A/B would make more sense.

Same for CT 17 SB for the two ramps to New London Turnpike -- even though they've been signed as separate interchanges for a long time.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on August 12, 2021, 06:57:45 AM
Quote from: Alps on August 11, 2021, 09:36:28 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 11, 2021, 07:20:51 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on August 10, 2021, 04:20:49 PM

To that point, interstate highway standards require there be enough right-of-way to maintain appropriate clear zones adjacent to the highway. In other words, you can't build the highway right up to the ROW boundary and still meet interstate standards for that reason and the reasons mentioned above. 

I realize that most of the Connecticut Turnpike portion of I-95 falls well below interstate standards, but...those substandard sections have to be brought up to interstate standards when they are reconstructed.

Think of it like an old house. A lot of things may not be up to code, but your local building inspector will normally let you leave things the way they are until you do a big remodel (unless an item out of code is an immediate life/health/safety concern, then the inspector can issue an emergency order for you to address that item). That's how the FHWA treats the Connecticut Turnpike. They know it's not up to interstate standards, but they're okay with ConnDOT leaving it be until it's time to replace bridges or major pavement work needs to be done, at which point the FHWA will tell ConnDOT to bring that stretch of highway up to interstate standards.
What is the reasoning behind that rule?
Which rule specifically? That existing roads can be left as is? Money.

The one that says you need clear zones.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on August 12, 2021, 11:34:39 AM
Quote from: Alps on August 11, 2021, 09:36:28 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 11, 2021, 07:20:51 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on August 10, 2021, 04:20:49 PM

To that point, interstate highway standards require there be enough right-of-way to maintain appropriate clear zones adjacent to the highway. In other words, you can't build the highway right up to the ROW boundary and still meet interstate standards for that reason and the reasons mentioned above. 

I realize that most of the Connecticut Turnpike portion of I-95 falls well below interstate standards, but...those substandard sections have to be brought up to interstate standards when they are reconstructed.

Think of it like an old house. A lot of things may not be up to code, but your local building inspector will normally let you leave things the way they are until you do a big remodel (unless an item out of code is an immediate life/health/safety concern, then the inspector can issue an emergency order for you to address that item). That's how the FHWA treats the Connecticut Turnpike. They know it's not up to interstate standards, but they're okay with ConnDOT leaving it be until it's time to replace bridges or major pavement work needs to be done, at which point the FHWA will tell ConnDOT to bring that stretch of highway up to interstate standards.
What is the reasoning behind that rule?
Which rule specifically? That existing roads can be left as is? Money.
Concerning the amount of ROW required, that comes from AASHTO's "A Policy on Design Standards - Interstate Highways." It states, "The width of right-of-way shall be sufficient to accommodate the roadway cross section elements and requisite appurtenances necessary for an adequate facility in the design year and for known future improvements."

http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2014/ph240/suresh2/docs/AASHTO-InterstateDesignStandards.pdf
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: DJ Particle on August 13, 2021, 12:24:43 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on August 11, 2021, 06:36:36 PM
Yay for them using Worcester instead of Providence for 395 North, seeing 395 goes nowhere near Providence. 
I assume the control city of Providence on older signs was a holdout from its days as the CT Pike?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on August 13, 2021, 10:45:50 AM
Quote from: DJ Particle on August 13, 2021, 12:24:43 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on August 11, 2021, 06:36:36 PM
Yay for them using Worcester instead of Providence for 395 North, seeing 395 goes nowhere near Providence. 
I assume the control city of Providence on older signs was a holdout from its days as the CT Pike?
It could have been, as the northeast leg of the Connecticut Turnpike past Killingly was supposed to connect to an extended I-84 (that was never built) that would run to Providence.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 13, 2021, 09:25:59 PM
Original turnpike entrance signage carried the destinations "NEW YORK AND WEST" and "RHODE ISLAND AND EAST".  Some of this signage existed in Branford and Guilford on the I-95 portion until 1993.  What is odd about this particular exit on CT 2 is that all other signage for I-395 North in this area has the "Worcester" destination.  So as to why the Providence destination has appeared for CT 2 East motorists, it may have been simple geographic logic... someone on CT 2 East heading for Worcester probably would've taken another route, vs Providence which is more of a straight shot from CT 2 East. 

There's also the mystery of how "Plainfield" became a control city on I-95 North at the turnpike split in East Lyme.  It appeared on the old I-95 signage for what is now Exit 76 at some point in the 1970s... I-395 was still CT 52 at that point.  But that's the only exit to ever see Plainfield as a control city.  In 2000 when signs were replaced, they really should have replaced it with Worcester, as at the same time they removed the Mass Pike/Worcester secondary sign. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: sharkyfour on August 14, 2021, 01:03:25 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on August 13, 2021, 09:25:59 PM
There's also the mystery of how "Plainfield" became a control city on I-95 North at the turnpike split in East Lyme.  It appeared on the old I-95 signage for what is now Exit 76 at some point in the 1970s... I-395 was still CT 52 at that point.  But that's the only exit to ever see Plainfield as a control city.  In 2000 when signs were replaced, they really should have replaced it with Worcester, as at the same time they removed the Mass Pike/Worcester secondary sign.

In the mid-late 1970's, the Plainfield Greyhound Park was a vary large draw for people well beyond the local area, and remained that way until the casinos opened.  The site is about to become a large traffic generator again, but now as an Amazon distribution hub.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on August 14, 2021, 02:57:36 PM
I noticed on I-95 the casino extruded aluminum signs weren't replaced w the signing contract at exit 92. I guess they aren't maintained by the state?

CT-9 now has signs saying min speed is up to 45mph from 40mph by exit 3.

The CT-372 connector off CT-9 has more warning extruded aluminum signs for the stoplight at the end than CT-9 does. Was the connector included in the CT-9 contract?

The BYSs look older than the exit 1 signs. Also noticed a new white no thru trucks extruded BWS.  On CT-9 NB only one signal ahead warning sign in the median. That's it.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 14, 2021, 04:36:07 PM
SSR 571 (the Exit 24 connector to 71/372) is part of the "middle contract" (CT 9 Exits 18-24), as is the Berlin Tpke in Berlin.  That one lone traffic signal ahead sign on CT 9 North I don't believe is being replaced as part of the resigning.  Neither is any of the aluminum signs from Exits 13-16.  I'm guessing the hope is that the lights will be removed in the next few years, though I'm still waiting to see the final plans and the go-ahead for construction. 

The casino signs on I-395 weren't replaced either, either at Exit 9 (CT 2A) or the other ones up in Griswold SB.  In fact, the Griswold SB one has a new sheet aluminum attractions two panel sign right next to the extruded brown sign.  The ones at Exit 9 NB early on in the resigning just removed the "7" and the "A", keeping the "9", until they realized the scarring left behind, so they patched the space instead.

Just before Exit 9 NB is a billboard which hasn't been used in quite some time.  It is stripped down to its original advertisement, which I believe is a hotel, located off one of the Norwich exits, with the old exit number visible.  Now billboards have some sort of canvas covering with the advertisement on them.  (Note all "OLD EXIT ##) indications along I-395 have all been removed.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on August 14, 2021, 08:14:13 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on August 14, 2021, 04:36:07 PM
SSR 571 (the Exit 24 connector to 71/372) is part of the "middle contract" (CT 9 Exits 18-24), as is the Berlin Tpke in Berlin.  That one lone traffic signal ahead sign on CT 9 North I don't believe is being replaced as part of the resigning.  Neither is any of the aluminum signs from Exits 13-16.  I'm guessing the hope is that the lights will be removed in the next few years, though I'm still waiting to see the final plans and the go-ahead for construction. 

The casino signs on I-395 weren't replaced either, either at Exit 9 (CT 2A) or the other ones up in Griswold SB.  In fact, the Griswold SB one has a new sheet aluminum attractions two panel sign right next to the extruded brown sign.  The ones at Exit 9 NB early on in the resigning just removed the "7" and the "A", keeping the "9", until they realized the scarring left behind, so they patched the space instead.

Just before Exit 9 NB is a billboard which hasn't been used in quite some time.  It is stripped down to its original advertisement, which I believe is a hotel, located off one of the Norwich exits, with the old exit number visible.  Now billboards have some sort of canvas covering with the advertisement on them.  (Note all "OLD EXIT ##) indications along I-395 have all been removed.

I see they are removing the extruded "Speed Limit 45mph" and "Speed Limit 35 mph" and "Signal Ahead 500 Feet" signs on Ct-571.  What a shame.  I think extruded aluminum signs are needed with such a drastic change in road landscape.  Going from an expressway to a stoplight.  I wish they wouldn't cheap out on the extruded signs.  MA has a lot of extruded warning signs and it gets your attention.  CT seems to be stuck in their ways and just do exit signing as extruded.  Even CT-82 will get rid of it's extruded signs mostly.  I don't see how much money they will save in the long run. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on August 14, 2021, 09:01:08 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on August 11, 2021, 05:24:22 PM
Wasn't expecting this so soon, but.... the CT 2/3/11/17 Resigning & Conversion to Mileage-based exits contract is out and available for viewing on the CT Bid Board!

Two more cents:
* CT 3 exit to Main St, Glastonbury will be just "Glastonbury" itself. I'd keep the street name, but I'm not a highway engineer.
* CT 2 EB exit to CT 149 is moving from ground-mounted to overhead. That's surprising, given the recent trend to the opposite.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 14, 2021, 09:39:12 PM
Quote from: kurumi on August 14, 2021, 09:01:08 PM
* CT 2 EB exit to CT 149 is moving from ground-mounted to overhead. That's surprising, given the recent trend to the opposite.

I thought that too, then I remembered that in that particular section, there is a slow vehicle lane. 

What I was surprised at was the I-91 signage being replaced, North Haven to Meriden, much of that signage could go ground-level, especially Exits 14-15, but they're keeping it overhead.  Is there more traffic there than on I-84 from Southington to Farmington, which got a lot of ground signage?  I doubt it.  What will become extinct is the large "FOG AREA" sign, at least southbound (the northbound one is a couple miles south of the I-91 project limits). 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on August 16, 2021, 02:29:15 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on August 14, 2021, 09:39:12 PM
Quote from: kurumi on August 14, 2021, 09:01:08 PM
* CT 2 EB exit to CT 149 is moving from ground-mounted to overhead. That's surprising, given the recent trend to the opposite.

I thought that too, then I remembered that in that particular section, there is a slow vehicle lane. 

What I was surprised at was the I-91 signage being replaced, North Haven to Meriden, much of that signage could go ground-level, especially Exits 14-15, but they're keeping it overhead.  Is there more traffic there than on I-84 from Southington to Farmington, which got a lot of ground signage?  I doubt it.  What will become extinct is the large "FOG AREA" sign, at least southbound (the northbound one is a couple miles south of the I-91 project limits).
I-91 from Hartford to New Haven is a cornocopia of highway design language. There's no uniformity to it at all. You've got original bridges in between modern replacements, yellow mast arms mixed with modern monotobe gantries, new directional tabs tacked on top of old ones, and there's still that original VMS sign near Exit 5 or whatever.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on August 16, 2021, 03:23:25 PM
So looking at the CT-9 project to remove the stoplights, one thing bugs me is the left exit and entrance on the NB side.  Looking at the plans why can't they just reverse it and have the NB lanes on the inside and the ramps go under the NB lanes to exit and enter on the right hand side?  It takes up the same amount of space, you're just reversing it.  Plus it makes the ramp curvatures not as tight by having them enter and exit from the right. 

In a few years, it will become a problem with CT-17 entering on the right and the usual slower traffic getting into the left lane.

https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOT/documents/dprojects/Project0082-0318/0082-0318-Alt-3-Plan.jpg?sc_lang=en&hash=AC2DC06A827761153AF64FE6DE72673E

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 16, 2021, 11:18:38 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on August 16, 2021, 02:29:15 PM
I-91 from Hartford to New Haven is a cornocopia of highway design language. There's no uniformity to it at all. You've got original bridges in between modern replacements, yellow mast arms mixed with modern monotobe gantries, new directional tabs tacked on top of old ones, and there's still that original VMS sign near Exit 5 or whatever.

There's a method to the madness, really.  CT has a pretty rigourous bridge inspection program (most likely triggered from 1983's events).  If a bridge isn't up to snuff, its replaced within a certain time frame.  The Route 68 bridge over I-91 at Exit 15 was replaced and it needed it bad... the old one was 2 lanes, with the new one being 4 or 5 lanes.  The spot sign replacements you're seeing mixed in with the "cruciforms" stem back to more inspections.  And when an overhead support is replaced, the sign gets replaced.  Obviously the new standard in signs is aligned exit tabs, and for supports, 4-chord truss or cantilever, and monotube bridge.  The I-91 North Haven to Meriden project will bring some uniform to the mix, and those recently-replaced gantries will remain.  I'm sure it also means that large truss gantry that spans all lanes of I-91 South near Exit 9 will go away... it only holds a VMS.  Previous sign replacements utilized a lot of the same gantries, but now its pretty standard to replace all of them, since they pretty much all date to the 1980s. 


Quote from: Mergingtraffic on August 16, 2021, 03:23:25 PM
So looking at the CT-9 project to remove the stoplights, one thing bugs me is the left exit and entrance on the NB side.  Looking at the plans why can't they just reverse it and have the NB lanes on the inside and the ramps go under the NB lanes to exit and enter on the right hand side?  It takes up the same amount of space, you're just reversing it.  Plus it makes the ramp curvatures not as tight by having them enter and exit from the right. 

In a few years, it will become a problem with CT-17 entering on the right and the usual slower traffic getting into the left lane.

https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOT/documents/dprojects/Project0082-0318/0082-0318-Alt-3-Plan.jpg?sc_lang=en&hash=AC2DC06A827761153AF64FE6DE72673E

When you look at that plan, the flaw I notice right off the bat is the short distance between the new Exit 13 merge and the new Exit 16 offramp.  If CT 17 is to remain cosigned with CT 9 for its short distance, that's, 1/2 mile or less that traffic will have to get over left to continue on CT 17 to head to Portland.  You are correct... if the ramp was on the right, it would be safer for all.  Then CT 17 could stay where it is and you could connect the Exit 13 merge and Exit 16 offramp with an "operational lane".  But they probably won't do it.  Why?  Then they'd have to change the welcome signs entering the state... "Welcome To Connecticut... Enjoy Our Left Exits"

Nothing in the Middletown project is set in stone yet... there's still going to be another round of public hearings/meetings.  Thank god the first one shot down the rotary plan and the southbound roller coaster. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on August 17, 2021, 02:40:14 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on August 16, 2021, 03:23:25 PM
So looking at the CT-9 project to remove the stoplights, one thing bugs me is the left exit and entrance on the NB side.  Looking at the plans why can't they just reverse it and have the NB lanes on the inside and the ramps go under the NB lanes to exit and enter on the right hand side?  It takes up the same amount of space, you're just reversing it.  Plus it makes the ramp curvatures not as tight by having them enter and exit from the right. 

In a few years, it will become a problem with CT-17 entering on the right and the usual slower traffic getting into the left lane.

https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOT/documents/dprojects/Project0082-0318/0082-0318-Alt-3-Plan.jpg?sc_lang=en&hash=AC2DC06A827761153AF64FE6DE72673E

Hot takes:
- St. John's St. shouldn't empty out onto the offramp.

- Dekoven Dr. should be re-aligned and made one-way southbound, and Harbor Dr. should be extended and made one-way northbound, with the two coming together where the new Main St. off-ramp is depicted. Both streets will act as frontage roads. A separated off-ramp for the Arrigoni Bridge should parallel where the frontage roads come together. This would require a modification of the bridge approach for a taper merge. Thus, eliminating those left exit ramps.

- Convert the CT 17 exit onto Main St. into a SPUI.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 17, 2021, 06:03:39 PM
One of the Middletown plans years ago was a new interchange on the north side of the Arrigoni Bridge, with a connector road looping to the bridge.  The area to the north of the bridge is largely an industrial area and you could have had the connector to/from Rt 9 be a viaduct from the bridge down to Route 9.  Part of the backup on Rt 9 is the one lane Hartford Ave "offramp" heading up to Main Street.  While it does appear the diverge point will be shifted to the north of the bridge, you're still looking at one lane Hartford Ave up to Main St.  There really is no room here to expand the "trench" due to the railroad overpass and a cemetery.  Outbound from Main St to Rt 9 is already 2 lanes and while the ramp to Rt 9 Northbound will be reduced to 1 lane instead of 2, it will be free-flowing, unlike now with the light.

The Rt 9/southern Rt 17 interchange should also be a SPUI, so that traffic on Rt 9 North has a chance to get to downtown Middletown and not just utilize the new ramp to Rapallo Ave.  This should connect directly with River Rd as well, so that traffic could turn left to go towards Main St/Main st Ext, or right to River Rd and the Harbor Area.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on August 18, 2021, 08:26:21 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on August 17, 2021, 06:03:39 PM
One of the Middletown plans years ago was a new interchange on the north side of the Arrigoni Bridge, with a connector road looping to the bridge.  The area to the north of the bridge is largely an industrial area and you could have had the connector to/from Rt 9 be a viaduct from the bridge down to Route 9.  Part of the backup on Rt 9 is the one lane Hartford Ave "offramp" heading up to Main Street.  While it does appear the diverge point will be shifted to the north of the bridge, you're still looking at one lane Hartford Ave up to Main St.  There really is no room here to expand the "trench" due to the railroad overpass and a cemetery.  Outbound from Main St to Rt 9 is already 2 lanes and while the ramp to Rt 9 Northbound will be reduced to 1 lane instead of 2, it will be free-flowing, unlike now with the light.

The Rt 9/southern Rt 17 interchange should also be a SPUI, so that traffic on Rt 9 North has a chance to get to downtown Middletown and not just utilize the new ramp to Rapallo Ave.  This should connect directly with River Rd as well, so that traffic could turn left to go towards Main St/Main st Ext, or right to River Rd and the Harbor Area.
The problem with this plan is that it still creates a choke point on Main St. If you use frontage roads, like how I-95 and US1 is set up in East Haven, then traffic is distributed evenly across the side streets.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on August 18, 2021, 09:40:11 AM
The Berlin Tpke. is about go undergo a massive signal replacement project, installing a CTSS for several miles of intersections beginning at the end of the Wilbur Cross Highway.
https://webprocure.perfect.com/MainBidBoard?ac=4&docid=814875&owner_id=149300&bid=88528 (https://webprocure.perfect.com/MainBidBoard?ac=4&docid=814875&owner_id=149300&bid=88528)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 25, 2021, 07:23:33 PM
New MUTCD-compliant mile markers are going up on Route 9, and something seems odd about them.  As of right now, only the whole mile markers are up.  There is no Mile 0 posted, but Mile 1 appears northbound just before Exit 2, which is less than a mile from the logical start of the route (where the ramps to I-95 North and South separate).  The location of Mile 1 makes me think Mile 0 on Route 9 is actually where Exit 69 on I-95 Northbound diverges.  Southbound, the mile markers appear to be off by 1, meaning Mile 3 is in Old Saybrook just before present Exit 2.  And still no arrows on the off-ramp destination signs.   Haven't been north of Exit 7 in a couple weeks, but hopefully soon.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on August 25, 2021, 09:33:59 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on August 25, 2021, 07:23:33 PM
New MUTCD-compliant mile markers are going up on Route 9, and something seems odd about them.  As of right now, only the whole mile markers are up.  There is no Mile 0 posted, but Mile 1 appears northbound just before Exit 2, which is less than a mile from the logical start of the route (where the ramps to I-95 North and South separate).  The location of Mile 1 makes me think Mile 0 on Route 9 is actually where Exit 69 on I-95 Northbound diverges.  Southbound, the mile markers appear to be off by 1, meaning Mile 3 is in Old Saybrook just before present Exit 2.  And still no arrows on the off-ramp destination signs.   Haven't been north of Exit 7 in a couple weeks, but hopefully soon.


Routes typically are mileposted from the beginning of a ramp, not the merge thereof.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on August 26, 2021, 12:43:59 PM
Just drove CT 9 in New Britain and Berlin.  Still no mileposts other than the ancient faded ones.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 26, 2021, 04:29:08 PM
The new southbound mile markers are definitely a mile off.  Saw a new MP 6 directly across from old faded MP 5 at Exit 4/future Exit 5 in Essex.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on August 27, 2021, 09:51:22 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on August 26, 2021, 04:29:08 PM
The new southbound mile markers are definitely a mile off.  Saw a new MP 6 directly across from old faded MP 5 at Exit 4/future Exit 5 in Essex.
Did you email DOT? Better to tell them now and they have to fix a small section than to end up having to redo the whole highway.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on August 27, 2021, 11:34:41 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on August 25, 2021, 07:23:33 PM
New MUTCD-compliant mile markers are going up on Route 9, and something seems odd about them.  As of right now, only the whole mile markers are up.  There is no Mile 0 posted, but Mile 1 appears northbound just before Exit 2, which is less than a mile from the logical start of the route (where the ramps to I-95 North and South separate).  The location of Mile 1 makes me think Mile 0 on Route 9 is actually where Exit 69 on I-95 Northbound diverges.  Southbound, the mile markers appear to be off by 1, meaning Mile 3 is in Old Saybrook just before present Exit 2.  And still no arrows on the off-ramp destination signs.   Haven't been north of Exit 7 in a couple weeks, but hopefully soon.
Also:

-New speed limit signs are up, with Wrong Way signs on the reverse. I guess they're having problems with wrong-way drivers on CT 9?
-There is a speed limit sign with a posted minimum of 45mph. I don't remember reading through any of the Public Acts and seeing any change in the minimum speed.
-The new speed limit signs use a smaller font for the digits than the old ones.
-Town line signs are being replaced with the standard aluminum ones used on surface streets.
-None of the new aluminum signs are branded OSTA at the bottom.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 27, 2021, 05:53:59 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on August 27, 2021, 11:34:41 AM
-New speed limit signs are up, with Wrong Way signs on the reverse. I guess they're having problems with wrong-way drivers on CT 9?
That's the new state standard.

Quote-There is a speed limit sign with a posted minimum of 45mph. I don't remember reading through any of the Public Acts and seeing any change in the minimum speed.
-The new speed limit signs use a smaller font for the digits than the old ones.
There's a pair of new minimum signs in Middletown which display 40 mph as well.  That's what the contract plans say.  So they're going "according to the plans".  Hopefully they catch something like that in the final inspection.

Back in the early 80s, the larger font numerals was standard on speed limit signs.  In the late 80s, they switched to the smaller font.  In 1998, when the speed limit changed from 55 to 65 mph, all speed limit signs got replaced and the larger numerals came back (CT doesn't believe in overlays apparently, except on a sign or two here or there).  New installations since the mid 2000s/2010s have featured the smaller numerals again. 

I don't understand why ConnDOT feels the need to post a speed limit 65 sign every mile.  Most other states post them only after onramps or where the speed limit drops.  If CT was still 55 MPH throughout, then maybe the extra reassurance, but now?  It just seems like a waste of money.  On some sections of Rt 9 right now, there are 4 speed limit signs within the span of a mile (old and new).  Really??!!??

Quote-Town line signs are being replaced with the standard aluminum ones used on surface streets.
Again, also the new state standard.  Do they need to be extruded aluminum?  No.  CT is pretty much the only state in New England that has used extruded aluminum for town line signs.  The aluminum ones aren't bad, but I feel the middle line "INCORPORATED XXXX" is unnecessary, especially on an expressway, as it makes the rest of the text harder to read.


I'm holding out hope that as we go further in time, they will add the arrows to the offramp signs (or replace them), that the old speed limit signs will be removed, and the minimum speed differences corrected.  I've seen some odd things go up in the middle of sign replacement contracts in the past.  We still have plenty of time for the errors to be corrected. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 31, 2021, 07:55:42 PM
CT 9 Resigning Update:

Headed up to New Britain and back today (well, actually to Poughkeepsie, NY), and noticed some additional sheet signs for the southern contract up to Exit 15 in Middletown.  This includes the diamond "speed limit ahead 45 mph" signs.  They also finally changed out the "no merge-lane addition" diamond at the dangerous Exit 13 onramp with a traditional "merging traffic" sign.  Also hit up the short CT 82 connector and found new town line sheet signs, and new sheet "CT 9 North/Right Lane / CT 9 South/Left Lane" signs, which will replace the extruded advance signs for the CT 9 jct.  Some new offramp blue attractions signs up as well. 

On CT 66 East approaching Main St in Middletown, new "TO CT 9 NORTH/SOUTH" sheet signs were observed.  These have the same font as the new reassurance signs on CT 9 itself.  Given these signs were not on the contract plans, I have hopes that these were an addition, and that other approach signs to CT 9 onramps will also be replaced.  According to the contract plans, the only "approach road" signage replaced is the extruded signs at the ramps, plus all signs on the ramps themselves. 

Moving on to the center contract, not much visible progress to report.  New ground supports for the Exit 22 "exit now" sign are up, but no sign yet.  The rest of the extruded signage in this contract to go up is all overhead, so we're just waiting on foundations to cure/supports to go up.  No sheet signs put up yet in this contract.

Northern contract... about the same.  Waiting on support structures at this point, though I didn't go north of New Britain this time.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on August 31, 2021, 08:18:27 PM
Riddle me this: Why does adding 2 lanes to 5 miles of I-84 in Danbury cost $700 million while building a whole new 2.9 mile 4 lane freeway bypassing Brookfield costs barely $100 million?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on August 31, 2021, 09:01:54 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 31, 2021, 08:18:27 PM
Riddle me this: Why does adding 2 lanes to 5 miles of I-84 in Danbury cost $700 million while building a whole new 2.9 mile 4 lane freeway bypassing Brookfield costs barely $100 million?

Reconstruction is always much more expensive. You have to go a lane at a time, rebuilding from the bottom up, maintaining traffic the whole time.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on August 31, 2021, 09:18:06 PM
Quote from: Alps on August 31, 2021, 09:01:54 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 31, 2021, 08:18:27 PM
Riddle me this: Why does adding 2 lanes to 5 miles of I-84 in Danbury cost $700 million while building a whole new 2.9 mile 4 lane freeway bypassing Brookfield costs barely $100 million?

Reconstruction is always much more expensive. You have to go a lane at a time, rebuilding from the bottom up, maintaining traffic the whole time.
They widened it one lane at a time and it didn't cost them a dime (rather 10 billion dimes)
You'll know it's them when you drive through the town

Seriously though, Arizona is spending the same amount of money on a section of I-10 and is getting 6 additional lanes and C/D roads over a distance of 11 miles for that.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on September 01, 2021, 09:57:13 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 31, 2021, 09:18:06 PM
Quote from: Alps on August 31, 2021, 09:01:54 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 31, 2021, 08:18:27 PM
Riddle me this: Why does adding 2 lanes to 5 miles of I-84 in Danbury cost $700 million while building a whole new 2.9 mile 4 lane freeway bypassing Brookfield costs barely $100 million?

Reconstruction is always much more expensive. You have to go a lane at a time, rebuilding from the bottom up, maintaining traffic the whole time.
They widened it one lane at a time and it didn't cost them a dime (rather 10 billion dimes)
You'll know it's them when you drive through the town

Seriously though, Arizona is spending the same amount of money on a section of I-10 and is getting 6 additional lanes and C/D roads over a distance of 11 miles for that.
There are additional reasons for the $700M price tag to widen I-84 through Danbury:  nearly every bridge and overpass along the stretch will be completely torn down and rebuilt, and as I understand things, the two interchanges with US-7 will be reconfigured to eliminate the left-hand exits that cause the weave conditions  (and numerous crashes) between adjacent interchanges.

As for why it costs more to widen about 5 miles of I-84 through Danbury versus 11 miles of I-10 through Arizona?  It's because land is a lot cheaper in Arizona than in Connecticut. Moreover, when the interstates were built, most of the Western states acquired 300-400 feet of right-of-way on either side of the freeway to accommodate future expansion. Connecticut did not acquire any excess ROW, so they have to go through the very costly process of eminent domain whereas Arizona doesn't.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on September 01, 2021, 01:10:15 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on September 01, 2021, 09:57:13 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 31, 2021, 09:18:06 PM
Quote from: Alps on August 31, 2021, 09:01:54 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 31, 2021, 08:18:27 PM
Riddle me this: Why does adding 2 lanes to 5 miles of I-84 in Danbury cost $700 million while building a whole new 2.9 mile 4 lane freeway bypassing Brookfield costs barely $100 million?

Reconstruction is always much more expensive. You have to go a lane at a time, rebuilding from the bottom up, maintaining traffic the whole time.
They widened it one lane at a time and it didn't cost them a dime (rather 10 billion dimes)
You'll know it's them when you drive through the town

Seriously though, Arizona is spending the same amount of money on a section of I-10 and is getting 6 additional lanes and C/D roads over a distance of 11 miles for that.
There are additional reasons for the $700M price tag to widen I-84 through Danbury:  nearly every bridge and overpass along the stretch will be completely torn down and rebuilt, and as I understand things, the two interchanges with US-7 will be reconfigured to eliminate the left-hand exits that cause the weave conditions  (and numerous crashes) between adjacent interchanges.

As for why it costs more to widen about 5 miles of I-84 through Danbury versus 11 miles of I-10 through Arizona?  It's because land is a lot cheaper in Arizona than in Connecticut. Moreover, when the interstates were built, most of the Western states acquired 300-400 feet of right-of-way on either side of the freeway to accommodate future expansion. Connecticut did not acquire any excess ROW, so they have to go through the very costly process of eminent domain whereas Arizona doesn't.

I don't know if anyone's notices, but Connecticut seems to be very pennywise and poundfoolish when building highways.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on September 02, 2021, 12:16:24 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on September 01, 2021, 09:57:13 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 31, 2021, 09:18:06 PM
Quote from: Alps on August 31, 2021, 09:01:54 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 31, 2021, 08:18:27 PM
Riddle me this: Why does adding 2 lanes to 5 miles of I-84 in Danbury cost $700 million while building a whole new 2.9 mile 4 lane freeway bypassing Brookfield costs barely $100 million?

Reconstruction is always much more expensive. You have to go a lane at a time, rebuilding from the bottom up, maintaining traffic the whole time.
They widened it one lane at a time and it didn't cost them a dime (rather 10 billion dimes)
You'll know it's them when you drive through the town

Seriously though, Arizona is spending the same amount of money on a section of I-10 and is getting 6 additional lanes and C/D roads over a distance of 11 miles for that.
There are additional reasons for the $700M price tag to widen I-84 through Danbury:  nearly every bridge and overpass along the stretch will be completely torn down and rebuilt, and as I understand things, the two interchanges with US-7 will be reconfigured to eliminate the left-hand exits that cause the weave conditions  (and numerous crashes) between adjacent interchanges.

As for why it costs more to widen about 5 miles of I-84 through Danbury versus 11 miles of I-10 through Arizona?  It's because land is a lot cheaper in Arizona than in Connecticut. Moreover, when the interstates were built, most of the Western states acquired 300-400 feet of right-of-way on either side of the freeway to accommodate future expansion. Connecticut did not acquire any excess ROW, so they have to go through the very costly process of eminent domain whereas Arizona doesn't.
Yet they hang on to ROW for highways they never built.

Here's looking at you, CT 11, I-291, and original I-84.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on September 02, 2021, 12:22:56 PM
Can someone explain to my why this state refuses to time walk signals to signal phases?

If no one is going to push the button and just cross when they have a "hand", what's the point in having them?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on September 02, 2021, 12:44:04 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on September 02, 2021, 12:16:24 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on September 01, 2021, 09:57:13 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 31, 2021, 09:18:06 PM
Quote from: Alps on August 31, 2021, 09:01:54 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 31, 2021, 08:18:27 PM
Riddle me this: Why does adding 2 lanes to 5 miles of I-84 in Danbury cost $700 million while building a whole new 2.9 mile 4 lane freeway bypassing Brookfield costs barely $100 million?

Reconstruction is always much more expensive. You have to go a lane at a time, rebuilding from the bottom up, maintaining traffic the whole time.
They widened it one lane at a time and it didn't cost them a dime (rather 10 billion dimes)
You'll know it's them when you drive through the town

Seriously though, Arizona is spending the same amount of money on a section of I-10 and is getting 6 additional lanes and C/D roads over a distance of 11 miles for that.
There are additional reasons for the $700M price tag to widen I-84 through Danbury:  nearly every bridge and overpass along the stretch will be completely torn down and rebuilt, and as I understand things, the two interchanges with US-7 will be reconfigured to eliminate the left-hand exits that cause the weave conditions  (and numerous crashes) between adjacent interchanges.

As for why it costs more to widen about 5 miles of I-84 through Danbury versus 11 miles of I-10 through Arizona?  It's because land is a lot cheaper in Arizona than in Connecticut. Moreover, when the interstates were built, most of the Western states acquired 300-400 feet of right-of-way on either side of the freeway to accommodate future expansion. Connecticut did not acquire any excess ROW, so they have to go through the very costly process of eminent domain whereas Arizona doesn't.
Yet they hang on to ROW for highways they never built.

Here's looking at you, CT 11, I-291, and original I-84.

And Super 7
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on September 02, 2021, 02:30:02 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on September 02, 2021, 12:44:04 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on September 02, 2021, 12:16:24 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on September 01, 2021, 09:57:13 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 31, 2021, 09:18:06 PM
Quote from: Alps on August 31, 2021, 09:01:54 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 31, 2021, 08:18:27 PM
Riddle me this: Why does adding 2 lanes to 5 miles of I-84 in Danbury cost $700 million while building a whole new 2.9 mile 4 lane freeway bypassing Brookfield costs barely $100 million?

Reconstruction is always much more expensive. You have to go a lane at a time, rebuilding from the bottom up, maintaining traffic the whole time.
They widened it one lane at a time and it didn't cost them a dime (rather 10 billion dimes)
You'll know it's them when you drive through the town

Seriously though, Arizona is spending the same amount of money on a section of I-10 and is getting 6 additional lanes and C/D roads over a distance of 11 miles for that.
There are additional reasons for the $700M price tag to widen I-84 through Danbury:  nearly every bridge and overpass along the stretch will be completely torn down and rebuilt, and as I understand things, the two interchanges with US-7 will be reconfigured to eliminate the left-hand exits that cause the weave conditions  (and numerous crashes) between adjacent interchanges.

As for why it costs more to widen about 5 miles of I-84 through Danbury versus 11 miles of I-10 through Arizona?  It's because land is a lot cheaper in Arizona than in Connecticut. Moreover, when the interstates were built, most of the Western states acquired 300-400 feet of right-of-way on either side of the freeway to accommodate future expansion. Connecticut did not acquire any excess ROW, so they have to go through the very costly process of eminent domain whereas Arizona doesn't.
Yet they hang on to ROW for highways they never built.

Here's looking at you, CT 11, I-291, and original I-84.

And Super 7

They sold off a lot of the ROW originally acquired for Super 7 and I-291 during the budget crises in the 2000s. Not sure how much is left, but I recall that some of the Super 7 ROW that wasn't sold was transferred to the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection for preservation as a linear park of sorts.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: bluecountry on September 09, 2021, 10:07:36 AM
Has there been a lot of accidents at the new 91/84 via 15 exit?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on September 09, 2021, 06:16:40 PM
I don't know about a lot of accidents, but the traffic still backs up.  It'll be substantially better once the new lane is open and that will permit this exit to have a dedicated lane as well as an option lane. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on September 09, 2021, 06:55:46 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on September 09, 2021, 10:07:36 AM
Has there been a lot of accidents at the new 91/84 via 15 exit?
Still in construction. Gotta clean it all up to evaluate.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on September 13, 2021, 10:13:50 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on September 09, 2021, 06:16:40 PM
I don't know about a lot of accidents, but the traffic still backs up.  It'll be substantially better once the new lane is open and that will permit this exit to have a dedicated lane as well as an option lane.
It's already better because there's no longer a steep grade to climb to reach the COB. Though, traffic still goes 25-30 over at least half the flyover before realizing it can go 55. I have no idea why that's happening, but it'll go away once the second lane is opened. What's really key is the fact the outermost lane is an option lane. I wish they would do that with Exit 87 coming southbound of the COB; give traffic two lanes to 91S and have the option lane end in a taper merge. That would cut down on queue-jumpers.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on September 14, 2021, 08:58:09 PM
ConnDOT has just posted to the Bid Board a project to remove the Norwalk toll booths on I-95/Conn Turnpike. 

Yes, you read that right. 

Okay, its actually an addendum document to the project to get rid of the last section of grass median in Norwalk and Westport.  But in this era of mass toll booth relocation and/or removal (Mass Pike, Thruway, and now the Maine Tpke plaza at Exit 7 being replaced/removed)... I thought it would be a cool find to share.  Within the project plans are the signing layouts for the toll plazas. 

1.  Go to the Bid Board:   https://portal.ct.gov/DAS/CTSource/BidBoard
2.  Search "Norwalk I-95"
3.  Click on "Median reconstruction/Resurfacing of I-95 Norwalk Westport"
4.  Scroll down to Addendum Documents
5.  Click on "CTDOT_102-216"

Or just click this link and you'll instantly download the toll plaza removal plans:
https://webprocure.perfect.com/MainBidBoard?ac=4&docid=881757&owner_id=149300&bid=93233

The other addendums are other projects from the same era of median replacement on either side of this project, though none of them have really any sign details.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on September 14, 2021, 11:09:26 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on September 14, 2021, 08:58:09 PM
ConnDOT has just posted to the Bid Board a project to remove the Norwalk toll booths on I-95/Conn Turnpike. 

Yes, you read that right. 

Okay, its actually an addendum document to the project to get rid of the last section of grass median in Norwalk and Westport.  But in this era of mass toll booth relocation and/or removal (Mass Pike, Thruway, and now the Maine Tpke plaza at Exit 7 being replaced/removed)... I thought it would be a cool find to share.  Within the project plans are the signing layouts for the toll plazas. 

1.  Go to the Bid Board:   https://portal.ct.gov/DAS/CTSource/BidBoard
2.  Search "Norwalk I-95"
3.  Click on "Median reconstruction/Resurfacing of I-95 Norwalk Westport"
4.  Scroll down to Addendum Documents
5.  Click on "CTDOT_102-216"

Or just click this link and you'll instantly download the toll plaza removal plans:
https://webprocure.perfect.com/MainBidBoard?ac=4&docid=881757&owner_id=149300&bid=93233

The other addendums are other projects from the same era of median replacement on either side of this project, though none of them have really any sign details.

I assume you're saying they posted an old project to the site, as opposed to a new project that will unearth a toll plaza foundation?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on September 15, 2021, 05:19:13 PM
ConnDOT roadway and median reconstruction projects being posted lately have been putting in addendums for past projects that have been undertaken in the area of a current project.  Perhaps this is done to match the median and road surface on either side of the project.  Median projects from the past that are posted in the addendums for this project are west of Exit 15 and east of Exit 17, plus the Yankee Doodle Bridge rehab in the 80s and the toll plaza removal. 

It is odd that the area between Exits 16-17 never got any median replacement, while the rest of the west end of the turnpike lost its grass and guardrail a long time ago.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on September 15, 2021, 10:21:06 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on September 15, 2021, 05:19:13 PM
ConnDOT roadway and median reconstruction projects being posted lately have been putting in addendums for past projects that have been undertaken in the area of a current project.  Perhaps this is done to match the median and road surface on either side of the project.  Median projects from the past that are posted in the addendums for this project are west of Exit 15 and east of Exit 17, plus the Yankee Doodle Bridge rehab in the 80s and the toll plaza removal. 

It is odd that the area between Exits 16-17 never got any median replacement, while the rest of the west end of the turnpike lost its grass and guardrail a long time ago.

Jay,
I noticed the signs in the toll removal project were "to be relocated"  and said they were demountable copy. The plans were from 1984-1985.

That tells me the extruded aluminum signs were not button copy? I say that bc with the I-91 Exit 29 contract they posted earlier plans and the signage was button copy. I forget the wordage they used but it wasn't demountable copy.

  I'm also guessing the turnpike had original signage mixed in w newer signs for years until a blanket replacement of reflective button copy came along.

CT used demountable copy from around 1981-1984 or so in between non-reflective and then reflective button copy.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on September 16, 2021, 09:32:15 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on September 15, 2021, 10:21:06 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on September 15, 2021, 05:19:13 PM
ConnDOT roadway and median reconstruction projects being posted lately have been putting in addendums for past projects that have been undertaken in the area of a current project.  Perhaps this is done to match the median and road surface on either side of the project.  Median projects from the past that are posted in the addendums for this project are west of Exit 15 and east of Exit 17, plus the Yankee Doodle Bridge rehab in the 80s and the toll plaza removal. 

It is odd that the area between Exits 16-17 never got any median replacement, while the rest of the west end of the turnpike lost its grass and guardrail a long time ago.

Jay,
I noticed the signs in the toll removal project were "to be relocated"  and said they were demountable copy. The plans were from 1984-1985.

That tells me the extruded aluminum signs were not button copy? I say that bc with the I-91 Exit 29 contract they posted earlier plans and the signage was button copy. I forget the wordage they used but it wasn't demountable copy.

  I'm also guessing the turnpike had original signage mixed in w newer signs for years until a blanket replacement of reflective button copy came along.

CT used demountable copy from around 1981-1984 or so in between non-reflective and then reflective button copy.
Its interesting CTDOT titles the project as "I-95 Median Reconstruction and Resurfacing," as when you look at the plans, there is a lot more going on than just replacing the median barrier and placing a new layer of asphalt over the roadway. Plans call for the bridge over Saugatuck Avenue (Route 33) to be completely replaced, using the Accelerated Bridge Construction (ABC) method. The plans suggest that the new bridge halves (one NB and one SB) will be built alongside the existing bridge, and then the Contractor will over two weekends, shift traffic to one side, demolish one half of the bridge and slide the new half into place. Additionally, the contract plans include extensive rehabilitation of the Saugatuck River Bridge and the bridge over Franklin Street, and some minor ramp modifications at Exits 16 and 17.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeCL on October 14, 2021, 08:47:27 AM
What's up with all the highway advisory signs not being fixed? Like this one NB in stamford just past 6(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20211014/84f9d307a63dc2a840a54efb3dbea62b.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeCL on October 14, 2021, 08:53:19 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on September 02, 2021, 12:22:56 PM
Can someone explain to my why this state refuses to time walk signals to signal phases?

If no one is going to push the button and just cross when they have a "hand", what's the point in having them?
What annoys me is they push it once then cross anyways when it's not their time to cross only to hold up traffic when they are long gone and the walk signal is on.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on October 14, 2021, 12:35:27 PM
Quote from: MikeCL on October 14, 2021, 08:47:27 AM
What's up with all the highway advisory signs not being fixed? Like this one NB in stamford just past 6(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20211014/84f9d307a63dc2a840a54efb3dbea62b.jpg)
Does CT still use HAR?  The Thruway just got rid of their system, so all the signs are covered up or taken down.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on October 14, 2021, 03:19:52 PM
District 1 decided to start replacing aluminum signage on I-84 WB between Exits 57 and 68.

It looks weird now that that stretch has proper mile markers.

They installed/replaced those, as well as added road name signs for bridges, new gore signs, and a TON of new speed limit signs.
A new "Slower Traffic Keep Right" sign is up at the Exit 62 on-ramp, I guess because that area is a bottleneck, but I feel as though that's more attributable to road geometry. The turn over Buckland St. causes traffic to slow down when it doesn't need to, and then it bunches up coming out of it and everyone slows down to 60 MPH.

No idea if they're going to replace the rest of the aluminum signs, some of which undoubtedly date to the 1978-83 widening.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on October 14, 2021, 09:44:18 PM
Quote from: vdeane on October 14, 2021, 12:35:27 PM
Quote from: MikeCL on October 14, 2021, 08:47:27 AM
What's up with all the highway advisory signs not being fixed? Like this one NB in stamford just past 6(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20211014/84f9d307a63dc2a840a54efb3dbea62b.jpg)
Does CT still use HAR?  The Thruway just got rid of their system, so all the signs are covered up or taken down.
Connecticut is one of the few states that hasn't yet joined the 511 network. Until they do so, there may still be a need for the HAR.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on October 15, 2021, 05:56:55 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on October 14, 2021, 03:19:52 PM
District 1 decided to start replacing aluminum signage on I-84 WB between Exits 57 and 68.

It looks weird now that that stretch has proper mile markers.

They installed/replaced those, as well as added road name signs for bridges, new gore signs, and a TON of new speed limit signs.
A new "Slower Traffic Keep Right" sign is up at the Exit 62 on-ramp, I guess because that area is a bottleneck, but I feel as though that's more attributable to road geometry. The turn over Buckland St. causes traffic to slow down when it doesn't need to, and then it bunches up coming out of it and everyone slows down to 60 MPH.

No idea if they're going to replace the rest of the aluminum signs, some of which undoubtedly date to the 1978-83 widening.

The enhanced mile marker section has been extended a little bit from MP 56 by Westfarms Mall.  All of the full mile markers and most of the 1/5 mile markers have been erected up to Sisson Ave (EB), and a single MP 62 one just before the entrance to the tunnel.  Westbound is a little less complete with a couple of full mile ones in West Harford. 

Also saw a new overhead gantry went up last night on CT 72 West just before Corbin Ave (CT 372) with an Exit Only sign for I-84 East using only Hartford (no longer Farmington/Hartford) as the control.  Unlike the Corbin Ave ones, this time they did include the 6 as an overlay of the future 3 on the exit tab.  They've also replaced the two Exit 25 and 26 (future 35A and 35B) signs on the double single post gantry on CT 9 North.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on October 15, 2021, 08:59:45 PM
Figures.... drove up Rt 9 and 72 last Saturday and there was nothing new that I haven't seen yet.... even the 2018 spot replacement site on CT 9 SB at Exit 28 still hasn't been finished (only one support up).  It is strange to see how the 3 contracts on CT 9 have started differently... south of Middletown, lots of new sheet signs are up.  The middle section has most ground-mounts up.  And the northern section (the first contract) has shown the least progress.  I did notice one new sign on the northern section has an overlayed number, leading me to believe that instead of replacing the entire tab on the new signs (as shown in the contracts), they will instead overlay the old number over the new number, and when the southern contract comes to install extruded signs, the overlays will come off, revealing the new number.  We will see.  Southern contract still hasn't corrected the SB mile markers, as they are off by 1 mile.  They have yet to install arrows on the exit ramp sheet aluminum signs. 

RE:  Highway Advisory Radio
I don't understand why states are phasing it out.  New York Thruway phased it out, wanting its motorists to use the app... but how does that work with "hands free driving"?  A lot easier (and safer) to turn to a radio station to find out about traffic alerts, than opening an app on your phone.  What if you're the only one in the vehicle? 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on October 17, 2021, 07:19:14 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on October 14, 2021, 03:19:52 PM
District 1 decided to start replacing aluminum signage on I-84 WB between Exits 57 and 68.

They installed/replaced those, as well as added road name signs for bridges, new gore signs, and a TON of new speed limit signs.

No idea if they're going to replace the rest of the aluminum signs, some of which undoubtedly date to the 1978-83 widening.


Oh yes Speed Limit signs.....the PC sign nowadays.  Speeding and going fast is bad bad bad.  I've noticed in certain areas there are more important messages to display for drivers that aren't displayed that well, but there's ton of speed limit messages.  CT-9 in Middletown comes to mind.  Lots of speed limit messages but not a whole lot of warning for a stop light in the middle of a freeway.  I still say there should be extruded aluminum signal ahead warning signs on that stretch but I guess it'll never happen.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on October 17, 2021, 07:42:34 PM
There's an extra lot of speed limit signs on CT 9 from Old Saybrook to Middletown currently.  In that contract, sheet signs are going up, but the old ones have yet to come down.  In some cases, you have 5 or 6 in the span of a mile.  Really, it seems like overkill.  The ones with the larger numerals will be removed, but still CT seems to think motorists need a reminder every mile of the speed limit.  Maybe in the case of a reduced limit (<65) but when its 65, one between exits is more than adequate, especially CT-spaced exits. 

Most (but not all) speed limit 65 signs (with the larger numerals) went up in 1998 when the speed limit increased.  New ones put up in sign contracts over the past 10-15 years have the smaller numerals, which are in vogue again (just like the SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT being the standard once again).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on October 18, 2021, 02:33:55 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on October 15, 2021, 05:56:55 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on October 14, 2021, 03:19:52 PM
District 1 decided to start replacing aluminum signage on I-84 WB between Exits 57 and 68.

It looks weird now that that stretch has proper mile markers.

They installed/replaced those, as well as added road name signs for bridges, new gore signs, and a TON of new speed limit signs.
A new "Slower Traffic Keep Right" sign is up at the Exit 62 on-ramp, I guess because that area is a bottleneck, but I feel as though that's more attributable to road geometry. The turn over Buckland St. causes traffic to slow down when it doesn't need to, and then it bunches up coming out of it and everyone slows down to 60 MPH.

No idea if they're going to replace the rest of the aluminum signs, some of which undoubtedly date to the 1978-83 widening.

The enhanced mile marker section has been extended a little bit from MP 56 by Westfarms Mall.  All of the full mile markers and most of the 1/5 mile markers have been erected up to Sisson Ave (EB), and a single MP 62 one just before the entrance to the tunnel.  Westbound is a little less complete with a couple of full mile ones in West Harford. 

Also saw a new overhead gantry went up last night on CT 72 West just before Corbin Ave (CT 372) with an Exit Only sign for I-84 East using only Hartford (no longer Farmington/Hartford) as the control.  Unlike the Corbin Ave ones, this time they did include the 6 as an overlay of the future 3 on the exit tab.  They've also replaced the two Exit 25 and 26 (future 35A and 35B) signs on the double single post gantry on CT 9 North.
Yeah, I did notice that. There's a lot of road work near Westfarms and they're still rehabbing the CT 15 flyover bridges. Maybe they're waiting a little bit to put in the in-between markers?

Also, I forgot to say that the replacement Interstate shields are on one post, not the double posts as they have usually been.

Quote from: shadyjay on October 15, 2021, 08:59:45 PM
Figures.... drove up Rt 9 and 72 last Saturday and there was nothing new that I haven't seen yet.... even the 2018 spot replacement site on CT 9 SB at Exit 28 still hasn't been finished (only one support up).  It is strange to see how the 3 contracts on CT 9 have started differently... south of Middletown, lots of new sheet signs are up.  The middle section has most ground-mounts up.  And the northern section (the first contract) has shown the least progress.  I did notice one new sign on the northern section has an overlayed number, leading me to believe that instead of replacing the entire tab on the new signs (as shown in the contracts), they will instead overlay the old number over the new number, and when the southern contract comes to install extruded signs, the overlays will come off, revealing the new number.  We will see.  Southern contract still hasn't corrected the SB mile markers, as they are off by 1 mile.  They have yet to install arrows on the exit ramp sheet aluminum signs. 

RE:  Highway Advisory Radio
I don't understand why states are phasing it out.  New York Thruway phased it out, wanting its motorists to use the app... but how does that work with "hands free driving"?  A lot easier (and safer) to turn to a radio station to find out about traffic alerts, than opening an app on your phone.  What if you're the only one in the vehicle? 

Yeah, it's weird, they're doing shields and speed limit signs, but there's a ton of faded and non-reflective signs from East Hartford to Vernon, mostly original to the widening.

The distracted driving statute does not count the actual dialing of a phone number as "engag[ing] in a call". So you can dial 511 and then use speakerphone. To be "engaged in a call" you have to be holding the phone on or in proximity to an ear.

Quote from: shadyjay on October 17, 2021, 07:42:34 PM
There's an extra lot of speed limit signs on CT 9 from Old Saybrook to Middletown currently.  In that contract, sheet signs are going up, but the old ones have yet to come down.  In some cases, you have 5 or 6 in the span of a mile.  Really, it seems like overkill.  The ones with the larger numerals will be removed, but still CT seems to think motorists need a reminder every mile of the speed limit.  Maybe in the case of a reduced limit (<65) but when its 65, one between exits is more than adequate, especially CT-spaced exits. 

Most (but not all) speed limit 65 signs (with the larger numerals) went up in 1998 when the speed limit increased.  New ones put up in sign contracts over the past 10-15 years have the smaller numerals, which are in vogue again (just like the SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT being the standard once again).

In the East Hartford-Vernon stretch of I-84, a lot of those are pre-1998 S/L signs with the number 65 tacked on.
Their placement strategy seems to follow the standard of after each on-ramp, but there's a few places where they added an extra one.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on October 18, 2021, 06:14:12 PM
I just was cruising around Google Streetview and zoomed in on a speed limit sign.... I did not notice the "65" was a tack on! 
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7980538,-72.556807,3a,15y,82.7h,88.43t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5aRk_e4nMvalVRKoqO4qsA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

If that's the case... then the speed limit sign here may in fact date back to the 80s, when the road was widened.  From the mid 80s until 1998, the speed limit standard sign for CT was the smaller numerals.  On the eve of 65, most roads which were to get the 65 mph boost got all new speed limit signs, fabricated as "SPEED LIMIT 65", but with the "5" tacked on until the day the new law took effect (October 1, 1998 I want to say).  Most other states would have kept the existing signs and just tacked on a "6" over the "5".  This did occur in a few locations, such as here:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/670/21731734549_b7f9c518ea_3k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/z7mPyr)IMG_3097 (https://flic.kr/p/z7mPyr) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on October 19, 2021, 10:42:17 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on October 15, 2021, 08:59:45 PM
Figures.... drove up Rt 9 and 72 last Saturday and there was nothing new that I haven't seen yet.... even the 2018 spot replacement site on CT 9 SB at Exit 28 still hasn't been finished (only one support up).  It is strange to see how the 3 contracts on CT 9 have started differently... south of Middletown, lots of new sheet signs are up.  The middle section has most ground-mounts up.  And the northern section (the first contract) has shown the least progress.  I did notice one new sign on the northern section has an overlayed number, leading me to believe that instead of replacing the entire tab on the new signs (as shown in the contracts), they will instead overlay the old number over the new number, and when the southern contract comes to install extruded signs, the overlays will come off, revealing the new number.  We will see.  Southern contract still hasn't corrected the SB mile markers, as they are off by 1 mile.  They have yet to install arrows on the exit ramp sheet aluminum signs. 

I don't understand why Connecticut takes so long to complete a sign replacement project. A few years ago, New York replaced all of the signs (including supports and foundations) along the entire 71-mile length of I-84 in about 10 months. Yet, Connecticut seems to take about 3+ years to do the same over a 40 mile stretch of roadway. Even more bothersome, is there are projects in Connecticut to replace a single sign assembly that take more than a year to complete.

But then again, I don't think Connecticut gives their contractors any incentive to finish projects quickly, whereas other states hold their contractors' feet to the fire to get things done within a certain timeframe.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on October 25, 2021, 09:12:58 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on October 19, 2021, 10:42:17 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on October 15, 2021, 08:59:45 PM
Figures.... drove up Rt 9 and 72 last Saturday and there was nothing new that I haven't seen yet.... even the 2018 spot replacement site on CT 9 SB at Exit 28 still hasn't been finished (only one support up).  It is strange to see how the 3 contracts on CT 9 have started differently... south of Middletown, lots of new sheet signs are up.  The middle section has most ground-mounts up.  And the northern section (the first contract) has shown the least progress.  I did notice one new sign on the northern section has an overlayed number, leading me to believe that instead of replacing the entire tab on the new signs (as shown in the contracts), they will instead overlay the old number over the new number, and when the southern contract comes to install extruded signs, the overlays will come off, revealing the new number.  We will see.  Southern contract still hasn't corrected the SB mile markers, as they are off by 1 mile.  They have yet to install arrows on the exit ramp sheet aluminum signs. 

I don't understand why Connecticut takes so long to complete a sign replacement project. A few years ago, New York replaced all of the signs (including supports and foundations) along the entire 71-mile length of I-84 in about 10 months. Yet, Connecticut seems to take about 3+ years to do the same over a 40 mile stretch of roadway. Even more bothersome, is there are projects in Connecticut to replace a single sign assembly that take more than a year to complete.

But then again, I don't think Connecticut gives their contractors any incentive to finish projects quickly, whereas other states hold their contractors' feet to the fire to get things done within a certain timeframe.
The aluminum signs on I-84 are being done overnight. They're probably just sending a two-man crew out with a dump truck full of signs, but they only do maybe a mile and a half per night. They're just adding enhanced mile markers and bridge signs and replacing gore and merge signs. Why can't the whole thing be done in one night?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeCL on October 29, 2021, 06:37:07 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on October 14, 2021, 09:44:18 PM
Quote from: vdeane on October 14, 2021, 12:35:27 PM
Quote from: MikeCL on October 14, 2021, 08:47:27 AM
What's up with all the highway advisory signs not being fixed? Like this one NB in stamford just past 6(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20211014/84f9d307a63dc2a840a54efb3dbea62b.jpg)
Does CT still use HAR?  The Thruway just got rid of their system, so all the signs are covered up or taken down.
Connecticut is one of the few states that hasn't yet joined the 511 network. Until they do so, there may still be a need for the HAR.
Just odd the signs were hanging on for dear life then I guess wind took down the rest of it.. what I don't get is all the small highway DOT signs on the side of the roadway like the weigh station in Greenwich, they took down the one over the road to put a fixed portable on the side of the road.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on November 04, 2021, 08:13:22 PM
The temp CT-8 NB lanes in Waterbury are now closed. You're back on the original mixmaster. The big huge arrow per lane BGS is gone. I guess it was a temp one. Too bad it wasn't orange. It's been replaced with an I-84 East Hartford Exit 35 BGS. The exit 35 is an overlay as Exit 31 is still closed.

Absolutely nothing new w the signing contract from Bridgeport to Shelton. Nothing in at least 3 weeks
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on November 05, 2021, 02:34:20 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on November 04, 2021, 08:13:22 PM
The temp CT-8 NB lanes in Waterbury are now closed. You're back on the original mixmaster. The big huge arrow per lane BGS is gone. I guess it was a temp one. Too bad it wasn't orange. It's been replaced with an I-84 East Hartford Exit 35 BGS. The exit 35 is an overlay as Exit 31 is still closed.

Absolutely nothing new w the signing contract from Bridgeport to Shelton. Nothing in at least 3 weeks
They're getting pretty close to finished with the Waterbury Mixmaster. As you mentioned, NB Route 8 is back on its normal alignment and Route 8 SB has been fully reopened. They're still working of a couple of the ramps, but it looks like they'll be done next year, as scheduled.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on November 06, 2021, 07:55:22 AM
So now that the BIB has been passed, is 84 in Danbury finally getting widened?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on November 06, 2021, 06:57:24 PM
Took a ride a couple days ago on CT 2 and CT 11, then came back on CT 9.  Not much doing on CT 2 save for a couple spot in-kind replacements in the Colchester area.  CT 11 was totally untouched.  As for CT 9, I did see the smaller standard town line signs, auxiliary signs, and only the whole mile enhanced markers (no 1/5 mile supplemental markers yet).  One thing that drove me nuts is that the old 16 MP is about a quarter mile south of the new 16 MP, which is much closer to the CT 81 exit.  None of the new BGS or gantries have been erected.  As for CT 72: everything west of I-84 with the exception of a single exit now BGS westbound for CT 372 (on a single tube gantry) has been updated, as well as westbound signage east of I-84 (the old 1/2 mile gantry for the 84 split has yet to be removed.  Meanwhile eastbound, the button copy Exit Now for Corbin Ave remains, as well as the 1/2 mile Exit 8/1 mi Exit 9 gantry. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on November 07, 2021, 04:07:47 PM
All of the new mile markers on CT 9 are off.  What really is amazing is the new MILE 2 southbound comes a couple feet after the old MILE 1.  The old "Essex/Next 2 Exits/Town Line" sign is still up with no smaller sign yet.  I'm guessing this is because the contract plans showed a "Old Saybrook Town Line" sign to be put up at that location, which obviously is not correct. 

The new town line signs are totally unreadable at speed... the "town" and "town line" are just way too small.  Do motorists on a limited access highway traveling 70 MPH really need to know when a town was incorporated?  They really should've made the "town" and "town line" bigger.  And when a particular town has multiple exits, they should have kept a "TOWN/NEXT # EXITS" sign.  For example, Haddam, Middletown, and New Britain. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on November 14, 2021, 08:14:55 PM
CT 9/72 update:

Southern contract:  Not much new to report.

Middle contract:  The Exit 25 1/2 mile overhead signs have been replaced, after the old ones were moved to the new gantry.  New gantry parts are laying alongside the lanes awaiting installation SB approaching I-91 Jct (monotube).  NB at Exit 21, the 4-chord gantry supports are still up with no "span" or new signs yet.  SB at Exit 22, the new ground mounts are up, awaiting signs. 

Northern contract:  Nothing new thru New Britain.  On CT 72, many signs new, including for I-84 East and I-84 West exits.  There are still a few overheads yet to be replaced, along with sheet aluminum signs. 

A few pics:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51680261556_5f8636e169_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2mJNRfm)DSC03682 (https://flic.kr/p/2mJNRfm) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51680261286_f9f4e3fcbd_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2mJNRaG)DSC03690 (https://flic.kr/p/2mJNRaG) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51680515313_668eea59bc_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2mJQ9Ft)DSC03693 (https://flic.kr/p/2mJQ9Ft) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51680935839_531762c5de_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2mJSiFV)DSC03704 (https://flic.kr/p/2mJSiFV) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on November 15, 2021, 03:34:41 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on November 14, 2021, 08:14:55 PM
CT 9/72 update:

Southern contract:  Not much new to report.

Middle contract:  The Exit 25 1/2 mile overhead signs have been replaced, after the old ones were moved to the new gantry.  New gantry parts are laying alongside the lanes awaiting installation SB approaching I-91 Jct (monotube).  NB at Exit 21, the 4-chord gantry supports are still up with no "span" or new signs yet.  SB at Exit 22, the new ground mounts are up, awaiting signs. 

Northern contract:  Nothing new thru New Britain.  On CT 72, many signs new, including for I-84 East and I-84 West exits.  There are still a few overheads yet to be replaced, along with sheet aluminum signs. 


Have they switched over to the new exit numbers on Rt 72, or are they still using the old ones?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on November 15, 2021, 03:58:29 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on November 15, 2021, 03:34:41 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on November 14, 2021, 08:14:55 PM
CT 9/72 update:

Southern contract:  Not much new to report.

Middle contract:  The Exit 25 1/2 mile overhead signs have been replaced, after the old ones were moved to the new gantry.  New gantry parts are laying alongside the lanes awaiting installation SB approaching I-91 Jct (monotube).  NB at Exit 21, the 4-chord gantry supports are still up with no "span" or new signs yet.  SB at Exit 22, the new ground mounts are up, awaiting signs. 

Northern contract:  Nothing new thru New Britain.  On CT 72, many signs new, including for I-84 East and I-84 West exits.  There are still a few overheads yet to be replaced, along with sheet aluminum signs. 


Have they switched over to the new exit numbers on Rt 72, or are they still using the old ones?

Not yet.  I drive through there often and other than that free preview a few months ago, the old numbers are still there.  There's still quite a bit of old signage eastbound east of I-84, including a single button copy relic for Corbin Ave.  Guessing the number changes will happen upon completion of the replacement.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on November 15, 2021, 06:02:40 PM
One thing I did notice, at least on Rt 9 with the new signs, is that the present numbers are overlayed on.  This makes a lot more sense, as the southern contract (I-95 to Exit 16) originally had new exit tabs being installed on the middle/northern contract signs.  That seems like an incredible waste of time and money, so the fact that the numbers are overlayed with (presumably) the new numbers underneath makes more sense. 

One other southern contract note:  the "exit now" sign for Exit 11, SB, has finally been removed.  It was marked as "to be removed ASAP" on the contract plans, and a temporary sheet aluminum sign has been up for a few months now at that location.  My guess is that it was the worst-off gantry and that if it wasn't due to be replaced in this blanket project, it would've been replaced in a spot project.  The temporary sheet sign says "EXIT 11/TO 17/Durham/->". 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: mariethefoxy on November 15, 2021, 10:15:36 PM
Was in CT over the weekend, some observations

The old button copy Exit 2 Delevan Ave sign is gone replaced with a ground mounted modern reflective one.

Route 8/25 in Bridgeport going northbound is missing the Col Henry Mucci Highway sign, its something I noticed since a friend of mine is related to him. Newer reassurance shields on that section are in the Massachusetts style not the thick border Connecticut style.

Some of the remaining button copy on I-91 is in terrible shape, especially the signs for Exit 20 ([372] Cromwell Berlin) are unreadable at night the inlaid buttons are in such bad shape. A handful of signs in the North of Hartford section are missing the bottom half of the sign.

They must be doing a better job of graffiti removal, I saw far less of that random triangle, lines, circle graffiti tags that used to be literally EVERYWHERE on the 91 corridor and in Hartford.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on November 16, 2021, 02:15:14 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on November 14, 2021, 08:14:55 PM
CT 9/72 update:

Southern contract:  Not much new to report.

Middle contract:  The Exit 25 1/2 mile overhead signs have been replaced, after the old ones were moved to the new gantry.  New gantry parts are laying alongside the lanes awaiting installation SB approaching I-91 Jct (monotube).  NB at Exit 21, the 4-chord gantry supports are still up with no "span" or new signs yet.  SB at Exit 22, the new ground mounts are up, awaiting signs. 

Northern contract:  Nothing new thru New Britain.  On CT 72, many signs new, including for I-84 East and I-84 West exits.  There are still a few overheads yet to be replaced, along with sheet aluminum signs. 

A few pics:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51680261556_5f8636e169_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2mJNRfm)DSC03682 (https://flic.kr/p/2mJNRfm) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51680261286_f9f4e3fcbd_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2mJNRaG)DSC03690 (https://flic.kr/p/2mJNRaG) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51680515313_668eea59bc_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2mJQ9Ft)DSC03693 (https://flic.kr/p/2mJQ9Ft) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51680935839_531762c5de_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2mJSiFV)DSC03704 (https://flic.kr/p/2mJSiFV) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

Why are route numbers so hard to do nowadays?  They're all off.  Also, why are the ramp BGSs all using that smaller font??  The new on-ramp to the I-84 Exit 11 connector in Newtown will also be getting new signs when the ramp is completed and open.  (It's opening from CT-34 West to the connector NB) Those signs also have the small font according to the plans. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on November 16, 2021, 02:19:51 PM
ALSO.......whyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

Why is CT so stingy on extruded aluminum signs??  There use to be an "Expressway Ahead" sign on CT-66 just before I-691 that's gone and prob will never be replaced.  New projects are  cheapening out the signs in favor of sheet metal.  I know it's cost savings but there should be other things to save money on.  Plus will it really make a big difference in the bottom line?

Why is CT so stingy on passing zones. I drove US-44 between Taunton and RI and there were stores and interesections and US-44 had passing zones.  I was amazed and not to mention a 50mph speed limit in that area.  In CT it would be 40mph and a double yellow line.  I've also noticed several passing zones being eliminated over the years too.

Slow Vehicle Lanes seem to be shortened too.  They begin the taper ends a lot earlier after a repaving and sometimes even go out to restripe it in between repaving projects. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Rothman on November 16, 2021, 02:23:45 PM
Heh.  I heard a NYSDOT construction engineer bemoan the fact that both shortages in steel and paint make sign projects impossible...
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on November 16, 2021, 09:55:16 PM
Quote from: Rothman on November 16, 2021, 02:23:45 PM
Heh.  I heard a NYSDOT construction engineer bemoan the fact that both shortages in steel and paint make sign projects impossible...
YES. It takes months of preorder now.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on November 19, 2021, 01:44:12 PM
A new entrance ramp -- I-95 NB, exit 33 in Stratford -- is opening today. This was originally a partial interchange (access to and from the south only) to make it more difficult for motorists to shunpike the Stratford toll booths, which used to exist a short distance to the south.

The entire project should be done in mid-2022.

ConnDOT Press Release (https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/News-from-the-Connecticut-Department-of-Transportation/2021/STATE-REP-GRESKO-CTDOT-COMMISSIONER-GIULIETTI-TO-CUT-RIBBON-FOR-OPENING-OF-I-95-NB-EXIT-33-ON-RAMP?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=TODAY%20AT%20230%20PM%20STATE%20REPRESENTATIVE%20JOE%20GRESKO%20CTDOT%20COMMISSIONER%20JOE%20GIULIETTI%20TO%20CUT%20RIBBON%20FOR%20OPENING%20OF%20NEW%20I-95%20NORTHBOUND%20EXIT%2033%20ON-RAMP&utm_content=TODAY%20AT%20230%20PM%20STATE%20REPRESENTATIVE%20JOE%20GRESKO%20CTDOT%20COMMISSIONER%20JOE%20GIULIETTI%20TO%20CUT%20RIBBON%20FOR%20OPENING%20OF%20NEW%20I-95%20NORTHBOUND%20EXIT%2033%20ON-RAMP+CID_283b84fe1222e475ae871d16540dd267&utm_source=DOT%20Campaign%20Monitor&utm_term=TODAY%20AT%20230%20PM%20STATE%20REPRESENTATIVE%20JOE%20GRESKO%20CTDOT%20COMMISSIONER%20JOE%20GIULIETTI%20TO%20CUT%20RIBBON%20FOR%20OPENING%20OF%20NEW%20I-95%20NORTHBOUND%20EXIT%2033%20ON-RAMP%20IN%20STRATFORD%20CT)

Article with photo of planned ramps: https://www.ctpost.com/local/article/DOT-plans-hearing-on-new-I-95-ramps-in-Stratford-7942255.php
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on November 19, 2021, 04:33:57 PM
Quote from: kurumi on November 19, 2021, 01:44:12 PM
A new entrance ramp -- I-95 NB, exit 33 in Stratford -- is opening today. This was originally a partial interchange (access to and from the south only) to make it more difficult for motorists to shunpike the Stratford toll booths, which used to exist a short distance to the south.

The entire project should be done in mid-2022.

ConnDOT Press Release (https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/News-from-the-Connecticut-Department-of-Transportation/2021/STATE-REP-GRESKO-CTDOT-COMMISSIONER-GIULIETTI-TO-CUT-RIBBON-FOR-OPENING-OF-I-95-NB-EXIT-33-ON-RAMP?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=TODAY%20AT%20230%20PM%20STATE%20REPRESENTATIVE%20JOE%20GRESKO%20CTDOT%20COMMISSIONER%20JOE%20GIULIETTI%20TO%20CUT%20RIBBON%20FOR%20OPENING%20OF%20NEW%20I-95%20NORTHBOUND%20EXIT%2033%20ON-RAMP&utm_content=TODAY%20AT%20230%20PM%20STATE%20REPRESENTATIVE%20JOE%20GRESKO%20CTDOT%20COMMISSIONER%20JOE%20GIULIETTI%20TO%20CUT%20RIBBON%20FOR%20OPENING%20OF%20NEW%20I-95%20NORTHBOUND%20EXIT%2033%20ON-RAMP+CID_283b84fe1222e475ae871d16540dd267&utm_source=DOT%20Campaign%20Monitor&utm_term=TODAY%20AT%20230%20PM%20STATE%20REPRESENTATIVE%20JOE%20GRESKO%20CTDOT%20COMMISSIONER%20JOE%20GIULIETTI%20TO%20CUT%20RIBBON%20FOR%20OPENING%20OF%20NEW%20I-95%20NORTHBOUND%20EXIT%2033%20ON-RAMP%20IN%20STRATFORD%20CT)

Article with photo of planned ramps: https://www.ctpost.com/local/article/DOT-plans-hearing-on-new-I-95-ramps-in-Stratford-7942255.php

And a little bit of history as to why Exit 33 was originally constructed as a partial interchange. It goes back to when the Connecticut Turnpike was originally built. Just west of Exit33 used to be the Stratford toll plaza. Ramps from and to points north (east) were deliberately omitted to prevent motorists from exiting before the toll plaza, using surface streets to bypass the toll, and re-enter the Turnpike at Exit 32, and vice versa.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on November 19, 2021, 10:20:17 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on November 19, 2021, 04:33:57 PM
Quote from: kurumi on November 19, 2021, 01:44:12 PM
A new entrance ramp -- I-95 NB, exit 33 in Stratford -- is opening today. This was originally a partial interchange (access to and from the south only) to make it more difficult for motorists to shunpike the Stratford toll booths, which used to exist a short distance to the south.

The entire project should be done in mid-2022.

ConnDOT Press Release (https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/News-from-the-Connecticut-Department-of-Transportation/2021/STATE-REP-GRESKO-CTDOT-COMMISSIONER-GIULIETTI-TO-CUT-RIBBON-FOR-OPENING-OF-I-95-NB-EXIT-33-ON-RAMP?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=TODAY%20AT%20230%20PM%20STATE%20REPRESENTATIVE%20JOE%20GRESKO%20CTDOT%20COMMISSIONER%20JOE%20GIULIETTI%20TO%20CUT%20RIBBON%20FOR%20OPENING%20OF%20NEW%20I-95%20NORTHBOUND%20EXIT%2033%20ON-RAMP&utm_content=TODAY%20AT%20230%20PM%20STATE%20REPRESENTATIVE%20JOE%20GRESKO%20CTDOT%20COMMISSIONER%20JOE%20GIULIETTI%20TO%20CUT%20RIBBON%20FOR%20OPENING%20OF%20NEW%20I-95%20NORTHBOUND%20EXIT%2033%20ON-RAMP+CID_283b84fe1222e475ae871d16540dd267&utm_source=DOT%20Campaign%20Monitor&utm_term=TODAY%20AT%20230%20PM%20STATE%20REPRESENTATIVE%20JOE%20GRESKO%20CTDOT%20COMMISSIONER%20JOE%20GIULIETTI%20TO%20CUT%20RIBBON%20FOR%20OPENING%20OF%20NEW%20I-95%20NORTHBOUND%20EXIT%2033%20ON-RAMP%20IN%20STRATFORD%20CT)

Article with photo of planned ramps: https://www.ctpost.com/local/article/DOT-plans-hearing-on-new-I-95-ramps-in-Stratford-7942255.php

And a little bit of history as to why Exit 33 was originally constructed as a partial interchange. It goes back to when the Connecticut Turnpike was originally built. Just west of Exit33 used to be the Stratford toll plaza. Ramps from and to points north (east) were deliberately omitted to prevent motorists from exiting before the toll plaza, using surface streets to bypass the toll, and re-enter the Turnpike at Exit 32, and vice versa.

Location of the gruesome accident that caused Connecticut to get rid of tolls.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on November 19, 2021, 10:22:01 PM
I can't get over the fact that 1983 saw the Mianus River Bridge collapse and the Stratford Toll Plaza crash. What a grisly 6 months.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on November 21, 2021, 03:28:44 PM
The Maritime Aquarium BGSs have all been replaced on US-7 SB in Norwalk. The new BGS just says SOUTH NORWALK. it's about time as earlier just one was replaced leaving a mix match of signs and messages.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: yakra on November 26, 2021, 12:59:19 PM
Are there plans for CT15's US5 / Broad St exit (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5611481,-72.7759161,3a,16y,192.11h,90.36t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1szcylo-Me9TveVNoxsPZCIw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!9m2!1b1!2i40) in Meriden to get an exit number when the sequential->mileage conversion happens?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on November 26, 2021, 05:45:11 PM
Quote from: yakra on November 26, 2021, 12:59:19 PM
Are there plans for CT15's US5 / Broad St exit (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5611481,-72.7759161,3a,16y,192.11h,90.36t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1szcylo-Me9TveVNoxsPZCIw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!9m2!1b1!2i40) in Meriden to get an exit number when the sequential->mileage conversion happens?

I really don't think it would, given that it's a mainline split/TOTSO for US 5.  If they ever did that, then the CT 9/372, CT 175, and northbound CT 314 connections would need numbers too.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on November 27, 2021, 10:45:18 AM
Quote from: yakra on November 26, 2021, 12:59:19 PM
Are there plans for CT15's US5 / Broad St exit (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5611481,-72.7759161,3a,16y,192.11h,90.36t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1szcylo-Me9TveVNoxsPZCIw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!9m2!1b1!2i40) in Meriden to get an exit number when the sequential->mileage conversion happens?

Ahhh... unofficial Exit 69.  Some CT maps in the past have marked it as "Exit 69".   
I would hope that in an all-mileage CT 15, it would get a #, as would the CT 9, CT 175 interchanges as well.  Then again, something like that would be contingent upon the Berlin Tpke getting MUTCD-compliant mile markers.  I don't believe the current sign replacement project in Berlin (tied in with CT 9's middle sign contract) is adding markers.  So that means posting exit numbers, even at interchanges, is kind of pointless.  However, mile markers I'm sure are going to have to go in on the Hartford-E Hartford section when that portion eventually gets renumbered exits.  So what better way to connect the two sections than with mile markers on the Berlin Tpke?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on December 11, 2021, 10:30:13 PM
CT 9 resigning update:

Some new sheet aluminum signs are up, Exits 2-3, including exit services and Park & Ride signs.  The new "Essex Town Line" sign is up.  Also, at least for Exits 2 and 3, the off-ramp guide signs that were missing directional arrows now have arrows. 

Will update further north as time permits. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on December 12, 2021, 08:28:43 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on December 11, 2021, 10:30:13 PM
CT 9 resigning update:

Some new sheet aluminum signs are up, Exits 2-3, including exit services and Park & Ride signs.  The new "Essex Town Line" sign is up.  Also, at least for Exits 2 and 3, the off-ramp guide signs that were missing directional arrows now have arrows. 

Will update further north as time permits.

Nothing new at the north end, other than a new VMB northbound just past Ellis St, as well as one on 72 West just before Corbin Ave. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on December 13, 2021, 02:55:26 PM
Travelled up to Middletown today.  There's a new exit services sheet aluminum sign for Exit 5, NB, which has the new exit number, 7, shown (no overlay).  Signs which were missing arrows have had arrows installed up to either Exit 4 or 5. 

Update 12/21 ... arrows are now up to Exit 6 (at least).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: seicer on December 13, 2021, 04:08:07 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on November 16, 2021, 02:19:51 PM
Why is CT so stingy on extruded aluminum signs??  There use to be an "Expressway Ahead" sign on CT-66 just before I-691 that's gone and prob will never be replaced.  New projects are  cheapening out the signs in favor of sheet metal.  I know it's cost savings but there should be other things to save money on.  Plus will it really make a big difference in the bottom line?

I am assuming the cost for the steel and for the supports needed. Kentucky does sheet metal signs quite well in certain districts (a more recent change) and ... quite badly in other areas where the memo hasn't been passed down yet on the new guidelines.

Good:
- Larger panel sizes, consistent fonts: https://goo.gl/maps/hm4Mupfp1Mv8gvpZ8
- Larger route shields, concrete footers: https://goo.gl/maps/a3TXRsgVsBdWEkTq9
- Extruded panels but this is probably over-kill for a roadway of this type: https://goo.gl/maps/mR1fJkgH5sCnJEst9

Bad:
- All sorts of issues: https://goo.gl/maps/zK9f5vjqCVy3gCa48
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: seicer on December 15, 2021, 09:44:30 AM
Arkansas says hello: https://goo.gl/maps/qc7NqqzBWqMuktkt6
But these look to be half way decent installations - I just remember seeing some of the sloppiest installations in Connecticut before the mass sign replacement project.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: storm2k on December 15, 2021, 12:23:59 PM
NJDOT sends its regards (https://goo.gl/maps/KpAVuQHCgqWoqaAYA)

This is to say nothing of the ridiculously tiny crappy signs that existed on 287 at the Easton Ave exit for many decades before they were finally replaced with proper signage in 1998 when NJDOT did away with the experimental diagramatic signage from the 1970s and put in proper MUTCD-compliant signs (and fixed all the exit numbering to be consistent on 287 since it was clear by that point that the Somerset Freeway was never happening and that the lower end of 287 would never become 95).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: seicer on December 15, 2021, 12:25:21 PM
What did that experimental diagrammatic sign look like?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on December 15, 2021, 02:41:07 PM
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:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51749132211_af264566fc.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51748305737_266da784ae.jpg)

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?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on December 17, 2021, 03:29:45 PM
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
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51752385952_5f3a1f7b3f.jpg)

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? 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on December 25, 2021, 09:12:47 AM
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).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: bob7374 on December 25, 2021, 09:33:58 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on December 17, 2021, 03:29:45 PM
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
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51752385952_5f3a1f7b3f.jpg)

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:
(https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/ct9exitplanstoct175exit37.jpg)

And the CT 71 exit will be Exit 39:
(https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/ct9exitplansct71exit39.jpg)

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 (https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/neexitrenumbering.html)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on December 25, 2021, 10:14:53 PM
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?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on December 27, 2021, 10:58:23 AM
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?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on December 27, 2021, 03:29:24 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on December 27, 2021, 10:58:23 AM
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.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on December 27, 2021, 04:59:39 PM
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.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: The Ghostbuster on December 28, 2021, 10:27:31 PM
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.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on December 29, 2021, 11:04:25 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 28, 2021, 10:27:31 PM
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. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on December 29, 2021, 11:30:19 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on December 29, 2021, 11:04:25 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 28, 2021, 10:27:31 PM
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.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: tolbs17 on December 29, 2021, 01:19:23 PM
Sequential numbering is old school by now. But back in the day, it was simple.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: tolbs17 on December 29, 2021, 01:21:51 PM
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.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: relaxok on December 30, 2021, 02:28:55 AM
Quote from: 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?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on December 30, 2021, 03:06:00 AM
Quote from: relaxok on December 30, 2021, 02:28:55 AM
Quote from: 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.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on January 01, 2022, 03:52:05 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on December 25, 2021, 09:33:58 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on December 17, 2021, 03:29:45 PM
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
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51752385952_5f3a1f7b3f.jpg)

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:
(https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/ct9exitplanstoct175exit37.jpg)

And the CT 71 exit will be Exit 39:
(https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/ct9exitplansct71exit39.jpg)

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 (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?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on January 01, 2022, 10:58:17 PM
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:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51790679476_84f931915f_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2mUyLDA)CT9NB-Exit29-1 (https://flic.kr/p/2mUyLDA) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), 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?
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51790713496_8275c11664_h.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2mUyWL9)CT9SB-Exit 11-newExit21 (https://flic.kr/p/2mUyWL9) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), 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:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51791057774_b5757f0e49_3k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2mUAH6Y)CT9NB-Exit05-services (https://flic.kr/p/2mUAH6Y) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), 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...
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51789738812_d64b99cd53_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2mUtX2f)CT9SB-Exit20S-newExit30 (https://flic.kr/p/2mUtX2f) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), 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

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: roadwaywiz95 on January 03, 2022, 08:10:22 PM
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.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on January 03, 2022, 11:53:25 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 29, 2021, 01:21:51 PM
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.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on January 06, 2022, 12:31:53 AM
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.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on January 06, 2022, 10:00:19 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on January 03, 2022, 11:53:25 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 29, 2021, 01:21:51 PM
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.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Rothman on January 06, 2022, 05:26:22 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on January 06, 2022, 10:00:19 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on January 03, 2022, 11:53:25 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 29, 2021, 01:21:51 PM
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?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: DrSmith on January 06, 2022, 05:55:46 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on January 06, 2022, 12:31:53 AM
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.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on January 06, 2022, 07:25:19 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on January 06, 2022, 10:00:19 AM
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"
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on January 06, 2022, 08:50:32 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on January 06, 2022, 10:00:19 AM
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.

Isn't the bulk of the wear-and-tear caused by trucks and other heavy vehicles subject to apportionment of fuel taxes?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on January 06, 2022, 09:39:37 PM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on January 06, 2022, 08:50:32 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on January 06, 2022, 10:00:19 AM
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.

Isn't the bulk of the wear-and-tear caused by trucks and other heavy vehicles subject to apportionment of fuel taxes?
That's true for semis, but there are a lot of out-of-state passenger vehicles using Connecticut's highways and not paying the state's fuel taxes as well. That's what I'm getting at. The states surrounding Connecticut at least have the sense to toll the major highways that are most heavily used by out-of-state motorists so they end up paying their fair share for the highways' upkeep.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on January 06, 2022, 11:44:13 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on January 06, 2022, 12:31:53 AMHowever, 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.
That's not slightly different. That's ludicrous. What happened to I-84 that it needs to make up 0.4 miles in 120 feet?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on January 07, 2022, 12:54:23 AM
Quote from: Alps on January 06, 2022, 11:44:13 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on January 06, 2022, 12:31:53 AMHowever, 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.
That's not slightly different. That's ludicrous. What happened to I-84 that it needs to make up 0.4 miles in 120 feet?
Is the location on a curve? I know some states calculate mileage from the centerline of the two carriageways (which creates interesting issues at points where the two carriageways are widely spaced, like I-84 in Massachusetts).

Or is one of the three signs mentioned old and the others are new?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: storm2k on January 07, 2022, 01:03:04 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on January 06, 2022, 07:25:19 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on January 06, 2022, 10:00:19 AM
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"

It for sure depends where you're going and where you're coming from. I can tell you that I did four drives from EWR (to pick up a rental) to just outside of Boston this past fall, and I can for sure get from one end of that trip to the other on one tank of gas, and this was in cars like a Nissan Rogue that aren't the best of gas mileage. So yeah, I can buy that a large number of out of state drivers aren't stopping for gas, though you do see plenty of cars lined up as the service plazas on the Merritt/Wilbur Cross.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on January 07, 2022, 08:23:15 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on January 06, 2022, 07:25:19 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on January 06, 2022, 10:00:19 AM
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"

The vast majority of road wear is caused by weather, not by traffic.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MATraveler128 on January 07, 2022, 08:48:46 AM
Speaking of road wear, what is the deal with I-84 from East Hartford to the Massachusetts border? That road is falling apart with the lane lines being a long series of cracks. Probably one of the worst maintained stretch of highway Connecticut has maintenance wise.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on January 07, 2022, 03:46:08 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on December 27, 2021, 04:59:39 PM
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.

My question is for the existing southbound gantry just after the Webster Square Road bridge in Berlin. There are two support poles up on the side. It looks like there will be a new sign going onto them shortly. However, the overhead gantry has TWO signs on it now. Hmmm!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on January 07, 2022, 04:17:43 PM
That existing overhead gantry (Exit 22 -> / Exit 21 1/4 mile) will be removed and not replaced.  Instead, there will be a ground-mount Exit 22 -> sign.  No sign will be present at that location for Exit 21. 

In other news.... we now know (roughly) what the new Route 8 exit numbers will be and what's involved in the Route 8 sign contract Bridgeport-to-Winchester due to be released this spring. 
https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/Construction-News-from-the-Connecticut-Department-of-Transportation/2022/Traffic-Sign-Replacement-and-Renumbering-Route-8-in-Waterbury-and-Watertown

Looks like the signs in Waterbury-Watertown will be replaced (those date from the early 2000s IIRC).  There were a few random gantries that did not get replaced in Naugatuck and in Bridgeport and it looks like those will also be replaced.  And of course, new exit numbers.  While the press release doesn't state it, I wonder if CT 25 will get renumbered as well at the same time?  Would make sense, so probably no.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on January 07, 2022, 04:31:35 PM
Looks like the trend of numbering the endpoint exits (see also: CT 9) continues.  However, I disagree with the northbound split of CT 25 getting numbered, as it is a mainline split and not truly an exit.  If this is the case, CTDOT should just truncate CT 25 to the split, as many people (and CTDOT) refer to the highway south of there at CT 8 anyway.  The CT 25 designation south of the split only exists as a legacy to when 25 used to follow Main St into downtown.  That was over 50 years ago, so it's time to let go.  And yes, I know MA 128 still exists along I-95, but that's a cultural thing; this is not.  I do see some opportunity for some fudging of the numbers in the Derby/Ansonia and Waterbury areas if the CT 9 fudging at I-91 and in New Britain is any indication. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MATraveler128 on January 07, 2022, 05:13:41 PM
I see that the northern end of the CT 8 freeway is not getting a number, which I'm glad to see because the south end of the Bronx River Parkway in New York City has one and that is rather unnecessary. I'm overall happy to see Connecticut renumber another highway to mile based exits, but the I-95 exit should just be exit 0 instead of a 1A-B-C-D setup.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on January 07, 2022, 08:08:19 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on January 07, 2022, 05:13:41 PM
I see that the northern end of the CT 8 freeway is not getting a number, which I'm glad to see because the south end of the Bronx River Parkway in New York City has one and that is rather unnecessary. I'm overall happy to see Connecticut renumber another highway to mile based exits, but the I-95 exit should just be exit 0 instead of a 1A-B-C-D setup.

The difference is that CT 8 continues beyond Winsted (to Searsburg, VT), where the BRP ends there.  So since it's mainline CT 8, there shouldn't be a number.  And most states don't use Exit 0.  Other than the southern end of the GSP, the closest state to use it was DE but they've since removed the number from the interchange (I-495 South to I-295 North)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: relaxok on January 08, 2022, 02:02:07 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on December 30, 2021, 03:06:00 AM
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.

Is it crazy that this makes me sad?  I'm no longer in the area but the actual exit numbers themselves bring up so many memories for me and it's nice to go back every once in a while to visit and they're the same - obviously the exits aren't being removed but there's something about like exit 10 or exit 16 meaning something when you take them, the same as it was when i was a kid 30-40 years ago.  Ah well.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on January 08, 2022, 11:33:55 AM
Quote from: relaxok on January 08, 2022, 02:02:07 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on December 30, 2021, 03:06:00 AM
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.

Is it crazy that this makes me sad?  I'm no longer in the area but the actual exit numbers themselves bring up so many memories for me and it's nice to go back every once in a while to visit and they're the same - obviously the exits aren't being removed but there's something about like exit 10 or exit 16 meaning something when you take them, the same as it was when i was a kid 30-40 years ago.  Ah well.
The part that makes me sad is that exit number replacement is leading to all the button copy disappearing.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MATraveler128 on January 08, 2022, 12:53:23 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if when exit renumbering is complete if button copy won't exist anymore in the state. Connecticut is one of the best states for old signage and it will be a shame to see some old signs from the 60s and 70s get removed.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: zzyzx on January 08, 2022, 01:17:02 PM
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20220108/40bcc42617acafe77e6cc9b50d266940.jpg)

There are some scrapyards with old signage. I saw this at Pachaug Picker in Griswold back in the fall. Maybe someone on here might want it bad enough for their collection?


iPhone
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MATraveler128 on January 08, 2022, 02:24:42 PM
Interesting to see an I-86 shield from back in the day. What is the US 44 overlay supposed to be covering up?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on January 08, 2022, 03:28:17 PM
That US 44 shield is not covering anything up... when US 44 was rerouted in the 1980s from Manchester to Willington, what is today US 44 was US 44A and CT 74 was US 44.  So there was a CT 74 shield slapped over the US 44 one, and there was an I-84 shield over the I-86 shield. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on January 08, 2022, 03:34:39 PM
The theme for today's SW CT drive is

"Still Waiting"


I could've sworn this exit was open already... guess that ceremony was just for the onramp!  I-95 SB at Moses Wheeler Bridge/Milford-Stratford...
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51808295078_4ace3ad31d_h.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2mW849S)DSC03731 (https://flic.kr/p/2mW849S) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

Hey, you're new!  CT 8/25 NB in Bridgeport...oh wait... you're not part of the CT 8 resigning project (a spot replacement instead, just happens to be on CT 8 within confines of a blanket resigning)...
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51808915780_35a7536814_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2mWbeEC)DSC03757 (https://flic.kr/p/2mWbeEC) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

And... surprise... outside of two gantries... nothing new on CT 8's Bridgeport-to-Stratford sign replacement project.  But.... all (or at least most) vertical supports for overhead signs and supports for ground signs are up.  Now we're just waiting on the horizontals to be installed for the overheads, and some signs.  With the ground supports all in, maybe this project will continue through the winter...
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51808294443_88b5516ed8_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2mW83XV)DSC03759 (https://flic.kr/p/2mW83XV) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

CT 8 through the Naugatuck Valley... it's almost like another state....
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51807223397_43b79509c4_3k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2mW2yzB)DSC03765 (https://flic.kr/p/2mW2yzB) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

CT 8 NB in Waterbury is back on its original roadway, with the temporary bypass being removed.  The I-84 West ramp has reopened... eastbound traffic still has to use the u-turn at Exit 35.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51808294613_3beec142f4_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2mW841R)DSC03768 (https://flic.kr/p/2mW841R) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

And there's more on my FLICKR... check the sig for the link
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on January 08, 2022, 06:50:21 PM
Since when is Disney World in Farmington?!?  Just saw this old article in my FB feed (read the headline in the article:

https://www.wfsb.com/news/vehicle-fire-closes-i-84-east-in-farmington/article_9307808c-6348-11ec-a43e-df555359a313.html

Another observation from the proposed Route 8 numbers: they've gone to rounding down again.  Once again, TOTAL inconsistency on rounding (Exit 51 is at MP 51.81).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on January 08, 2022, 09:18:03 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on January 08, 2022, 06:50:21 PM
Since when is Disney World in Farmington?!?  Just saw this old article in my FB feed (read the headline in the article:

https://www.wfsb.com/news/vehicle-fire-closes-i-84-east-in-farmington/article_9307808c-6348-11ec-a43e-df555359a313.html

Another observation from the proposed Route 8 numbers: they've gone to rounding down again.  Once again, TOTAL inconsistency on rounding (Exit 51 is at MP 51.81).
Can you post the link to the proposed exit numbers for Route 8? Thanks.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on January 08, 2022, 09:20:43 PM
I just posted it two days ago... scroll up a few posts and see the link. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on January 08, 2022, 11:01:26 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on January 08, 2022, 09:20:43 PM
I just posted it two days ago... scroll up a few posts and see the link.

Okay, I see it now. Thanks.
I will be interesting if they renumber exits on Route 25 north of its split with Route 8. Logic would say they would convert Route 25's exit numbers as part of this contract, but I rarely see Connecticut do anything that's logical.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Scott5114 on January 08, 2022, 11:49:14 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on January 07, 2022, 04:31:35 PM
Looks like the trend of numbering the endpoint exits (see also: CT 9) continues.  However, I disagree with the northbound split of CT 25 getting numbered, as it is a mainline split and not truly an exit.

Quote from: BlueOutback7 on January 07, 2022, 05:13:41 PM
I see that the northern end of the CT 8 freeway is not getting a number, which I'm glad to see because the south end of the Bronx River Parkway in New York City has one and that is rather unnecessary. I'm overall happy to see Connecticut renumber another highway to mile based exits, but the I-95 exit should just be exit 0 instead of a 1A-B-C-D setup.

Every ramp should have an exit number, no matter whether it's a split, endpoint, or whatever, because for some people it's easier to remember "take exit 125A" instead of a route number and direction or control city. Most motorists straight up do not know or care whether a given interchange is a split or an endpoint or whatever, so it just gives them one less navigational aid for a reason that doesn't matter to them.

Quote from: relaxok on January 08, 2022, 02:02:07 AM
Is it crazy that this makes me sad?  I'm no longer in the area but the actual exit numbers themselves bring up so many memories for me and it's nice to go back every once in a while to visit and they're the same - obviously the exits aren't being removed but there's something about like exit 10 or exit 16 meaning something when you take them, the same as it was when i was a kid 30-40 years ago.  Ah well.

Mileage-based exits mean exactly the same thing when you take them, and they'll eventually have just the same associations as you get used to them. When I go see my grandma, Kansas's exits 127 and 222B are just as nostalgic to me as 10 and 16 are to you, and once you get that attachment to them, there's the added benefit of knowing exactly how far away you are from home.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on January 08, 2022, 11:52:38 PM
Quote from: zzyzx on January 08, 2022, 01:17:02 PM
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20220108/40bcc42617acafe77e6cc9b50d266940.jpg)

There are some scrapyards with old signage. I saw this at Pachaug Picker in Griswold back in the fall. Maybe someone on here might want it bad enough for their collection?


iPhone
Yes. Yes I do. How much.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Dougtone on January 09, 2022, 05:43:03 PM
I'm sure you'll find this article about Willimantic, Connecticut's Frog Bridge to be, well, ribbiting...
The Frog Bridge was built in 2000 to honor the Great Windham Frog Fight of 1754, which was a rather interesting event in local history.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2022/01/frog-bridge-willimantic-connecticut.html (https://www.gribblenation.org/2022/01/frog-bridge-willimantic-connecticut.html)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on January 09, 2022, 09:51:37 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on January 08, 2022, 06:50:21 PM
Since when is Disney World in Farmington?!?  Just saw this old article in my FB feed (read the headline in the article:

https://www.wfsb.com/news/vehicle-fire-closes-i-84-east-in-farmington/article_9307808c-6348-11ec-a43e-df555359a313.html

Another observation from the proposed Route 8 numbers: they've gone to rounding down again.  Once again, TOTAL inconsistency on rounding (Exit 51 is at MP 51.81).
Another oddity I see is how they renumber the two exits for Beacon Falls, both as Exit 21. That would be okay for the northbound exit, since Route 42 crosses under Route 8 right at MP 21. But the SB exit should be 22, since the offramp leaves Route 8 SB at around MP 22.4, and connect to East Main Street (which dead-ends just short of Route 8).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on January 11, 2022, 12:47:51 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on January 07, 2022, 08:48:46 AM
Speaking of road wear, what is the deal with I-84 from East Hartford to the Massachusetts border? That road is falling apart with the lane lines being a long series of cracks. Probably one of the worst maintained stretch of highway Connecticut has maintenance wise.
Which parts exactly?

The stretch from Exit 67 to the MA border was recently treated with an epoxy resin and is in great shape.

Both directions from Exit 63 to 67 have been resurfaced at separate times, but both within the past 5-10 years

The concrete segment from Exit 59 to 63 is what really needs to be replaced. Me thinks they're going to rehab everything in one fell swoop; seal and pave over the concrete, replace all BGSs, and convert to LED lighting.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MATraveler128 on January 11, 2022, 01:19:36 PM
I'm referring to the part that you just mentioned near Manchester around where I-291 and I-384 meet. There is certainly work to be done around there. I don't know if ConnDOT has any sign rehab projects for the area, but I was last there Thanksgiving weekend and just happened to notice how rough it is. I may have gone too far there, I would think that Waterbury, Fairfield County, or the Merritt would have worse conditions. As for I-84, I will be in the area this weekend and will confirm.

EDIT - My trip is actually being delayed.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on January 11, 2022, 08:56:21 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on January 11, 2022, 12:47:51 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on January 07, 2022, 08:48:46 AM
Speaking of road wear, what is the deal with I-84 from East Hartford to the Massachusetts border? That road is falling apart with the lane lines being a long series of cracks. Probably one of the worst maintained stretch of highway Connecticut has maintenance wise.
Which parts exactly?

The stretch from Exit 67 to the MA border was recently treated with an epoxy resin and is in great shape.

Both directions from Exit 63 to 67 have been resurfaced at separate times, but both within the past 5-10 years

The concrete segment from Exit 59 to 63 is what really needs to be replaced. Me thinks they're going to rehab everything in one fell swoop; seal and pave over the concrete, replace all BGSs, and convert to LED lighting.
Google Maps street views from December 2021 along I-84 east of Hartford show recent resurfacing from between exits 70 and 71 to the MA state line. The pavement is in decent shape from Exit 69 to 70. West of Exit 69 the pavement is in real rough shape to Exit 67, then it gets better to between Exits 65 and 66. They resurfaced not too long ago between Exits 65 and 63, at which point you hit the concrete section. Indeed, the concrete section is looking pretty rough. Not sure if they're going to patch and grind smooth the concrete section like they did about 10 years ago or just overlay it with asphalt, but either way it needs some TLC.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on January 12, 2022, 01:52:36 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on January 11, 2022, 08:56:21 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on January 11, 2022, 12:47:51 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on January 07, 2022, 08:48:46 AM
Speaking of road wear, what is the deal with I-84 from East Hartford to the Massachusetts border? That road is falling apart with the lane lines being a long series of cracks. Probably one of the worst maintained stretch of highway Connecticut has maintenance wise.
Which parts exactly?

The stretch from Exit 67 to the MA border was recently treated with an epoxy resin and is in great shape.

Both directions from Exit 63 to 67 have been resurfaced at separate times, but both within the past 5-10 years

The concrete segment from Exit 59 to 63 is what really needs to be replaced. Me thinks they're going to rehab everything in one fell swoop; seal and pave over the concrete, replace all BGSs, and convert to LED lighting.
Google Maps street views from December 2021 along I-84 east of Hartford show recent resurfacing from between exits 70 and 71 to the MA state line. The pavement is in decent shape from Exit 69 to 70. West of Exit 69 the pavement is in real rough shape to Exit 67, then it gets better to between Exits 65 and 66. They resurfaced not too long ago between Exits 65 and 63, at which point you hit the concrete section. Indeed, the concrete section is looking pretty rough. Not sure if they're going to patch and grind smooth the concrete section like they did about 10 years ago or just overlay it with asphalt, but either way it needs some TLC.
They would probably mill the surface down and apply asphalt and the epoxy resin.
It's also not just the mainline. The C/D ramps will need it too.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on January 13, 2022, 07:02:03 PM
New sheet aluminum signs going up on I-91.  Currently, from (at least) Exit 22 to Exit 44 is done (except for median signs and in the Hartford/Exit 29 work zone).  The new signs include speed limits, exit gores, "Slower Traffic Keep Right", and new reassurance shields mounted on a single post (and they're neutered).  The enhanced mile markers were also replaced with a larger font and there are new overhead bridge IDs as well. 

I believe this is part of a project to replace sheet aluminum signs statewide on the interstates.  I saw some new signs on I-95 last week, but the new reassurance shields on I-91 today gave me a surprise!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on January 13, 2022, 07:52:44 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on January 13, 2022, 07:02:03 PM
New sheet aluminum signs going up on I-91.  Currently, from (at least) Exit 22 to Exit 44 is done (except for median signs and in the Hartford/Exit 29 work zone).  The new signs include speed limits, exit gores, "Slower Traffic Keep Right", and new reassurance shields mounted on a single post (and they're neutered).  The enhanced mile markers were also replaced with a larger font and there are new overhead bridge IDs as well. 

I believe this is part of a project to replace sheet aluminum signs statewide on the interstates.  I saw some new signs on I-95 last week, but the new reassurance shields on I-91 today gave me a surprise!

Seems they're doing northbound first.  Between now and April, I'll be traveling 91 between 84 and Exit 37 quite a bit.  Did so yesterday and that MP 44 snafu I mentioned upthread has been corrected.  However, the mile markers are off by at least 0.2 from the old ones.  MP 44.6 is now south of the CT 305 overpass but was north of it with the old markers.  Seems the old CTDOT highway log had the 305 overpass at 44.5, but the latest one (12/31/20) has it at MP 44.67.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on January 14, 2022, 04:44:43 PM
Drove I-91 south all the way to New Haven today on my way back from VT.  The new sheet aluminum signs seem to begin northbound in Meriden.  And they're up to past Exit 45 now.  Lots of median signs still to be replaced however (speed limits, truck left lane prohibition etc).  The double-sided extra thick 91 numeral reassurance shield at Exit 40 SB is still there.  No work SB yet... forgot how many reassurance shields in Wallingford and North Haven are in bad shape.... even saw one with the direction banner under the shield!

Also...

Was this really necessary? 
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4032424,-72.8377521,3a,60y,221.36h,93.24t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sATRPb05RRtPLP09iupHCrw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on January 16, 2022, 03:03:53 PM
CT-17/US-7 interchange update:

I was reading the comments and meeting minutes from the last public update from late 2021.  I cannot believe how far up Alt 26 has reached,which is putting stoplights on US-7 at the CT-15 ramps.  It's like a political election, you're waiting to see who is the winner. I'm rooting for Alt 21D with NO stoplights.


Just go to page 5 and read the general comments about induced demand and other forms of transportation.  If this were Texas, none of this would even be mentioned. This is the poster child project for NIMBYism and the Bike/Ped movement.

http://7-15norwalk.com/documents/2021-11-30and12-1%20Q-A%20Session%20Meeting%20Summary.pdf
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on January 17, 2022, 08:48:01 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on January 16, 2022, 03:03:53 PM
CT-17/US-7 interchange update:

I was reading the comments and meeting minutes from the last public update from late 2021.  I cannot believe how far up Alt 26 has reached,which is putting stoplights on US-7 at the CT-15 ramps.  It's like a political election, you're waiting to see who is the winner. I'm rooting for Alt 21D with NO stoplights.


Just go to page 5 and read the general comments about induced demand and other forms of transportation.  If this were Texas, none of this would even be mentioned. This is the poster child project for NIMBYism and the Bike/Ped movement.

http://7-15norwalk.com/documents/2021-11-30and12-1%20Q-A%20Session%20Meeting%20Summary.pdf
If it makes you feel better, the 2019 meeting had several commenter advocating for the extension of Super 7
http://7-15norwalk.com/documents/7-15%20Scoping%20Summary_FINAL_Jan20192.pdf
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: The Ghostbuster on January 17, 2022, 03:01:35 PM
From what I hear about transportation in Connecticut, I expect they will do either Alt. 26, or they won't do anything at all. As for those advocating extending Super 7, IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN (those advocating it, and almost everyone else, would probably be screaming "bloody murder" against it if there was even a sliver of a possibility that it might happen)! I would be completely shocked if even 1 inch of new freeway or parkway was ever constructed within the state of Connecticut.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on January 23, 2022, 07:13:41 PM
I don't recall seeing it mentioned here, but while running an errand this afternoon on I-91 northbound, I observed that there are little green signs posted identifying a couple of the state highways crossing the interstate on overpasses.

The one that caught my eye:  "CT 510"

It is not present in this GSV image from December 2021: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9429376,-72.60614,3a,75y,11h,88.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sY7NiPMgqMbt7ETL5xp_g_A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on January 23, 2022, 09:30:56 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 17, 2022, 03:01:35 PM
From what I hear about transportation in Connecticut, I expect they will do either Alt. 26, or they won't do anything at all. As for those advocating extending Super 7, IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN (those advocating it, and almost everyone else, would probably be screaming "bloody murder" against it if there was even a sliver of a possibility that it might happen)! I would be completely shocked if even 1 inch of new freeway or parkway was ever constructed within the state of Connecticut.

I would say the "No-Build" option would be better than Alternative 26.  Anyone who thinks of putting a traffic light on a freeway with traffic going at 70 MPH must be insane!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MATraveler128 on January 23, 2022, 10:33:36 PM
CT 9 in Middletown says hi.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on January 23, 2022, 10:50:21 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on January 23, 2022, 10:33:36 PM
CT 9 in Middletown says hi.
But Route 9 in Middletown was a situation where the surface road with traffic lights were there before the freeway was built, so there is some reasoning behind that. There is no logical reason behind putting a traffic light on the Route 7 freeway. I would say leave the interchange alone--it works just fine as it is. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MATraveler128 on January 24, 2022, 07:49:05 AM
Who puts a traffic light on a freeway anyways? Only Connecticut.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on January 24, 2022, 12:51:33 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on January 24, 2022, 07:49:05 AM
Who puts a traffic light on a freeway anyways? Only Connecticut.
Not trying to defend Connecticut here, but Pennsylvania says hello (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9990048,-78.2388738,3a,50.7y,48.86h,88.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1szx-8SQ1YoNgkj-5MztJ2ew!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: yakra on January 24, 2022, 01:03:35 PM
Oh, this is easy! (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.1194818,-104.8049688,3a,15y,266.15h,92.02t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRpuLtXURMuG37_QzZY0Bbw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: cl94 on January 24, 2022, 01:12:13 PM
Regarding the 7/15 interchange, one thing you need to remember here is that CT 15 is the Merritt Parkway. That road is the poster child for NIMBYism. You cannot do anything that significantly alters the character of that road without insane public opposition, which means no new bridges over the road. Because of this, CT's hands are tied when it comes to completing that interchange. The expressway ends a mile to the north with zero chance of ever being extended. I wouldn't say that new freeways in Connecticut are completely out of the question, but they likely are in Fairfield County.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MATraveler128 on January 24, 2022, 01:24:02 PM
There really is nothing you can do about the CT 15/US 7 interchange. You would need to demolish businesses to make it happen. US 7 has way too much development in the way to be able to punch a limited access freeway through there without causing a fuss. Fairfield County has always been NIMBY and will remain that way. Connecticut is a tough place to build anything.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on January 24, 2022, 01:25:57 PM
Quote from: vdeane on January 24, 2022, 12:51:33 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on January 24, 2022, 07:49:05 AM
Who puts a traffic light on a freeway anyways? Only Connecticut.
Not trying to defend Connecticut here, but Pennsylvania says hello (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9990048,-78.2388738,3a,50.7y,48.86h,88.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1szx-8SQ1YoNgkj-5MztJ2ew!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).
Yes, there is the I-70 Breezewood mess and I-180 surface road in Cheyenne, Wyoming. I've driven on I-180 in Cheyenne and there's not a whole lot of traffic on it. Still don't know why they signed it as an interstate since it's also signed as BUSINESS I-25 and US-87.

And let's not forget a lot of New York's parkways that have substantial freeway sections, then suddenly you hit a traffic light placed at the most random spots.

While we're at it, there's I-676 in Philadelphia that becomes a surface road with traffic lights just before the Benjamin Franklin Bridge, and I-78 on the New Jersey approach to the Holland Tunnel that does the same thing.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on January 24, 2022, 01:50:32 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on January 24, 2022, 07:49:05 AM
Who puts a traffic light on a freeway anyways? Only Connecticut.

As is the case for all New England states, Connecticut has talked for years about improvements to the traffic lights on Route 9 in Middletown. At one point, some organization had proposed re-routing Route 9 over the Connecticut River into Portland and then back into Cromwell north of the lights. Obviously, this would benefit Middletown, as it would free up lots of riverfront real estate. And obviously, it didn't happen.

I believe the state's latest plans promise to do that, but even if they did, it would take years to happen. I would imagine that numerous obstacles will have to be overcome, such as cost, bureaucracy, labor and supply issues, NIMBYism, and environmental issues with the floodplain.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: yakra on January 24, 2022, 03:39:47 PM
Wasn't there a Middletown plan involving left exits a few years back?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on January 24, 2022, 06:28:52 PM
Quote from: yakra on January 24, 2022, 03:39:47 PM
Wasn't there a Middletown plan involving left exits a few years back?

yes: https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/Projects/0082-0318-Route-9-Middletown-Home. Active 2016 - 2018
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on January 24, 2022, 06:48:29 PM
RE:  Route 9, Middletown
I really don't personally object to Alternative 3 and I hope that one gets pushed through so that this project can finally get off the ground.  Having a left exit isn't ideal.  I still don't understand why Exit 13 can't be upgraded to a full interchange (think SPUI here), replacing Exit 14 and giving northbound motorists better access to the south end of Main St.  An original plan back in the 90s had a connector road built north of the Arrigoni, swinging around.  Not sure what happened to that idea... the north end is primarily industrial, but there is quite the grade change between the bridge and Route 9 to overcome.  Another issue is the 1/2 mile lane change from the right to the left motorists on CT 17 North are going to have to make to continue on that route, unless Middletown gives Main St over to CT 17. 

RE:  Route 15/7
I think the idea of a full 15/7 interchange is no longer necessary, given the fact that the US 7 expressway will probably never make it past Grist Mill Rd (it should go up to at least 33 South in Wilton).  However, the ramps from 15S to Main Ave North/South (old 7) need improvement.  Its a 1940s-era cloverleaf combined with 21st century traffic (and drivers)... never a good combination.  And with no connection to points north/south except through this cloverleaf, therein lies the problem of needing to do something.  If the expressway is guaranteed never to go north of Grist Mill Rd, then ok, put up the lights.  Its a mile or less to the next light anyway.  Perhaps some rumble strips across the highway would get motorists attention to slow down, like what some states used to do approaching toll plazas. 

And trying to compare 7/15 with 9 in Middletown is like comparing apples to oranges... CT 9 is a thru expressway with traffic lights in the middle and a 65 MPH freeway on either side.  US 7 is a dead end expressway with an existing light at the end <1 mile north of the lights in question. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on January 25, 2022, 03:14:44 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on January 24, 2022, 06:48:29 PM
RE:  Route 9, Middletown
I really don't personally object to Alternative 3 and I hope that one gets pushed through so that this project can finally get off the ground.  Having a left exit isn't ideal.  I still don't understand why Exit 13 can't be upgraded to a full interchange (think SPUI here), replacing Exit 14 and giving northbound motorists better access to the south end of Main St.  An original plan back in the 90s had a connector road built north of the Arrigoni, swinging around.  Not sure what happened to that idea... the north end is primarily industrial, but there is quite the grade change between the bridge and Route 9 to overcome.  Another issue is the 1/2 mile lane change from the right to the left motorists on CT 17 North are going to have to make to continue on that route, unless Middletown gives Main St over to CT 17. 

RE:  Route 15/7
I think the idea of a full 15/7 interchange is no longer necessary, given the fact that the US 7 expressway will probably never make it past Grist Mill Rd (it should go up to at least 33 South in Wilton).  However, the ramps from 15S to Main Ave North/South (old 7) need improvement.  Its a 1940s-era cloverleaf combined with 21st century traffic (and drivers)... never a good combination.  And with no connection to points north/south except through this cloverleaf, therein lies the problem of needing to do something.  If the expressway is guaranteed never to go north of Grist Mill Rd, then ok, put up the lights.  Its a mile or less to the next light anyway.  Perhaps some rumble strips across the highway would get motorists attention to slow down, like what some states used to do approaching toll plazas. 

And trying to compare 7/15 with 9 in Middletown is like comparing apples to oranges... CT 9 is a thru expressway with traffic lights in the middle and a 65 MPH freeway on either side.  US 7 is a dead end expressway with an existing light at the end <1 mile north of the lights in question.
But the bigger problem with 7/15 that you don't have with Route 9 is that with 7/15 they want to put a traffic light at what is currently a freeway-to-freeway connection, which makes absolutely no sense. In the case of Route 9, the traffic lights are at intersections with surface streets in Middletown. Again, those lights on Route 9 were there when they built the freeway to the north and south of Middletown, so it made some sense at the time just to leave that stretch as-is with the idea that they would eventually get around to converting those intersections to interchanges. They're still trying to figure out how to do that.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: cl94 on January 25, 2022, 03:25:34 PM
7/15 is a partial freeway connection, not a full connection. Going to/from the east requires a convoluted trip along surface roads and through a very substandard cloverleaf complete with ramp stops. The freeway ends a mile north of here anyway and the current northern terminus has had repeated issues through the years of people slamming into the wall at the end of the thing at high speed.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on January 25, 2022, 06:20:46 PM
Quote from: cl94 on January 25, 2022, 03:25:34 PM
7/15 is a partial freeway connection, not a full connection. Going to/from the east requires a convoluted trip along surface roads and through a very substandard cloverleaf complete with ramp stops. The freeway ends a mile north of here anyway and the current northern terminus has had repeated issues through the years of people slamming into the wall at the end of the thing at high speed.
I know at one point they had proposed a project to realign the north end of the Route 7 freeway to eliminate the T-intersections at Gristmill Road and Main Avenue. The idea was to make the transition between the freeway and Route 7/Main Avenue north of the freeway terminus the primary "straight" movement, and require motorists who wish to go south on Main Avenue to make a turn. Likewise, motorists would have to turn onto Gristmill Road.  I don't know what happened to this concept, or if it is being incorporated into the redesign of the 7/15 interchange.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MATraveler128 on January 25, 2022, 09:35:05 PM
One other thing I found on NYC Roads.com was that the US 7 Expressway was proposed to be built as a toll road. Under this plan, they would have put two 30 cent mainline toll plazas in Norwalk and Danbury and then 15 cent ramp tolls.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on January 26, 2022, 09:32:11 AM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on January 25, 2022, 09:35:05 PM
One other thing I found on NYC Roads.com was that the US 7 Expressway was proposed to be built as a toll road. Under this plan, they would have put two 30 cent mainline toll plazas in Norwalk and Danbury and then 15 cent ramp tolls.
I remember that. The main reason Super 7 never got completed is because a federal judge blocked construction north of Route 123 in Norwalk in 1972. For construction to resume, the federal court required the FHWA and CTDOT prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the unfinished portion of the Super 7 freeway. The EIS and ROD were approved and the federal injunction on construction was lifted in 1983, right around the time when the Mianus River Bridge collapsed, causing the state to redirect its focus from building new freeways to fixing the roads and bridges it already had.

So now, CTDOT had an approved EIS, but no money to actually build the freeway, and the cost of completing Super 7 had grown from $100 million in the late 60s/early 70s to around $1 billion due to inflation and rising land values along the corridor (about half of the ROW had been acquired prior to the federal injunction in 1972).

The little money that wasn't diverted to an $8 billion statewide highway maintenance and overhaul program was used to extend Super 7 from Route 123 to Gristmill Road. The short extension of the freeway section in Danbury was paid for by the developers who built the Danbury Fair Mall, as a stipulation for gaining state and local approval to build the mall.  Since the money for completing Super 7 had dried up, CTDOT abandoned the 1983 EIS and ROD in 1999 and pursued the targeted widening of Route 7 in Wilton, southern Danbury, New Milford, and the Brookfield Bypass that was all completed by 2008.  And that's how we got to where we are today.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on January 26, 2022, 07:31:07 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on January 26, 2022, 09:32:11 AM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on January 25, 2022, 09:35:05 PM
One other thing I found on NYC Roads.com was that the US 7 Expressway was proposed to be built as a toll road. Under this plan, they would have put two 30 cent mainline toll plazas in Norwalk and Danbury and then 15 cent ramp tolls.
I remember that. The main reason Super 7 never got completed is because a federal judge blocked construction north of Route 123 in Norwalk in 1972. For construction to resume, the federal court required the FHWA and CTDOT prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the unfinished portion of the Super 7 freeway. The EIS and ROD were approved and the federal injunction on construction was lifted in 1983, right around the time when the Mianus River Bridge collapsed, causing the state to redirect its focus from building new freeways to fixing the roads and bridges it already had.

So now, CTDOT had an approved EIS, but no money to actually build the freeway, and the cost of completing Super 7 had grown from $100 million in the late 60s/early 70s to around $1 billion due to inflation and rising land values along the corridor (about half of the ROW had been acquired prior to the federal injunction in 1972).

The little money that wasn't diverted to an $8 billion statewide highway maintenance and overhaul program was used to extend Super 7 from Route 123 to Gristmill Road. The short extension of the freeway section in Danbury was paid for by the developers who built the Danbury Fair Mall, as a stipulation for gaining state and local approval to build the mall.  Since the money for completing Super 7 had dried up, CTDOT abandoned the 1983 EIS and ROD in 1999 and pursued the targeted widening of Route 7 in Wilton, southern Danbury, New Milford, and the Brookfield Bypass that was all completed by 2008.  And that's how we got to where we are today.

Connecticut is a rich state that is very bad with money
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on January 27, 2022, 10:30:24 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on January 26, 2022, 07:31:07 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on January 26, 2022, 09:32:11 AM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on January 25, 2022, 09:35:05 PM
One other thing I found on NYC Roads.com was that the US 7 Expressway was proposed to be built as a toll road. Under this plan, they would have put two 30 cent mainline toll plazas in Norwalk and Danbury and then 15 cent ramp tolls.
I remember that. The main reason Super 7 never got completed is because a federal judge blocked construction north of Route 123 in Norwalk in 1972. For construction to resume, the federal court required the FHWA and CTDOT prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the unfinished portion of the Super 7 freeway. The EIS and ROD were approved and the federal injunction on construction was lifted in 1983, right around the time when the Mianus River Bridge collapsed, causing the state to redirect its focus from building new freeways to fixing the roads and bridges it already had.

So now, CTDOT had an approved EIS, but no money to actually build the freeway, and the cost of completing Super 7 had grown from $100 million in the late 60s/early 70s to around $1 billion due to inflation and rising land values along the corridor (about half of the ROW had been acquired prior to the federal injunction in 1972).

The little money that wasn't diverted to an $8 billion statewide highway maintenance and overhaul program was used to extend Super 7 from Route 123 to Gristmill Road. The short extension of the freeway section in Danbury was paid for by the developers who built the Danbury Fair Mall, as a stipulation for gaining state and local approval to build the mall.  Since the money for completing Super 7 had dried up, CTDOT abandoned the 1983 EIS and ROD in 1999 and pursued the targeted widening of Route 7 in Wilton, southern Danbury, New Milford, and the Brookfield Bypass that was all completed by 2008.  And that's how we got to where we are today.

Connecticut is a rich state that is very bad with money
Very true. I would say however, that if it weren't for the Mianus River Bridge collapse, I would think there would have been a much better chance of Super 7 getting finished between Norwalk and Danbury. The legal challenge holding up construction was resolved and a federal judge had cleared the way for construction to move forward. The state had plenty of federal money earmarked for roadbuilding, and it was only after the collapse of the Mianus River Bridge did Connecticut redirect those funds to fixing its existing highways and bridges. That singular event put the kabash on not only completing Super 7, but just about every other unbuilt freeway that Connecticut had proposed at the time, save for extending Route 9 from I-91 to I-84.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MATraveler128 on January 27, 2022, 10:37:51 AM
Look at CT 11 for example. That project has also seen dark days. Eastern Connecticut is less NIMBY than western CT but that one went through funding issues with it occasionally coming up, but all the state did was waste time on studies and it kept failing. Connecticut is terrible at managing their existing roads as they take forever to replace signs and their budget is just a disaster.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on January 27, 2022, 12:10:36 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on January 27, 2022, 10:37:51 AM
Look at CT 11 for example. That project has also seen dark days. Eastern Connecticut is less NIMBY than western CT but that one went through funding issues with it occasionally coming up, but all the state did was waste time on studies and it kept failing. Connecticut is terrible at managing their existing roads as they take forever to replace signs and their budget is just a disaster.
Even the constitutional amendment to create a transportation "lockbox" that was overwhelmingly approved by the voters is no means a guarantee that funds allocated for transportation are actually used to pay for transportation-related projects. I recall one poster on this thread previously mentioned that legislators wrote in a "backdoor' to the transportation "lockbox" that would give lawmakers a roundabout way for them to raid the "lockbox" and use those funds for non-transportation expenditures.

Yet a state that ranks among those with the highest tax burden in the nation, no one in Hartford can give you an honest answer as to where the money is going. But yet it seems like Connecticut is running huge budget deficits year after year. So I ask again...where is the money going?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on January 28, 2022, 07:15:40 AM
Per yesterdays\'s Middletown Press, the dangerous Route 17 ramp/stop sign at Route 9 will be rebuilt with federal assistance.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on January 30, 2022, 05:06:22 PM
RE: CT-9

Looking at the current plans for CT-9 NB, I don't see why they can't flip flop and put the though lanes on the left and ramps on the right.  It'll make the ramps not as tight and it would take up the same amount of land it'll seem.

re: CT-15/US-7
I commute from waterbury to stamford a lot and sometimes I-95 is a mess so I'd take CT-15 to US-7 down to I-95. So, having direct ramps would be ideal.  I can't fathom that Alt 26 is in the top two alts.  Amazing.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on January 30, 2022, 05:31:24 PM
CT-8 signage progress:

New BGSs popping up SB.  Exit 8 "exit now" sign is up.  All the Exit 7 "series" BGS signs are up.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51852844436_b1334f3ec8_z.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MATraveler128 on January 30, 2022, 05:47:41 PM
Why does Connecticut use the Massachusetts state route shield? Is that the new look for the state shield in Connecticut? If so, when did they switch?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on January 30, 2022, 06:46:38 PM
Connecticut has been inconsistent with their signage in recent decades. They used to use a black border route shield, but more recently they've been all over the map (no pun intended).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MATraveler128 on January 30, 2022, 06:49:29 PM
I've seen Rhode Island do the same thing. Their shield is the same as Massachusetts, but with R.I. at the top. Thought I thought I heard somewhere that this is the new design that Connecticut uses, but I still see mostly the thick black outline shields.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on January 30, 2022, 06:53:03 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on January 30, 2022, 05:47:41 PM
Why does Connecticut use the Massachusetts state route shield? Is that the new look for the state shield in Connecticut? If so, when did they switch?

Certain projects are giving the outline shield treatment.... the 2018 spot sign replacement contract did it, and apparently this part of the CT 8 contract is as well.  CT 9 is not, however (there we're stuck with square route markers regardless of 1- 2- or 3-digit route #s).  The northern end of CT 8, plus all of I-395 got the thick black bordered shields.  Contract plans for all of these contracts only show a square outline, so I guess the contractor is taking some liberties.  The same contractor who does most of MA (Liddell?) I believe got the 2020 statewide spot, as they have put up the small orange markers where new supports will go (and I've only seen that on their contracts), so I bet'cha state routes on those signs will get outlined. 

In other news, the sheet aluminum project on I-91 North has reached the border and is working back south.  They've made it within a mile of Exit 46 in Enfield, southbound.  I really am liking the new single-pole neutered interstate shields!

There seems to be zero consistency. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on January 30, 2022, 09:48:09 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on January 30, 2022, 05:47:41 PM
Why does Connecticut use the Massachusetts state route shield? Is that the new look for the state shield in Connecticut? If so, when did they switch?
It's probably based on the engineer at CTDOT who drew up the plans for each sign project. You would think the plans would go through some sort of quality control process to ensure things like signage are standardized across the board before they are released to industry in an RFP or ITB, but I guess that doesn't happen in CT.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on January 31, 2022, 12:53:46 PM
Another one I mentioned yesterday for Exit 8 on CT-8.  The CT-15 shield has yet to be added on.  It should be a full interchange but I digress. 

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51853551782_dc180ff1a3_z.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on January 31, 2022, 01:41:03 PM
At least the state makes things a little more interesting with fonts/shields on the Merritt Parkway.



Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on January 31, 2022, 01:51:47 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on January 31, 2022, 12:53:46 PM
Another one I mentioned yesterday for Exit 8 on CT-8.  The CT-15 shield has yet to be added on.  It should be a full interchange but I digress. 

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51853551782_dc180ff1a3_z.jpg)
From the pics posted here, it looks like they are replacing the old overhead signs with ground-mounted signs along Route 8. Is that the case going all the way up to Shelton?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on January 31, 2022, 02:28:02 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on January 30, 2022, 09:48:09 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on January 30, 2022, 05:47:41 PM
Why does Connecticut use the Massachusetts state route shield? Is that the new look for the state shield in Connecticut? If so, when did they switch?
It's probably based on the engineer at CTDOT who drew up the plans for each sign project. You would think the plans would go through some sort of quality control process to ensure things like signage are standardized across the board before they are released to industry in an RFP or ITB, but I guess that doesn't happen in CT.
Quote from: abqtraveler on January 31, 2022, 01:51:47 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on January 31, 2022, 12:53:46 PM
Another one I mentioned yesterday for Exit 8 on CT-8.  The CT-15 shield has yet to be added on.  It should be a full interchange but I digress. 

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51853551782_dc180ff1a3_z.jpg)
From the pics posted here, it looks like they are replacing the old overhead signs with ground-mounted signs along Route 8. Is that the case going all the way up to Shelton?

Would've rather seen them use this design:

108 TO 15 <Merritt Pkway Shield> NORTH
Stratford
New Haven
Quote from: abqtraveler on January 30, 2022, 09:48:09 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on January 30, 2022, 05:47:41 PM
Why does Connecticut use the Massachusetts state route shield? Is that the new look for the state shield in Connecticut? If so, when did they switch?
It's probably based on the engineer at CTDOT who drew up the plans for each sign project. You would think the plans would go through some sort of quality control process to ensure things like signage are standardized across the board before they are released to industry in an RFP or ITB, but I guess that doesn't happen in CT.

I think it's like NYS, where each DOT region has their own set of rules.  It's even true with the whole exit renumbering.  The Hartford area rounds to the nearest mile with fudging a la MassDOT), but plans for Route 8 (in other regions) have the exits rounded down.  They're even inconsistent with state vs neutered shields; the Southington-Farmington I-84 sign project used State shields, but the current spot replacements use neutered shields.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: SectorZ on January 31, 2022, 02:39:17 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on January 31, 2022, 12:53:46 PM
Another one I mentioned yesterday for Exit 8 on CT-8.  The CT-15 shield has yet to be added on.  It should be a full interchange but I digress. 

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51853551782_dc180ff1a3_z.jpg)

They're even down to copying Massachusetts to the point of using the split descriptions on the signs.

Now, what's the over/under on how long the 15 shield takes to be put on the sign?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: The Ghostbuster on January 31, 2022, 02:52:28 PM
How soon before the exits in those two pictures are renumbered to 4 and 5? I expected the new signs to have mileage-based exit numbers, not the old sequential numbers, or are those being added later?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on January 31, 2022, 03:11:21 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 31, 2022, 02:52:28 PM
How soon before the exits in those two pictures are renumbered to 4 and 5? I expected the new signs to have mileage-based exit numbers, not the old sequential numbers, or are those being added later?

They'll be added later under a new project and tha tproject will also replace the remaining button copy in Naugatuck and Shelton that was skipped over the last project b/c they were more involved to be replaced.  I'm hopeing the sheet metal LGS on the entrance ramps around Naugatuck will be repleced with extruded aluminum.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on January 31, 2022, 03:27:32 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on January 31, 2022, 03:11:21 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 31, 2022, 02:52:28 PM
How soon before the exits in those two pictures are renumbered to 4 and 5? I expected the new signs to have mileage-based exit numbers, not the old sequential numbers, or are those being added later?

They'll be added later under a new project and tha tproject will also replace the remaining button copy in Naugatuck and Shelton that was skipped over the last project b/c they were more involved to be replaced.  I'm hopeing the sheet metal LGS on the entrance ramps around Naugatuck will be repleced with extruded aluminum.
Speaking of the Route 8 exit renumbering contract scheduled to be let later this year, I would suspect they would be renumbering exits on the Route 25 freeway between the Route 8 split and Route 111. Does anyone have any confirmation of this?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MATraveler128 on January 31, 2022, 03:43:29 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on January 31, 2022, 03:27:32 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on January 31, 2022, 03:11:21 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 31, 2022, 02:52:28 PM
How soon before the exits in those two pictures are renumbered to 4 and 5? I expected the new signs to have mileage-based exit numbers, not the old sequential numbers, or are those being added later?

They'll be added later under a new project and tha tproject will also replace the remaining button copy in Naugatuck and Shelton that was skipped over the last project b/c they were more involved to be replaced.  I'm hopeing the sheet metal LGS on the entrance ramps around Naugatuck will be repleced with extruded aluminum.
Speaking of the Route 8 exit renumbering contract scheduled to be let later this year, I would suspect they would be renumbering exits on the Route 25 freeway between the Route 8 split and Route 111. Does anyone have any confirmation of this?

Yes. I believe CT 25 is included. I think the new numbers will continue from CT 8.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on January 31, 2022, 08:56:48 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on January 31, 2022, 01:51:47 PM
From the pics posted here, it looks like they are replacing the old overhead signs with ground-mounted signs along Route 8. Is that the case going all the way up to Shelton?

No... only one exit I believe is going from overhead to ground-mount, even though 1 or 2 others could.  Again another CT inconsistency.  A bunch of I-84 signs were moved to the ground in recent projects (Southington-Farmington, for example).  I would have moved I-91 Exits 14 & 15 to the ground as well in that project just getting underway, but they're maintaining the overheads there.  At least we're not like MassDOT in that regard (where everything goes overhead now). 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on January 31, 2022, 10:21:25 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on January 31, 2022, 08:56:48 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on January 31, 2022, 01:51:47 PM
From the pics posted here, it looks like they are replacing the old overhead signs with ground-mounted signs along Route 8. Is that the case going all the way up to Shelton?

No... only one exit I believe is going from overhead to ground-mount, even though 1 or 2 others could.  Again another CT inconsistency.  A bunch of I-84 signs were moved to the ground in recent projects (Southington-Farmington, for example).  I would have moved I-91 Exits 14 & 15 to the ground as well in that project just getting underway, but they're maintaining the overheads there.  At least we're not like MassDOT in that regard (where everything goes overhead now). 
Really, anything 3 lanes or more should be overhead so that you're unlikely to have obscured visibility from the left lane(s).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on February 10, 2022, 05:14:56 PM
The ConnDOT 2022-2026 5-year capital plan is out.  I did some searching for sign projects, and outside of traditional spot sign replacement projects as a result of replacement of spot overhead structures, I found a couple "blanket" projects upcoming:

FFY 2023:

Rt 15, from Milford to Meriden (most likely the entire Wilbur Cross Parkway section, up to Rt 5 in Meriden at the start of the Berlin Tpke)

84/91 in District 1.... "replace highway signs on ramps".  Not exactly sure what this means.  It could mean the C/D roads connecting Exits 59-62 in Manchester on I-84, but for I-91, ?  Maybe the Capitol Area connector?

US 6/384 ... most likely this means all of I-384 along with the Willimantic Bypass.  That's not much of a contract.  I would have thrown in I-291 as well. 

I-84 from Vernon to Union... this section has the most recent signs on I-84 east of the CT River.  Are we really not going to replace the oldest signs on I-84 in Manchester?  Are those historical artifacts now?  (haha)

Nothing listed for FFY 2024-2026... outside of "placeholders".  Maybe those will be other projects yet to be announced/delegated.  Still nothing for I-91 from Hartford to Enfield, the northernmost section holding onto its late 1980s button copy installed after the road was widened. 

No mention of any other roads going to mile-based exits.  Will we see CT 15 go mile-based after the WCP exits are changed out?  How about MUTCD-compliant mileposts on the Berlin Tpke so that when Exits 85-91 get changed out, they'll make sense?   
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MATraveler128 on February 10, 2022, 09:25:00 PM
I thought that I-691 was supposed to be converted over in 2023. Same for CT 2. I agree on the exit renumbering for CT 15. It doesn't make sense that the system starts at 27 instead of 1. Now that the Hutch has been converted, there's no excuse. Maybe they forgot to include it or they just don't have any plans to change it.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on February 10, 2022, 09:33:46 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on February 10, 2022, 09:25:00 PM
I thought that I-691 was supposed to be converted over in 2023. Same for CT 2. I agree on the exit renumbering for CT 15. It doesn't make sense that the system starts at 27 instead of 1. Now that the Hutch has been converted, there's no excuse. Maybe they forgot to include it or they just don't have any plans to change it.


But wouldn't changing the exit numbers change the essential character of the Merrit?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on February 10, 2022, 09:43:37 PM
Couple of updates on CT 72: New gantry is up for the replacement of the last reflective button copy sign (the EB exit now BGS for Corbin Ave.  A full gantry replacing a single gantry, so it'll probably have a 1 mi advance for Columbus Blvd.  Also (finally!) a new ground mounted BGS is up in the empty piers on the ramp from 72 East to 9 South for the (no longer called) Ellis St exit.  There's also the empty gantry for the 1/2 mi Columbus/1 mi Main st BGS's. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on February 10, 2022, 10:11:50 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on February 10, 2022, 09:25:00 PM
I thought that I-691 was supposed to be converted over in 2023. Same for CT 2.

The capital plan is for projects to be contracted during those months which haven't been awarded yet.  I-691 was a design/build contract that was issued last year (FFY 2021).  Same with CT 2/3/17/11.  So those projects wouldn't show up in the FFY 2022-2026 Cap plan.  I believe the first sign project listed in this plan is the CT 8 Bridgeport-to-Winchester project, which we knew was coming anyway (based on the ConnDOT bid schedule). 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on February 11, 2022, 09:45:44 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on February 10, 2022, 05:14:56 PM

Will we see CT 15 go mile-based after the WCP exits are changed out?  How about MUTCD-compliant mileposts on the Berlin Tpke so that when Exits 85-91 get changed out, they'll make sense?
The deep-pocketed Merritt Parkway Conservancy and their high-dollar lawyers will fight like bloody murder to keep the exit numbers on the Merritt Parkway unchanged.  Don't hold your breath on seeing mileage-based exit numbers on Route 15 anytime soon.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MATraveler128 on February 11, 2022, 09:52:39 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on February 11, 2022, 09:45:44 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on February 10, 2022, 05:14:56 PM

Will we see CT 15 go mile-based after the WCP exits are changed out?  How about MUTCD-compliant mileposts on the Berlin Tpke so that when Exits 85-91 get changed out, they'll make sense?
The deep-pocketed Merritt Parkway Conservancy and their high-dollar lawyers will fight like bloody murder to keep the exit numbers on the Merritt Parkway unchanged.  Don't hold your breath on seeing mileage-based exit numbers on Route 15 anytime soon.

It's the same as trying to get the NJTA to change over the exit numbers on the Turnpike. But at least the numbers start at 1. That explains why I didn't see the Merritt being listed. I'm not sure about the Wilbur Cross. I guess it would stay as is. It would appear awkward to see a random switch from sequential on the Merritt and then suddenly go mileage based on the Wilbur Cross portion.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on February 11, 2022, 10:28:59 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on February 11, 2022, 09:45:44 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on February 10, 2022, 05:14:56 PM

Will we see CT 15 go mile-based after the WCP exits are changed out?  How about MUTCD-compliant mileposts on the Berlin Tpke so that when Exits 85-91 get changed out, they'll make sense?
The deep-pocketed Merritt Parkway Conservancy and their high-dollar lawyers will fight like bloody murder to keep the exit numbers on the Merritt Parkway unchanged.  Don't hold your breath on seeing mileage-based exit numbers on Route 15 anytime soon.

I'm pretty sure the State of Connecticut can afford more high dollar lawyers than the Merritt Parkway Conservancy, unless Connecticut's fiscal woes are even worse than I thought
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: SectorZ on February 11, 2022, 11:05:54 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 11, 2022, 10:28:59 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on February 11, 2022, 09:45:44 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on February 10, 2022, 05:14:56 PM

Will we see CT 15 go mile-based after the WCP exits are changed out?  How about MUTCD-compliant mileposts on the Berlin Tpke so that when Exits 85-91 get changed out, they'll make sense?
The deep-pocketed Merritt Parkway Conservancy and their high-dollar lawyers will fight like bloody murder to keep the exit numbers on the Merritt Parkway unchanged.  Don't hold your breath on seeing mileage-based exit numbers on Route 15 anytime soon.

I'm pretty sure the State of Connecticut can afford more high dollar lawyers than the Merritt Parkway Conservancy, unless Connecticut's fiscal woes are even worse than I thought

The fact that a possible exit-number change can result in taxpayer's having to fight a group who thinks conserving numbers is a priority is its own issue.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on February 11, 2022, 02:21:49 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on February 11, 2022, 11:05:54 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 11, 2022, 10:28:59 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on February 11, 2022, 09:45:44 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on February 10, 2022, 05:14:56 PM

Will we see CT 15 go mile-based after the WCP exits are changed out?  How about MUTCD-compliant mileposts on the Berlin Tpke so that when Exits 85-91 get changed out, they'll make sense?
The deep-pocketed Merritt Parkway Conservancy and their high-dollar lawyers will fight like bloody murder to keep the exit numbers on the Merritt Parkway unchanged.  Don't hold your breath on seeing mileage-based exit numbers on Route 15 anytime soon.

I'm pretty sure the State of Connecticut can afford more high dollar lawyers than the Merritt Parkway Conservancy, unless Connecticut's fiscal woes are even worse than I thought

The fact that a possible exit-number change can result in taxpayer's having to fight a group who thinks conserving numbers is a priority is its own issue.

It's a downside of living in a free society
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on February 11, 2022, 09:23:05 PM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on February 10, 2022, 09:33:46 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on February 10, 2022, 09:25:00 PM
I thought that I-691 was supposed to be converted over in 2023. Same for CT 2. I agree on the exit renumbering for CT 15. It doesn't make sense that the system starts at 27 instead of 1. Now that the Hutch has been converted, there's no excuse. Maybe they forgot to include it or they just don't have any plans to change it.


But wouldn't changing the exit numbers change the essential character of the Merrit?
They put up guiderails so anything's possible
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: bob7374 on February 11, 2022, 09:51:27 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on February 10, 2022, 10:11:50 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on February 10, 2022, 09:25:00 PM
I thought that I-691 was supposed to be converted over in 2023. Same for CT 2.

The capital plan is for projects to be contracted during those months which haven't been awarded yet.  I-691 was a design/build contract that was issued last year (FFY 2021).  Same with CT 2/3/17/11.  So those projects wouldn't show up in the FFY 2022-2026 Cap plan.  I believe the first sign project listed in this plan is the CT 8 Bridgeport-to-Winchester project, which we knew was coming anyway (based on the ConnDOT bid schedule). 
According to the latest contract advertising schedule released 2/9, the CT 8 sign project is to be advertised July 20. This is the only route specific sign replacement project to be listed through January 2023.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: yakra on February 12, 2022, 09:16:42 AM
Quote from: Alps on February 11, 2022, 09:23:05 PM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on February 10, 2022, 09:33:46 PM
But wouldn't changing the exit numbers change the essential character of the Merrit?
They put up guiderails so anything's possible
Didn't they lengthen some onramps a few years back?
HOW COULD THEY!@#
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: DJ Particle on February 13, 2022, 10:25:19 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on February 11, 2022, 11:05:54 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 11, 2022, 10:28:59 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on February 11, 2022, 09:45:44 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on February 10, 2022, 05:14:56 PM

Will we see CT 15 go mile-based after the WCP exits are changed out?  How about MUTCD-compliant mileposts on the Berlin Tpke so that when Exits 85-91 get changed out, they'll make sense?
The deep-pocketed Merritt Parkway Conservancy and their high-dollar lawyers will fight like bloody murder to keep the exit numbers on the Merritt Parkway unchanged.  Don't hold your breath on seeing mileage-based exit numbers on Route 15 anytime soon.

I'm pretty sure the State of Connecticut can afford more high dollar lawyers than the Merritt Parkway Conservancy, unless Connecticut's fiscal woes are even worse than I thought

The fact that a possible exit-number change can result in taxpayer's having to fight a group who thinks conserving numbers is a priority is its own issue.

If the Mid-Cape Highway's Cape Cod NIMBYs could eventually be told to pound sand, so can the MPC  🤣
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: SectorZ on February 14, 2022, 11:01:02 AM
Quote from: DJ Particle on February 13, 2022, 10:25:19 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on February 11, 2022, 11:05:54 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 11, 2022, 10:28:59 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on February 11, 2022, 09:45:44 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on February 10, 2022, 05:14:56 PM

Will we see CT 15 go mile-based after the WCP exits are changed out?  How about MUTCD-compliant mileposts on the Berlin Tpke so that when Exits 85-91 get changed out, they'll make sense?
The deep-pocketed Merritt Parkway Conservancy and their high-dollar lawyers will fight like bloody murder to keep the exit numbers on the Merritt Parkway unchanged.  Don't hold your breath on seeing mileage-based exit numbers on Route 15 anytime soon.

I'm pretty sure the State of Connecticut can afford more high dollar lawyers than the Merritt Parkway Conservancy, unless Connecticut's fiscal woes are even worse than I thought

The fact that a possible exit-number change can result in taxpayer's having to fight a group who thinks conserving numbers is a priority is its own issue.

If the Mid-Cape Highway's Cape Cod NIMBYs could eventually be told to pound sand, so can the MPC  🤣

Exactly, though the state picks their battles with them, like with the "old exit number" signs being green on US 6 instead of yellow like everywhere else.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on February 16, 2022, 09:54:22 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on February 14, 2022, 11:01:02 AM
Quote from: DJ Particle on February 13, 2022, 10:25:19 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on February 11, 2022, 11:05:54 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 11, 2022, 10:28:59 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on February 11, 2022, 09:45:44 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on February 10, 2022, 05:14:56 PM

Will we see CT 15 go mile-based after the WCP exits are changed out?  How about MUTCD-compliant mileposts on the Berlin Tpke so that when Exits 85-91 get changed out, they'll make sense?
The deep-pocketed Merritt Parkway Conservancy and their high-dollar lawyers will fight like bloody murder to keep the exit numbers on the Merritt Parkway unchanged.  Don't hold your breath on seeing mileage-based exit numbers on Route 15 anytime soon.

I'm pretty sure the State of Connecticut can afford more high dollar lawyers than the Merritt Parkway Conservancy, unless Connecticut's fiscal woes are even worse than I thought

The fact that a possible exit-number change can result in taxpayer's having to fight a group who thinks conserving numbers is a priority is its own issue.

If the Mid-Cape Highway's Cape Cod NIMBYs could eventually be told to pound sand, so can the MPC  🤣

Exactly, though the state picks their battles with them, like with the "old exit number" signs being green on US 6 instead of yellow like everywhere else.
At least MassDOT was willing to fight the fight with residents on the Cape over renumbering exits on the Mid-Cape Highway.  I would suspect that CTDOT would cave into the Merritt Parkway Conservancy over renumbering exits on the Merritt Parkway, just as they are doing with the redesign of the 7/15 interchange.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on February 18, 2022, 01:38:12 PM
This one I hadn't seen yet: a 2020 River Cog (Middletown area) study that includes a Route 66 bypass of Portland, meeting Route 17A at a new interchange near the Arrigoni Bridge: https://www.rivercog.org/wp-content/uploads/reports-and-studies/2020-10-05-Route-66-Draft-Final-Reportred3.pdf  (scroll to page 97)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RyanB06 on February 18, 2022, 06:41:23 PM
I haven't heard about this either, and I live about a mile from the proposed roundabout.

They look to be using the old Air Line Railroad ROW for the bypass. (Which is how they're getting away with saying they're not going to need to take any property; they already have it.) Sending Route 66 down into Portland's industrial area isn't going to be a really good look for the town, but that area could really use a little TLC. (Plus, it's a good way to drive traffic to the brewery my high school friend is a part-owner in. :))

I like that they're redoing the access to the Arrigoni Bridge from Lower Main Street as well, as that is in *desperate* need of retooling. You do not want to be trying to get on Route 66 from Lower Main Street during rush hour. Bridge traffic currently has priority, and drivers make no effort to yield in the off-chance a car wants to pull onto 66.

We'll see if anything comes of this...2040 is a long ways off.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on February 19, 2022, 09:57:30 AM
As someone from a family with historically deep roots in the area, I can confirm that Route 66 in the area needs vast improvements. The speed and the number of accidents/near accidents on the Portland/Cobalt stretch, including some to my own relatives in past years (not serious, thankfully) call out for change. The bypass idea sounds intriguing, especially using an old railroad ROW. That area could use a refresh. But the logistics and costs (acknowledged as much in the report) of the bypass and some other changes may be too much for the land of steady habits.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: The Ghostbuster on February 19, 2022, 12:24:05 PM
I wouldn't hold my breath that such a bypass will be built. It seems like Connecticut is incapable of building any new roadways, at least from what I have heard.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on February 20, 2022, 11:32:42 AM
Saw the first flashing yellow arrow in CT at the new set of adaptive signals that have just been turned on around the exit 3 area of Arch St in Greenwich.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: yakra on February 21, 2022, 02:10:58 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on May 17, 2021, 11:04:36 AM
CT 2 Exit 5B is going away forever on Thursday. CT 2 and 3 are getting IMS upgrades, among other things.
https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/Construction-News-from-the-Connecticut-Department-of-Transportation/2021/Intermittent-Nightly-Lane-Closures-on-Route-2-in-East-Hartford-Hartford-and-Glastonbury (https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/Construction-News-from-the-Connecticut-Department-of-Transportation/2021/Intermittent-Nightly-Lane-Closures-on-Route-2-in-East-Hartford-Hartford-and-Glastonbury)
Or not? Jan 2022 GMSV (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7388245,-72.6293048,3a,15y,159.25h,90.27t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHmfA1dEBR3Nu53eCeVRWtw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) shows it alive and kicking.

This has had a couple other mentions on the forum before...
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on August 23, 2020, 01:56:36 AM
in the future when Sutton Ave closes
Quote from: kurumi on October 28, 2019, 11:39:21 PM
* exit 5B (Sutton Ave) slated to be removed

Anybody know what's the craic?




Edit: Speaking of CT2 exits, does anyone know what the exit numbers will be after the mileage-based conversion?
Actual planned numbers, not speculative or fictional?
I'm curious about current Exit 27 & environs.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: The Ghostbuster on February 21, 2022, 03:10:35 PM
See this page for a listing of the new exit numbers for CT 2 on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Route_2. Some of the other pages for individual Connecticut State Highways Wikipedia pages also have the old/new numbers posted.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on February 21, 2022, 07:15:20 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 21, 2022, 03:10:35 PM
See this page for a listing of the new exit numbers for CT 2 on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Route_2. Some of the other pages for individual Connecticut State Highways Wikipedia pages also have the old/new numbers posted.

Some creative geniuses in the past jumped the gun and put future exit numbers even for highways that have no finalized plans like I-84.  I updated the CT 9 page a few weeks ago based on field observations from the installation of the OLD/NEW exit signage north of I-91.

Took a ride on I-291 today and apparently they've started putting enhanced mile markers on there, but only up until the Bissell Bridge.  Probably part of the I-91 signage project, which has started southbound and has made it down to I-84.  Also, it looked like the 2nd lane on the new I-91 to the Charter Oak Bridge ramp has opened.   

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on February 21, 2022, 07:45:31 PM
Some of the new sheet aluminum signs on Route 9 for exit services have not survived the high winds of the past week.  If they can't survive that, how does ConnDOT expect them to survive for the next 20 years?  Yet another reason why they should've kept the "service bar" (such as on I-84 west of Southington, all of I-395). 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on February 21, 2022, 10:24:26 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on February 21, 2022, 07:45:31 PM
Some of the new sheet aluminum signs on Route 9 for exit services have not survived the high winds of the past week.  If they can't survive that, how does ConnDOT expect them to survive for the next 20 years?  Yet another reason why they should've kept the "service bar" (such as on I-84 west of Southington, all of I-395). 
Or engineer signs for the design wind load.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: bob7374 on February 21, 2022, 11:03:36 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on February 21, 2022, 07:15:20 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 21, 2022, 03:10:35 PM
See this page for a listing of the new exit numbers for CT 2 on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Route_2. Some of the other pages for individual Connecticut State Highways Wikipedia pages also have the old/new numbers posted.

Some creative geniuses in the past jumped the gun and put future exit numbers even for highways that have no finalized plans like I-84.  I updated the CT 9 page a few weeks ago based on field observations from the installation of the OLD/NEW exit signage north of I-91.

Took a ride on I-291 today and apparently they've started putting enhanced mile markers on there, but only up until the Bissell Bridge.  Probably part of the I-91 signage project, which has started southbound and has made it down to I-84.  Also, it looked like the 2nd lane on the new I-91 to the Charter Oak Bridge ramp has opened. 
CTDOT put out a press release back in August 2020 that listed the tentative new numbers at that time, some may have changed since:
https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/Construction-News-from-the-Connecticut-Department-of-Transportation/2020/Replacement-of-Highway-Signs-and-Sign-Supports-on-Routes-2-3-11and-17-Mileage-Based-Exit-Numbering (https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/Construction-News-from-the-Connecticut-Department-of-Transportation/2020/Replacement-of-Highway-Signs-and-Sign-Supports-on-Routes-2-3-11and-17-Mileage-Based-Exit-Numbering)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: dgolub on February 26, 2022, 07:53:53 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on February 21, 2022, 11:03:36 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on February 21, 2022, 07:15:20 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 21, 2022, 03:10:35 PM
See this page for a listing of the new exit numbers for CT 2 on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Route_2. Some of the other pages for individual Connecticut State Highways Wikipedia pages also have the old/new numbers posted.

Some creative geniuses in the past jumped the gun and put future exit numbers even for highways that have no finalized plans like I-84.  I updated the CT 9 page a few weeks ago based on field observations from the installation of the OLD/NEW exit signage north of I-91.

Took a ride on I-291 today and apparently they've started putting enhanced mile markers on there, but only up until the Bissell Bridge.  Probably part of the I-91 signage project, which has started southbound and has made it down to I-84.  Also, it looked like the 2nd lane on the new I-91 to the Charter Oak Bridge ramp has opened. 
CTDOT put out a press release back in August 2020 that listed the tentative new numbers at that time, some may have changed since:
https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/Construction-News-from-the-Connecticut-Department-of-Transportation/2020/Replacement-of-Highway-Signs-and-Sign-Supports-on-Routes-2-3-11and-17-Mileage-Based-Exit-Numbering (https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/Construction-News-from-the-Connecticut-Department-of-Transportation/2020/Replacement-of-Highway-Signs-and-Sign-Supports-on-Routes-2-3-11and-17-Mileage-Based-Exit-Numbering)

It looks like CT 11 will be getting milepost exits based on the mileage including the unbuilt section.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MATraveler128 on February 26, 2022, 08:17:04 AM
Quote from: dgolub on February 26, 2022, 07:53:53 AM
It looks like CT 11 will be getting milepost exits based on the mileage including the unbuilt section.

The exit numbers should really start at mile 0 at CT 82. Because there is zero chance of CT 11 being extended to New London, they really should start at 0. Unless Connecticut has some crazy plan to try again with CT 11.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on February 26, 2022, 08:25:45 AM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on February 26, 2022, 08:17:04 AM
Quote from: dgolub on February 26, 2022, 07:53:53 AM
It looks like CT 11 will be getting milepost exits based on the mileage including the unbuilt section.

The exit numbers should really start at mile 0 at CT 82. Because there is zero chance of CT 11 being extended to New London, they really should start at 0. Unless Connecticut has some crazy plan to try again with CT 11.

They've talked about it forever. Maybe this is a tacit acknowledgement of their intent to try again.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Rothman on February 26, 2022, 09:16:18 AM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on February 26, 2022, 08:25:45 AM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on February 26, 2022, 08:17:04 AM
Quote from: dgolub on February 26, 2022, 07:53:53 AM
It looks like CT 11 will be getting milepost exits based on the mileage including the unbuilt section.

The exit numbers should really start at mile 0 at CT 82. Because there is zero chance of CT 11 being extended to New London, they really should start at 0. Unless Connecticut has some crazy plan to try again with CT 11.

They've talked about it forever. Maybe this is a tacit acknowledgement of their intent to try again.
That's just it: Every couple of years or so, there's a flurry of discussion...and nothing comes of it. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: yakra on February 26, 2022, 09:27:17 AM
I'll hold the football, Charlie Brown
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on February 26, 2022, 12:44:41 PM
Why does travel between Hartford and New London warrant its own controlled access highway? It might have made sense during the Cold War, but now New London is just another town with only 27,000 people.

Now, extending 384 to the Rhode Island Border makes a lot more sense.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on February 26, 2022, 01:17:07 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 26, 2022, 09:16:18 AM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on February 26, 2022, 08:25:45 AM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on February 26, 2022, 08:17:04 AM
Quote from: dgolub on February 26, 2022, 07:53:53 AM
It looks like CT 11 will be getting milepost exits based on the mileage including the unbuilt section.

The exit numbers should really start at mile 0 at CT 82. Because there is zero chance of CT 11 being extended to New London, they really should start at 0. Unless Connecticut has some crazy plan to try again with CT 11.

They've talked about it forever. Maybe this is a tacit acknowledgement of their intent to try again.
That's just it: Every couple of years or so, there's a flurry of discussion...and nothing comes of it.

True enough. So why is the state start exit numbers from where Route 11 was to meet 95/395?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on February 26, 2022, 04:19:47 PM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on February 26, 2022, 01:17:07 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 26, 2022, 09:16:18 AM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on February 26, 2022, 08:25:45 AM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on February 26, 2022, 08:17:04 AM
Quote from: dgolub on February 26, 2022, 07:53:53 AM
It looks like CT 11 will be getting milepost exits based on the mileage including the unbuilt section.

The exit numbers should really start at mile 0 at CT 82. Because there is zero chance of CT 11 being extended to New London, they really should start at 0. Unless Connecticut has some crazy plan to try again with CT 11.

They've talked about it forever. Maybe this is a tacit acknowledgement of their intent to try again.
That's just it: Every couple of years or so, there's a flurry of discussion...and nothing comes of it.

True enough. So why is the state start exit numbers from where Route 11 was to meet 95/395?

Because they're too lazy to update the CT Highway Log, which lists CT 11 as starting at the I-95/I-395 junction ( See pp. 64-65) (https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOT/documents/dpolicy/hwylog/HighwayLog_Final.pdf)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on February 26, 2022, 06:04:31 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on February 26, 2022, 04:19:47 PM
Because they're too lazy to update the CT Highway Log, which lists CT 11 as starting at the I-95/I-395 junction ( See pp. 64-65) (https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOT/documents/dpolicy/hwylog/HighwayLog_Final.pdf)

Not necessarily.... CT 11 was originally supposed to terminate at I-95 in Waterford in the vicinity of the Cross Road interchange (and some maps before then show it terminating at the turnpike/I-395 between I-95 and CT 85).  Given the fact that the route log says I-95 in Waterford leads me to believe that it could still be mile-referenced from that point, vs terminating at the I-95/I-395 interchange. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on February 27, 2022, 08:51:56 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on February 21, 2022, 07:15:20 PM
Took a ride on I-291 today and apparently they've started putting enhanced mile markers on there, but only up until the Bissell Bridge.  Probably part of the I-91 signage project, which has started southbound and has made it down to I-84.  Also, it looked like the 2nd lane on the new I-91 to the Charter Oak Bridge ramp has opened.   

The replacement of sheet signs on I-91 is part of a larger project that is also covering I-84, I-95, I-384, CT 15, US 6 & US 7.  Today I observed southbound the new sheets down to the Rocky Hill area.  Also travelled I-84 today from the Mass line down to East Hartford and the whole stretch has the new sheets as well.  It appears, given from what I've seen so far on I-84 and I-91, that it will make CT essentially a "neutered" state, as far as reassurance shields go (or as ConnDOT calls them, "route confirmation signs"). 
If I held onto the contract plans I downloaded, I could shed more light on that.

RE:  the second lane on Exit 29... that's been open for a few months now, but only on the ramp itself.  I-91 remains 3 lanes going into Exit 29.  The 4th lane remains under construction.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on March 01, 2022, 09:41:33 PM
Quote from: yakra on February 21, 2022, 02:10:58 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on May 17, 2021, 11:04:36 AM
CT 2 Exit 5B is going away forever on Thursday. CT 2 and 3 are getting IMS upgrades, among other things.
https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/Construction-News-from-the-Connecticut-Department-of-Transportation/2021/Intermittent-Nightly-Lane-Closures-on-Route-2-in-East-Hartford-Hartford-and-Glastonbury (https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/Construction-News-from-the-Connecticut-Department-of-Transportation/2021/Intermittent-Nightly-Lane-Closures-on-Route-2-in-East-Hartford-Hartford-and-Glastonbury)
Or not? Jan 2022 GMSV (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7388245,-72.6293048,3a,15y,159.25h,90.27t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHmfA1dEBR3Nu53eCeVRWtw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) shows it alive and kicking.

This has had a couple other mentions on the forum before...
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on August 23, 2020, 01:56:36 AM
in the future when Sutton Ave closes
Quote from: kurumi on October 28, 2019, 11:39:21 PM
* exit 5B (Sutton Ave) slated to be removed

Anybody know what's the craic?





Rescheduled for March 13, per this press release:
https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/Construction-News-from-the-Connecticut-Department-of-Transportation/2022/Ramp-Closure-in-East-Hartford-2022
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JJBers on March 02, 2022, 03:36:02 PM
Quote from: kurumi on February 18, 2022, 01:38:12 PM
This one I hadn't seen yet: a 2020 River Cog (Middletown area) study that includes a Route 66 bypass of Portland, meeting Route 17A at a new interchange near the Arrigoni Bridge: https://www.rivercog.org/wp-content/uploads/reports-and-studies/2020-10-05-Route-66-Draft-Final-Reportred3.pdf  (scroll to page 97)
The proposal seems interesting, but I'm not sure if it's that bad of a traffic issue to warrant a whole bypass. Plus I know Portland also has plans on using RR ROW for the Airline Trail at some later future point.
Quote from: shadyjay on February 10, 2022, 05:14:56 PM

US 6/384 ... most likely this means all of I-384 along with the Willimantic Bypass.  That's not much of a contract.  I would have thrown in I-291 as well. 

So they're adding exit numbers to US 6 in Willimantic? Are they gonna label the two ends as exits as well?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on March 02, 2022, 06:26:25 PM
Quote from: JJBers on March 02, 2022, 03:36:02 PM
Quote from: kurumi on February 18, 2022, 01:38:12 PM
This one I hadn't seen yet: a 2020 River Cog (Middletown area) study that includes a Route 66 bypass of Portland, meeting Route 17A at a new interchange near the Arrigoni Bridge: https://www.rivercog.org/wp-content/uploads/reports-and-studies/2020-10-05-Route-66-Draft-Final-Reportred3.pdf  (scroll to page 97)
The proposal seems interesting, but I'm not sure if it's that bad of a traffic issue to warrant a whole bypass. Plus I know Portland also has plans on using RR ROW for the Airline Trail at some later future point.
Quote from: shadyjay on February 10, 2022, 05:14:56 PM

US 6/384 ... most likely this means all of I-384 along with the Willimantic Bypass.  That's not much of a contract.  I would have thrown in I-291 as well. 

So they're adding exit numbers to US 6 in Willimantic? Are they gonna label the two ends as exits as well?

I wouldn't think the endpoints of the bypass would be numbered, seeing they are part of the mainline.  You could make a case for the signalized portion of the western end that grants access to CT 66 (just not the slip ramp that is mainline 6 west), but I don't think they would.  The 32 exits would be 89 and the 195 exits 91.

Oh, and welcome back.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JJBers on March 02, 2022, 11:40:09 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on March 02, 2022, 06:26:25 PM
Quote from: JJBers on March 02, 2022, 03:36:02 PM
Quote from: kurumi on February 18, 2022, 01:38:12 PM
This one I hadn't seen yet: a 2020 River Cog (Middletown area) study that includes a Route 66 bypass of Portland, meeting Route 17A at a new interchange near the Arrigoni Bridge: https://www.rivercog.org/wp-content/uploads/reports-and-studies/2020-10-05-Route-66-Draft-Final-Reportred3.pdf  (scroll to page 97)
The proposal seems interesting, but I'm not sure if it's that bad of a traffic issue to warrant a whole bypass. Plus I know Portland also has plans on using RR ROW for the Airline Trail at some later future point.
Quote from: shadyjay on February 10, 2022, 05:14:56 PM

US 6/384 ... most likely this means all of I-384 along with the Willimantic Bypass.  That's not much of a contract.  I would have thrown in I-291 as well. 

So they're adding exit numbers to US 6 in Willimantic? Are they gonna label the two ends as exits as well?

I wouldn't think the endpoints of the bypass would be numbered, seeing they are part of the mainline.  You could make a case for the signalized portion of the western end that grants access to CT 66 (just not the slip ramp that is mainline 6 west), but I don't think they would.  The 32 exits would be 89 and the 195 exits 91.

Oh, and welcome back.
That's what I was thinking, but the North Windham end does somewhat resemble a exit.
Also, I go on this forum periodically , but yeah I rarely post.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on March 03, 2022, 12:07:57 AM
Quote from: JJBers on March 02, 2022, 11:40:09 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on March 02, 2022, 06:26:25 PM
Quote from: JJBers on March 02, 2022, 03:36:02 PM
Quote from: kurumi on February 18, 2022, 01:38:12 PM
This one I hadn't seen yet: a 2020 River Cog (Middletown area) study that includes a Route 66 bypass of Portland, meeting Route 17A at a new interchange near the Arrigoni Bridge: https://www.rivercog.org/wp-content/uploads/reports-and-studies/2020-10-05-Route-66-Draft-Final-Reportred3.pdf  (scroll to page 97)
The proposal seems interesting, but I'm not sure if it's that bad of a traffic issue to warrant a whole bypass. Plus I know Portland also has plans on using RR ROW for the Airline Trail at some later future point.
Quote from: shadyjay on February 10, 2022, 05:14:56 PM

US 6/384 ... most likely this means all of I-384 along with the Willimantic Bypass.  That's not much of a contract.  I would have thrown in I-291 as well. 

So they're adding exit numbers to US 6 in Willimantic? Are they gonna label the two ends as exits as well?

I wouldn't think the endpoints of the bypass would be numbered, seeing they are part of the mainline.  You could make a case for the signalized portion of the western end that grants access to CT 66 (just not the slip ramp that is mainline 6 west), but I don't think they would.  The 32 exits would be 89 and the 195 exits 91.

Oh, and welcome back.
That's what I was thinking, but the North Windham end does somewhat resemble a exit.
Also, I go on this forum periodically , but yeah I rarely post.
I like how your tagline is "middle of nowhere" but you're between NY and Boston and Hartford and Providence
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Old Dominionite on March 06, 2022, 03:56:01 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on February 26, 2022, 06:04:31 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on February 26, 2022, 04:19:47 PM
Because they're too lazy to update the CT Highway Log, which lists CT 11 as starting at the I-95/I-395 junction ( See pp. 64-65) (https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOT/documents/dpolicy/hwylog/HighwayLog_Final.pdf)

Not necessarily.... CT 11 was originally supposed to terminate at I-95 in Waterford in the vicinity of the Cross Road interchange (and some maps before then show it terminating at the turnpike/I-395 between I-95 and CT 85).  Given the fact that the route log says I-95 in Waterford leads me to believe that it could still be mile-referenced from that point, vs terminating at the I-95/I-395 interchange.

Yes. And the Highway Log still includes the cumulative mile points where the Route 11 expressway was intended to cross from Waterford into Montville, and from Montville into Salem. I assume the state still owns the right-of-way? This would also explain why the Highway Log hasn't been updated.

At this point ConnDOT should just sign CT 11 along CT 82 and then down CT 85 to New London. At least there would be one number connecting greater Hartford with greater New London.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on March 06, 2022, 05:23:39 PM
Quote from: Old Dominionite on March 06, 2022, 03:56:01 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on February 26, 2022, 06:04:31 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on February 26, 2022, 04:19:47 PM
Because they're too lazy to update the CT Highway Log, which lists CT 11 as starting at the I-95/I-395 junction ( See pp. 64-65) (https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOT/documents/dpolicy/hwylog/HighwayLog_Final.pdf)

Not necessarily.... CT 11 was originally supposed to terminate at I-95 in Waterford in the vicinity of the Cross Road interchange (and some maps before then show it terminating at the turnpike/I-395 between I-95 and CT 85).  Given the fact that the route log says I-95 in Waterford leads me to believe that it could still be mile-referenced from that point, vs terminating at the I-95/I-395 interchange.

Yes. And the Highway Log still includes the cumulative mile points where the Route 11 expressway was intended to cross from Waterford into Montville, and from Montville into Salem. I assume the state still owns the right-of-way? This would also explain why the Highway Log hasn't been updated.

At this point ConnDOT should just sign CT 11 along CT 82 and then down CT 85 to New London. At least there would be one number connecting greater Hartford with greater New London.

Not really.  CT 11 ends at CT 2 in Colchester, which is still in New London County.  If anything, CTDOT should just sign CT 11 with Salem as a control and point travelers to CT 2 to I-395 South to CT 32 South (via SR 693) to get to New London.   
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on March 06, 2022, 05:38:19 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on March 06, 2022, 05:23:39 PMIf anything, CTDOT should just sign CT 11 with Salem as a control and point travelers to CT 2 to I-395 South to CT 32 South (via SR 693) to get to New London.   

Yes, yes they should.  Then, see about abandoning the whole route.  Start by "Super 2"'ing it and see what traffic does. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on March 06, 2022, 10:24:32 PM
Probably veering too much into fictional, but: redesignate CT 11 as CT 85A. A short overlap with 82 that ends at the roundabout and that's that.

"It is what it is now. We tried. We're moving on."
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on March 07, 2022, 04:55:16 PM
Quote from: kurumi on March 06, 2022, 10:24:32 PM
Probably veering too much into fictional, but: redesignate CT 11 as CT 85A. A short overlap with 82 that ends at the roundabout and that's that.

"It is what it is now. We tried. We're moving on."
I would reroute Rt 85, following Rt 82 from the 82/85 rotary, then following Rt 11 to Rt 2, and re-designate Rt 85 north of the rotary as something else. While I'm at it, I would get rid of the incomplete diamond interchange where Rt 11 ends at 82. Maybe place another rotary there.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on March 07, 2022, 05:47:07 PM
Perhaps its time to drudge up an earlier proposal for Route 11, one that had the road peter out not too far south of where it does now, but tying directly in to Route 85.  This is kind of like what was done with US 7 in Brookfield.  However, there, US 7 was widened up to New Milford.  This option probably wouldn't cost a tremendous amount, would remove traffic away from the "Four Corners" rotary, and give a somewhat more proper end to Route 11.  Four laning all the way to I-395?  Probably not, but maybe to Chesterfield/Rt 161 would be a possibility.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on March 07, 2022, 06:49:56 PM
I've never seen CT 11 on a summer weekend to find out how much traffic it receives, but there's such minimal traffic every other time I've been around 11 that I don't see a reason to build it any further.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: DJ Particle on March 07, 2022, 11:46:44 PM
Quote from: Alps on March 07, 2022, 06:49:56 PM
I've never seen CT 11 on a summer weekend to find out how much traffic it receives, but there's such minimal traffic every other time I've been around 11 that I don't see a reason to build it any further.

Then again, it's possible it only has that much traffic *because* it doesn't reach as far as originally planned.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on March 08, 2022, 05:34:09 AM
It seems that every decade or so, the Governor of Connecticut (or another prominent politico) makes a promise to finish Route 11 from its present end at CT 82 to I-95/I-395 to further economic development in southeastern Connecticut, but of course little more happens beyond that due to (I'm guessing) cost, environmental considerations, etc. Not sure why this time would be different.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MATraveler128 on March 08, 2022, 06:51:32 AM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on March 08, 2022, 05:34:09 AM
It seems that every decade or so, the Governor of Connecticut (or another prominent politico) makes a promise to finish Route 11 from its present end at CT 82 to I-95/I-395 to further economic development in southeastern Connecticut, but of course little more happens beyond that due to (I'm guessing) cost, environmental considerations, etc. Not sure why this time would be different.

You are correct on environmental concerns, but funding would also be an issue. Currently, the state has higher priorities, such as fixing the Mixmaster in Waterbury and widening I-84 west of Hartford. Connecticut simply doesn't have the money for funding such a thing.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: southshore720 on March 08, 2022, 03:12:42 PM
You are more likely to see a leprechaun throwing out gold coins whilst riding a unicorn than to see the completion of Route 11, stumped highways (I-384, US 7, CT 25), or any new highways in CT.  No money and too many NIMBYs.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on March 08, 2022, 03:30:09 PM
CT 11 would be a more direct route to I-95 than having to take CT 2 into Norwich.

A completed CT 11 might take a load off I-395 from Norwich to New London.  I say if they're not going to complete CT 11, then they should add a lane in each direction to 395 between the aforementioned cities, and a ramp from 95 SB to 395 NB.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on March 08, 2022, 03:32:56 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on March 02, 2022, 06:26:25 PM
Quote from: JJBers on March 02, 2022, 03:36:02 PM
Quote from: kurumi on February 18, 2022, 01:38:12 PM
This one I hadn't seen yet: a 2020 River Cog (Middletown area) study that includes a Route 66 bypass of Portland, meeting Route 17A at a new interchange near the Arrigoni Bridge: https://www.rivercog.org/wp-content/uploads/reports-and-studies/2020-10-05-Route-66-Draft-Final-Reportred3.pdf  (scroll to page 97)
The proposal seems interesting, but I'm not sure if it's that bad of a traffic issue to warrant a whole bypass. Plus I know Portland also has plans on using RR ROW for the Airline Trail at some later future point.
Quote from: shadyjay on February 10, 2022, 05:14:56 PM

US 6/384 ... most likely this means all of I-384 along with the Willimantic Bypass.  That's not much of a contract.  I would have thrown in I-291 as well. 

So they're adding exit numbers to US 6 in Willimantic? Are they gonna label the two ends as exits as well?

I wouldn't think the endpoints of the bypass would be numbered, seeing they are part of the mainline.  You could make a case for the signalized portion of the western end that grants access to CT 66 (just not the slip ramp that is mainline 6 west), but I don't think they would.  The 32 exits would be 89 and the 195 exits 91.

Oh, and welcome back.

I would honestly just sign US 6 with I-384 so that the exit numbers stay consistent with the mileage to the RI border. That is, not having it go from Exit 7 or whatever in Bolton to exit 20-something in Windham.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on March 08, 2022, 06:35:32 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on March 08, 2022, 06:51:32 AM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on March 08, 2022, 05:34:09 AM
It seems that every decade or so, the Governor of Connecticut (or another prominent politico) makes a promise to finish Route 11 from its present end at CT 82 to I-95/I-395 to further economic development in southeastern Connecticut, but of course little more happens beyond that due to (I'm guessing) cost, environmental considerations, etc. Not sure why this time would be different.

You are correct on environmental concerns, but funding would also be an issue. Currently, the state has higher priorities, such as fixing the Mixmaster in Waterbury and widening I-84 west of Hartford. Connecticut simply doesn't have the money for funding such a thing.
Part of the issue is their unwillingness to ever end up tolling any highway in the state. Every time that seems to fail, so they keep having minimal money to do useful things with.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Rothman on March 08, 2022, 09:22:28 PM
Quote from: Alps on March 08, 2022, 06:35:32 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on March 08, 2022, 06:51:32 AM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on March 08, 2022, 05:34:09 AM
It seems that every decade or so, the Governor of Connecticut (or another prominent politico) makes a promise to finish Route 11 from its present end at CT 82 to I-95/I-395 to further economic development in southeastern Connecticut, but of course little more happens beyond that due to (I'm guessing) cost, environmental considerations, etc. Not sure why this time would be different.

You are correct on environmental concerns, but funding would also be an issue. Currently, the state has higher priorities, such as fixing the Mixmaster in Waterbury and widening I-84 west of Hartford. Connecticut simply doesn't have the money for funding such a thing.
Part of the issue is their unwillingness to ever end up tolling any highway in the state. Every time that seems to fail, so they keep having minimal money to do useful things with.
Nah, not minimal.  They have enough to preserve their system and keep themselves from doing silly things like completing CT 11. :D
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on March 08, 2022, 11:28:08 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 08, 2022, 09:22:28 PM
Quote from: Alps on March 08, 2022, 06:35:32 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on March 08, 2022, 06:51:32 AM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on March 08, 2022, 05:34:09 AM
It seems that every decade or so, the Governor of Connecticut (or another prominent politico) makes a promise to finish Route 11 from its present end at CT 82 to I-95/I-395 to further economic development in southeastern Connecticut, but of course little more happens beyond that due to (I'm guessing) cost, environmental considerations, etc. Not sure why this time would be different.

You are correct on environmental concerns, but funding would also be an issue. Currently, the state has higher priorities, such as fixing the Mixmaster in Waterbury and widening I-84 west of Hartford. Connecticut simply doesn't have the money for funding such a thing.
Part of the issue is their unwillingness to ever end up tolling any highway in the state. Every time that seems to fail, so they keep having minimal money to do useful things with.
Nah, not minimal.  They have enough to preserve their system and keep themselves from doing silly things like completing CT 11. :D

It's all about fiscal management.  With these ridiculously high gas prices and the gross receipts fuel tax that is a % of the wholesale cost of gas, they figure to be rolling in the dough :eyebrow:
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JJBers on March 08, 2022, 11:37:50 PM
Quote from: Alps on March 03, 2022, 12:07:57 AM
I like how your tagline is "middle of nowhere" but you're between NY and Boston and Hartford and Providence
Considering the rest of the zone is full of suburbia and cities, it is kinda like the middle of nowhere. I'm about evenly distanced from Hartford and Providence, and NYC & Boston.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on March 09, 2022, 05:21:58 AM
Quote from: JJBers on March 08, 2022, 11:37:50 PM
Quote from: Alps on March 03, 2022, 12:07:57 AM
I like how your tagline is "middle of nowhere" but you're between NY and Boston and Hartford and Providence
Considering the rest of the zone is full of suburbia and cities, it is kinda like the middle of nowhere. I'm about evenly distanced from Hartford and Providence, and NYC & Boston.

In fact, Northeastern CT and adjacent parts of Mass. are actually called "The Last Green Valley"  in tourism circles.

https://thelastgreenvalley.org/
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Rothman on March 09, 2022, 06:45:43 AM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on March 09, 2022, 05:21:58 AM
Quote from: JJBers on March 08, 2022, 11:37:50 PM
Quote from: Alps on March 03, 2022, 12:07:57 AM
I like how your tagline is "middle of nowhere" but you're between NY and Boston and Hartford and Providence
Considering the rest of the zone is full of suburbia and cities, it is kinda like the middle of nowhere. I'm about evenly distanced from Hartford and Providence, and NYC & Boston.

In fact, Northeastern CT and adjacent parts of Mass. are actually called "The Last Green Valley"  in tourism circles.

https://thelastgreenvalley.org/
It is quite rural in that corner of CT.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on March 09, 2022, 09:39:01 AM
Quote from: Alps on March 08, 2022, 06:35:32 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on March 08, 2022, 06:51:32 AM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on March 08, 2022, 05:34:09 AM
It seems that every decade or so, the Governor of Connecticut (or another prominent politico) makes a promise to finish Route 11 from its present end at CT 82 to I-95/I-395 to further economic development in southeastern Connecticut, but of course little more happens beyond that due to (I’m guessing) cost, environmental considerations, etc. Not sure why this time would be different.

You are correct on environmental concerns, but funding would also be an issue. Currently, the state has higher priorities, such as fixing the Mixmaster in Waterbury and widening I-84 west of Hartford. Connecticut simply doesn’t have the money for funding such a thing.
Part of the issue is their unwillingness to ever end up tolling any highway in the state. Every time that seems to fail, so they keep having minimal money to do useful things with.
Even though it's been nearly 40 years, there are still a lot of people in Connecticut who remember the Stratford toll plaza crash in 1983 that killed 7 people. Regardless of the fact that tolling technology today is leaps and bounds beyond what we had in 1983 (high-speed, cashless, no stopping), most Connecticut voters think "Stratford toll plaza crash" when the discussion of tolling the state's highways comes up. And there's the argument from other voters in a state with one of the nation's highest tax burden, that such tolls would be just another "tax." 

As much as Connecticut is a left-leaning "tax and spend" state, where lawmakers love to take your hard-earned money and squander it like drunken sailors, even they know where the voters have drawn the red line. Most legislators in the General Assembly know it would be political suicide if they enacted legislation re-authorizing tolls on Connecticut's highways, which is why they balk at the idea every time it comes up for debate.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: DJStephens on March 10, 2022, 10:15:47 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on March 08, 2022, 06:51:32 AM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on March 08, 2022, 05:34:09 AM
It seems that every decade or so, the Governor of Connecticut (or another prominent politico) makes a promise to finish Route 11 from its present end at CT 82 to I-95/I-395 to further economic development in southeastern Connecticut, but of course little more happens beyond that due to (I'm guessing) cost, environmental considerations, etc. Not sure why this time would be different.

You are correct on environmental concerns, but funding would also be an issue. Currently, the state has higher priorities, such as fixing the Mixmaster in Waterbury and widening I-84 west of Hartford. Connecticut simply doesn't have the money for funding such a thing.

Was under impression plans to replace "mixmaster" were scrapped and the interchange was rehabilitated instead.  In it's original configuration.  Are they still working on the rehab?   Remember it from late seventies/early eighties, it's funky double deck and left exits.  Seemed ancient and obsolete then.   
Widen 84 W of Hartford?  Thought the "busway" put the kibosh on that.   What they should have done, is trench 84 S of the aetna viaduct, and widen in the process.  All the through traffic that could have been on 291 around, goes straight through.  Straightening, depression, and widening should be pursued.   
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on March 11, 2022, 10:52:01 PM
Quote from: DJStephens on March 10, 2022, 10:15:47 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on March 08, 2022, 06:51:32 AM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on March 08, 2022, 05:34:09 AM
It seems that every decade or so, the Governor of Connecticut (or another prominent politico) makes a promise to finish Route 11 from its present end at CT 82 to I-95/I-395 to further economic development in southeastern Connecticut, but of course little more happens beyond that due to (I'm guessing) cost, environmental considerations, etc. Not sure why this time would be different.

You are correct on environmental concerns, but funding would also be an issue. Currently, the state has higher priorities, such as fixing the Mixmaster in Waterbury and widening I-84 west of Hartford. Connecticut simply doesn't have the money for funding such a thing.

Was under impression plans to replace "mixmaster" were scrapped and the interchange was rehabilitated instead.  In it's original configuration.  Are they still working on the rehab?   Remember it from late seventies/early eighties, it's funky double deck and left exits.  Seemed ancient and obsolete then.   
Widen 84 W of Hartford?  Thought the "busway" put the kibosh on that.   What they should have done, is trench 84 S of the aetna viaduct, and widen in the process.  All the through traffic that could have been on 291 around, goes straight through.  Straightening, depression, and widening should be pursued.

CTDOT is still planning to replace the Waterbury Mixmaster, but the latest I've read on it, they plan to take more of a piecemeal approach to replacing the interchange instead of trying to do it all at once. There is a website that details the approach that CTDOT will take to replacing the Mixmaster, breaking the project out into multiple phases that will take place over the course of 10-15 years, starting in the latter part of this decade and continuing to around 2040. To eat the elephant, sometimes it's better to cut it up into smaller pieces so that it's more digestible.

https://www.newmixwaterbury.com/project-information/
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: dgolub on March 12, 2022, 08:31:47 AM
Quote from: Rothman on March 09, 2022, 06:45:43 AM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on March 09, 2022, 05:21:58 AM
Quote from: JJBers on March 08, 2022, 11:37:50 PM
Quote from: Alps on March 03, 2022, 12:07:57 AM
I like how your tagline is "middle of nowhere" but you're between NY and Boston and Hartford and Providence
Considering the rest of the zone is full of suburbia and cities, it is kinda like the middle of nowhere. I'm about evenly distanced from Hartford and Providence, and NYC & Boston.

In fact, Northeastern CT and adjacent parts of Mass. are actually called "The Last Green Valley"  in tourism circles.

https://thelastgreenvalley.org/
It is quite rural in that corner of CT.

To be fair, Litchfield County is also pretty rural.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: DJStephens on March 12, 2022, 10:07:02 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on March 11, 2022, 10:52:01 PM
Quote from: DJStephens on March 10, 2022, 10:15:47 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on March 08, 2022, 06:51:32 AM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on March 08, 2022, 05:34:09 AM
It seems that every decade or so, the Governor of Connecticut (or another prominent politico) makes a promise to finish Route 11 from its present end at CT 82 to I-95/I-395 to further economic development in southeastern Connecticut, but of course little more happens beyond that due to (I'm guessing) cost, environmental considerations, etc. Not sure why this time would be different.

You are correct on environmental concerns, but funding would also be an issue. Currently, the state has higher priorities, such as fixing the Mixmaster in Waterbury and widening I-84 west of Hartford. Connecticut simply doesn't have the money for funding such a thing.

Was under impression plans to replace "mixmaster" were scrapped and the interchange was rehabilitated instead.  In it's original configuration.  Are they still working on the rehab?   Remember it from late seventies/early eighties, it's funky double deck and left exits.  Seemed ancient and obsolete then.   
Widen 84 W of Hartford?  Thought the "busway" put the kibosh on that.   What they should have done, is trench 84 S of the aetna viaduct, and widen in the process.  All the through traffic that could have been on 291 around, goes straight through.  Straightening, depression, and widening should be pursued.

CTDOT is still planning to replace the Waterbury Mixmaster, but the latest I've read on it, they plan to take more of a piecemeal approach to replacing the interchange instead of trying to do it all at once. There is a website that details the approach that CTDOT will take to replacing the Mixmaster, breaking the project out into multiple phases that will take place over the course of 10-15 years, starting in the latter part of this decade and continuing to around 2040. To eat the elephant, sometimes it's better to cut it up into smaller pieces so that it's more digestible.

https://www.newmixwaterbury.com/project-information/

Some very good pictures / aerials of initial Mid Sixties I-84 Construction in Waterbury in attached link.  Thanks for posting.   
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on March 12, 2022, 10:40:17 AM
Quote from: dgolub on March 12, 2022, 08:31:47 AM
Quote from: Rothman on March 09, 2022, 06:45:43 AM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on March 09, 2022, 05:21:58 AM
Quote from: JJBers on March 08, 2022, 11:37:50 PM
Quote from: Alps on March 03, 2022, 12:07:57 AM
I like how your tagline is "middle of nowhere" but you're between NY and Boston and Hartford and Providence
Considering the rest of the zone is full of suburbia and cities, it is kinda like the middle of nowhere. I'm about evenly distanced from Hartford and Providence, and NYC & Boston.



In fact, Northeastern CT and adjacent parts of Mass. are actually called "The Last Green Valley"  in tourism circles.

https://thelastgreenvalley.org/
It is quite rural in that corner of CT.

To be fair, Litchfield County is also pretty rural.

True, but it's also closer to NYC and I would imagine a popular second home market for city dwellers, just like the southern Berkshires.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on March 12, 2022, 10:49:14 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on March 11, 2022, 10:52:01 PM
Quote from: DJStephens on March 10, 2022, 10:15:47 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on March 08, 2022, 06:51:32 AM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on March 08, 2022, 05:34:09 AM
It seems that every decade or so, the Governor of Connecticut (or another prominent politico) makes a promise to finish Route 11 from its present end at CT 82 to I-95/I-395 to further economic development in southeastern Connecticut, but of course little more happens beyond that due to (I'm guessing) cost, environmental considerations, etc. Not sure why this time would be different.

You are correct on environmental concerns, but funding would also be an issue. Currently, the state has higher priorities, such as fixing the Mixmaster in Waterbury and widening I-84 west of Hartford. Connecticut simply doesn't have the money for funding such a thing.

Was under impression plans to replace "mixmaster" were scrapped and the interchange was rehabilitated instead.  In it's original configuration.  Are they still working on the rehab?   Remember it from late seventies/early eighties, it's funky double deck and left exits.  Seemed ancient and obsolete then.   
Widen 84 W of Hartford?  Thought the "busway" put the kibosh on that.   What they should have done, is trench 84 S of the aetna viaduct, and widen in the process.  All the through traffic that could have been on 291 around, goes straight through.  Straightening, depression, and widening should be pursued.

CTDOT is still planning to replace the Waterbury Mixmaster, but the latest I've read on it, they plan to take more of a piecemeal approach to replacing the interchange instead of trying to do it all at once. There is a website that details the approach that CTDOT will take to replacing the Mixmaster, breaking the project out into multiple phases that will take place over the course of 10-15 years, starting in the latter part of this decade and continuing to around 2040. To eat the elephant, sometimes it's better to cut it up into smaller pieces so that it's more digestible.

https://www.newmixwaterbury.com/project-information/

There's also the elevated I-84 viaduct through Hartford that needs to be replaced as well. *That* will be quite the undertaking.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: DJStephens on March 13, 2022, 12:32:04 PM
Frankly am of the opinion that the best course of action with 84 in Hartford,  is complete reconstruction and partial / full depression.  Basically on or near current alignment.   Have seen some bizarre scenarios where it is tunneled to the S, or routed far to the N, making it even more indirect.   
Construct new alignment S of current in town aetna viaduct, provide for a ten lane cross - section with express lanes, full inner and outer shoulders.   Depress in trench, or "cut and cover" so it could be decked over.  Would clean up downtown quite a bit.   
Straighten and lower alignment within Hartford city limits.  Elimination of the remaining left exits and easing of multiple curves where possible.  Have not been on corridor in over fifteen years, perhaps some of the never built parkway and planned expressway stubs (Sisson Ave for example) are now Gone.  Not sure how "busway" could fit into this, perhaps as the far right lane, in each direction.   
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on March 13, 2022, 12:53:15 PM
Quote from: DJStephens on March 13, 2022, 12:32:04 PM
Frankly am of the opinion that the best course of action with 84 in Hartford,  is complete reconstruction and partial / full depression.  Basically on or near current alignment.   Have seen some bizarre scenarios where it is tunneled to the S, or routed far to the N, making it even more indirect.   
Construct new alignment S of current in town aetna viaduct, provide for a ten lane cross - section with express lanes, full inner and outer shoulders.   Depress in trench, or "cut and cover" so it could be decked over.  Would clean up downtown quite a bit.   
Straighten and lower alignment within Hartford city limits.  Elimination of the remaining left exits and easing of multiple curves where possible.  Have not been on corridor in over fifteen years, perhaps some of the never built parkway and planned expressway stubs (Sisson Ave for example) are now Gone.  Not sure how "busway" could fit into this, perhaps as the far right lane, in each direction.

I think they should revive the old 284 scheme by extending the Whitehead Highway to 84, after widening it to 4 lanes and giving it sufficient clearance for trucks.

It would be a detour route while 84 is rebuilt and once finished, it would serve traffic going to Downtown from the West while 84 would serve through traffic.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MATraveler128 on March 13, 2022, 07:06:05 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 13, 2022, 12:53:15 PM
Quote from: DJStephens on March 13, 2022, 12:32:04 PM
Frankly am of the opinion that the best course of action with 84 in Hartford,  is complete reconstruction and partial / full depression.  Basically on or near current alignment.   Have seen some bizarre scenarios where it is tunneled to the S, or routed far to the N, making it even more indirect.   
Construct new alignment S of current in town aetna viaduct, provide for a ten lane cross - section with express lanes, full inner and outer shoulders.   Depress in trench, or "cut and cover" so it could be decked over.  Would clean up downtown quite a bit.   
Straighten and lower alignment within Hartford city limits.  Elimination of the remaining left exits and easing of multiple curves where possible.  Have not been on corridor in over fifteen years, perhaps some of the never built parkway and planned expressway stubs (Sisson Ave for example) are now Gone.  Not sure how "busway" could fit into this, perhaps as the far right lane, in each direction.

I think they should revive the old 284 scheme by extending the Whitehead Highway to 84, after widening it to 4 lanes and giving it sufficient clearance for trucks.

It would be a detour route while 84 is rebuilt and once finished, it would serve traffic going to Downtown from the West while 84 would serve through traffic.

That would have been a great idea, I wish it was built. However, it would have been signed as I-484 as I-284 was to be used from I-84/CT 2 to I-291. It would have to be tunneled though to avoid Bushnell Park.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on March 13, 2022, 10:01:05 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on March 13, 2022, 07:06:05 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 13, 2022, 12:53:15 PM
Quote from: DJStephens on March 13, 2022, 12:32:04 PM
Frankly am of the opinion that the best course of action with 84 in Hartford,  is complete reconstruction and partial / full depression.  Basically on or near current alignment.   Have seen some bizarre scenarios where it is tunneled to the S, or routed far to the N, making it even more indirect.   
Construct new alignment S of current in town aetna viaduct, provide for a ten lane cross - section with express lanes, full inner and outer shoulders.   Depress in trench, or "cut and cover" so it could be decked over.  Would clean up downtown quite a bit.   
Straighten and lower alignment within Hartford city limits.  Elimination of the remaining left exits and easing of multiple curves where possible.  Have not been on corridor in over fifteen years, perhaps some of the never built parkway and planned expressway stubs (Sisson Ave for example) are now Gone.  Not sure how "busway" could fit into this, perhaps as the far right lane, in each direction.

I think they should revive the old 284 scheme by extending the Whitehead Highway to 84, after widening it to 4 lanes and giving it sufficient clearance for trucks.

It would be a detour route while 84 is rebuilt and once finished, it would serve traffic going to Downtown from the West while 84 would serve through traffic.

That would have been a great idea, I wish it was built. However, it would have been signed as I-484 as I-284 was to be used from I-84/CT 2 to I-291. It would have to be tunneled though to avoid Bushnell Park.

It was originally supposed to be the connection from I-84 East to I-91 North until it was cancelled.  Evidence of this is at 3:37 in this video.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on March 14, 2022, 10:21:28 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on March 13, 2022, 10:01:05 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on March 13, 2022, 07:06:05 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 13, 2022, 12:53:15 PM
Quote from: DJStephens on March 13, 2022, 12:32:04 PM
Frankly am of the opinion that the best course of action with 84 in Hartford,  is complete reconstruction and partial / full depression.  Basically on or near current alignment.   Have seen some bizarre scenarios where it is tunneled to the S, or routed far to the N, making it even more indirect.   
Construct new alignment S of current in town aetna viaduct, provide for a ten lane cross - section with express lanes, full inner and outer shoulders.   Depress in trench, or "cut and cover" so it could be decked over.  Would clean up downtown quite a bit.   
Straighten and lower alignment within Hartford city limits.  Elimination of the remaining left exits and easing of multiple curves where possible.  Have not been on corridor in over fifteen years, perhaps some of the never built parkway and planned expressway stubs (Sisson Ave for example) are now Gone.  Not sure how "busway" could fit into this, perhaps as the far right lane, in each direction.

I think they should revive the old 284 scheme by extending the Whitehead Highway to 84, after widening it to 4 lanes and giving it sufficient clearance for trucks.

It would be a detour route while 84 is rebuilt and once finished, it would serve traffic going to Downtown from the West while 84 would serve through traffic.

That would have been a great idea, I wish it was built. However, it would have been signed as I-484 as I-284 was to be used from I-84/CT 2 to I-291. It would have to be tunneled though to avoid Bushnell Park.

It was originally supposed to be the connection from I-84 East to I-91 North until it was cancelled.  Evidence of this is at 3:37 in this video.

The long set of ramps from I-84 to Governor Street are the only part of I-284 that was ever built. Hopefully when they reconstruct I-84 through Hartford, they somehow figure out a way to clean up the mess of freeways and ramps in East Hartford between the Charter Oak Bridge and I-84.
Title: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeCL on March 14, 2022, 10:40:59 AM
Quote from: connroadgeek on February 20, 2022, 11:32:42 AM
Saw the first flashing yellow arrow in CT at the new set of adaptive signals that have just been turned on around the exit 3 area of Arch St in Greenwich.
Damn I kept forgetting to post this.. finally!!! I hope it spreads to other towns.. makes no sense to wait another cycle.. and more so if you don't roll up to the loop sensor in time when the cross traffic changes to yellow.

It seems so far it's been working out really well I haven't seen it back up the roadway anymore.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on March 14, 2022, 04:28:03 PM
ConnDOT has a functional classification GIS app online: https://connecticut-ctdot.opendata.arcgis.com/apps/functional-classification-interactive-app/explore

It looks like most or all local roads (not in state highway system) are assigned 7-digit numbers based on a 3-digit town ID and 4-digit "within town scope" ID.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: mariethefoxy on March 22, 2022, 12:08:21 AM
I noticed something interesting on US 1 in Darien, I was coming back to Long Island and happened to go off the highway at Exit 14 and ended up going thru Darien to Stamford in search of a night food place that was open and somewhere around 11ish at night the traffic lights on US 1 went from Green to a Blinky Yellow on what im guessing is for the night. It was nice since you dont have to worry about some random side street turning red with nobody there. Its something I wish was done more on Long Island with some of the lightly used lights at night.

Also the signs for the service plaza on 95 advertise the Subway as being 24 Hours but it closes at like 10pm, which is false advertising.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on March 22, 2022, 12:11:49 AM
Quote from: mariethefoxy on March 22, 2022, 12:08:21 AM
I noticed something interesting on US 1 in Darien, I was coming back to Long Island and happened to go off the highway at Exit 14 and ended up going thru Darien to Stamford in search of a night food place that was open and somewhere around 11ish at night the traffic lights on US 1 went from Green to a Blinky Yellow on what im guessing is for the night. It was nice since you dont have to worry about some random side street turning red with nobody there. Its something I wish was done more on Long Island with some of the lightly used lights at night.

Also the signs for the service plaza on 95 advertise the Subway as being 24 Hours but it closes at like 10pm, which is false advertising.

A bunch of lights on the main road in my town blink yellow from 10 PM - 6 AM.  I've been caught several times by a random red light with no one around at exactly 10 pm, only to have it start flashing yellow when it would usually turn green. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: storm2k on March 24, 2022, 12:56:16 PM
Quote from: mariethefoxy on March 22, 2022, 12:08:21 AM
I noticed something interesting on US 1 in Darien, I was coming back to Long Island and happened to go off the highway at Exit 14 and ended up going thru Darien to Stamford in search of a night food place that was open and somewhere around 11ish at night the traffic lights on US 1 went from Green to a Blinky Yellow on what im guessing is for the night. It was nice since you dont have to worry about some random side street turning red with nobody there. Its something I wish was done more on Long Island with some of the lightly used lights at night.

Also the signs for the service plaza on 95 advertise the Subway as being 24 Hours but it closes at like 10pm, which is false advertising.

Is that something that was probably true before the pandemic but they changed it during the pandemic and the signs never got updated?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on March 24, 2022, 04:22:06 PM
Any new updates (pics?) for exit renumbering on Routes 9 and 72?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on March 24, 2022, 04:51:37 PM
There's been nothing new.  I got a few recent shots of new signs on the middle and northern contracts, but no new exit numbers on the primary guide signs... just those ridiculous "NEW EXIT ##" signs.  A few exit gore signs have been replaced on the southern contract for SB exits in Middletown.  Crews have been working on the southern contract in Old Saybrook, installing foundations for the new gantries for the I-95 split.  Still no new extruded signs on the southern contract, and no sheet aluminums on the middle or northern contracts.  My FLICKR page on the 9/72 resigning has the latest photos, as of a week ago:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/albums/72157719337442409/page1
I expect more work to start ramping up soon, definitely after April 1 (when construction projects kick into high gear for the season).  Haven't seen any extruded aluminums in the staging lot for the southern contract.  The northern contract staging lot (upper level of the Stack) at last check had several supports, most likely for the New Britain canyon.  Foundations are in there, but nothing else.

Meanwhile, the statewide sheet aluminum contract is working on I-95.... there are some new signs NB out to East Lyme and sporadically, some new enhanced mile markers and single-posted neutered "route confirmation shields".  I-91 still hadn't gotten the treatment from New Haven up to Meriden, but has it full north of there.  When all is said-and-done, it'll be tougher to find a state-named interstate shield as a "route confirmation". 

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MATraveler128 on March 24, 2022, 08:27:51 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on March 24, 2022, 04:51:37 PM
Meanwhile, the statewide sheet aluminum contract is working on I-95.... there are some new signs NB out to East Lyme and sporadically, some new enhanced mile markers and single-posted neutered "route confirmation shields".  I-91 still hadn't gotten the treatment from New Haven up to Meriden, but has it full north of there.  When all is said-and-done, it'll be tougher to find a state-named interstate shield as a "route confirmation".

So Connecticut is doing away with state named Interstate shields?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on March 24, 2022, 08:36:47 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on March 24, 2022, 08:27:51 PM
So Connecticut is doing away with state named Interstate shields?

Yup.  Within a year, the only state-named reassurance shield you may see on the mainlines will be those button copy ones...(click to zoom in to see the state name.  Only found in New London and on the Charter Oak Bridge, perhaps another spot or two)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/1751/40604472540_362b7503f4_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/24S5x3L)95SB-Exit82 (https://flic.kr/p/24S5x3L) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51949720822_4e0c56906f_3k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2n9BU6L)CT32NB-@95NB (https://flic.kr/p/2n9BU6L) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on March 25, 2022, 10:24:31 AM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on March 24, 2022, 08:27:51 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on March 24, 2022, 04:51:37 PM
Meanwhile, the statewide sheet aluminum contract is working on I-95.... there are some new signs NB out to East Lyme and sporadically, some new enhanced mile markers and single-posted neutered "route confirmation shields".  I-91 still hadn't gotten the treatment from New Haven up to Meriden, but has it full north of there.  When all is said-and-done, it'll be tougher to find a state-named interstate shield as a "route confirmation".

So Connecticut is doing away with state named Interstate shields?
CTDOT's standard highway sign drawings still depict the interstate shield including the state name. From what's been taking place recently, it sounds like individual CTDOT engineers are approving plans specifying "stateless" interstate shields.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on March 25, 2022, 01:08:36 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on March 13, 2022, 10:01:05 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on March 13, 2022, 07:06:05 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 13, 2022, 12:53:15 PM
Quote from: DJStephens on March 13, 2022, 12:32:04 PM
Frankly am of the opinion that the best course of action with 84 in Hartford,  is complete reconstruction and partial / full depression.  Basically on or near current alignment.   Have seen some bizarre scenarios where it is tunneled to the S, or routed far to the N, making it even more indirect.   
Construct new alignment S of current in town aetna viaduct, provide for a ten lane cross - section with express lanes, full inner and outer shoulders.   Depress in trench, or "cut and cover" so it could be decked over.  Would clean up downtown quite a bit.   
Straighten and lower alignment within Hartford city limits.  Elimination of the remaining left exits and easing of multiple curves where possible.  Have not been on corridor in over fifteen years, perhaps some of the never built parkway and planned expressway stubs (Sisson Ave for example) are now Gone.  Not sure how "busway" could fit into this, perhaps as the far right lane, in each direction.

I think they should revive the old 284 scheme by extending the Whitehead Highway to 84, after widening it to 4 lanes and giving it sufficient clearance for trucks.

It would be a detour route while 84 is rebuilt and once finished, it would serve traffic going to Downtown from the West while 84 would serve through traffic.

That would have been a great idea, I wish it was built. However, it would have been signed as I-484 as I-284 was to be used from I-84/CT 2 to I-291. It would have to be tunneled though to avoid Bushnell Park.

It was originally supposed to be the connection from I-84 East to I-91 North until it was cancelled.  Evidence of this is at 3:37 in this video.


Loved the old signage, especially the "To 91"  sign on I-84 eastbound.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on March 28, 2022, 09:05:36 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on March 25, 2022, 10:24:31 AM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on March 24, 2022, 08:27:51 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on March 24, 2022, 04:51:37 PM
Meanwhile, the statewide sheet aluminum contract is working on I-95.... there are some new signs NB out to East Lyme and sporadically, some new enhanced mile markers and single-posted neutered "route confirmation shields".  I-91 still hadn't gotten the treatment from New Haven up to Meriden, but has it full north of there.  When all is said-and-done, it'll be tougher to find a state-named interstate shield as a "route confirmation".

So Connecticut is doing away with state named Interstate shields?
CTDOT's standard highway sign drawings still depict the interstate shield including the state name. From what's been taking place recently, it sounds like individual CTDOT engineers are approving plans specifying "stateless" interstate shields.
At the very least, District 1 is using generic Interstate shields, going by the latest replacement projects on I's 84, 91, 291 and 384.
Still don't know why is isn't a complete replacement project. Warning and advisory signs don't appear to be included.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on March 28, 2022, 07:04:13 PM
Stateless/neutered/generic I-shields are now going up on I-95 as well.  I really like them, especially being mounted on a single post.  FWIW, the contract plans show the CT 2/3/11/17N sign replacement project as using single posted "route identification signs" as well.  That'll leave the new ones on CT 9 & 8 & 25 as dual-posted. 
More speed limit signs are going up, and each has a "WRONG WAY" on the back.  Maybe this is how they're justifying putting so many up.  Most states just put them up after a merge.  In states like VT, you may not see a speed limit sign for 15 miles.  For some reason, ConnDOT seems to think we need a reminder every mile, even when the speed limit is a consistent 65 MPH.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on March 29, 2022, 12:04:56 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on March 28, 2022, 07:04:13 PM
Stateless/neutered/generic I-shields are now going up on I-95 as well.  I really like them, especially being mounted on a single post.  FWIW, the contract plans show the CT 2/3/11/17N sign replacement project as using single posted "route identification signs" as well.  That'll leave the new ones on CT 9 & 8 & 25 as dual-posted. 
More speed limit signs are going up, and each has a "WRONG WAY" on the back.  Maybe this is how they're justifying putting so many up.  Most states just put them up after a merge.  In states like VT, you may not see a speed limit sign for 15 miles.  For some reason, ConnDOT seems to think we need a reminder every mile, even when the speed limit is a consistent 65 MPH.
Well we've had a lot of really bad wrong-way crashes over the past couple years.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: The Ghostbuster on March 31, 2022, 01:14:25 PM
I've noticed something strange on the "Interstate 95 in Connecticut" page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_95_in_Connecticut. The exits for Route 9 North, US 1/ Route 156 — Old Lyme, Four Mile River Road, Rocky Neck State Park, Society Road, Route 161 — Flanders, Niantic, and Interstate 395 North — Norwich, Plainfield have all had their exit numbers changed to correspond with what the exits would be numbered under a mileage-based exit sequence instead of the present sequential exit sequence. I assume this is a case of Wikipedia jumping the gun, and the exits mentioned have not been renumbered, at least not yet.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Great Lakes Roads on March 31, 2022, 03:57:53 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 31, 2022, 01:14:25 PM
I've noticed something strange on the "Interstate 95 in Connecticut" page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_95_in_Connecticut. The exits for Route 9 North, US 1/ Route 156 — Old Lyme, Four Mile River Road, Rocky Neck State Park, Society Road, Route 161 — Flanders, Niantic, and Interstate 395 North — Norwich, Plainfield have all had their exit numbers changed to correspond with what the exits would be numbered under a mileage-based exit sequence instead of the present sequential exit sequence. I assume this is a case of Wikipedia jumping the gun, and the exits mentioned have not been renumbered, at least not yet.

I also saw this happen on either I-91 or I-84, but that has since been fixed back to the sequential exit numbers.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on March 31, 2022, 06:06:24 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 31, 2022, 01:14:25 PM
I've noticed something strange on the "Interstate 95 in Connecticut" page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_95_in_Connecticut. The exits for Route 9 North, US 1/ Route 156 — Old Lyme, Four Mile River Road, Rocky Neck State Park, Society Road, Route 161 — Flanders, Niantic, and Interstate 395 North — Norwich, Plainfield have all had their exit numbers changed to correspond with what the exits would be numbered under a mileage-based exit sequence instead of the present sequential exit sequence. I assume this is a case of Wikipedia jumping the gun, and the exits mentioned have not been renumbered, at least not yet.
Fixed.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on April 01, 2022, 06:39:32 PM
So... I managed to find the contract plans for the "statewide sheet aluminum" project currently going on.  It turns out that the wholesale replacement of all sheet aluminum signs on the mainlines is only happening on select portions of the routes in the project.  These areas are:

*  I-84 from vic. Exit 58 in East Hartford to the Mass state line at Union
*  I-91 from the Wallingford/Meriden town line to the Mass state line at Enfield
*  I-95 from the Clinton/Madison town line to the west end of the Gold Star Bridge in New London
*  I-291 and I-384, entire length
*  US 6 from Columbia to Windham

In regards to I-84 west of Southington, I-95 west of Madison, US 7, and the Wilbur Cross, only speed limit signs are being replaced (and in some cases, "Slower Traffic Keep Right" signs added.  Enhanced mile markers, gore signs, reassurance shields, etc are not part of these sections.  In regards to I-91 south of Wallingford, only enhanced mile markers are being replaced, with the remaining sheets down to the New Haven line being replaced as part of a separate project.

So, my statement about it being tough to find a state-named interstate shield on the mainline isn't entirely accurate.  They will still exist on I-95 west of Madison to the NY state line and on I-84 west of the Waterbury area.  It'll be tougher to find them, but it won't be impossible.  I have no idea why they are not taking the time to standardize on enhanced mile markers statewide (on I-84 west and I-95 west sections). 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: sharkyfour on April 01, 2022, 08:39:44 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on April 01, 2022, 06:39:32 PM
So... I managed to find the contract plans for the "statewide sheet aluminum" project currently going on.  It turns out that the wholesale replacement of all sheet aluminum signs on the mainlines is only happening on select portions of the routes in the project.  These areas are:

*  I-84 from vic. Exit 58 in East Hartford to the Mass state line at Union
*  I-91 from the Wallingford/Meriden town line to the Mass state line at Enfield
*  I-95 from the Clinton/Madison town line to the west end of the Gold Star Bridge in New London
*  I-291 and I-384, entire length
*  US 6 from Columbia to Windham

In regards to I-84 west of Southington, I-95 west of Madison, US 7, and the Wilbur Cross, only speed limit signs are being replaced (and in some cases, "Slower Traffic Keep Right" signs added.  Enhanced mile markers, gore signs, reassurance shields, etc are not part of these sections.  In regards to I-91 south of Wallingford, only enhanced mile markers are being replaced, with the remaining sheets down to the New Haven line being replaced as part of a separate project.

So, my statement about it being tough to find a state-named interstate shield on the mainline isn't entirely accurate.  They will still exist on I-95 west of Madison to the NY state line and on I-84 west of the Waterbury area.  It'll be tougher to find them, but it won't be impossible.  I have no idea why they are not taking the time to standardize on enhanced mile markers statewide (on I-84 west and I-95 west sections).

Are these available online somewhere?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on April 01, 2022, 09:46:46 PM
Why yes... yes they are... though the contract plans are purely a "textual" document.  There are no maps or actual signs shown... just a table listing of route, direction, what the sign says in text ("NORTH/95" etc...)
https://biznet.ct.gov/scp_search/BidDetail.aspx?CID=55737

For other projects, you can use the search function found on top of the CT.GOV/DOT web page to search for a particular project, then within that page, get the project number, then go back to the main search page and enter the project number.  Then you can back-track for other contract plans.  Sometimes all that comes up are bid results... I got "hits" for the I-84 NY state line to Newtown resigning project in 2007, but all that came back were bid documents/summaries, and not contract plans.  If doing a search and "SCP Solicitation Details" pops up, that's the link to view the contract plans. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on April 03, 2022, 06:48:35 PM
The southern CT-9 signing contract is a joke of a contract.  So many signs are sheet metal that should be extruded aluminum. 
-Town line signs
-Park & Ride Exit XX signs
-Generic services Exit XX signs
-Expressway Ends warning signs (yes they put those up going SB near the I-95 juction.  Long sheet metal signs with 3 poles.

Half of the signs up are already tilted.

Then, NB between the Middletown 10 Miles BGS and the traffic lights there are 14 Speed Limit signs.  14!  However, only one signal ahead sign.  It's old and in the middle and not reflective b/c it's so old.  That's right for stoplights in the middle of a freeway there is only one signal ahead warning sign in the median, a slippery when wet sign (which you're supposed to infer there's a stoplight ahead, and a congested area warning sign. 

The only saving grace of this post is this sign that is still up SB:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51980638339_8f22cabda0_z.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on April 04, 2022, 07:57:00 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on April 03, 2022, 06:48:35 PM
The southern CT-9 signing contract is a joke of a contract.  So many signs are sheet metal that should be extruded aluminum. 

Oh, you're preaching to the choir! 

Okay, the town line signs, I can kind of see them being sheet aluminum.  Yes, it is a major shift in ConnDOT signing practices, as for years, we have been known to have our town lines signed very well.  But now you're replacing simple, readable town line signs with ones found on backwoods 2-lane roads.  Their font is such that you can't read them at high speed.  If they left out the middle "INCORPORATED ####" line and enlarged the rest, it would've been at least readable. 

But the rest really should be extruded aluminum.  Service symbols should be built into either the 1 mile or 1/2 mile advance on the primary guide signs (the so-called "service bar").  I was told by ConnDOT that the extra space would have required the signs to be redesigned to handle the extra load.  Well, considering the replacement sheet aluminums have already gotten severely bent or torn off in the last wind storm, I think they should've gone with the redesign on the extruded signs.  Otherwise, they're going to be replacing a lot of sheets over the next 20 years or so. 

Park & Ride signs should be extruded as well.... combine them with whatever secondary signs you have.  Instead of one sign for "Chester Airport", add "Chester Airport/Park & Ride". 

According to the sign plans, only existing Exit 3 and Exit 7 are getting "ATTRACTIONS" logo signs.  So what does this mean for the attractions in Middletown?  New Britain?  No signage whatsoever going up for CCSU.  And some attractions are keeping sheet aluminum signs.  Apparently "playhouses" and "cultural arts centers" aren't considered worthy of being on a logo sign. 

The excess speed limit signs really irks me.  Some of the older ones have not yet been removed (the ones with the larger "65" numerals).  Regardless, in my opinion, you only need 1 per exit, usually occuring after the merge point.  But for some reason, ConnDOT feels like we need one every mile.  In other states, one suffices, even when exits are 5, 10, 15 miles apart.  And the fact that there's a pair of "MINIMUM 45" signs put up in Chester (NB and SB).  The minimum speed in CT is 40, not 45.  The likewise new minimum signs up in Middletown say "MINIMUM 40".  No, this is not a contractor error... its what the plans said.  Again, we wait and see.

The NEW EXIT/OLD EXIT is just so wrong.... just put up the signs with the new numbers and then add "OLD EXIT #" signs.  Or just leave the exits numbered as it is, then when you're ready, change out the whole road and then add the "OLD EXIT #" panels. 

If the world hadn't gone all 2020 a couple years ago, this project should have been done by now.... the original completion date was "MARCH 2022".  We still have yet to see a single extruded sign south of Middletown... not a single sheet sign north of Middletown... and throughout, a hodgepodge of unanswered questions.  Will they figure out the mile markers are a mile off southbound?  Maybe when they put up the fractional mile signs.  How many times will they replace the exit gore signs before they realize they forgot to put the new exit number on them?  And what will those exit numbers be?

And is this all a glimpse of future sign projects?  We've got I-84's W Hartford-E Hartford project stalled.  And we've got CT 2/3/11/17 underway as well. 

Stay tuned!

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on April 04, 2022, 11:16:00 PM
Shadyjay, the CT-8 ones have extruded aluminum park and ride signs and on the on-ramps too. So maybe CT-9 is an anomaly
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mr. Matté on April 05, 2022, 08:26:58 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on April 04, 2022, 07:57:00 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on April 03, 2022, 06:48:35 PM
The southern CT-9 signing contract is a joke of a contract.  So many signs are sheet metal that should be extruded aluminum. 

The NEW EXIT/OLD EXIT is just so wrong.... just put up the signs with the new numbers and then add "OLD EXIT #" signs.  Or just leave the exits numbered as it is, then when you're ready, change out the whole road and then add the "OLD EXIT #" panels. 

C'mon, what's so illogical about this?

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6b/CT_9_nb_approaching_exit_21%2C_old_exit_21%2C_April_2022.jpg)

/s
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on April 05, 2022, 03:35:52 PM
^  That sign would be fine, if they actually changed the exit number.  It still says "21".  It will soon become "31".  Having the old exit # sign up right now is pointless. 

I think part of the problem is that the southernmost contract for Route 9 sign replacement is the one that will renumber the exits.  The only contract with new sheet aluminum signs up at the present time is the southern contract, so they went "sheet-happy" in the middle contract in regards to the old/new exit # signs. 

And then there's a couple cases in Middletown where new gore signs were put up with the new #, and an "old exit #", but the primary guide signs haven't been changed yet. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on April 05, 2022, 05:30:33 PM
I-395 was perfect tho w the extruded old exit signs. I'm hoping the CT-9 project was an anomaly as southern CT-8 contract has extruded aluminum on-ramp signs, town line signs and P&R signs too. It's the latest contract of all the Route 8 ones so far.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on April 05, 2022, 08:15:40 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on April 05, 2022, 05:30:33 PM
I-395 was perfect tho w the extruded old exit signs. I'm hoping the CT-9 project was an anomaly as southern CT-8 contract has extruded aluminum on-ramp signs, town line signs and P&R signs too. It's the latest contract of all the Route 8 ones so far.

Yeah, I wish, but we're not going to be so lucky.  The I-91 North Haven-to-Meriden contract and the CT 2/11/17 project, both of which are in their infant construction stages, show sheets for exit services, park & rides, and town lines.  At least the era of sheet aluminum signs for onramps was short-lived, only making it into one "blanket" project (CT 8 from Derby to Waterbury). 

Whose to say that they won't wise up in a couple years and install the extrudeds again?!?!?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on April 06, 2022, 02:14:12 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on April 04, 2022, 07:57:00 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on April 03, 2022, 06:48:35 PM
The southern CT-9 signing contract is a joke of a contract.  So many signs are sheet metal that should be extruded aluminum. 

Oh, you're preaching to the choir! 

Okay, the town line signs, I can kind of see them being sheet aluminum.  Yes, it is a major shift in ConnDOT signing practices, as for years, we have been known to have our town lines signed very well.  But now you're replacing simple, readable town line signs with ones found on backwoods 2-lane roads.  Their font is such that you can't read them at high speed.  If they left out the middle "INCORPORATED ####" line and enlarged the rest, it would've been at least readable. 

But the rest really should be extruded aluminum.  Service symbols should be built into either the 1 mile or 1/2 mile advance on the primary guide signs (the so-called "service bar").  I was told by ConnDOT that the extra space would have required the signs to be redesigned to handle the extra load.  Well, considering the replacement sheet aluminums have already gotten severely bent or torn off in the last wind storm, I think they should've gone with the redesign on the extruded signs.  Otherwise, they're going to be replacing a lot of sheets over the next 20 years or so. 

Park & Ride signs should be extruded as well.... combine them with whatever secondary signs you have.  Instead of one sign for "Chester Airport", add "Chester Airport/Park & Ride". 

According to the sign plans, only existing Exit 3 and Exit 7 are getting "ATTRACTIONS" logo signs.  So what does this mean for the attractions in Middletown?  New Britain?  No signage whatsoever going up for CCSU.  And some attractions are keeping sheet aluminum signs.  Apparently "playhouses" and "cultural arts centers" aren't considered worthy of being on a logo sign. 

The excess speed limit signs really irks me.  Some of the older ones have not yet been removed (the ones with the larger "65" numerals).  Regardless, in my opinion, you only need 1 per exit, usually occuring after the merge point.  But for some reason, ConnDOT feels like we need one every mile.  In other states, one suffices, even when exits are 5, 10, 15 miles apart.  And the fact that there's a pair of "MINIMUM 45" signs put up in Chester (NB and SB).  The minimum speed in CT is 40, not 45.  The likewise new minimum signs up in Middletown say "MINIMUM 40".  No, this is not a contractor error... its what the plans said.  Again, we wait and see.

The NEW EXIT/OLD EXIT is just so wrong.... just put up the signs with the new numbers and then add "OLD EXIT #" signs.  Or just leave the exits numbered as it is, then when you're ready, change out the whole road and then add the "OLD EXIT #" panels. 

If the world hadn't gone all 2020 a couple years ago, this project should have been done by now.... the original completion date was "MARCH 2022".  We still have yet to see a single extruded sign south of Middletown... not a single sheet sign north of Middletown... and throughout, a hodgepodge of unanswered questions.  Will they figure out the mile markers are a mile off southbound?  Maybe when they put up the fractional mile signs.  How many times will they replace the exit gore signs before they realize they forgot to put the new exit number on them?  And what will those exit numbers be?

And is this all a glimpse of future sign projects?  We've got I-84's W Hartford-E Hartford project stalled.  And we've got CT 2/3/11/17 underway as well. 

Stay tuned!

The additional speed limit signs, are, as I've probably stated before, part of a statewide initiative to reduce wrong-way collisions. The new S/L signs (on the right side of the carriageway) have Wrong Way signs on the reverse. Also have to consider that due to recent changes in legislation, police officers are hesitant to enforce speed limits. Perhaps the overabundance of new S/L signs is to compensate for that lack of enforcement?

I actually think the bigger joke is we've got these brand new sheet aluminum signs next to 40-year-old extruded aluminum on I-84 from Exit 59-65.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on April 06, 2022, 06:25:16 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 06, 2022, 02:14:12 PM
I actually think the bigger joke is we've got these brand new sheet aluminum signs next to 40-year-old extruded aluminum on I-84 from Exit 59-65.

Yeah, that is indeed something.  How that section keeps on missing out on sign replacement contracts is beyond me... and nothing really in the cards for the next few years. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MATraveler128 on April 07, 2022, 09:51:51 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on April 06, 2022, 06:25:16 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 06, 2022, 02:14:12 PM
I actually think the bigger joke is we've got these brand new sheet aluminum signs next to 40-year-old extruded aluminum on I-84 from Exit 59-65.

Yeah, that is indeed something.  How that section keeps on missing out on sign replacement contracts is beyond me... and nothing really in the cards for the next few years.

I agree with this. These signs should have been replaced already. I don't know if they're just lazy, or if it's a cost issue. How hard is it to replace signs?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Rothman on April 07, 2022, 11:13:35 AM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on April 07, 2022, 09:51:51 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on April 06, 2022, 06:25:16 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 06, 2022, 02:14:12 PM
I actually think the bigger joke is we've got these brand new sheet aluminum signs next to 40-year-old extruded aluminum on I-84 from Exit 59-65.

Yeah, that is indeed something.  How that section keeps on missing out on sign replacement contracts is beyond me... and nothing really in the cards for the next few years.

I agree with this. These signs should have been replaced already. I don't know if they're just lazy, or if it's a cost issue. How hard is it to replace signs?
You'd be surprised.  In NY, overwhelmed contractors are no longer bidding on smaller jobs like sign contracts or pavement markings.  This causes prices of such to skyrocket as you only have one or two bidders.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on April 07, 2022, 04:47:16 PM
The I-84 East Hartford to Vernon project would involve mostly all overhead sign support replacements, and most likely, replacement of all the support structures.  That right there would drive up the cost of the project.  Maybe they'll loop in I-291 and I-384 as well when they eventually do I-84 in that area.  Personally I would have extended out the West Hartford-East Hartford project to go all the way to Vernon/Exit 65, as that project is only replacing the signs themselves in Hartford. 

Sign vintage in that area of I-84 dates itself to around the I-384/I-84 interchange construction, which was 1985-1986.  The next oldest signs in CT not yet in a sign replacement project contract would have to be I-91 in East Windsor & Enfield, dating to the late 1980s (I-691's west end is from the same era as I-84 around I-384, but those are to be replaced as part of current highway upgrades taking place along that route).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on April 08, 2022, 12:18:03 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on April 07, 2022, 04:47:16 PM
The I-84 East Hartford to Vernon project would involve mostly all overhead sign support replacements, and most likely, replacement of all the support structures.  That right there would drive up the cost of the project.  Maybe they'll loop in I-291 and I-384 as well when they eventually do I-84 in that area.  Personally I would have extended out the West Hartford-East Hartford project to go all the way to Vernon/Exit 65, as that project is only replacing the signs themselves in Hartford. 

Sign vintage in that area of I-84 dates itself to around the I-384/I-84 interchange construction, which was 1985-1986.  The next oldest signs in CT not yet in a sign replacement project contract would have to be I-91 in East Windsor & Enfield, dating to the late 1980s (I-691's west end is from the same era as I-84 around I-384, but those are to be replaced as part of current highway upgrades taking place along that route).

The policy for this stretch has been repair/replace. I could see them not getting replaced until I-84 gets mileage exits, in like 2030-2040 or something.
What about the signs for Exit 61? Did they sit up there covered until I-291 opened in 1994?
There's also a few services/LOGO button copy signs left on that stretch.
Beyond Exit 65, were those signs replaced in the mid-90s? They're in much better shape.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on April 08, 2022, 06:30:14 PM
I don't recall much of I-84 personally, pre-1999.  The only trips we took up that way were to Sturbridge Village back when I was in grammar school.  I do recall we took I-91 North to Exit 30 to the Founders Bridge to get to I-84, since that was during the era when Exit 29 was closed (it was closed between the time it was a left exit and the time the right exit climb opened).  I don't believe the I-291 signs were up the whole time... my guess is that they were put in storage, as they're the same vintage as surrounding signs.  Mass did this when they were rebuilding the viaduct in Springfield... the signs were kept in storage until the viaduct was done, then they were put up.

East of Exit 65, those signs are most likely late 90s vintage.  Button copy was being phased out c 1995 (I-291 and CT 9's north end were among the last roads to get it, both being new construction).  Those on I-84 are essentially the same vintage as those on I-91 between North Haven and Middletown.  Exit services are still text and predate service symbols.  The use of the service bar started shortly later, first appearing on the Wilbur Cross before spilling over to other roads. 

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on April 10, 2022, 04:12:35 PM
Minor improvements are proposed along CT 85, mainly between CT 82 and 161: https://portal.ct.gov/DOTSalemMontville85-146 / https://www.theday.com/local-news/20220319/major-construction-improvements-proposed-for-route-85

The one change of note is a relocation of part of 161 from Butlertown Road easterly to meet CT 85 at a new 4-way roundabout at Deer Run.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on April 10, 2022, 06:42:42 PM
New signage on the CT-8 portion of the mixmaster in Waterbury.  Note the creative use of the yellow "USE EXIT 35."

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51995817781_d06b614ff8_z.jpg)[/url]

and it boggles my mind how CT basically uses extruded aluminum of basically exit signs.  MA uses for a lot of warning and regulatory signs.  CT could use more warning extruded aluminum signs in Middletown for the stoplights and other areas.  I suggested that once to the DOT but they seemed stuck in their ways. 

Makes you also wonder, side streets that have extruded aluminum signs such as a few on CT-34 and CT-73, will they give way to sheets when a new signing contract comes through.  The sheeting that CT uses seems flimsy and thin at best.  The sheeting starts to curve as soon as it's put up.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on April 11, 2022, 08:38:06 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on April 10, 2022, 06:42:42 PM

and it boggles my mind how CT basically uses extruded aluminum of basically exit signs.  MA uses for a lot of warning and regulatory signs.  CT could use more warning extruded aluminum signs in Middletown for the stoplights and other areas.  I suggested that once to the DOT but they seemed stuck in their ways. 

Makes you also wonder, side streets that have extruded aluminum signs such as a few on CT-34 and CT-73, will they give way to sheets when a new signing contract comes through.  The sheeting that CT uses seems flimsy and thin at best.  The sheeting starts to curve as soon as it's put up.
The justification probably is that if someone crashes into a sheet metal sign, its less dangerous to the driver and cheaper to replace.
The biggest issue I've seen is reflectivity.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on April 11, 2022, 12:01:36 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 11, 2022, 08:38:06 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on April 10, 2022, 06:42:42 PM

and it boggles my mind how CT basically uses extruded aluminum of basically exit signs.  MA uses for a lot of warning and regulatory signs.  CT could use more warning extruded aluminum signs in Middletown for the stoplights and other areas.  I suggested that once to the DOT but they seemed stuck in their ways. 

Makes you also wonder, side streets that have extruded aluminum signs such as a few on CT-34 and CT-73, will they give way to sheets when a new signing contract comes through.  The sheeting that CT uses seems flimsy and thin at best.  The sheeting starts to curve as soon as it's put up.
The justification probably is that if someone crashes into a sheet metal sign, its less dangerous to the driver and cheaper to replace.
The biggest issue I've seen is reflectivity.
That argument doesn't hold water with me. The MUTCD now requires ground-mounted extruded aluminum signs to have breakaway supports, so that when they're struck by a vehicle, the supports break off and the sign falls in the opposite direction of the vehicle motion.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: DJStephens on April 11, 2022, 08:23:18 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on April 11, 2022, 12:01:36 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 11, 2022, 08:38:06 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on April 10, 2022, 06:42:42 PM

and it boggles my mind how CT basically uses extruded aluminum of basically exit signs.  MA uses for a lot of warning and regulatory signs.  CT could use more warning extruded aluminum signs in Middletown for the stoplights and other areas.  I suggested that once to the DOT but they seemed stuck in their ways. 

Makes you also wonder, side streets that have extruded aluminum signs such as a few on CT-34 and CT-73, will they give way to sheets when a new signing contract comes through.  The sheeting that CT uses seems flimsy and thin at best.  The sheeting starts to curve as soon as it's put up.
The justification probably is that if someone crashes into a sheet metal sign, its less dangerous to the driver and cheaper to replace.
The biggest issue I've seen is reflectivity.
That argument doesn't hold water with me. The MUTCD now requires ground-mounted extruded aluminum signs to have breakaway supports, so that when they're struck by a vehicle, the supports break off and the sign falls in the opposite direction of the vehicle motion.

Was under the impression that that requirement has existed for a long time - 55 years perhaps?  But maybe am thinking of larger type BGS ground mounted signage.   
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on April 11, 2022, 09:47:42 PM
Lamont has killed the I-95 improvement project in Greenwich....
https://www.greenwichtime.com/news/article/Lamont-pulls-plug-on-I-95-project-in-Greenwich-17065676.php#:~:text=GREENWICH%20%E2%80%94%20Due%20to%20complaints%20that,First%20Selectman%20Fred%20Camillo%20announced.

Quote"We were able to show the state that there was a need for a more comprehensive plan to mitigate the noise generated by highway traffic, which has a negative impact on our residents and environment."

Well then, why on earth did you buy a house next to the interstate?  Seriously, how is some paving, bridge rehab, and signs going to effect the noise of traffic on I-95?  Couldn't they just throw up some sound barriers in the affected areas? 

Oh well... maybe this $200 million can get reallocated to getting other sign projects off the ground, or other much-long-overdue projects started (cough... Route 9....Middletown....cough....)


In Route 9 sign replacement news...

Actually, no news to report.  No visible progress made, from end-to-end, in the past month.  Lots of overhead foundations awaiting new signs.  The staging lot in Middletown is empty... no signs at all.  Are we waiting for the signs themselves to come in from the fabricator?  There was more progress this winter than there has been in the spring thus far. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MATraveler128 on April 11, 2022, 10:02:54 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on April 11, 2022, 09:47:42 PM
Lamont has killed the I-95 improvement project in Greenwich....
https://www.greenwichtime.com/news/article/Lamont-pulls-plug-on-I-95-project-in-Greenwich-17065676.php#:~:text=GREENWICH%20%E2%80%94%20Due%20to%20complaints%20that,First%20Selectman%20Fred%20Camillo%20announced.

Quote"We were able to show the state that there was a need for a more comprehensive plan to mitigate the noise generated by highway traffic, which has a negative impact on our residents and environment."

Well then, why on earth did you buy a house next to the interstate?  Seriously, how is some paving, bridge rehab, and signs going to effect the noise of traffic on I-95?  Couldn't they just throw up some sound barriers in the affected areas? 

I don't see how this would be harmful to those who live next to I-95. Spot improvements aren't going to hurt anyone. Greenwich and SW Connecticut really need this done. I agree that they should just throw sound barriers up.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on April 12, 2022, 04:09:48 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on April 11, 2022, 10:02:54 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on April 11, 2022, 09:47:42 PM
Lamont has killed the I-95 improvement project in Greenwich....
https://www.greenwichtime.com/news/article/Lamont-pulls-plug-on-I-95-project-in-Greenwich-17065676.php#:~:text=GREENWICH%20%E2%80%94%20Due%20to%20complaints%20that,First%20Selectman%20Fred%20Camillo%20announced.

Quote"We were able to show the state that there was a need for a more comprehensive plan to mitigate the noise generated by highway traffic, which has a negative impact on our residents and environment."

Well then, why on earth did you buy a house next to the interstate?  Seriously, how is some paving, bridge rehab, and signs going to effect the noise of traffic on I-95?  Couldn't they just throw up some sound barriers in the affected areas? 

I don't see how this would be harmful to those who live next to I-95. Spot improvements aren't going to hurt anyone. Greenwich and SW Connecticut really need this done. I agree that they should just throw sound barriers up.
What the article completely fails to mention: how can the state justify spending $205 million for "spot improvements" and resurfacing? They've completely reconstructed entire stretches of highway for a fraction of that amount. Sounds like there is a lot of waste going on there.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on April 17, 2022, 06:15:18 PM
New signs ready to go up for CT-8 Exit 13.  Although I thought only still needed to be put up, the 1/2 mile advance sign northbound.  The NB "exit now" sign was just put up from a previous "20 sign spot improvement" project.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52005020906_4c9ef160c4_z.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: The Ghostbuster on April 18, 2022, 04:54:16 PM
Will the exit number on the new signs be 11 (mileage) or 13 (sequential)?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on April 18, 2022, 05:32:08 PM
Sequential.  The mileage contract hasn't been released yet.  It would have made sense to have the old number overlayed over.  We now wonder if the renumbering contract will overlay over (a la MassDOT) or replace the entire tab (which was supposed to happen in the CT 9 northern/middle contracts, but luckily they smartened up and overlayed the old number over the new number). 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: DJStephens on April 18, 2022, 08:37:52 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on April 12, 2022, 04:09:48 PM
What the article completely fails to mention: how can the state justify spending $205 million for "spot improvements" and resurfacing? They've completely reconstructed entire stretches of highway for a fraction of that amount. Sounds like there is a lot of waste going on there.

Just about the most expensive part of the country, to do anything.  Real Estate, Utilities, Labor, etc.
Prevailing Wage.   A million dollars doesn't go very far in SW Connecticut.   And heaven forbid they add the fourth GP lane in each direction, as well as useful auxiliary lanes between closely spaced exits.     
If money was not a concern, would depress the road, as much as possible, with some minor straightening.    Tens of Billions to completely reconstruct, properly, with needed widening, auxiliary lanes, noise abatements / sound walls, and perhaps deck parks in certain locales.   
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on April 18, 2022, 09:07:24 PM
Quote from: DJStephens on April 18, 2022, 08:37:52 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on April 12, 2022, 04:09:48 PM
What the article completely fails to mention: how can the state justify spending $205 million for "spot improvements" and resurfacing? They've completely reconstructed entire stretches of highway for a fraction of that amount. Sounds like there is a lot of waste going on there.

Just about the most expensive part of the country, to do anything.  Real Estate, Utilities, Labor, etc.
Prevailing Wage.   A million dollars doesn't go very far in SW Connecticut.   And heaven forbid they add the fourth GP lane in each direction, as well as useful auxiliary lanes between closely spaced exits.     
If money was not a concern, would depress the road, as much as possible, with some minor straightening.    Tens of Billions to completely reconstruct, properly, with needed widening, auxiliary lanes, noise abatements / sound walls, and perhaps deck parks in certain locales.

For 6 miles of highway, I can see them spending $205 million if they're replacing every single bridge and overpass, and reconstructing the roadway (removing the underlying concrete, regrading the roadbed, and placing a new sub-base and pavement), but from the sounds of it, they're not going that far. 

If it's like any other "spot improvement" project, they'll probably replace two or three of the most deteriorated bridges, and perform patch and repairs on the rest, and then mill the roadway, make repairs to the underlying concrete, and resurface with a new layer of asphalt. Maybe $50-$100 million, but I can't see that being $205 million.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on April 19, 2022, 12:23:15 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on April 18, 2022, 05:32:08 PM
Sequential.  The mileage contract hasn't been released yet.  It would have made sense to have the old number overlayed over.  We now wonder if the renumbering contract will overlay over (a la MassDOT) or replace the entire tab (which was supposed to happen in the CT 9 northern/middle contracts, but luckily they smartened up and overlayed the old number over the new number). 
Now I know agencies that will put up the new number and then overlay the old number on top of it until it's time to change. Wish ConnDOT would do that!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on April 21, 2022, 07:45:35 PM
Speaking of overlays, here's a pretty bad one on Route 72 EB (https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52020874064_19a974c540_n.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on April 22, 2022, 10:45:31 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on April 21, 2022, 07:45:35 PM
Speaking of overlays, here's a pretty bad one on Route 72 EB (https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52020874064_19a974c540_n.jpg)
The overlays are going to be removed soon, so they don't need to look pretty IMHO.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: The Ghostbuster on April 22, 2022, 02:03:10 PM
That exit is still signed Exit 8? I would have thought it would have been renumbered to Exit 1D by now.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on April 22, 2022, 05:06:36 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 22, 2022, 02:03:10 PM
That exit is still signed Exit 8? I would have thought it would have been renumbered to Exit 1D by now.

Not much happening on CT 72 lately.  Still a couple of old gantries left east of 84 (EB 1/2 mi Exit 8/ 1 mi Exit 9; WB just before Exit 6 that has a replacement but still remains), and a couple west of 84 westbound only.  All are leftovers from the early 2000's (the last reflective button copy sign for Exit 7 EB was replaced with a full gantry which includes the sign above).  Still no mile markers either.

One thing I did notice on Route 9 SB: there are a few black tarps over the NEW EXIT signs, as well as over the number on the gore signs with new numbers.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MATraveler128 on April 23, 2022, 09:42:14 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on April 22, 2022, 05:06:36 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 22, 2022, 02:03:10 PM
That exit is still signed Exit 8? I would have thought it would have been renumbered to Exit 1D by now.

Not much happening on CT 72 lately.  Still a couple of old gantries left east of 84 (EB 1/2 mi Exit 8/ 1 mi Exit 9; WB just before Exit 6 that has a replacement but still remains), and a couple west of 84 westbound only.  All are leftovers from the early 2000's (the last reflective button copy sign for Exit 7 EB was replaced with a full gantry which includes the sign above).  Still no mile markers either.

One thing I did notice on Route 9 SB: there are a few black tarps over the NEW EXIT signs, as well as over the number on the gore signs with new numbers.

Wouldn't it have made more sense for ConnDOT to just slap overlays over the existing numbers and have old exit signs as the ground mounts? Seems like a waste the way they're doing it.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on April 25, 2022, 04:50:58 PM
The contract plans were as follows, regarding exit numbers:

Northern (Rt 9 Ex 25-32 & all of Rt 72) and Middle (Rt 9 Ex 18-24) Contracts:
On Rt 9, the new signs were to be installed with the existing exit numbers - no mention of overlays, new exit # or old exit # signs.
On Rt 72, the new signs were to be installed with the new mileage-based exit numbers, with old exit # signs.

Sothern Contract (Rt 9 Ex 1-16/17):
On Rt 9, the new signs were to be installed with the new mileage-based exit numbers, with old exit # signs
On Rt 9, the signs installed in the other two contracts were to have their exit tabs replaced with new ones with the new mile-based #, with old exit # signs.

Obviously, somewhere along the line, something changed in the contract to have the exit tabs in the north and middle contracts built with the new mile-based numbers, and overlayed with the new #s.  We have no idea what the southern contract signs will say (the extruded signs, that is) since none of them are up yet... only a few sheet aluminums. 

There was never a mention of "NEW EXIT #" signs.  I think that has just led to confusion, and seems completely unnecessary.  It just adds another layer of confusion... so does putting up the "OLD EXIT #" signs before the new numbers are even revealed. 

And all this was supposed to be done March 2022.  So, there's that.  We still have zero new sheet aluminum signs on the northern and middle contracts on Rt 9, and only sheets on the southern contract.  Some exits still have new signs hiding behind old ones (and have been that way for a few months now).  Mile markers are still a mile off on Rt 9 South towards the south end of the contract.  And the only activity taking place as of late is the foundation installation progress for some overheads on Rt 9 South. 

I don't remember this much confusion when I-395 exits were changed... that was divided into two contracts, and when the new signs went up, they had the new #s.  Some overheads got overlays of the new #s until the structures (and signs) were replaced. 

But for now, on Route 9, we still... we continue... to wait....
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on April 27, 2022, 06:03:22 PM
I just drove Route 9 north from I-91 to the Corbin's Corner exit.

The exit gore sign for CT 72 is showing the new exit number.  All of the exit gore signs further north appear to have ugly black overlays covering the exit number.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on May 02, 2022, 10:40:17 AM
Would it be too much to ask for some flashing "Keep Up Speed" warning signs on I-84 EB on the hill in East Hartford?

The gas pedal is not a magic "go" button. It needs to be modulated. Stop slowing down to 50mph and hit the damn throttle.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Rothman on May 02, 2022, 01:45:26 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on May 02, 2022, 10:40:17 AM
Would it be too much to ask for some flashing "Keep Up Speed" warning signs on I-84 EB on the hill in East Hartford?

The gas pedal is not a magic "go" button. It needs to be modulated. Stop slowing down to 50mph and hit the damn throttle.
They don't work on the Cross Bronx, so they wouldn't work here.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on May 03, 2022, 09:00:29 AM
While we're at it: can we PLEASE put a jersey barrier a few hundred feet before the exit gore for the I-84 West exit off of I-91 South? I am SO sick and tired of entitled people who think they're special and stay in the lane for the State Street exit to pass all the stopped traffic, then cut in at the last second on the gore itself.  I intentionally stay on the bumper of the car in front of me to not let them.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: The Ghostbuster on May 03, 2022, 03:26:37 PM
Idiots are going to drive idiotically. It seems like everything learned in driving school goes in one ear and out the other.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Rothman on May 03, 2022, 04:48:30 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on May 03, 2022, 09:00:29 AM
While we're at it: can we PLEASE put a jersey barrier a few hundred feet before the exit gore for the I-84 West exit off of I-91 South? I am SO sick and tired of entitled people who think they're special and stay in the lane for the State Street exit to pass all the stopped traffic, then cut in at the last second on the gore itself.  I intentionally stay on the bumper of the car in front of me to not let them.
*cars smash into the attenuator at the end of the barrier*
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on May 03, 2022, 10:35:14 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on May 03, 2022, 09:00:29 AM
While we're at it: can we PLEASE put a jersey barrier a few hundred feet before the exit gore for the I-84 West exit off of I-91 South? I am SO sick and tired of entitled people who think they're special and stay in the lane for the State Street exit to pass all the stopped traffic, then cut in at the last second on the gore itself.  I intentionally stay on the bumper of the car in front of me to not let them.
you are one of the people i enjoy cutting off
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on May 04, 2022, 07:31:19 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on May 03, 2022, 09:00:29 AM
While we're at it: can we PLEASE put a jersey barrier a few hundred feet before the exit gore for the I-84 West exit off of I-91 South? I am SO sick and tired of entitled people who think they're special and stay in the lane for the State Street exit to pass all the stopped traffic, then cut in at the last second on the gore itself.  I intentionally stay on the bumper of the car in front of me to not let them.
This helps no one.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on May 04, 2022, 05:59:42 PM
Route 9 update:
There are new exit gore signs from Cromwell, down to Essex, now up.  They have the new number tarped over and have a supplemental "OLD EXIT #" at the bottom.  The "OLD EXIT #" also is posted at the 1 mile (and sometimes 1/2 mile) sign locations.  This leads me to believe there won't be any "NEW EXIT #" signs posted... they just make no sense and add to the confusion (All "NEW EXIT #" signs up by I-91 are tarped over).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KCRoadFan on May 05, 2022, 10:39:52 PM
Here's a question I have regarding something interesting I remember from Connecticut: namely, when I visited the state back in 2004, I recall seeing a bunch of button-copy freeway exit signs, where, instead of the white square with black numbers, state routes were represented by white numbers in a square outline. I thought those signs were pretty cool when I saw them. My question is this: are any of those signs still around? I'm sure most of them are gone, but there's got to be at least a few of them still standing. If so, where might they be? I would love to see some pictures!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: zzyzx on May 05, 2022, 10:47:34 PM
Quote from: KCRoadFan on May 05, 2022, 10:39:52 PM
Here's a question I have regarding something interesting I remember from Connecticut: namely, when I visited the state back in 2004, I recall seeing a bunch of button-copy freeway exit signs, where, instead of the white square with black numbers, state routes were represented by white numbers in a square outline. I thought those signs were pretty cool when I saw them. My question is this: are any of those signs still around? I'm sure most of them are gone, but there's got to be at least a few of them still standing. If so, where might they be? I would love to see some pictures!
On the Gold Star Bridge between New London and Groton:
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20220506/8f150d39cbb6257e33df9343c198d861.jpg)


iPhone
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: sharkyfour on May 05, 2022, 10:48:09 PM
Quote from: KCRoadFan on May 05, 2022, 10:39:52 PM
Here's a question I have regarding something interesting I remember from Connecticut: namely, when I visited the state back in 2004, I recall seeing a bunch of button-copy freeway exit signs, where, instead of the white square with black numbers, state routes were represented by white numbers in a square outline. I thought those signs were pretty cool when I saw them. My question is this: are any of those signs still around? I'm sure most of them are gone, but there's got to be at least a few of them still standing. If so, where might they be? I would love to see some pictures!

Yes, there's actually quite a few of those left in the eastern half of the state at least...  US 6 Willimantic Bypass, I-384 and Route 2 come to mind for me.  I always love where there's been spot sign replacements and an exit has some signs with the full shield and others with the button copy outline.  Sometimes even 2 signs on the same support, one of each type.  I'll see if I can snap some pics next time I'm out.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: sharkyfour on May 05, 2022, 10:49:10 PM
Quote from: zzyzx on May 05, 2022, 10:47:34 PM
Quote from: KCRoadFan on May 05, 2022, 10:39:52 PM
Here's a question I have regarding something interesting I remember from Connecticut: namely, when I visited the state back in 2004, I recall seeing a bunch of button-copy freeway exit signs, where, instead of the white square with black numbers, state routes were represented by white numbers in a square outline. I thought those signs were pretty cool when I saw them. My question is this: are any of those signs still around? I'm sure most of them are gone, but there's got to be at least a few of them still standing. If so, where might they be? I would love to see some pictures!
On the Gold Star Bridge between New London and Groton:
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20220506/8f150d39cbb6257e33df9343c198d861.jpg)


iPhone

I'm pretty sure those got replaced in the last 2 years or so, either as part of the bridge project or the sign replacement project from the bridge to the RI state line.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: bob7374 on May 05, 2022, 11:59:31 PM
Quote from: sharkyfour on May 05, 2022, 10:49:10 PM
Quote from: zzyzx on May 05, 2022, 10:47:34 PM
Quote from: KCRoadFan on May 05, 2022, 10:39:52 PM
Here's a question I have regarding something interesting I remember from Connecticut: namely, when I visited the state back in 2004, I recall seeing a bunch of button-copy freeway exit signs, where, instead of the white square with black numbers, state routes were represented by white numbers in a square outline. I thought those signs were pretty cool when I saw them. My question is this: are any of those signs still around? I'm sure most of them are gone, but there's got to be at least a few of them still standing. If so, where might they be? I would love to see some pictures!
On the Gold Star Bridge between New London and Groton:
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20220506/8f150d39cbb6257e33df9343c198d861.jpg)


iPhone

I'm pretty sure those got replaced in the last 2 years or so, either as part of the bridge project or the sign replacement project from the bridge to the RI state line.
All the button copy signs along the bridge on I-95 North were still there as of last November, as seen here:
https://goo.gl/maps/EYScTgsb5FShgnPBA (https://goo.gl/maps/EYScTgsb5FShgnPBA)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MATraveler128 on May 06, 2022, 08:37:40 AM
Quote from: sharkyfour on May 05, 2022, 10:48:09 PM
Quote from: KCRoadFan on May 05, 2022, 10:39:52 PM
Here's a question I have regarding something interesting I remember from Connecticut: namely, when I visited the state back in 2004, I recall seeing a bunch of button-copy freeway exit signs, where, instead of the white square with black numbers, state routes were represented by white numbers in a square outline. I thought those signs were pretty cool when I saw them. My question is this: are any of those signs still around? I'm sure most of them are gone, but there's got to be at least a few of them still standing. If so, where might they be? I would love to see some pictures!

Yes, there's actually quite a few of those left in the eastern half of the state at least...  US 6 Willimantic Bypass, I-384 and Route 2 come to mind for me.  I always love where there's been spot sign replacements and an exit has some signs with the full shield and others with the button copy outline.  Sometimes even 2 signs on the same support, one of each type.  I'll see if I can snap some pics next time I'm out.

I don't really think there's much button copy left in Western Connecticut besides US 7 in Norwalk. I know there's still some left on I-84 through Hartford and along CT 15 across the Charter Oak Bridge, but button copy in general is starting to disappear from the Nutmeg State. I know I-95 from New London to the Rhode Island border has seen replacement, including a new state welcome sign.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on May 06, 2022, 08:52:37 AM
Some of the button copy left that I can think of:

I-84 through Hartford (CT 9 to CT 2)
I-91 from Meriden north
I-95 from Guilford to Old Saybrook
I-291, I-384, I-691
US 6 Willimantic bypass
CT 2
CT 3
CT 15 (Berlin Turnpike and south of I-91)

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on May 06, 2022, 06:18:21 PM
Several of those routes mentioned above are in the middle of sign replacement contracts, so button copy will soon disappear from: 
I-84 through Hartford, I-691, CT 2, and CT 3. 

I-91 from Hartford north to the Mass line and I-95 in Branford and Guilford is safe for now... no projects in the immediate future.

I-95 North across the Gold Star will also lose its button copy in the near future as part of the bridge rehab project... SB already has lost it.

I have tons of button copy on my FLICKR page... just click the link in the sig and you'll be there. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on May 06, 2022, 07:16:02 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on May 06, 2022, 08:52:37 AM
Some of the button copy left that I can think of:

I-84 through Hartford (CT 9 to CT 2)
I-91 from Meriden north
I-95 from Guilford to Old Saybrook
I-291, I-384, I-691
US 6 Willimantic bypass
CT 2
CT 3
CT 15 (Berlin Turnpike and south of I-91)
There are button-copy service signs on I-84 in Manchester.

The furthest east button copy in the state is likely the approach signs for the Willington rest area, and probably date to when I-84(6) was widened.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on May 08, 2022, 04:23:40 PM
There is one old rest area sign WB just past Exit 70, but I don't think its button copy.  The only button copy on I-84 east of East Hartford is random exit service signs... no primary guide signs are button copy. And to the west, anything button copy is being replaced. 

CT 9, they are now working north with new exit gore signs, with "OLD EXIT #" posted below the new number, which is tarped.  Exit 2 did not get the "OLD EXIT #" placard, which kinda leads me to believe it will stay Exit 2... but we shall see.  The SB mile markers are still up... MP 2 is still posted in the vicinity of former MP 1. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on May 08, 2022, 04:46:22 PM
Here's a button/demountable copy combo.  Enjoy the outline shield while you can...

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51980638339_8f22cabda0_z.jpg)

I don't get if the DOT can do the I-395 renumbering contract perfectly why can't the CT-9 one be done the same way!?  Do they say how the signage should be installed procedurally?

CT DOT should also do a project to properly use up available pavement for turn lanes on state routes to improve the flow of traffic.  There's many places where there is enough pavement to add in a turn lane or turn lanes. 

I also notice when new stores go in like a dunkin or gas station, which are major traffic generators, they don't require them to add turn lanes either.  Sometimes they do but most of the times they don't
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: bob7374 on May 08, 2022, 05:32:33 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on May 08, 2022, 04:23:40 PM
CT 9, they are now working north with new exit gore signs, with "OLD EXIT #" posted below the new number, which is tarped.  Exit 2 did not get the "OLD EXIT #" placard, which kinda leads me to believe it will stay Exit 2... but we shall see.  The SB mile markers are still up... MP 2 is still posted in the vicinity of former MP 1. 
If Exit 2 is to remain the same, that would be the third proposed number for that exit. Was originally going to be 1 since the I-95 exits were not to be renumbered. Then they changed their minds, I-95 would be Exits 1A and B and CT 154 Exit 1C. The milepost for the exit, according to Wikipedia, is 1.54 so rounding it up to 2 would work.

As you and others have noted, why the way exits are being renumbered here so different from those on I-395? Changes were made exit by exit, instead of changing gore signs first, then other signs later. Not to mention the 'new exit #' signs, etc. Hope they go back to their original method moving forward.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on May 09, 2022, 11:16:22 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on May 08, 2022, 05:32:33 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on May 08, 2022, 04:23:40 PM
CT 9, they are now working north with new exit gore signs, with "OLD EXIT #" posted below the new number, which is tarped.  Exit 2 did not get the "OLD EXIT #" placard, which kinda leads me to believe it will stay Exit 2... but we shall see.  The SB mile markers are still up... MP 2 is still posted in the vicinity of former MP 1. 
If Exit 2 is to remain the same, that would be the third proposed number for that exit. Was originally going to be 1 since the I-95 exits were not to be renumbered. Then they changed their minds, I-95 would be Exits 1A and B and CT 154 Exit 1C. The milepost for the exit, according to Wikipedia, is 1.54 so rounding it up to 2 would work.

As you and others have noted, why the way exits are being renumbered here so different from those on I-395? Changes were made exit by exit, instead of changing gore signs first, then other signs later. Not to mention the 'new exit #' signs, etc. Hope they go back to their original method moving forward.
Just speculation on my part...but my theory as to why the renumbering of I-395 went relatively smoothly is that the entire length of I-395 falls within a single CTDOT district---District 2.  In contrast, Route 9 traverses two districts: District 2 from Old Saybrook to the Haddam/Middletown line and District 1 from the Haddam/Middletown line to I-84. It appears there was a lack of coordination between the two CTDOT districts regarding the sequencing of work on the contracts to replace signs and renumber exits on Route 9.

Further west, Route 8 also traverses two districts: 3 and 4, but from what I'm seeing, it appears those two districts are talking to each other and are taking the approach of replacing all of the signs on Route 8 first, then change the exit numbers afterward. From that, I would expect Route 8's transition to go more smoothly that what you're seeing on Route 9.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on May 09, 2022, 04:32:22 PM
The sign replacement on Route 9 is also 3 separate contracts.  The northern contract also involves CT 72, the middle also involves the Berlin Tpke in Berlin, and the southern also involves CT 17 and 82 freeway sections.  There's also a lot more overheads on CT 9 than on I-395 and that was also back when sign contracts weren't necessarily replacing all overhead supports.  All of the supports on CT 9 are being replaced (except in Middletown proper due to "upcoming" work to remove the lights). 

As the contract plans stated, the northern and middle contracts were to have new signs posted with the existing numbers.  The southern contract was to replace the exit tabs (yes, the tabs) with ones with the new numbers on the other two contracts, in addition to replacing signs on the southern contract.  I don't know if its different contractors doing each contract, nor do I know of any addendums, but I'm guessing there would have had to be something that changed since there was never a mention of "NEW EXIT #" signs to be posted.  At least they are not replacing exit tabs on brand new signs, but instead are overlaying the existing number over the old # on the signs replaced in the middle and northern contracts.

There are still no new sheet aluminums on the northern and middle contracts (outside of gore signs) and no new primary guide signs on the southern contract as of last week. 

I also have yet to see any new guide signs in the staging area off Exit 11 in Middletown, and no supports have gone up yet for the southern contract.  Honestly, I'm not positive if all of the foundations for the new signs are even in place yet.

As for the I-84 sign replacement project, there's new sheets up but no guide signs yet.  Its tough to spot new overhead supports on that section, and all from Exit 46 to 52 are just having signs replaced on existing support structures.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on May 11, 2022, 10:49:14 AM
Diagrammatic BGSes on surface streets are not common in CT -- yet there are two nearly mirror image signs, on US 6 and CT 14:

(https://i.imgur.com/k3QKRzz.png) (https://i.imgur.com/rluIL4M.png)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on May 12, 2022, 06:50:22 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on May 09, 2022, 04:32:22 PM
The sign replacement on Route 9 is also 3 separate contracts.  The northern contract also involves CT 72, the middle also involves the Berlin Tpke in Berlin, and the southern also involves CT 17 and 82 freeway sections.  There's also a lot more overheads on CT 9 than on I-395 and that was also back when sign contracts weren't necessarily replacing all overhead supports.  All of the supports on CT 9 are being replaced (except in Middletown proper due to "upcoming" work to remove the lights). 

As the contract plans stated, the northern and middle contracts were to have new signs posted with the existing numbers.  The southern contract was to replace the exit tabs (yes, the tabs) with ones with the new numbers on the other two contracts, in addition to replacing signs on the southern contract.  I don't know if its different contractors doing each contract, nor do I know of any addendums, but I'm guessing there would have had to be something that changed since there was never a mention of "NEW EXIT #" signs to be posted.  At least they are not replacing exit tabs on brand new signs, but instead are overlaying the existing number over the old # on the signs replaced in the middle and northern contracts.

There are still no new sheet aluminums on the northern and middle contracts (outside of gore signs) and no new primary guide signs on the southern contract as of last week. 

I also have yet to see any new guide signs in the staging area off Exit 11 in Middletown, and no supports have gone up yet for the southern contract.  Honestly, I'm not positive if all of the foundations for the new signs are even in place yet.

As for the I-84 sign replacement project, there's new sheets up but no guide signs yet.  Its tough to spot new overhead supports on that section, and all from Exit 46 to 52 are just having signs replaced on existing support structures.
There's still on-ramp gores in Manchester and Vernon that are missing merge warning signs.
And that incorrect merge sign on I-91 S just past Exit 27 is still there.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on May 12, 2022, 07:47:52 PM
For those curious....

I just got a copy of the Rand McNally 2023 road atlas.  Only major change in the 6 New England states I've discovered so far is the renumbering of CT 9 exits (1A is shown at I-95, 1B at current Exit 2, and so on, up to I-84).  Only one CT 11 exit is shown and that has the new number, so does one CT 72 exit in the Hartford inset.  CT 2 exits are not renumbered despite being replaced in the same contract as CT 11.  Perhaps ConnDOT didn't think CT 2 exits won't have new numbers by the spring of 2023.  Heck, at this rate, neither will CT 9!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on May 13, 2022, 01:16:27 PM
A new exit ramp opens today: Exit 33 SB on I-95 in Stratford. This has been a partial interchange since 1958, originally to hinder people wanting to shunpike the Stratford toll booths. The NB entrance ramp opened last November.

https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/CTDOT-Press-Releases/2022/Interchange-33-on-Interstate-95-in-Stratford-Fully-Opens-Today
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on May 13, 2022, 04:01:32 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on May 12, 2022, 07:47:52 PM
For those curious....

I just got a copy of the Rand McNally 2023 road atlas.  Only major change in the 6 New England states I've discovered so far is the renumbering of CT 9 exits (1A is shown at I-95, 1B at current Exit 2, and so on, up to I-84).  Only one CT 11 exit is shown and that has the new number, so does one CT 72 exit in the Hartford inset.  CT 2 exits are not renumbered despite being replaced in the same contract as CT 11.  Perhaps ConnDOT didn't think CT 2 exits won't have new numbers by the spring of 2023.  Heck, at this rate, neither will CT 9!

That wouldn't be the first time that Rand McNally jumped the gun on publishing highway changes that haven't yet occurred.  In the 2022 Road Atlas, Rand McNally decided to mark all of the freeway exits in Vermont with mile-based numbering. While Vermont did in fact add "Milepoint Exit" placards to each interchange, the exit numbers remain sequential, and the milepoint exit placards are posted only on the guide sign immediately before the exit ramp. That hardly qualifies as Vermont making the switch from sequential to mile-based exit numbering.

Another example of where Rand McNally jumped the gun and later had to correct itself, was with marking the southernmost portion of the Pennyrile Parkway in Kentucky as I-169 in (I think it was either the 2020 or 2021 Road Atlas) and reverted to marking the route as the Pennyrile Parkway in the 2022 Road Atlas. It may be true that Congress designated the southern portion of the Pennyrile Parkway as I-169 in 2019, but it's currently signed as "Future I-169" until it's brought up to interstate standards.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on May 13, 2022, 06:04:50 PM
VT still has mile-based exits in the 2023 atlas.

Its interesting that back in the pre-internet days, they would've held out for a year until the numbers had been posted in the field.  The "OLD EXIT #" signs were meant to not only help those who knew the old #s by heart, but also by those using paper maps.  Now, since the year comes out in the 2nd quarter of the previous year, there's some "wiggle room" for things to be right, such as pre-renumbering exits. 

Either that, or RMcN knows that the only ones who buy their atlas nowadays isn't the same market it was 20 years ago.  Road "enthusiasts" like ourselves, and maybe some old timers... that's probably it... and those who want to plan out their route.  But that's pretty simple to do on Google or other applicable mapping app on your phone nowadays. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on May 13, 2022, 11:47:35 PM
Quote from: kurumi on May 13, 2022, 01:16:27 PM
A new exit ramp opens today: Exit 33 SB on I-95 in Stratford. This has been a partial interchange since 1958, originally to hinder people wanting to shunpike the Stratford toll booths. The NB entrance ramp opened last November.

https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/CTDOT-Press-Releases/2022/Interchange-33-on-Interstate-95-in-Stratford-Fully-Opens-Today
It's not in any mapping software yet, but I see it comes off past the big chokepoint and hits 1 SB at Veterans Blvd.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on May 15, 2022, 11:33:33 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on May 13, 2022, 06:04:50 PM
VT still has mile-based exits in the 2023 atlas.

Its interesting that back in the pre-internet days, they would've held out for a year until the numbers had been posted in the field.  The "OLD EXIT #" signs were meant to not only help those who knew the old #s by heart, but also by those using paper maps.  Now, since the year comes out in the 2nd quarter of the previous year, there's some "wiggle room" for things to be right, such as pre-renumbering exits. 

Either that, or RMcN knows that the only ones who buy their atlas nowadays isn't the same market it was 20 years ago.  Road "enthusiasts" like ourselves, and maybe some old timers... that's probably it... and those who want to plan out their route.  But that's pretty simple to do on Google or other applicable mapping app on your phone nowadays.
I still buy the Road Atlas every year. I find it easier to open the road atlas to figure out where I'm going over trying to do the same on my phone. Google Maps is good for local navigation, but when it comes to long-distance travel, I use the road atlas.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on May 17, 2022, 03:09:28 PM
Quote from: kurumi on May 11, 2022, 10:49:14 AM
Diagrammatic BGSes on surface streets are not common in CT -- yet there are two nearly mirror image signs, on US 6 and CT 14:

(https://i.imgur.com/k3QKRzz.png) (https://i.imgur.com/rluIL4M.png)

Makes me wonder, if those were contracted out today, would they just be sheet metal??  Since CT cheaping out the extruded aluminum signage lately.  Those signs were part of the I-395 signing contracts.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on May 23, 2022, 01:01:22 PM
Can someone explain to me the intent behind leaving such a wide gore over this bridge on CT 15? I've never understood it. Why not give people more space to use the aux lane?
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7590149,-72.6433438,297m/data=!3m1!1e3 (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7590149,-72.6433438,297m/data=!3m1!1e3)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on May 23, 2022, 06:06:41 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on May 23, 2022, 01:01:22 PM
Can someone explain to me the intent behind leaving such a wide gore over this bridge on CT 15? I've never understood it. Why not give people more space to use the aux lane?
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7590149,-72.6433438,297m/data=!3m1!1e3 (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7590149,-72.6433438,297m/data=!3m1!1e3)
Well the gore needs to be wide for the given ramp alignment and the bridge is built for a future 3rd through lane I think. I guess at that point they decided easier to build one wide bridge than a second one for the ramp.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on May 24, 2022, 09:07:51 AM
Quote from: Alps on May 23, 2022, 06:06:41 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on May 23, 2022, 01:01:22 PM
Can someone explain to me the intent behind leaving such a wide gore over this bridge on CT 15? I've never understood it. Why not give people more space to use the aux lane?
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7590149,-72.6433438,297m/data=!3m1!1e3 (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7590149,-72.6433438,297m/data=!3m1!1e3)
Well the gore needs to be wide for the given ramp alignment and the bridge is built for a future 3rd through lane I think. I guess at that point they decided easier to build one wide bridge than a second one for the ramp.
But then why not change the striping to something like what was on the NB side for Exit 90?
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7549377,-72.6511113,297m/data=!3m1!1e3 (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7549377,-72.6511113,297m/data=!3m1!1e3)
Like, they could have just striped the aux lane to follow the through lanes for a longer distance, then split it off later.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on May 25, 2022, 03:56:37 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on May 24, 2022, 09:07:51 AM
Quote from: Alps on May 23, 2022, 06:06:41 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on May 23, 2022, 01:01:22 PM
Can someone explain to me the intent behind leaving such a wide gore over this bridge on CT 15? I've never understood it. Why not give people more space to use the aux lane?
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7590149,-72.6433438,297m/data=!3m1!1e3 (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7590149,-72.6433438,297m/data=!3m1!1e3)
Well the gore needs to be wide for the given ramp alignment and the bridge is built for a future 3rd through lane I think. I guess at that point they decided easier to build one wide bridge than a second one for the ramp.
But then why not change the striping to something like what was on the NB side for Exit 90?
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7549377,-72.6511113,297m/data=!3m1!1e3 (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7549377,-72.6511113,297m/data=!3m1!1e3)
Like, they could have just striped the aux lane to follow the through lanes for a longer distance, then split it off later.

Because it's CT DOT, who doesn't seem to like to add any extra lanes or capacity even though there is pavement to do so.  So many examples of stuff like this in the state.
The Merritt at the NY the state line, why isn't there an AUX lane?! Def pavement for it and it was designed for an AUX lane.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0394604,-73.6732091,308m/data=!3m1!1e3

Why isn't the middle lane an option lane for I-95 North or South on I-91 SB at the split?! No reason why it can't be an option lane.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3051903,-72.9140663,122m/data=!3m1!1e3

Why isn't there a left turn lane onto CT-8 North from CT-67?! Def pavement for it by just restriping the opposite shoulder not as wide.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3981046,-73.0689771,99m/data=!3m1!1e3

There's a billion of those things in this state that are easily fixable with just restriping of paint but they don't However, if it involved taking out a lane they do it.  Such as I-84 Exit 26 was reduced to 2-lanes instead of 3.  So somebody took the time to study it and dedicate a crew to reduce it.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.540562,-72.9516894,3a,75y,69.18h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbn-eGamJSR9uJ7EDVML23A!2e0!7i3328!8i1664
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on May 26, 2022, 10:32:43 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on May 25, 2022, 03:56:37 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on May 24, 2022, 09:07:51 AM
Quote from: Alps on May 23, 2022, 06:06:41 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on May 23, 2022, 01:01:22 PM
Can someone explain to me the intent behind leaving such a wide gore over this bridge on CT 15? I've never understood it. Why not give people more space to use the aux lane?
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7590149,-72.6433438,297m/data=!3m1!1e3 (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7590149,-72.6433438,297m/data=!3m1!1e3)
Well the gore needs to be wide for the given ramp alignment and the bridge is built for a future 3rd through lane I think. I guess at that point they decided easier to build one wide bridge than a second one for the ramp.
But then why not change the striping to something like what was on the NB side for Exit 90?
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7549377,-72.6511113,297m/data=!3m1!1e3 (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7549377,-72.6511113,297m/data=!3m1!1e3)
Like, they could have just striped the aux lane to follow the through lanes for a longer distance, then split it off later.

Because it's CT DOT, who doesn't seem to like to add any extra lanes or capacity even though there is pavement to do so.  So many examples of stuff like this in the state.
The Merritt at the NY the state line, why isn't there an AUX lane?! Def pavement for it and it was designed for an AUX lane.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0394604,-73.6732091,308m/data=!3m1!1e3

Why isn't the middle lane an option lane for I-95 North or South on I-91 SB at the split?! No reason why it can't be an option lane.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3051903,-72.9140663,122m/data=!3m1!1e3

Why isn't there a left turn lane onto CT-8 North from CT-67?! Def pavement for it by just restriping the opposite shoulder not as wide.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3981046,-73.0689771,99m/data=!3m1!1e3

There's a billion of those things in this state that are easily fixable with just restriping of paint but they don't However, if it involved taking out a lane they do it.  Such as I-84 Exit 26 was reduced to 2-lanes instead of 3.  So somebody took the time to study it and dedicate a crew to reduce it.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.540562,-72.9516894,3a,75y,69.18h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbn-eGamJSR9uJ7EDVML23A!2e0!7i3328!8i1664
1. I'm guessing that an aux lane here would be too short to allow for a safe crossover. The merge allows for a safe taper.

2. This is probably done to try and keep the center lane clear for through traffic after the split, trying to queue traffic up early to keep passing traffic from being held up.

3. ConnDOT would want to keep the shoulder, so that would require a widening. Same reason why CT 194 won't ever be widened -- in order to preserve the shoulder they would need to eat into the rest of the ROW.

4. Dual right turn lanes probably weren't necessary there, which IMO are useless in general since state law prohibits RTOR from anywhere but the extreme right lane.

Then you have US 5/CT 15 SB Exit 86, which you think they would also add a lane to, since I-91 NB Exit 29 is getting one. Why are ConnDOT only solving one half of the Charter Oak Bridge's congestion problem?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MATraveler128 on May 26, 2022, 01:53:15 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on May 26, 2022, 10:32:43 AM
Then you have US 5/CT 15 SB Exit 86, which you think they would also add a lane to, since I-91 NB Exit 29 is getting one. Why are ConnDOT only solving one half of the Charter Oak Bridge's congestion problem?

Yeah that bugs me too. I feel like they should have addressed that ramp. Traffic in the exit lane for Exit 86 is always stopped when I'm driving through there, especially on holiday weekends. I don't believe Exit 86 was ever included in the flyover project, which is why it wasn't widened also. Although I do agree that this should be a priority.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on May 26, 2022, 03:03:24 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on May 26, 2022, 01:53:15 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on May 26, 2022, 10:32:43 AM
Then you have US 5/CT 15 SB Exit 86, which you think they would also add a lane to, since I-91 NB Exit 29 is getting one. Why are ConnDOT only solving one half of the Charter Oak Bridge's congestion problem?

Yeah that bugs me too. I feel like they should have addressed that ramp. Traffic in the exit lane for Exit 86 is always stopped when I'm driving through there, especially on holiday weekends. I don't believe Exit 86 was ever included in the flyover project, which is why it wasn't widened also. Although I do agree that this should be a priority.
I wonder if their logic is "Well, there's also Exit 85 that goes to I-91 SB, so there's technically a second lane."
IMO that alternate route needs more prominent signage. Something like,
(https://i.ibb.co/bQXCkhp/Capture.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on May 26, 2022, 08:24:25 PM
...And they could've solved the Exit 86 issue relatively easy, without any flyovers.  Personally, I would close Exit 86 and widen Exit 85 to 2 lanes with improved the geometry of the "second chance" ramp from 15SB to 91SB (make the curve more gradual).  This would have enabled vehicles to enter I-91 on the right, vs the left.  You could have then created an "operational lane" from the merge point down to Exit 26 (or Exit 25).  You would have to widen the bridge carrying I-91 over CT 15 to accommodate the extra lane (and the 2nd lane could have continued for a bit before ending).  Having the ramp enter on the right vs the left eliminates the slow moving trucks having to cross over a lane of high speed traffic.  And with some lane shifting, you could maintain I-91 South having 3 thru lanes in the Exit 27 vicinity. 

Such an idea would have a potential effect on the existing ramp from Airport Rd to 91/15SB and potentially the 15NB to 91SB ramp, the latter not too terribly heavily trafficked.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on May 27, 2022, 04:27:27 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on May 26, 2022, 08:24:25 PM
...And they could've solved the Exit 86 issue relatively easy, without any flyovers.  Personally, I would close Exit 86 and widen Exit 85 to 2 lanes with improved the geometry of the "second chance" ramp from 15SB to 91SB (make the curve more gradual).  This would have enabled vehicles to enter I-91 on the right, vs the left.  You could have then created an "operational lane" from the merge point down to Exit 26 (or Exit 25).  You would have to widen the bridge carrying I-91 over CT 15 to accommodate the extra lane (and the 2nd lane could have continued for a bit before ending).  Having the ramp enter on the right vs the left eliminates the slow moving trucks having to cross over a lane of high speed traffic.  And with some lane shifting, you could maintain I-91 South having 3 thru lanes in the Exit 27 vicinity. 

Such an idea would have a potential effect on the existing ramp from Airport Rd to 91/15SB and potentially the 15NB to 91SB ramp, the latter not too terribly heavily trafficked.
I'm wondering if they didn't want to widen Exit 86 because doing so would require slightly shifting I-91 SB to the right and into the ROW for the CSOR tracks. Perhaps the federal funding they received only covered Exit 29.
My guess is that they will conduct a study for Exit 86 shortly after Exit 29 is finished.

Also consider that doing Exit 86 at the exact same time as Exit 29 would have prolonged the ongoing night work and lane closures.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: DrSmith on May 28, 2022, 11:34:02 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on May 27, 2022, 04:27:27 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on May 26, 2022, 08:24:25 PM
...And they could've solved the Exit 86 issue relatively easy, without any flyovers.  Personally, I would close Exit 86 and widen Exit 85 to 2 lanes with improved the geometry of the "second chance" ramp from 15SB to 91SB (make the curve more gradual).  This would have enabled vehicles to enter I-91 on the right, vs the left.  You could have then created an "operational lane" from the merge point down to Exit 26 (or Exit 25).  You would have to widen the bridge carrying I-91 over CT 15 to accommodate the extra lane (and the 2nd lane could have continued for a bit before ending).  Having the ramp enter on the right vs the left eliminates the slow moving trucks having to cross over a lane of high speed traffic.  And with some lane shifting, you could maintain I-91 South having 3 thru lanes in the Exit 27 vicinity. 

Such an idea would have a potential effect on the existing ramp from Airport Rd to 91/15SB and potentially the 15NB to 91SB ramp, the latter not too terribly heavily trafficked.
I'm wondering if they didn't want to widen Exit 86 because doing so would require slightly shifting I-91 SB to the right and into the ROW for the CSOR tracks. Perhaps the federal funding they received only covered Exit 29.
My guess is that they will conduct a study for Exit 86 shortly after Exit 29 is finished.

Also consider that doing Exit 86 at the exact same time as Exit 29 would have prolonged the ongoing night work and lane closures.

I thought at least part of the logic of Exit 29 was in preparation for the 84 reconstruction through Hartford (whenever that occurs) and that a suggested through route detour from Waterbury would 691 East onto 91 North to the Charter Oak Bridge back to I-84. With the old Exit 29 having problems already and frequently having delays, adding extra traffic would only make it worse.

On the opposite side, Exit 86 doesn't back up as easily although with heavy traffic it does have issues such as busy weekends. Now if long term you are trying to detour extra traffic around Hartford to the south, that ramp may also have a lot more delays. Maybe it was considered and decided to be not as necessary compared to the Exit 29 improvements.

However, there is still plenty of time for that it seems. I remember probably 8 years back there was thinking some of the initial utility relocation work would be starting around now (2022-23 or so). There's still the underground cloverleaf interchange option to consider (https://www.courant.com/business/hc-pol-haar-larson-tunnel-project-bocce-shuster-20170915-story.html (https://www.courant.com/business/hc-pol-haar-larson-tunnel-project-bocce-shuster-20170915-story.html))
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: 74/171FAN on May 31, 2022, 10:16:26 AM
I just found this recent public meeting on the CT 229 corridor while browsing through the "Tubes of You".

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on May 31, 2022, 01:30:50 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on May 31, 2022, 10:16:26 AM
I just found this recent public meeting on the CT 229 corridor while browsing through the "Tubes of You".



Well, they're talking about putting a 250 unit complex on CT 229 in Southington at the corner of Curtiss St, which is about 1/2 mile north of the 84 interchange, and about 500 feet north of where the southbound side widens to 2 lanes.  Plus, there is no dedicated left turn lane onto Curtiss St, so West St often backs up in the afternoon while cars attempt to turn left.  Sometimes, the backup can stretch as far as ESPN (I've actually had to backtrack into Bristol and use Lake Ave/Mount Vernon Rd to get around the nightmare).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on May 31, 2022, 02:41:48 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on May 26, 2022, 03:03:24 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on May 26, 2022, 01:53:15 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on May 26, 2022, 10:32:43 AM
Then you have US 5/CT 15 SB Exit 86, which you think they would also add a lane to, since I-91 NB Exit 29 is getting one. Why are ConnDOT only solving one half of the Charter Oak Bridge's congestion problem?

Yeah that bugs me too. I feel like they should have addressed that ramp. Traffic in the exit lane for Exit 86 is always stopped when I'm driving through there, especially on holiday weekends. I don't believe Exit 86 was ever included in the flyover project, which is why it wasn't widened also. Although I do agree that this should be a priority.
I wonder if their logic is "Well, there's also Exit 85 that goes to I-91 SB, so there's technically a second lane."
IMO that alternate route needs more prominent signage. Something like,
(https://i.ibb.co/bQXCkhp/Capture.jpg)

CT seems to be reluctant to put up extruded aluminum warning signs like MA does.  Hence the lack of any warning signs for the stoplights in Middletown.

I drove the newly opened NEW left exit on I-91 NB to CT-15/US-5 and I just don't like the idea of a new left exit.  I noticed a lot of traffic in the left two-lanes of I-91 previous to the exit.  I can see that backing up from people changing lanes to get into the left 2 lanes to exit.  I can see that in the years ahead.  Once you're on CT-15/US-5 it seems to be ok as most traffic are heading through to I-84. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on May 31, 2022, 02:46:58 PM
One little item with that sign: it should be use Exit 87, not Exit 85.  Exit 85 is CT 99. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on May 31, 2022, 06:02:38 PM
Maybe an idea would be to restrict trucks to use Exit 87.  That would put them on the right side of the road, since 1/2 mile up the road, the left lane restriction for trucks begins.  Part of the issue is that all traffic enters on the left via existing Exit 86 and the trucks automatically merge right.  I once saw a highly confused motorist exit CT 15 South at Exit 86, cross over all 4 lanes, and exit I-91 South at Exit 28, which takes you back to CT 15 South.  I kept my distance when I saw the confusion of the motorist from the get-go.

Since we're on the subject of "an alternate to I-84 via I-691 and I-91", something that needs to be addressed at some point is the I-84 East exit to I-691 East.  This is a prime candidate for a 2-lane exit (new far right lane and an option lane at present 3rd lane location).  The existing single lane ramp does not even have a properly striped deceleration lane.  A 4th lane should be added, going back to Exit 26/CT 70, or just extend the "slow vehicle lane" which ends between the I-84 EB off and on ramps at Exit 26.  Cure that problem, and the forthcoming dual laned-left exit from I-691 East to I-91 North, and your north/eastbound I-84 alternate route is good to go. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on May 31, 2022, 07:23:24 PM
Had a thought about how to fix I-91/WC Parkway interchange in Meriden.

Why not have the parkway turn east just past Yale Ave., pass over North Farms Rd, then turn NE and meet I-91 there?

Then widen I-91 to five lanes up to the existing northern split?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on June 06, 2022, 08:25:41 PM
Would someone mind explaining why so much of I-84 between Southington and Newtown has an odd number of lanes?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: cockroachking on June 06, 2022, 08:31:14 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 06, 2022, 08:25:41 PM
Would someone mind explaining why so much of I-84 between Southington and Newtown has an odd number of lanes?
Climbing lanes.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on June 06, 2022, 08:33:04 PM
Quote from: cockroachking on June 06, 2022, 08:31:14 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 06, 2022, 08:25:41 PM
Would someone mind explaining why so much of I-84 between Southington and Newtown has an odd number of lanes?
Climbing lanes.

Thank you
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on June 07, 2022, 05:33:04 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 06, 2022, 08:33:04 PM
Quote from: cockroachking on June 06, 2022, 08:31:14 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 06, 2022, 08:25:41 PM
Would someone mind explaining why so much of I-84 between Southington and Newtown has an odd number of lanes?
Climbing lanes.

Thank you

Connecticut has done a better than average job in implementing climbing lanes.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Rothman on June 07, 2022, 06:59:41 AM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on June 07, 2022, 05:33:04 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 06, 2022, 08:33:04 PM
Quote from: cockroachking on June 06, 2022, 08:31:14 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 06, 2022, 08:25:41 PM
Would someone mind explaining why so much of I-84 between Southington and Newtown has an odd number of lanes?
Climbing lanes.

Thank you

Connecticut has done a better than average job in implementing climbing lanes.
Pfft.  I think I-84 is one of the most miserable drives in the country because of all the merging back and forth with the climbing lanes.  CT needs to "connect" them -- keep that extra lane until the next climb.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on June 07, 2022, 07:47:41 AM
ConnDOT will be holding 3 public hearings (https://www.i84danbury.com/upcoming-meetings/) this month for the I-84 improvements in Danbury. The first will be on Thursday June 9, then Tuesday June 14,  and then Wednesday June 22.

Now that Connecticut's pension liabilities are under control and Federal infrastructure funds are flowing, this might actually go somewhere.

Also, there's a public meeting scheduled on June 16 (https://www.newmixwaterbury.com/project-information/) for *gasp* a rebuild of the Waterbury Mixmaster
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: cockroachking on June 07, 2022, 09:23:11 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 07, 2022, 07:47:41 AM
ConnDOT will be holding 3 public hearings (https://www.i84danbury.com/upcoming-meetings/) this month for the I-84 improvements in Danbury. The first will be on Thursday June 9, then Tuesday June 14,  and then Wednesday June 22.
This is very welcome news. I never thought ConnDOT would actually do anything, but I am happy they are at least seriously considering this. The concepts are much better than I was expecting from them as well. I was also interested to see the project limits extending into NY, including adding the third lane in each direction about 1/4 mile into NY. Hopefully, this will send NYSDOT a wake up call to add a third lane to I-684 at a bare minimum.

Quote from: kernals12 on June 07, 2022, 07:47:41 AM
Also, there's a public meeting scheduled on June 16 (https://www.newmixwaterbury.com/project-information/) for *gasp* a rebuild of the Waterbury Mixmaster
I wouldn't get my hopes up too much for this, since if everything goes perfect, we won't be seeing an interchange for at least another 20 years, and that is bound to get pushed back if it doesn't get cancelled altogether between now and then.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on June 07, 2022, 10:01:33 AM
Quote from: Rothman on June 07, 2022, 06:59:41 AM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on June 07, 2022, 05:33:04 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 06, 2022, 08:33:04 PM
Quote from: cockroachking on June 06, 2022, 08:31:14 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 06, 2022, 08:25:41 PM
Would someone mind explaining why so much of I-84 between Southington and Newtown has an odd number of lanes?
Climbing lanes.

Thank you

Connecticut has done a better than average job in implementing climbing lanes.
Pfft.  I think I-84 is one of the most miserable drives in the country because of all the merging back and forth with the climbing lanes.  CT needs to "connect" them -- keep that extra lane until the next climb.

West of Hartford, yes. I-84 needs to be 6 lanes throughout the state. The state could add signage indicating the length of the lane.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: cockroachking on June 07, 2022, 12:15:07 PM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on June 07, 2022, 10:01:33 AM
Quote from: Rothman on June 07, 2022, 06:59:41 AM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on June 07, 2022, 05:33:04 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 06, 2022, 08:33:04 PM
Quote from: cockroachking on June 06, 2022, 08:31:14 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 06, 2022, 08:25:41 PM
Would someone mind explaining why so much of I-84 between Southington and Newtown has an odd number of lanes?
Climbing lanes.

Thank you

Connecticut has done a better than average job in implementing climbing lanes.
Pfft.  I think I-84 is one of the most miserable drives in the country because of all the merging back and forth with the climbing lanes.  CT needs to "connect" them -- keep that extra lane until the next climb.

West of Hartford, yes. I-84 needs to be 6 lanes throughout the state. The state could add signage indicating the length of the lane.
The lowest AADT I see between NY and Waterbury is 72100 between Exits 15 and 16, and I complain about I-84 being only 4 lanes at 42426 between Exits 52 and 58 in NY. No wonder why it is always abysmal.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on June 07, 2022, 01:31:51 PM
Quote from: cockroachking on June 07, 2022, 12:15:07 PM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on June 07, 2022, 10:01:33 AM
Quote from: Rothman on June 07, 2022, 06:59:41 AM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on June 07, 2022, 05:33:04 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 06, 2022, 08:33:04 PM
Quote from: cockroachking on June 06, 2022, 08:31:14 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 06, 2022, 08:25:41 PM
Would someone mind explaining why so much of I-84 between Southington and Newtown has an odd number of lanes?
Climbing lanes.

Thank you

Connecticut has done a better than average job in implementing climbing lanes.
Pfft.  I think I-84 is one of the most miserable drives in the country because of all the merging back and forth with the climbing lanes.  CT needs to "connect" them -- keep that extra lane until the next climb.

West of Hartford, yes. I-84 needs to be 6 lanes throughout the state. The state could add signage indicating the length of the lane.
The lowest AADT I see between NY and Waterbury is 72100 between Exits 15 and 16, and I complain about I-84 being only 4 lanes at 42426 between Exits 52 and 58 in NY. No wonder why it is always abysmal.
Its bad in PA too.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: cockroachking on June 07, 2022, 02:14:49 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on June 07, 2022, 01:31:51 PM
Quote from: cockroachking on June 07, 2022, 12:15:07 PM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on June 07, 2022, 10:01:33 AM
Quote from: Rothman on June 07, 2022, 06:59:41 AM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on June 07, 2022, 05:33:04 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 06, 2022, 08:33:04 PM
Quote from: cockroachking on June 06, 2022, 08:31:14 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 06, 2022, 08:25:41 PM
Would someone mind explaining why so much of I-84 between Southington and Newtown has an odd number of lanes?
Climbing lanes.

Thank you

Connecticut has done a better than average job in implementing climbing lanes.
Pfft.  I think I-84 is one of the most miserable drives in the country because of all the merging back and forth with the climbing lanes.  CT needs to "connect" them -- keep that extra lane until the next climb.

West of Hartford, yes. I-84 needs to be 6 lanes throughout the state. The state could add signage indicating the length of the lane.
The lowest AADT I see between NY and Waterbury is 72100 between Exits 15 and 16, and I complain about I-84 being only 4 lanes at 42426 between Exits 52 and 58 in NY. No wonder why it is always abysmal.
Its bad in PA too.
Unless you are referring to the concurrency with I-380, or a completely different Interstate, I have a very hard time believing that.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on June 07, 2022, 03:02:20 PM
Let's not forget that I-84 is a major route for trucks between New England and I-81, and for anyone else looking to avoid the hot mess of I-95 in the Northeast Corridor. I remember there once being a sign advising truck traffic heading to New England to follow I-84.........south of Hazleton, PA on I-81.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: 74/171FAN on June 07, 2022, 03:56:09 PM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on June 07, 2022, 03:02:20 PM
Let's not forget that I-84 is a major route for trucks between New England and I-81, and for anyone else looking to avoid the hot mess of I-95 in the Northeast Corridor. I remember there once being a sign advising truck traffic heading to New England to follow I-84.........south of Hazleton, PA on I-81.

I think you are referring to this sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4220808,-76.5363146,3a,75y,71.51h,75.84t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZnToj6FmGW5MpA6U39zsrg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192). 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Rothman on June 07, 2022, 03:56:26 PM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on June 07, 2022, 03:02:20 PM
Let's not forget that I-84 is a major route for trucks between New England and I-81, and for anyone else looking to avoid the hot mess of I-95 in the Northeast Corridor. I remember there once being a sign advising truck traffic heading to New England to follow I-84.........south of Hazleton, PA on I-81.
My family drove to the rest of the country by taking I-84 to I-81 before it was cool.  Definitely better than going down to New Haven and through the City.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on June 07, 2022, 06:21:10 PM
Quote from: cockroachking on June 07, 2022, 09:23:11 AM
I wouldn't get my hopes up too much for this, since if everything goes perfect, we won't be seeing an interchange for at least another 20 years, and that is bound to get pushed back if it doesn't get cancelled altogether between now and then.
They don't have a choice really. The latest rehab is probably the last rehab they can do given the age of what's there. They either replace the interchange, or they will be forced to replace the main structures and steel in situ which will cost almost as much as building a new interchange anyway.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on June 07, 2022, 07:28:59 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on June 07, 2022, 03:56:09 PM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on June 07, 2022, 03:02:20 PM
Let's not forget that I-84 is a major route for trucks between New England and I-81, and for anyone else looking to avoid the hot mess of I-95 in the Northeast Corridor. I remember there once being a sign advising truck traffic heading to New England to follow I-84.........south of Hazleton, PA on I-81.

I think you are referring to this sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4220808,-76.5363146,3a,75y,71.51h,75.84t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZnToj6FmGW5MpA6U39zsrg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).

That's the one. Newer version.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: DrSmith on June 07, 2022, 08:59:49 PM
Noticed that there are new sheet aluminum signs being installed for the exit ramps on I-91 in Enfield now.

For Exit 49 off I-91 north, there is a new 40 mph exit ramp speed sign then shortly after is a S-curve warning sign (W1-4) with a 40 mph advisory plaque. The S-curve warning sign is a little before the gore on the side of I-91.

Exit 47W off I-91 south had a new 25 mph ramp speed sign and then a sharp S-curve (W1-3) with a 25 mph advisory speed plaque again on the side of I-91 a little before the gore.

New large chevrons were also added on the ramps.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on June 07, 2022, 09:39:14 PM
CT 9 progress report:

As of this week, new posts are going up to support new onramp signs... seen at (at least) existing Exits 2 & 3. 
Further north, the Exit 19 northbound onramp sign is up and features a much larger "9" numeral in the square shield.  Didn't get a picture, but that's hope for the present SNS (small numeral syndrome) of recent guide signs.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on June 08, 2022, 11:05:43 AM
Quote from: DrSmith on June 07, 2022, 08:59:49 PM
Noticed that there are new sheet aluminum signs being installed for the exit ramps on I-91 in Enfield now.

For Exit 49 off I-91 north, there is a new 40 mph exit ramp speed sign then shortly after is a S-curve warning sign (W1-4) with a 40 mph advisory plaque. The S-curve warning sign is a little before the gore on the side of I-91.

Exit 47W off I-91 south had a new 25 mph ramp speed sign and then a sharp S-curve (W1-3) with a 25 mph advisory speed plaque again on the side of I-91 a little before the gore.

New large chevrons were also added on the ramps.

Honestly the whole Exit 47 setup needs to be redone. The CT 190 freeway has been dead for decades and the oval ramps are very tight.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on June 08, 2022, 11:39:12 AM
You could remove the north of 91 ramps at Exit 47 and improve the geometry of the south side ramps.  This would also give more merge/weave space between Exits 47 and 48. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on June 08, 2022, 12:39:11 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on June 08, 2022, 11:39:12 AM
You could remove the north of 91 ramps at Exit 47 and improve the geometry of the south side ramps.  This would also give more merge/weave space between Exits 47 and 48.
I was thinking of moving some of the ramps south to Phoenix Ave.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on June 08, 2022, 06:29:37 PM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on June 07, 2022, 10:01:33 AM
Quote from: Rothman on June 07, 2022, 06:59:41 AM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on June 07, 2022, 05:33:04 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 06, 2022, 08:33:04 PM
Quote from: cockroachking on June 06, 2022, 08:31:14 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 06, 2022, 08:25:41 PM
Would someone mind explaining why so much of I-84 between Southington and Newtown has an odd number of lanes?
Climbing lanes.

Thank you

Connecticut has done a better than average job in implementing climbing lanes.
Pfft.  I think I-84 is one of the most miserable drives in the country because of all the merging back and forth with the climbing lanes.  CT needs to "connect" them -- keep that extra lane until the next climb.

West of Hartford, yes. I-84 needs to be 6 lanes throughout the state. The state could add signage indicating the length of the lane.
*6 lanes minimum. I can vouch for everything I've seen traffic-wise that would justify this. The ONLY exception might be the I-91 interchange with how much traffic moves around.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on June 08, 2022, 08:52:18 PM
Connecting the climbing lanes isn't necessarily the best option.  I-84 needs a consistent third lane west of Waterbury to Danbury, but also needs the climbing lanes.  With the amount of truck traffic that I-84 gets in that area, plus the steepness of some of the grades, they would definitely be needed, in addition to the 3rd general purpose travel lane. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Rothman on June 08, 2022, 09:47:15 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on June 08, 2022, 08:52:18 PM
Connecting the climbing lanes isn't necessarily the best option.  I-84 needs a consistent third lane west of Waterbury to Danbury, but also needs the climbing lanes.  With the amount of truck traffic that I-84 gets in that area, plus the steepness of some of the grades, they would definitely be needed, in addition to the 3rd general purpose travel lane.
MOAR LANES!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on June 08, 2022, 10:28:29 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 08, 2022, 09:47:15 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on June 08, 2022, 08:52:18 PM
Connecting the climbing lanes isn't necessarily the best option.  I-84 needs a consistent third lane west of Waterbury to Danbury, but also needs the climbing lanes.  With the amount of truck traffic that I-84 gets in that area, plus the steepness of some of the grades, they would definitely be needed, in addition to the 3rd general purpose travel lane.
MOAR LANES!
When in doubt
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on June 08, 2022, 11:14:31 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 08, 2022, 10:28:29 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 08, 2022, 09:47:15 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on June 08, 2022, 08:52:18 PM
Connecting the climbing lanes isn't necessarily the best option.  I-84 needs a consistent third lane west of Waterbury to Danbury, but also needs the climbing lanes.  With the amount of truck traffic that I-84 gets in that area, plus the steepness of some of the grades, they would definitely be needed, in addition to the 3rd general purpose travel lane.
MOAR LANES!
When in doubt
While they're at it, they need to eliminate all of the left-hand exits on I-84 in Connecticut. But...I doubt you'll see any of that happening in the foreseeable future.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on June 08, 2022, 11:38:24 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on June 08, 2022, 11:14:31 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 08, 2022, 10:28:29 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 08, 2022, 09:47:15 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on June 08, 2022, 08:52:18 PM
Connecting the climbing lanes isn't necessarily the best option.  I-84 needs a consistent third lane west of Waterbury to Danbury, but also needs the climbing lanes.  With the amount of truck traffic that I-84 gets in that area, plus the steepness of some of the grades, they would definitely be needed, in addition to the 3rd general purpose travel lane.
MOAR LANES!
When in doubt
While they're at it, they need to eliminate all of the left-hand exits on I-84 in Connecticut. But...I doubt you'll see any of that happening in the foreseeable future.
They just built a new left hand exit on the Charter Oak Bridge
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Rothman on June 08, 2022, 11:40:00 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 08, 2022, 11:38:24 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on June 08, 2022, 11:14:31 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 08, 2022, 10:28:29 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 08, 2022, 09:47:15 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on June 08, 2022, 08:52:18 PM
Connecting the climbing lanes isn't necessarily the best option.  I-84 needs a consistent third lane west of Waterbury to Danbury, but also needs the climbing lanes.  With the amount of truck traffic that I-84 gets in that area, plus the steepness of some of the grades, they would definitely be needed, in addition to the 3rd general purpose travel lane.
MOAR LANES!
When in doubt
While they're at it, they need to eliminate all of the left-hand exits on I-84 in Connecticut. But...I doubt you'll see any of that happening in the foreseeable future.
They just built a new left hand exit on the Charter Oak Bridge
I really would have liked to have been a fly on the wall when FHWA reviewed their Nonstandard Feature Justification Form...
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on June 08, 2022, 11:53:31 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 08, 2022, 11:40:00 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 08, 2022, 11:38:24 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on June 08, 2022, 11:14:31 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 08, 2022, 10:28:29 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 08, 2022, 09:47:15 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on June 08, 2022, 08:52:18 PM
Connecting the climbing lanes isn't necessarily the best option.  I-84 needs a consistent third lane west of Waterbury to Danbury, but also needs the climbing lanes.  With the amount of truck traffic that I-84 gets in that area, plus the steepness of some of the grades, they would definitely be needed, in addition to the 3rd general purpose travel lane.
MOAR LANES!
When in doubt
While they're at it, they need to eliminate all of the left-hand exits on I-84 in Connecticut. But...I doubt you'll see any of that happening in the foreseeable future.
They just built a new left hand exit on the Charter Oak Bridge
I really would have liked to have been a fly on the wall when FHWA reviewed their Nonstandard Feature Justification Form...

It's actually very simple
(https://i.imgur.com/Xiw8XT8.jpg)

Widening the right hand ramp would've required a new costly overpass structure and ROW taking.

I'm pretty sure ConnDOT's representative just turned his pockets inside out during the FHWA review.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on June 09, 2022, 07:34:08 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 08, 2022, 11:38:24 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on June 08, 2022, 11:14:31 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 08, 2022, 10:28:29 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 08, 2022, 09:47:15 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on June 08, 2022, 08:52:18 PM
Connecting the climbing lanes isn't necessarily the best option.  I-84 needs a consistent third lane west of Waterbury to Danbury, but also needs the climbing lanes.  With the amount of truck traffic that I-84 gets in that area, plus the steepness of some of the grades, they would definitely be needed, in addition to the 3rd general purpose travel lane.
MOAR LANES!
When in doubt
While they're at it, they need to eliminate all of the left-hand exits on I-84 in Connecticut. But...I doubt you'll see any of that happening in the foreseeable future.
They just built a new left hand exit on the Charter Oak Bridge
But it's a high-speed two-lane flyover with an option lane. Traffic doesn't have to weave that much, if at all.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on June 09, 2022, 07:39:08 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on June 09, 2022, 07:34:08 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 08, 2022, 11:38:24 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on June 08, 2022, 11:14:31 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 08, 2022, 10:28:29 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 08, 2022, 09:47:15 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on June 08, 2022, 08:52:18 PM
Connecting the climbing lanes isn't necessarily the best option.  I-84 needs a consistent third lane west of Waterbury to Danbury, but also needs the climbing lanes.  With the amount of truck traffic that I-84 gets in that area, plus the steepness of some of the grades, they would definitely be needed, in addition to the 3rd general purpose travel lane.
MOAR LANES!
When in doubt
While they're at it, they need to eliminate all of the left-hand exits on I-84 in Connecticut. But...I doubt you'll see any of that happening in the foreseeable future.
They just built a new left hand exit on the Charter Oak Bridge
But it's a high-speed two-lane flyover with an option lane. Traffic doesn't have to weave that much, if at all.

You still have to merge right if you want to stay on I-91.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: cockroachking on June 09, 2022, 09:36:45 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 09, 2022, 07:39:08 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on June 09, 2022, 07:34:08 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 08, 2022, 11:38:24 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on June 08, 2022, 11:14:31 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 08, 2022, 10:28:29 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 08, 2022, 09:47:15 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on June 08, 2022, 08:52:18 PM
Connecting the climbing lanes isn't necessarily the best option.  I-84 needs a consistent third lane west of Waterbury to Danbury, but also needs the climbing lanes.  With the amount of truck traffic that I-84 gets in that area, plus the steepness of some of the grades, they would definitely be needed, in addition to the 3rd general purpose travel lane.
MOAR LANES!
When in doubt
While they're at it, they need to eliminate all of the left-hand exits on I-84 in Connecticut. But...I doubt you'll see any of that happening in the foreseeable future.
They just built a new left hand exit on the Charter Oak Bridge
But it's a high-speed two-lane flyover with an option lane. Traffic doesn't have to weave that much, if at all.

You still have to merge right if you want to stay on I-91.
IMO, if the volumes exiting exceeded the volume remaining on the mainline, I could justify a left exit. However, this is not the case here, with only 21700 cars exiting compared to 32800 staying on I-91.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on June 09, 2022, 12:29:59 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 09, 2022, 07:39:08 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on June 09, 2022, 07:34:08 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 08, 2022, 11:38:24 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on June 08, 2022, 11:14:31 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 08, 2022, 10:28:29 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 08, 2022, 09:47:15 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on June 08, 2022, 08:52:18 PM
Connecting the climbing lanes isn't necessarily the best option.  I-84 needs a consistent third lane west of Waterbury to Danbury, but also needs the climbing lanes.  With the amount of truck traffic that I-84 gets in that area, plus the steepness of some of the grades, they would definitely be needed, in addition to the 3rd general purpose travel lane.
MOAR LANES!
When in doubt
While they're at it, they need to eliminate all of the left-hand exits on I-84 in Connecticut. But...I doubt you'll see any of that happening in the foreseeable future.
They just built a new left hand exit on the Charter Oak Bridge
But it's a high-speed two-lane flyover with an option lane. Traffic doesn't have to weave that much, if at all.

You still have to merge right if you want to stay on I-91.
By ONE lane.
And the advance signage is plentiful. I don't see to many folks cutting over at the last minute. ConnDOT isn't stupid.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: DrSmith on June 14, 2022, 07:06:40 PM
As a part of the resigning I-91, there must have been re-evaluation of ramp advisory speeds. With the new ramp signage going up, Bloomfield Av Exit 37 off I-91 south is now posted at 50 mph. Previously it was 35 mph.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on June 16, 2022, 07:11:34 PM
So... there's this:

https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/Traffic-Engineering/Exit-Renumbering

The Google Maps with the new exit numbers for Route 9 show that present Exits 2 & 3 will not change their numbers.  This may explain why every other exit on Route 9 has had "OLD EXIT #" signs added below a new gore sign, except Exits 2 & 3. 

The FAQ section of that web site lists some information for CT's renumbering.  Here's the updated timeline:

Quote
CT-2:  2024 (Currently in Construction — State Project 0172-0490) -
CT-8:  2025 -
CT-9:  2022 (Currently in Construction — State Projects 0007-0189/0171-0425 & 0172-0473)
CT-15:  2025
I-84:  2028
I-91:  2027
I-95:  2029
I-291:  2025
I-384:  2026
I-395:  Completed 2015
I-691:  2023 (Currently in Construction — State Project 0079-0244)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on June 16, 2022, 07:21:38 PM
Quote from: DrSmith on June 14, 2022, 07:06:40 PM
As a part of the resigning I-91, there must have been re-evaluation of ramp advisory speeds. With the new ramp signage going up, Bloomfield Av Exit 37 off I-91 south is now posted at 50 mph. Previously it was 35 mph.

Yet the northbound one remains at 35 MPH. 

Also saw a new overhead gantry at Exit 44 on I-84 that now lists New Park Ave instead of Oakwood Ave on the BGS.  No more calling the exit Prospect-Oakwood in local traffic reports (although most westbound traffic bound for New Park would have exited at Flatbush Ave).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: DrSmith on June 16, 2022, 08:43:32 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on June 16, 2022, 07:11:34 PM
So... there's this:

https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/Traffic-Engineering/Exit-Renumbering

The Google Maps with the new exit numbers for Route 9 show that present Exits 2 & 3 will not change their numbers.  This may explain why every other exit on Route 9 has had "OLD EXIT #" signs added below a new gore sign, except Exits 2 & 3. 

The FAQ section of that web site lists some information for CT's renumbering.  Here's the updated timeline:

Quote
CT-2:  2024 (Currently in Construction — State Project 0172-0490) -
CT-8:  2025 -
CT-9:  2022 (Currently in Construction — State Projects 0007-0189/0171-0425 & 0172-0473)
CT-15:  2025
I-84:  2028
I-91:  2027
I-95:  2029
I-291:  2025
I-384:  2026
I-395:  Completed 2015
I-691:  2023 (Currently in Construction — State Project 0079-0244)

Does this imply the old outline shields on the I-91 north of Hartford have about 5 more years of life left?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: mariethefoxy on June 17, 2022, 12:40:03 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 09, 2022, 07:39:08 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on June 09, 2022, 07:34:08 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 08, 2022, 11:38:24 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on June 08, 2022, 11:14:31 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 08, 2022, 10:28:29 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 08, 2022, 09:47:15 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on June 08, 2022, 08:52:18 PM
Connecting the climbing lanes isn't necessarily the best option.  I-84 needs a consistent third lane west of Waterbury to Danbury, but also needs the climbing lanes.  With the amount of truck traffic that I-84 gets in that area, plus the steepness of some of the grades, they would definitely be needed, in addition to the 3rd general purpose travel lane.
MOAR LANES!
When in doubt
While they're at it, they need to eliminate all of the left-hand exits on I-84 in Connecticut. But...I doubt you'll see any of that happening in the foreseeable future.
They just built a new left hand exit on the Charter Oak Bridge
But it's a high-speed two-lane flyover with an option lane. Traffic doesn't have to weave that much, if at all.

You still have to merge right if you want to stay on I-91.

How many people are staying on I-91 vs using the Charter Oak Bridge to get to 84 and then 90 en route to Boston from NYC area and Southern Connecticut.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on June 17, 2022, 07:35:32 AM
Remember also that there are three major left-exits and left-entrances in a row along that stretch of northbound I-91.

It's nonstandard design, but at least it's consistent.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: tsmatt13 on June 21, 2022, 04:50:30 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Route_11#:~:text=of%20the%20project.-,Exit%20list,-%5Bedit%5D (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Route_11#:~:text=of%20the%20project.-,Exit%20list,-%5Bedit%5D)

On Wikipedia it says that the exit numbers on CT-11 are "scheduled to be converted to mile-based numbering starting in 2022," starting from the originally-planned southern terminus at I-95 that includes the unbuilt section. However, this is unsourced as there no sources linked to this, and there are no recent news covering this also. Does it mean there may be a change of hope in CT-11's future, or does this not mean anything?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: The Ghostbuster on June 21, 2022, 06:12:55 PM
I wish it were otherwise, but the CT 11 extension is likely dead for all time: https: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Route_11. The 2023 Rand McNally Road Atlas shows mileage-based exit number along CT 11 (and CT 9). I believe they are renumbering Exits 5 and 6 to 13 and 17 because that would have been the distance those two exits would have been from the Interstate 95/395 interchange. It is similar to NJ 18 starting at Exit 6 and NJ 55 starting at Exit 20. Both would have continued those distances to their planned but canceled terminuses.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on June 21, 2022, 07:54:53 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 21, 2022, 06:12:55 PM
I wish it were otherwise, but the CT 11 extension is likely dead for all timehttps: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Route_11. The 2023 Rand McNally Road Atlas shows mileage-based exit number along CT 11 (and CT 9). I believe they are renumbering Exits 5 and 6 to 13 and 17 because that would have been the distance those two exits would have been from the Interstate 95/395 interchange. It is similar to NJ 18 starting at Exit 6 and NJ 55 starting at Exit 20. Both would have continued those distances to their planned but canceled terminuses.
For all intents and purposes, any extension of Route 11 to I-95/I-395 is effectively dead, as long as the EPA Region 1 maintains its opposition to pretty much any new-terrain roadbuilding in New England. Aside from the EPA's longstanding opposition to this project, Connecticut simply doesn't have the money to build the extension, and the project's cost would continue to grow the longer it sits idle. Since CTDOT abandoned environmental studies on the Route 11 extension about 10 years ago, they would have to restart the NEPA process from scratch. And unlike in times past where there was plenty of local support for completing Route 11, that support is no longer there as locals have grudgingly accepted spot improvements to Routes 82 and 85 that could be completed in a much shorter timeframe.  IMHO, Connecticut's roadbuilding days are over.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on June 23, 2022, 08:22:24 AM
Assuming that most of the traffic on I-91 in Hartford isn't stopping in Downtown, they should relocate it to a new route along CT 2 between the Charter Oak Bridge and I-291, along the lines of the old I-491 plan. Then the existing I-91 could be made into a 4 lane city boulevard, similar to what they did with I-40 in Oklahoma City.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Rothman on June 23, 2022, 08:44:05 AM


Quote from: kernals12 on June 23, 2022, 08:22:24 AM
Assuming that most of the traffic on I-91 in Hartford isn't stopping in Downtown, they should relocate it to a new route along CT 2 between the Charter Oak Bridge and I-291, along the lines of the old I-491 plan.

So...build a new freeway through East Hartford?  Or go all the way out along I-84 to I-291?

I doubt even turning current I-91 into a boulevard could rejuvenate downtown Hartford.  It will always be MiniGotham that empties out at 5 pm.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on June 23, 2022, 09:11:22 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 23, 2022, 08:22:24 AM
Assuming that most of the traffic on I-91 in Hartford isn't stopping in Downtown, they should relocate it to a new route along CT 2 between the Charter Oak Bridge and I-291, along the lines of the old I-491 plan. Then the existing I-91 could be made into a 4 lane city boulevard, similar to what they did with I-40 in Oklahoma City.
While they're at it, they can somehow figure out how to get rid of the giant mess of interchanges and ramps between Route 2, I-84 and the Founders Bridge. So much space could be freed up if they were to figure out how to better connect those highways.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Rothman on June 23, 2022, 09:31:48 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on June 23, 2022, 09:11:22 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 23, 2022, 08:22:24 AM
Assuming that most of the traffic on I-91 in Hartford isn't stopping in Downtown, they should relocate it to a new route along CT 2 between the Charter Oak Bridge and I-291, along the lines of the old I-491 plan. Then the existing I-91 could be made into a 4 lane city boulevard, similar to what they did with I-40 in Oklahoma City.
While they're at it, they can somehow figure out how to get rid of the giant mess of interchanges and ramps between Route 2, I-84 and the Founders Bridge. So much space could be freed up if they were to figure out how to better connect those highways.

I've thought this for years.  It's like someone had it out for East Hartford back in the day.  Now, East Hartford is something of a destination (i.e., it's considered where the good restaurants are and the like).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on June 23, 2022, 10:53:36 AM
Quote from: Rothman on June 23, 2022, 08:44:05 AM


Quote from: kernals12 on June 23, 2022, 08:22:24 AM
Assuming that most of the traffic on I-91 in Hartford isn't stopping in Downtown, they should relocate it to a new route along CT 2 between the Charter Oak Bridge and I-291, along the lines of the old I-491 plan.

So...build a new freeway through East Hartford?  Or go all the way out along I-84 to I-291?

I doubt even turning current I-91 into a boulevard could rejuvenate downtown Hartford.  It will always be MiniGotham that empties out at 5 pm.
I'm not concerned with urban renewal, I'm concerned with traffic flow.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Rothman on June 23, 2022, 11:27:47 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 23, 2022, 10:53:36 AM
Quote from: Rothman on June 23, 2022, 08:44:05 AM


Quote from: kernals12 on June 23, 2022, 08:22:24 AM
Assuming that most of the traffic on I-91 in Hartford isn't stopping in Downtown, they should relocate it to a new route along CT 2 between the Charter Oak Bridge and I-291, along the lines of the old I-491 plan.

So...build a new freeway through East Hartford?  Or go all the way out along I-84 to I-291?

I doubt even turning current I-91 into a boulevard could rejuvenate downtown Hartford.  It will always be MiniGotham that empties out at 5 pm.
I'm not concerned with urban renewal, I'm concerned with traffic flow.
Um.  Ok.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: The Ghostbuster on June 23, 2022, 11:55:08 AM
Maybe an underground tunnel along the old Interstate 491/Interstate 86 alignment would be more practical. In the unlikely event that one were built, it could serve as a good bypass of downtown Hartford. Back in reality, I have a feeling any tunnels within the Hartford area will have as difficult of a time being constructed as converting existing Interstate 84 into a tunnel, as has been previously proposed.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Rothman on June 23, 2022, 12:14:10 PM


Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 23, 2022, 11:55:08 AM
Maybe an underground tunnel along the old Interstate 491/Interstate 86 alignment would be more practical.

What the...

We've drifted too far into Fictional here.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on June 23, 2022, 09:43:19 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on June 23, 2022, 09:11:22 AM
While they're at it, they can somehow figure out how to get rid of the giant mess of interchanges and ramps between Route 2, I-84 and the Founders Bridge. So much space could be freed up if they were to figure out how to better connect those highways.

Get rid of all the ramps to/from Governor St for starters!  That gets rid of a bunch of left hand exits and entrances.  Then you could move I-84 West over and get rid of the left exits for CT 2 and the Founders, replacing them with flyovers.  That keeps I-84 traffic all on the left, as it should be, in both directions.

Other news...

Now that I've been out of town all this week and most of next week (Tennessee), I'm guessing there will be some good progress to report on CT 9 resigning when I get back (I would think).  As of last week, there was the appearance of new support posts for extruded signs on the highway itself (not just the onramps). 

For the drive from CT to TN last Saturday, the only spot where we encountered any traffic was in... you guess it... CT.  Random slowdowns in the Newtown and Danbury areas, and from Exit 2 to I-684 (technically NY, but it started in CT).  That could be solved with a widening (in conjunction with NY) from Exit 1 west to I-684 to 3 lanes, with the I-684 ramp becoming an option lane.  Eastbound, some improved ramp geometry from I-684N to I-84E, along with 3-laning to Exit 1 would (at least) help the situation.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Rothman on June 23, 2022, 10:35:23 PM
NYSDOT doesn't do widenings.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on June 23, 2022, 11:07:55 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 23, 2022, 12:14:10 PM


Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 23, 2022, 11:55:08 AM
Maybe an underground tunnel along the old Interstate 491/Interstate 86 alignment would be more practical.

What the...

We've drifted too far into Fictional here.


False, it's discussing what may be considered going forward.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Rothman on June 23, 2022, 11:41:57 PM
Quote from: Alps on June 23, 2022, 11:07:55 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 23, 2022, 12:14:10 PM


Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 23, 2022, 11:55:08 AM
Maybe an underground tunnel along the old Interstate 491/Interstate 86 alignment would be more practical.

What the...

We've drifted too far into Fictional here.


False, it's discussing what may be considered going forward.
Nah.  It's us making up our own proposals without founding in reality.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on June 24, 2022, 12:16:52 AM
Quote from: Rothman on June 23, 2022, 11:41:57 PM
Quote from: Alps on June 23, 2022, 11:07:55 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 23, 2022, 12:14:10 PM


Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 23, 2022, 11:55:08 AM
Maybe an underground tunnel along the old Interstate 491/Interstate 86 alignment would be more practical.

What the...

We've drifted too far into Fictional here.


False, it's discussing what may be considered going forward.
Nah.  It's us making up our own proposals without founding in reality.
I would argue a tunnel in Hartford is a likely best option for maintaining or improving traffic flow as viaducts come of age.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on June 24, 2022, 05:25:51 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 23, 2022, 10:53:36 AM
Quote from: Rothman on June 23, 2022, 08:44:05 AM


Quote from: kernals12 on June 23, 2022, 08:22:24 AM
Assuming that most of the traffic on I-91 in Hartford isn't stopping in Downtown, they should relocate it to a new route along CT 2 between the Charter Oak Bridge and I-291, along the lines of the old I-491 plan.

So...build a new freeway through East Hartford?  Or go all the way out along I-84 to I-291?

I doubt even turning current I-91 into a boulevard could rejuvenate downtown Hartford.  It will always be MiniGotham that empties out at 5 pm.
I'm not concerned with urban renewal, I'm concerned with traffic flow.

Historically, Connecticut has failed on both counts.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Rothman on June 24, 2022, 06:50:23 AM
Quote from: Alps on June 24, 2022, 12:16:52 AM
Quote from: Rothman on June 23, 2022, 11:41:57 PM
Quote from: Alps on June 23, 2022, 11:07:55 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 23, 2022, 12:14:10 PM


Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 23, 2022, 11:55:08 AM
Maybe an underground tunnel along the old Interstate 491/Interstate 86 alignment would be more practical.

What the...

We've drifted too far into Fictional here.


False, it's discussing what may be considered going forward.
Nah.  It's us making up our own proposals without founding in reality.
I would argue a tunnel in Hartford is a likely best option for maintaining or improving traffic flow as viaducts come of age.
It's still fictional shot-in-the-dark speculation that it would ever be considered, let alone built...and we're talking East Hartford.

Remember that this thread is for Connecticut News.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on June 24, 2022, 05:38:05 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 24, 2022, 06:50:23 AM
Quote from: Alps on June 24, 2022, 12:16:52 AM
Quote from: Rothman on June 23, 2022, 11:41:57 PM
Quote from: Alps on June 23, 2022, 11:07:55 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 23, 2022, 12:14:10 PM


Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 23, 2022, 11:55:08 AM
Maybe an underground tunnel along the old Interstate 491/Interstate 86 alignment would be more practical.

What the...

We've drifted too far into Fictional here.


False, it's discussing what may be considered going forward.
Nah.  It's us making up our own proposals without founding in reality.
I would argue a tunnel in Hartford is a likely best option for maintaining or improving traffic flow as viaducts come of age.
It's still fictional shot-in-the-dark speculation that it would ever be considered, let alone built...and we're talking East Hartford.

Remember that this thread is for Connecticut News.

As a moderator I will say please stop interjecting. You've said your piece multiple times.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: DrSmith on June 24, 2022, 06:11:08 PM
Looks like some of the overhead sign work is starting on I-84 in East Hartford. A new 1/2 mile sign for Governor's St on I-84 West is up and another cantilever on the left side of the highway probably for Route 2 and the Founder's Bridge.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on June 24, 2022, 06:44:28 PM
Quote from: DrSmith on June 24, 2022, 06:11:08 PM
Looks like some of the overhead sign work is starting on I-84 in East Hartford. A new 1/2 mile sign for Governor's St on I-84 West is up and another cantilever on the left side of the highway probably for Route 2 and the Founder's Bridge.

There's some west of Hartford as well.  New 1/2 mile advance and Exit Now signage EB for Prospect Ave which contains New Park Ave (a WB Exit Now sign also does).  Also see some piers up near the Park Rd exit for a new gantry. The Exit Now is on a cantilever rather than bridge mounted.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on June 25, 2022, 12:42:20 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on June 23, 2022, 09:43:19 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on June 23, 2022, 09:11:22 AM
While they're at it, they can somehow figure out how to get rid of the giant mess of interchanges and ramps between Route 2, I-84 and the Founders Bridge. So much space could be freed up if they were to figure out how to better connect those highways.

Get rid of all the ramps to/from Governor St for starters!  That gets rid of a bunch of left hand exits and entrances.  Then you could move I-84 West over and get rid of the left exits for CT 2 and the Founders, replacing them with flyovers.  That keeps I-84 traffic all on the left, as it should be, in both directions.

Other news...

Now that I've been out of town all this week and most of next week (Tennessee), I'm guessing there will be some good progress to report on CT 9 resigning when I get back (I would think).  As of last week, there was the appearance of new support posts for extruded signs on the highway itself (not just the onramps). 

For the drive from CT to TN last Saturday, the only spot where we encountered any traffic was in... you guess it... CT.  Random slowdowns in the Newtown and Danbury areas, and from Exit 2 to I-684 (technically NY, but it started in CT).  That could be solved with a widening (in conjunction with NY) from Exit 1 west to I-684 to 3 lanes, with the I-684 ramp becoming an option lane.  Eastbound, some improved ramp geometry from I-684N to I-84E, along with 3-laning to Exit 1 would (at least) help the situation.

Yes I drove CT-72 to 9 to I-84 to Fartford and back and new signs on all routes. I-84 had quite a few overheads up.
CT-8 almost done except exit 13 1/2 Mile advance signage is still not up. But it's at their construction area off exit 11 where's it's been for a month and a half
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on June 25, 2022, 08:47:42 AM
If I-95 can't be widened, they should at least remove some of the interchanges. It's amazing how many that a former toll road can have.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on June 25, 2022, 11:32:36 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on June 21, 2022, 07:54:53 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 21, 2022, 06:12:55 PM
I wish it were otherwise, but the CT 11 extension is likely dead for all timehttps: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Route_11. The 2023 Rand McNally Road Atlas shows mileage-based exit number along CT 11 (and CT 9). I believe they are renumbering Exits 5 and 6 to 13 and 17 because that would have been the distance those two exits would have been from the Interstate 95/395 interchange. It is similar to NJ 18 starting at Exit 6 and NJ 55 starting at Exit 20. Both would have continued those distances to their planned but canceled terminuses.
For all intents and purposes, any extension of Route 11 to I-95/I-395 is effectively dead, as long as the EPA Region 1 maintains its opposition to pretty much any new-terrain roadbuilding in New England. Aside from the EPA's longstanding opposition to this project, Connecticut simply doesn't have the money to build the extension, and the project's cost would continue to grow the longer it sits idle. Since CTDOT abandoned environmental studies on the Route 11 extension about 10 years ago, they would have to restart the NEPA process from scratch. And unlike in times past where there was plenty of local support for completing Route 11, that support is no longer there as locals have grudgingly accepted spot improvements to Routes 82 and 85 that could be completed in a much shorter timeframe.  IMHO, Connecticut's roadbuilding days are over.
Frankly, I think ConnDOT could save money in the long-term on CT 11 by removing one carriageway.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on June 25, 2022, 11:37:28 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 23, 2022, 11:55:08 AM
Maybe an underground tunnel along the old Interstate 491/Interstate 86 alignment would be more practical. In the unlikely event that one were built, it could serve as a good bypass of downtown Hartford. Back in reality, I have a feeling any tunnels within the Hartford area will have as difficult of a time being constructed as converting existing Interstate 84 into a tunnel, as has been previously proposed.
I-284 would have solved most of those problems.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on June 25, 2022, 06:00:21 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on June 25, 2022, 11:32:36 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on June 21, 2022, 07:54:53 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 21, 2022, 06:12:55 PM
I wish it were otherwise, but the CT 11 extension is likely dead for all timehttps: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Route_11. The 2023 Rand McNally Road Atlas shows mileage-based exit number along CT 11 (and CT 9). I believe they are renumbering Exits 5 and 6 to 13 and 17 because that would have been the distance those two exits would have been from the Interstate 95/395 interchange. It is similar to NJ 18 starting at Exit 6 and NJ 55 starting at Exit 20. Both would have continued those distances to their planned but canceled terminuses.
For all intents and purposes, any extension of Route 11 to I-95/I-395 is effectively dead, as long as the EPA Region 1 maintains its opposition to pretty much any new-terrain roadbuilding in New England. Aside from the EPA's longstanding opposition to this project, Connecticut simply doesn't have the money to build the extension, and the project's cost would continue to grow the longer it sits idle. Since CTDOT abandoned environmental studies on the Route 11 extension about 10 years ago, they would have to restart the NEPA process from scratch. And unlike in times past where there was plenty of local support for completing Route 11, that support is no longer there as locals have grudgingly accepted spot improvements to Routes 82 and 85 that could be completed in a much shorter timeframe.  IMHO, Connecticut's roadbuilding days are over.
Frankly, I think ConnDOT could save money in the long-term on CT 11 by removing one carriageway.
That would only really make sense if structures need to be rebuilt - that's when you would save money by only rebuilding one and filling in the other. Until then, the marginal cost of maintaining a dual carriageway is offset by the benefit of not having to build crossovers and new ramps etc. plus the safety of no opposing traffic.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: cl94 on June 25, 2022, 09:21:27 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 25, 2022, 08:47:42 AM
If I-95 can't be widened, they should at least remove some of the interchanges. It's amazing how many that a former toll road can have.

Well, barrier system as opposed to ticket system. See how many interchanges the Garden State Parkway has.

Re: Route 11, as mentioned previously, the economic benefit of removal is only significant when structures are due for replacement. There's a reason that virtually all freeway removals/downgrades/relocations happen when bridges need to be replaced. See New York and the Niagara Scenic Parkway, which had a segment fully removed only when a long bridge needed replacement.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: bob7374 on June 25, 2022, 09:58:42 PM
The latest 12-month list of CTDOT projects scheduled to be advertised, dated 6/9/22, is available at:
https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOT/documents/dfiscalprojects/advschedule11-2021.pdf (https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOT/documents/dfiscalprojects/advschedule11-2021.pdf)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: tsmatt13 on June 25, 2022, 10:02:10 PM
Quote from: cl94 on June 25, 2022, 09:21:27 PM
Re: Route 11, as mentioned previously, the economic benefit of removal is only significant when structures are due for replacement. There's a reason that virtually all freeway removals/downgrades/relocations happen when bridges need to be replaced. See New York and the Niagara Scenic Parkway, which had a segment fully removed only when a long bridge needed replacement.

IN-912 (Cline Ave) is also an example of that.

In addition, CT-11's pavement seems to be in decent quality as of the latest GSV images, so I doubt removal would benefit the route much.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: SectorZ on June 26, 2022, 07:22:37 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on June 25, 2022, 09:58:42 PM
The latest 12-month list of CTDOT projects scheduled to be advertised, dated 6/9/22, is available at:
https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOT/documents/dfiscalprojects/advschedule11-2021.pdf (https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOT/documents/dfiscalprojects/advschedule11-2021.pdf)


"Install Curve Warning Signs at Various Location" costs $200K to $500K? How many unannounced curves they got out there, and there's more than one district that needs it done!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Rothman on June 26, 2022, 08:46:49 AM


Quote from: SectorZ on June 26, 2022, 07:22:37 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on June 25, 2022, 09:58:42 PM
The latest 12-month list of CTDOT projects scheduled to be advertised, dated 6/9/22, is available at:
https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOT/documents/dfiscalprojects/advschedule11-2021.pdf (https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOT/documents/dfiscalprojects/advschedule11-2021.pdf)


"Install Curve Warning Signs at Various Location" costs $200K to $500K? How many unannounced curves they got out there, and there's more than one district that needs it done!

It's not only about new signage, but replacing old signage.  Costs seem appropriate to me, if it's statewide.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on June 26, 2022, 03:53:56 PM
I-84 signing Vernon to Union will be advertised soon.  That leaves only I-91 left.  CT is acting like it was 1985-1990 when they replaced all their signs basically in a few years.
There seems to be quite a few signing projects currently or just finished across the state.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on June 26, 2022, 04:00:34 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on June 26, 2022, 03:53:56 PM
I-84 signing Vernon to Union will be advertised soon.  That leaves only I-91 left.  CT is acting like it was 1985-1990 when they replaced all their signs basically in a few years.
There seems to be quite a few signing projects currently or just finished across the state.

Good to hear; too many of their existing signs are showing their age and are an embarrassment.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on June 26, 2022, 06:55:19 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on June 26, 2022, 03:53:56 PM
I-84 signing Vernon to Union will be advertised soon.  That leaves only I-91 left.  CT is acting like it was 1985-1990 when they replaced all their signs basically in a few years.
There seems to be quite a few signing projects currently or just finished across the state.
I'm surprised that stretch isn't last. The signs on that stretch are still readable.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Beeper1 on June 26, 2022, 07:07:27 PM
Starting in Vernon?   So the Exits 59-64 signs are getting skipped again?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on June 27, 2022, 12:11:00 AM
Quote from: Beeper1 on June 26, 2022, 07:07:27 PM
Starting in Vernon?   So the Exits 59-64 signs are getting skipped again?
If that's the case, they should be getting close to being ready to convert I-84 to mile-based numbers.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MATraveler128 on June 27, 2022, 07:50:39 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on June 27, 2022, 12:11:00 AM
Quote from: Beeper1 on June 26, 2022, 07:07:27 PM
Starting in Vernon?   So the Exits 59-64 signs are getting skipped again?
If that's the case, they should be getting close to being ready to convert I-84 to mile-based numbers.

I-84 isn’t scheduled to be renumbered to mileage based exits until towards the end of the decade. I suspect they’re saving Exits 59-64 until then as well as through downtown Hartford.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on June 27, 2022, 08:34:37 AM
I-84 signs through downtown Hartford are in the process of being replaced as part of the Exit 40-56 project.  The gantries in downtown, however, are not being replaced.  All others are.

The fact that Exits 57-63 are being skipped again is kind of peculiar.  Maybe an I-384/I-291 sign project would include I-84 in that area (along with the c/d roads). 

There are still some first generation Phase IV signs on I-84 (among the last ones installed before aligned exit tabs became a thing in CT) from Southbury to western Waterbury.  The signs are in fine shape... maybe there, they will replace just the tabs, or just overlay the new numbers. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on June 27, 2022, 10:10:54 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on June 27, 2022, 08:34:37 AM
I-84 signs through downtown Hartford are in the process of being replaced as part of the Exit 40-56 project.  The gantries in downtown, however, are not being replaced.  All others are.

The fact that Exits 57-63 are being skipped again is kind of peculiar.  Maybe an I-384/I-291 sign project would include I-84 in that area (along with the c/d roads). 

There are still some first generation Phase IV signs on I-84 (among the last ones installed before aligned exit tabs became a thing in CT) from Southbury to western Waterbury.  The signs are in fine shape... maybe there, they will replace just the tabs, or just overlay the new numbers.

There are also a few in Cheshire and Southington.  The CT 70 and I-691/CT 322 signage is from that vintage.  Also no enhanced mile markers west of MP 42, so there has to be something in that area.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on June 27, 2022, 06:26:57 PM
Saw this beauty on the side of the road still on the gantry.  Above the highway, it was one of the smaller signs but on the ground it's huge.  Look at the guardrail for scale.
Only bad thing was it had a reflective background.

PS. anybody have plans for the I-691 signing contract?

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52178063658_e5d9e900f6_b.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on June 27, 2022, 06:36:28 PM
I-691 was a design-build, so I don't think plans are out there... at least in the conventional locations (ie - ct.gov).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Rothman on June 27, 2022, 06:55:39 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on June 27, 2022, 06:36:28 PM
I-691 was a design-build, so I don't think plans are out there... at least in the conventional locations (ie - ct.gov).
Why wouldn't they be? 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on June 27, 2022, 07:40:28 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 27, 2022, 06:55:39 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on June 27, 2022, 06:36:28 PM
I-691 was a design-build, so I don't think plans are out there... at least in the conventional locations (ie - ct.gov).
Why wouldn't they be?

They showed a couple of sketches of new signage in the I-691/CT 15/I-91 interchange project showing the new exit numbers on updated signage.  Hope they add a Wilbur Cross Pkwy shield instead of using it as a control.  Exits will increase in number east to west.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on June 27, 2022, 07:47:58 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 27, 2022, 06:55:39 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on June 27, 2022, 06:36:28 PM
I-691 was a design-build, so I don't think plans are out there... at least in the conventional locations (ie - ct.gov).
Why wouldn't they be? 

A design-build project, in terms of signing, means that the sign plans are not developed by ConnDOT, but rather the contractor.  So unless the contractor puts it on their web site, most likely their intraweb to permit inter-agency viewing, then they're not going to be posted on the ct.gov Bid Board.  It's not a state signing project, but rather part of a larger project, which is not being designed by the state. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on June 27, 2022, 08:56:25 PM
NY is the same way.  Regular D contracts can be found here (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/page/portal/doing-business/opportunities/const-notices), but design-build projects are here (https://www.dot.ny.gov/main/business-center/designbuild), and don't always have signing plans (Key Gardens Phase 4, for example, doesn't have them, which is annoying when you want to be able to keep exit lists up to date without waiting on street view or roadgeek photography).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on June 27, 2022, 10:40:06 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on June 27, 2022, 06:26:57 PM
Saw this beauty on the side of the road still on the gantry.  Above the highway, it was one of the smaller signs but on the ground it's huge.  Look at the guardrail for scale.
Only bad thing was it had a reflective background.

PS. anybody have plans for the I-691 signing contract?

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52178063658_e5d9e900f6_b.jpg)
P.S. anyone have a wrench and a large screwdriver and a safety vest and time to visit this location with me
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Rothman on June 27, 2022, 11:03:58 PM
Quote from: vdeane on June 27, 2022, 08:56:25 PM
NY is the same way.  Regular D contracts can be found here (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/page/portal/doing-business/opportunities/const-notices), but design-build projects are here (https://www.dot.ny.gov/main/business-center/designbuild), and don't always have signing plans (Key Gardens Phase 4, for example, doesn't have them, which is annoying when you want to be able to keep exit lists up to date without waiting on street view or roadgeek photography).
I'd think they'd still be subject to a FOIL request.  State still paid for the development of the plans.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Great Lakes Roads on June 28, 2022, 12:53:26 AM
In terms of the CT-15 exit renumbering project, will that also include the Merritt/Wilbur Cross Parkway segment?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on June 28, 2022, 03:41:37 AM
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on June 28, 2022, 12:53:26 AM
In terms of the CT-15 exit renumbering project, will that also include the Merritt/Wilbur Cross Parkway segment?

I'd imagine it would, when it does come up (not for at least 5 years though).  If MassDOT can be forced to switch the exit numbers on the Cape, CTDOT will be forced to change them on the parkways.  After all,  NY just renumbered The Hutch, so it would only make sense.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on June 28, 2022, 10:03:24 AM
I-291's signs date to 1993-1994. I would imagine they would be the last in the area to be replaced.

Exits 59-64 includes the Buckland C/D, and there are many more ancillary signs than one might find on the more traditional portions of the freeway.

Thus, I suspect that stretch will be its own contract.

It would be helpful if we got some overhead pull-through signs at the end of Exit 62 in both directions, and on Pleasant Valley Rd and Buckland St.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on June 28, 2022, 07:44:29 PM
Quote from: Alps on June 27, 2022, 10:40:06 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on June 27, 2022, 06:26:57 PM
Saw this beauty on the side of the road still on the gantry.  Above the highway, it was one of the smaller signs but on the ground it's huge.  Look at the guardrail for scale.
Only bad thing was it had a reflective background.

PS. anybody have plans for the I-691 signing contract?

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52178063658_e5d9e900f6_b.jpg)
P.S. anyone have a wrench and a large screwdriver and a safety vest and time to visit this location with me
How the hell would you get it home?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on June 28, 2022, 09:10:19 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on June 28, 2022, 07:44:29 PM
Quote from: Alps on June 27, 2022, 10:40:06 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on June 27, 2022, 06:26:57 PM
Saw this beauty on the side of the road still on the gantry.  Above the highway, it was one of the smaller signs but on the ground it's huge.  Look at the guardrail for scale.
Only bad thing was it had a reflective background.

PS. anybody have plans for the I-691 signing contract?

P.S. anyone have a wrench and a large screwdriver and a safety vest and time to visit this location with me
How the hell would you get it home?
one step at a time
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on June 28, 2022, 10:49:26 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on June 28, 2022, 10:03:24 AM
I-291's signs date to 1993-1994. I would imagine they would be the last in the area to be replaced.

Exits 59-64 includes the Buckland C/D, and there are many more ancillary signs than one might find on the more traditional portions of the freeway.

Thus, I suspect that stretch will be its own contract.

It would be helpful if we got some overhead pull-through signs at the end of Exit 62 in both directions, and on Pleasant Valley Rd and Buckland St.

What would REALLY be helpful if "Burnside Ave" got removed from the Exit 58 signs.  I mean, why is it there to begin with?  Especially when its also on the Exit 60 signs? 

One thing I've noticed this past week in TN is that they love their option lanes in the more urban areas (and mostly without use of APLs).   In CT on I-84 East, Exit 27 (I-691) and Exit 63 come to mind as where this would be very helpful (with or without the APL).   Exit 63 would only require some pavement, whereas Exit 27, you'd want to take a 4th lane back closer to Exit 26, replace a bridge, and widen the EB to EB ramp as well. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on June 29, 2022, 02:27:05 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on June 28, 2022, 10:49:26 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on June 28, 2022, 10:03:24 AM
I-291's signs date to 1993-1994. I would imagine they would be the last in the area to be replaced.

Exits 59-64 includes the Buckland C/D, and there are many more ancillary signs than one might find on the more traditional portions of the freeway.

Thus, I suspect that stretch will be its own contract.

It would be helpful if we got some overhead pull-through signs at the end of Exit 62 in both directions, and on Pleasant Valley Rd and Buckland St.

What would REALLY be helpful if "Burnside Ave" got removed from the Exit 58 signs.  I mean, why is it there to begin with?  Especially when its also on the Exit 60 signs? 

One thing I've noticed this past week in TN is that they love their option lanes in the more urban areas (and mostly without use of APLs).   In CT on I-84 East, Exit 27 (I-691) and Exit 63 come to mind as where this would be very helpful (with or without the APL).   Exit 63 would only require some pavement, whereas Exit 27, you'd want to take a 4th lane back closer to Exit 26, replace a bridge, and widen the EB to EB ramp as well. 


My biggest gripe is when they could be an option lane but CT doesn't stripe it that way. Look at I-91 SB at the I-95 split.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on June 30, 2022, 03:57:06 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on June 28, 2022, 10:49:26 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on June 28, 2022, 10:03:24 AM
I-291's signs date to 1993-1994. I would imagine they would be the last in the area to be replaced.

Exits 59-64 includes the Buckland C/D, and there are many more ancillary signs than one might find on the more traditional portions of the freeway.

Thus, I suspect that stretch will be its own contract.

It would be helpful if we got some overhead pull-through signs at the end of Exit 62 in both directions, and on Pleasant Valley Rd and Buckland St.

What would REALLY be helpful if "Burnside Ave" got removed from the Exit 58 signs.  I mean, why is it there to begin with?  Especially when its also on the Exit 60 signs? 

One thing I've noticed this past week in TN is that they love their option lanes in the more urban areas (and mostly without use of APLs).   In CT on I-84 East, Exit 27 (I-691) and Exit 63 come to mind as where this would be very helpful (with or without the APL).   Exit 63 would only require some pavement, whereas Exit 27, you'd want to take a 4th lane back closer to Exit 26, replace a bridge, and widen the EB to EB ramp as well.

IIRC, there was once an exit off of I-84/former I-86 at Forbes Street that was removed when 84 was widened in the 1980s that mentioned Burnside Avenue. Exit 58 might be the continuation of that.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on July 05, 2022, 05:43:05 PM
I drove the length of the CT 8 resigning project on Sunday from Derby to Bridgeport and then north again to the Merritt.  Looks like the project is "largely completed"... there are a few overheads that retain button copy and were not replaced as part of the project ("NIC - Parapet").  These may get replaced as part of a later bridge project, or as part of the "cleanup" project which will take care of exit renumbering, to go out to bid later this summer.  Also, a couple spot replacements have not been changed out yet with their newer "simplified" destinations. 

Here's a couple samples:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52192060558_cbf865a1ab_4k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2nw2Xg5)CT8SB-Exit10-3 (https://flic.kr/p/2nw2Xg5) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52192046581_298c4e4e58_3k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2nw2T76)CT8SB-Exit03-2 (https://flic.kr/p/2nw2T76) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52191034142_9571d63f20_4k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2nvWG9f)CT8NB-Exit05-2 (https://flic.kr/p/2nvWG9f) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

Note how in the last one, there are supports to hold a future "LEFT EXIT #" tab. 

Rest of the photos can be found here:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/with/52191034142/


Elsewhere...

The CT 9 signing project is finally starting to put up some onramp signage.  Thank god it's of the extruded variety, and it features a black border around the "9" shield.  I didn't get a picture, but it looks pretty good.  New supports are up from Middletown south to Exit 2. 

Finally....

The sheet aluminum project that added new speed limits, reassurance shields, enhanced mile markers, and other sheets statewide has added a ramp sign where there is no longer a ramp...
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3680218,-72.1565384,3a,75y,290.24h,75.07t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sPC_yR1jQ9aWy0KqhzVUZBA!2e0!5s20190801T000000!7i16384!8i8192

This is the location of the former I-95 SB weigh station near Exit 81 in Waterford.  The ramp access has been removed, as seen in the street view, yet the contractor has put up a new "WEIGH STATION ->" sign.  Its possible whoever drew up the plans for the "sheets" (or whoever imputed them into GIS or however they're doing it now) didn't know the weigh station had been abandoned.  Still, putting up a sign to nowhere seems pretty dangerous to me, especially to truckers who have to stop at weigh stations.  This is a perfect case of a contractor just going by the book, vs what there is in reality.  Next time I head out that way I'll get a photo.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on July 06, 2022, 12:08:54 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on July 05, 2022, 05:43:05 PM
I drove the length of the CT 8 resigning project on Sunday from Derby to Bridgeport and then north again to the Merritt.  Looks like the project is "largely completed"... there are a few overheads that retain button copy and were not replaced as part of the project ("NIC - Parapet").  These may get replaced as part of a later bridge project, or as part of the "cleanup" project which will take care of exit renumbering, to go out to bid later this summer.  Also, a couple spot replacements have not been changed out yet with their newer "simplified" destinations. 

Here's a couple samples:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52192060558_cbf865a1ab_4k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2nw2Xg5)CT8SB-Exit10-3 (https://flic.kr/p/2nw2Xg5) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52192046581_298c4e4e58_3k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2nw2T76)CT8SB-Exit03-2 (https://flic.kr/p/2nw2T76) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52191034142_9571d63f20_4k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2nvWG9f)CT8NB-Exit05-2 (https://flic.kr/p/2nvWG9f) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

Note how in the last one, there are supports to hold a future "LEFT EXIT #" tab. 

Rest of the photos can be found here:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/with/52191034142/


Elsewhere...

The CT 9 signing project is finally starting to put up some onramp signage.  Thank god it's of the extruded variety, and it features a black border around the "9" shield.  I didn't get a picture, but it looks pretty good.  New supports are up from Middletown south to Exit 2. 

Finally....

The sheet aluminum project that added new speed limits, reassurance shields, enhanced mile markers, and other sheets statewide has added a ramp sign where there is no longer a ramp...
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3680218,-72.1565384,3a,75y,290.24h,75.07t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sPC_yR1jQ9aWy0KqhzVUZBA!2e0!5s20190801T000000!7i16384!8i8192

This is the location of the former I-95 SB weigh station near Exit 81 in Waterford.  The ramp access has been removed, as seen in the street view, yet the contractor has put up a new "WEIGH STATION ->" sign.  Its possible whoever drew up the plans for the "sheets" (or whoever imputed them into GIS or however they're doing it now) didn't know the weigh station had been abandoned.  Still, putting up a sign to nowhere seems pretty dangerous to me, especially to truckers who have to stop at weigh stations.  This is a perfect case of a contractor just going by the book, vs what there is in reality.  Next time I head out that way I'll get a photo.
It's hard to see in these pictures, but are they overlaying the current exit numbers over the future ones on these signs, or do they play to overlay new exit numbers on these signs once the exit renumbering contract is let?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on July 06, 2022, 06:40:32 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on July 06, 2022, 12:08:54 PM
It's hard to see in these pictures, but are they overlaying the current exit numbers over the future ones on these signs, or do they play to overlay new exit numbers on these signs once the exit renumbering contract is let?

I don't believe there are any overlays at present time on this new signage.  As far as what the plan is for the renumbering, it will most likely be either overlays or new tabs altogether.  The CT 9 project was supposed to replace the tabs from Cromwell, north, but the more logical path was taken:  the new numbers are covered up by temporary overlays showing the old number.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on July 07, 2022, 01:16:18 PM
Drove in East Hartford/Manchester last night on I-84 and the old demountable copy signage is actually holding up pretty well at night after all these years. Much better than the reflective button copy on I-91. Maybe that's why they aren't being replaced yet. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on July 07, 2022, 02:44:05 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on July 07, 2022, 01:16:18 PM
Drove in East Hartford/Manchester last night on I-84 and the old demountable copy signage is actually holding up pretty well at night after all these years. Much better than the reflective button copy on I-91. Maybe that's why they aren't being replaced yet.
Probably because they don't directly face the sun.

The ones in Vernon do, and they are worse for wear.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on July 07, 2022, 05:54:02 PM
Crews were out today installing new onramp signage at Exit 3 on Route 9 (my exit).  I managed to get some shots during lunch break at Exit 2, so my guess is that they're working north.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52201058431_54b0b5feab_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2nwQ51P)20220707_115020 (https://flic.kr/p/2nwQ51P) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

I have noticed on the "dual direction" signs (such as the above), the dividing line is missing (the horizontal line separating "9 NORTH" from "SOUTH 9 TO 95".  This particular example above has it.


(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52201560590_52e89bf23d_h.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2nwSDhJ)20220707_115036 (https://flic.kr/p/2nwSDhJ) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr


Overall, I like the signs... the black border makes the "9" stand out.  And thank goodness ConnDOT got out of that horrible cheap sheet aluminum concept for onramp signage.  Maybe they'll learn with using sheets for exit services and go back to the "service bar" at some point.   Each project seems to take one step forward, then two steps back, so who knows. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on July 07, 2022, 11:11:34 PM
Just not a fan of the thin squished font in the ramp BGSs. It's only on the ramps they do it.

I wish CT was like MA as they aren't cheap with the extruded aluminum
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on July 08, 2022, 06:02:25 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on July 07, 2022, 05:54:02 PM
Crews were out today installing new onramp signage at Exit 3 on Route 9 (my exit).  I managed to get some shots during lunch break at Exit 2, so my guess is that they're working north.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52201058431_54b0b5feab_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2nwQ51P)20220707_115020 (https://flic.kr/p/2nwQ51P) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

I have noticed on the "dual direction" signs (such as the above), the dividing line is missing (the horizontal line separating "9 NORTH" from "SOUTH 9 TO 95".  This particular example above has it.


(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52201560590_52e89bf23d_h.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2nwSDhJ)20220707_115036 (https://flic.kr/p/2nwSDhJ) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr


Overall, I like the signs... the black border makes the "9" stand out.  And thank goodness ConnDOT got out of that horrible cheap sheet aluminum concept for onramp signage.  Maybe they'll learn with using sheets for exit services and go back to the "service bar" at some point.   Each project seems to take one step forward, then two steps back, so who knows.

I like the black border as well; more traditional for CT. I wonder why the state hasn't consistently brought them back.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on July 09, 2022, 03:33:51 PM
Black border is OK but the "9" looks funky.  Sorry, I just don't like the ramp BGSs with the narrow font of the words and then the whole "9" thing.

Although I am happy the extruded aluminum signs are back at the ramps.

One thing CT lacks is extruded aluminum warning type signs. Barely a mention of stoplights on CT-9 and I could see "Caution Expect Stopped Ramp Traffic" or a large curve sign in various spots. Or but the ramp suggested speed on the exit now signs on ramps with type curves.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on July 09, 2022, 05:17:01 PM
CT has never really done custom warning signs like that.

The only instance I've ever heard of them doing it was for the West Rock Tunnel, which had (usually covered) extruded aluminum warning signs with flashers that read, "CAUTION ICE CONDITIONS IN TUNNEL"

There are the staple "STOP AHEAD" flashing signs on each end of the approach to the signals in Middletown.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RyanB06 on July 09, 2022, 06:57:51 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on July 09, 2022, 03:33:51 PM
Black border is OK but the "9" looks funky.  Sorry, I just don't like the ramp BGSs with the narrow font of the words and then the whole "9" thing.

Although I am happy the extruded aluminum signs are back at the ramps.

One thing CT lacks is extruded aluminum warning type signs. Barely a mention of stoplights on CT-9 and I could see "Caution Expect Stopped Ramp Traffic" or a large curve sign in various spots. Or but the ramp suggested speed on the exit now signs on ramps with type curves.
The "9" is funky...it's Series C instead of Series D.

I also can't get used to the Series D text on the place names. That lowercase "w" just BUGS me.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on July 09, 2022, 07:55:13 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on July 09, 2022, 05:17:01 PM
CT has never really done custom warning signs like that.

The only instance I've ever heard of them doing it was for the West Rock Tunnel, which had (usually covered) extruded aluminum warning signs with flashers that read, "CAUTION ICE CONDITIONS IN TUNNEL"

There are the staple "STOP AHEAD" flashing signs on each end of the approach to the signals in Middletown.

Really the only extruded warning signs CT has used are "EXPRESSWAY ENDS".  Many of these are becoming sheet aluminums. 

The Ice Conditions sign I believe was sheet aluminum.  I don't think its there anymore... drove through there last weekend and didn't notice. 

The warning for the lights in Middletown is disgusting.  Northbound, you get one "signal ahead" sign in the left lane only on the curve near the Rt 17 NB onramp NB and a "Congested Area" diamond before that.  Southbound, you get a 1 mile "signal ahead" sign, which is badly faded, and the old fashioned "STOP AHEAD" flashing sign that is right under the Arrigoni... way too late to even notice.  But you're right... CT should use "EXPECT STOPPED TRAFFIC AHEAD" extruded approaching the Middletown lights for a mile in each direction. 

But perhaps what's more disgusting is that the lights ARE STILL THERE when the rest of the highway went limited-access some 50+ years ago!   
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on July 10, 2022, 11:54:53 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on July 09, 2022, 07:55:13 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on July 09, 2022, 05:17:01 PM
CT has never really done custom warning signs like that.

The only instance I've ever heard of them doing it was for the West Rock Tunnel, which had (usually covered) extruded aluminum warning signs with flashers that read, "CAUTION ICE CONDITIONS IN TUNNEL"

There are the staple "STOP AHEAD" flashing signs on each end of the approach to the signals in Middletown.

Really the only extruded warning signs CT has used are "EXPRESSWAY ENDS".  Many of these are becoming sheet aluminums. 

The Ice Conditions sign I believe was sheet aluminum.  I don't think its there anymore... drove through there last weekend and didn't notice. 

The warning for the lights in Middletown is disgusting.  Northbound, you get one "signal ahead" sign in the left lane only on the curve near the Rt 17 NB onramp NB and a "Congested Area" diamond before that.  Southbound, you get a 1 mile "signal ahead" sign, which is badly faded, and the old fashioned "STOP AHEAD" flashing sign that is right under the Arrigoni... way too late to even notice.  But you're right... CT should use "EXPECT STOPPED TRAFFIC AHEAD" extruded approaching the Middletown lights for a mile in each direction. 

But perhaps what's more disgusting is that the lights ARE STILL THERE when the rest of the highway went limited-access some 50+ years ago!   

But CT has excess speed limit and crosswalk signs! More so with the speed limit signs.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: bluecountry on July 11, 2022, 07:15:44 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on July 05, 2022, 05:43:05 PM
I drove the length of the CT 8 resigning project on Sunday from Derby to Bridgeport and then north again to the Merritt.  Looks like the project is "largely completed"... there are a few overheads that retain button copy and were not replaced as part of the project ("NIC - Parapet").  These may get replaced as part of a later bridge project, or as part of the "cleanup" project which will take care of exit renumbering, to go out to bid later this summer.  Also, a couple spot replacements have not been changed out yet with their newer "simplified" destinations. 

Here's a couple samples:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52192060558_cbf865a1ab_4k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2nw2Xg5)CT8SB-Exit10-3 (https://flic.kr/p/2nw2Xg5) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52192046581_298c4e4e58_3k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2nw2T76)CT8SB-Exit03-2 (https://flic.kr/p/2nw2T76) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52191034142_9571d63f20_4k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2nvWG9f)CT8NB-Exit05-2 (https://flic.kr/p/2nvWG9f) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

Note how in the last one, there are supports to hold a future "LEFT EXIT #" tab. 

Rest of the photos can be found here:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/with/52191034142/


Elsewhere...

The CT 9 signing project is finally starting to put up some onramp signage.  Thank god it's of the extruded variety, and it features a black border around the "9" shield.  I didn't get a picture, but it looks pretty good.  New supports are up from Middletown south to Exit 2. 

Finally....

The sheet aluminum project that added new speed limits, reassurance shields, enhanced mile markers, and other sheets statewide has added a ramp sign where there is no longer a ramp...
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3680218,-72.1565384,3a,75y,290.24h,75.07t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sPC_yR1jQ9aWy0KqhzVUZBA!2e0!5s20190801T000000!7i16384!8i8192

This is the location of the former I-95 SB weigh station near Exit 81 in Waterford.  The ramp access has been removed, as seen in the street view, yet the contractor has put up a new "WEIGH STATION ->" sign.  Its possible whoever drew up the plans for the "sheets" (or whoever imputed them into GIS or however they're doing it now) didn't know the weigh station had been abandoned.  Still, putting up a sign to nowhere seems pretty dangerous to me, especially to truckers who have to stop at weigh stations.  This is a perfect case of a contractor just going by the book, vs what there is in reality.  Next time I head out that way I'll get a photo.

OMG, that first photo, my Grandparents house I visited all the time as a child was to the right hidden by the vegetation.
My Grandparents got the house at the auction held by the state after they toke possession by eminent domain of the then enormous backyard to build route 8.

Question...why did they do the re-signing without milage based exits?
Also, why does CT sign directions as NY City where others do not?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MATraveler128 on July 11, 2022, 08:13:02 AM
Quote from: bluecountry on July 11, 2022, 07:15:44 AM
OMG, that first photo, my Grandparents house I visited all the time as a child was to the right hidden by the vegetation.
My Grandparents got the house at the auction held by the state after they toke possession by eminent domain of the then enormous backyard to build route 8.

Question...why did they do the re-signing without milage based exits?
Also, why does CT sign directions as NY City where others do not?

I think they're waiting until all the signs along CT 8 are replaced to do a full mileage based conversion, not just Derby to Bridgeport. This seems to be CTDOT's policy. Since the signs in Waterbury were recently replaced, this should be happening soon. Although I have to wonder if they'll put overlays over the existing signs or if they'll put up new signs with the new number on them like what they did for CT 9.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on July 11, 2022, 01:15:10 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on July 10, 2022, 11:54:53 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on July 09, 2022, 07:55:13 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on July 09, 2022, 05:17:01 PM
CT has never really done custom warning signs like that.

The only instance I've ever heard of them doing it was for the West Rock Tunnel, which had (usually covered) extruded aluminum warning signs with flashers that read, "CAUTION ICE CONDITIONS IN TUNNEL"

There are the staple "STOP AHEAD" flashing signs on each end of the approach to the signals in Middletown.

Really the only extruded warning signs CT has used are "EXPRESSWAY ENDS".  Many of these are becoming sheet aluminums. 

The Ice Conditions sign I believe was sheet aluminum.  I don't think its there anymore... drove through there last weekend and didn't notice. 

The warning for the lights in Middletown is disgusting.  Northbound, you get one "signal ahead" sign in the left lane only on the curve near the Rt 17 NB onramp NB and a "Congested Area" diamond before that.  Southbound, you get a 1 mile "signal ahead" sign, which is badly faded, and the old fashioned "STOP AHEAD" flashing sign that is right under the Arrigoni... way too late to even notice.  But you're right... CT should use "EXPECT STOPPED TRAFFIC AHEAD" extruded approaching the Middletown lights for a mile in each direction. 

But perhaps what's more disgusting is that the lights ARE STILL THERE when the rest of the highway went limited-access some 50+ years ago!   

But CT has excess speed limit and crosswalk signs! More so with the speed limit signs.
I don't know how they think more WRONG WAY signs are going to prevent wrong way crashes.

Fleeting thought: maybe put in video-detection-enabled spike strips at off-ramps?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on July 12, 2022, 12:41:34 AM
Patch.com has a Vernon police file photo of CT 15 at Bolton Road in 1949: https://patch.com/connecticut/vernon/picture-vernon-road-highway

(https://patch.com/img/cdn20/users/103600/20220629/033641/styles/patch_image/public/rt-15-and-bolton-rd-1949___29152258224.jpg?width=1200)

This is where I-84 crosses Bolton Road (SR 541) today. The "Super 2" section of the Wilbur Cross Highway (CT 15) had opened by then.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on July 12, 2022, 05:59:27 PM
Quote from: kurumi on July 12, 2022, 12:41:34 AM
Patch.com has a Vernon police file photo of CT 15 at Bolton Road in 1949: https://patch.com/connecticut/vernon/picture-vernon-road-highway

(https://patch.com/img/cdn20/users/103600/20220629/033641/styles/patch_image/public/rt-15-and-bolton-rd-1949___29152258224.jpg?width=1200)

This is where I-84 crosses Bolton Road (SR 541) today. The "Super 2" section of the Wilbur Cross Highway (CT 15) had opened by then.
Wouldn't call a road with at-grade intersections a Super 2. It's just an expressway.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: The Ghostbuster on July 13, 2022, 12:41:05 PM
Of course, the same location now looks like this: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8352056,-72.4610441,3a,75y,53.98h,74.63t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1soYHr1dUwoDyR8JSqAmGufA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DoYHr1dUwoDyR8JSqAmGufA%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D22.627432%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192 (Eastbound); https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8357664,-72.4605165,3a,75y,250.99h,71.98t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbyAkKYdXVizBCuB25icUHQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 (Westbound).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: yakra on July 13, 2022, 10:23:05 PM
Quote from: Alps on July 12, 2022, 05:59:27 PM
Wouldn't call a road with at-grade intersections a Super 2. It's just an expressway.
I wouldn't call a 2-lane road with at-grade intersections an expressway. :D
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on July 13, 2022, 10:57:05 PM
Quote from: yakra on July 13, 2022, 10:23:05 PM
Quote from: Alps on July 12, 2022, 05:59:27 PM
Wouldn't call a road with at-grade intersections a Super 2. It's just an expressway.
I wouldn't call a 2-lane road with at-grade intersections an expressway. :D
Technically that's exactly what it is as long as it lacks driveways.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on July 16, 2022, 06:36:31 PM
CT 9 resigning project update:

Drove the length of CT 9 yesterday.  The middle and northern contracts continue to show zero progress in the past 2 months.  No new overheads.  No sheet metal replacements yet.  No enhanced mile markers yet.  Nothing.

The southern contract, however, has seen some signs of life.  Earlier in the month, crews began installing more on-ramp guide signs.  The new onramp signs, which I linked to earlier, are up at [old/existing] Exits 2, 3, 4, and 5.  Earlier in the month, new onramp signs were seen at Exit 11.  Nothing yet for Exits 6-10. 

And southbound at [existing] Exit 10, we have some new primary guide signs up:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52218721289_99f5829970_3k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2nyoAyR)CT9SB-Exit10-2-new (https://flic.kr/p/2nyoAyR) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

Note how the old sign is completely removed, "Higganum" no longer appears", and the new exit number remains hidden.  Also, signs in this contract will apparently have the thick black border around the shield, and 3 digit state routes get a proper width shield.  The middle and northern contracts have no border and use the 2-digit shield even for 3-digit route numbers. 

In addition, the new Exit 10 1/2 mile sign is up, with the old sign still in place for now.  Northbound, for Exit 7, a new extruded secondary sign for "Moodus" is up, but all it says is "Moodus"... no exit tab installed yet. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on July 16, 2022, 11:02:35 PM
I got downvoted in r/Connecticut for correctly pointing out the minimum speed on limited access highways is 40 and not 45.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: bob7374 on July 20, 2022, 11:56:53 AM
CTDOT has posted the CT 8 Exit Renumbering and Sign Replacement contract to the CTsource Bid Board. The Solicitation # is 0015-0381. The sign plans are in the zipped 0015-0381 Contract Plans file, exit renumbering plans are in the file 12_ EXITRENUMBER while new sign plans are under 03_TRAFFIC. The URL for the Bid Board is:
https://portal.ct.gov/DAS/CTSource/BidBoard (https://portal.ct.gov/DAS/CTSource/BidBoard)

Some preliminary observations: The new CT 25 Left Exit number is 3. I-95 ramps will now be numbered 1A and 1B, the previous Exit 1 South End exit will now be 1C. The CT 15 South Merritt Parkway exit will be Exit 6. I-84 will be Exits 30 A and 30 C NB (only the NB plans show the new exit numbers). Exits 38-40 will not change. There will be no exit number given to the last exit and the blank exit tabs at the US 44/CT 8/CT 183 exit at the end of the freeway will be removed.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on July 20, 2022, 02:57:43 PM
I'm surprised they're not making like Route 9 and fudging some of the numbers through Naugatuck and Waterbury.  They have them going 25A (CT 63), 25B (Naugatuck), 26 (CT 68), 27 (S Main St), and 29 (S Leonard St).  Wonder why 25B, 26, and 27 weren't fudged up one to utilize 28. Same with Waterbury.  Why not fudge CT 73 up to 32 and Huntingdon Ave up to 33 to avoid an alphabet city? Here's how it should look

Exit 30 A-B I-84 (get rid of the number in between; it's for the same highway)
Exit 31: Downtown Waterbury (NB) Riverside St (SB) (keeps the 84 exits together as a single #)
Exit 32: CT 73 (NB), W Main St (SB) (avoids using a D suffix)
Exit 33: Huntingdon Ave

The inconsistency of CTDOT is amazing.  And it is totally bat guano crazy to put a TO 63 on Cross St SB when you just passed the exit for CT 63.  Wonder what genius in the Department of Redundancy Department thought that was a good idea (but not marking the Brainard Rd exit as an alternate to 91 South was not)?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on July 20, 2022, 04:23:38 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on July 20, 2022, 02:57:43 PM
The inconsistency of CTDOT is amazing.  And it is totally bat guano crazy to put a TO 63 on Cross St SB when you just passed the exit for CT 63.  Wonder what genius in the Department of Redundancy Department thought that was a good idea (but not marking the Brainard Rd exit as an alternate to 91 South was not)?


I wonder if the Cross St SB sign with the "TO 63" was originally intended for NB??? B/c NB it'll make sense as people use Cross St to cut to 63.  SB they don't b/c its outof the way especially since you just passed 63.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on July 21, 2022, 12:34:08 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on July 20, 2022, 04:23:38 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on July 20, 2022, 02:57:43 PM
The inconsistency of CTDOT is amazing.  And it is totally bat guano crazy to put a TO 63 on Cross St SB when you just passed the exit for CT 63.  Wonder what genius in the Department of Redundancy Department thought that was a good idea (but not marking the Brainard Rd exit as an alternate to 91 South was not)?


I wonder if the Cross St SB sign with the "TO 63" was originally intended for NB??? B/c NB it'll make sense as people use Cross St to cut to 63.  SB they don't b/c its outof the way especially since you just passed 63.
I think the intent is for traffic going from Rt 8 SB to Rt 63 SB to use Cross Street as an alternate route to bypass the urban stretch of Route 63 between its interchange with Route 8 and Cross Street.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on July 22, 2022, 01:05:24 AM
The solicitation and plans for the renumbering of exits on Route 8 has been released.  Interestingly, the exit renumber only includes Route 8. The plans do not include the renumbering exits on the freeway portion of Route 25 between the split with Route 8 and Route 111.

Another oddity is both Exits 23 and 24 will be renumbered to Exit 21, even though Exit 23 (NB) is nearly 2 miles south of Exit 24 (SB).

https://portal.ct.gov/DAS/CTSource/BidBoard
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on July 22, 2022, 03:23:23 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on July 22, 2022, 01:05:24 AM
The solicitation and plans for the renumbering of exits on Route 8 has been released.  Interestingly, the exit renumber only includes Route 8. The plans do not include the renumbering exits on the freeway portion of Route 25 between the split with Route 8 and Route 111.

Another oddity is both Exits 23 and 24 will be renumbered to Exit 21, even though Exit 23 (NB) is nearly 2 miles south of Exit 24 (SB).

https://portal.ct.gov/DAS/CTSource/BidBoard

If they're smart (and because they're giving an exit number to CT 25) , they'll truncate CT 25 to the split and use mileage based numbers for CT 25 from the split rather than from 95. As for CT 8: I wouldn't be surprised to see some adjustments/fudging a la CT 9 in the final plans (the original bid plans didn't have separate numbers for the I-91 ramps).

Switching gears, more new chorded truss BGS's are going up in the West Hartford area on I-84, including a new EB Exit Now for CT 71 with a black border on the shield (another reflective button copy sign bites the dust).  It's the first BGS with a black bordered shield in the Hartford area, yet right across the highway, you have new CT 9 BGS's with a MA 9 style shield.  There's also a full set of signs now for the Prospect/New Park exit, including a 1 mi chorded truss almost on top of the overhead gantry with the old Exit Now signage for Park Rd. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: DrSmith on July 22, 2022, 11:40:22 AM
Heading through East Hartford yesterday, I saw this one was replaced as well right at the Route 2 exit.
https://goo.gl/maps/m3p2i7GympUSJvJf8
It went by quickly as I was driving through, although for the Governor St sign, the KEEP LEFT was replaced with a down arrow to the left lane. It seems a little confusing and more lane swerving isn't needing through that area.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: J N Winkler on July 22, 2022, 06:11:38 PM
Just to add to what others have already said about contract 0015-0381 (SR 8 sign replacement and exit renumbering):  the Special Provisions includes 77 pages of sign panel details (confected using GuideSign).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on July 22, 2022, 06:30:13 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on July 22, 2022, 03:23:23 AM
Switching gears, more new chorded truss BGS's are going up in the West Hartford area on I-84, including a new EB Exit Now for CT 71 with a black border on the shield (another reflective button copy sign bites the dust).  It's the first BGS with a black bordered shield in the Hartford area, yet right across the highway, you have new CT 9 BGS's with a MA 9 style shield.  There's also a full set of signs now for the Prospect/New Park exit, including a 1 mi chorded truss almost on top of the overhead gantry with the old Exit Now signage for Park Rd. 

Yup... caught some of those last week:
I-84 East at Exit 40:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52218722819_9a77dd4720_3k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2nyoB2e)84EB-Exit40 (https://flic.kr/p/2nyoB2e) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

I-84 East at Exit 43:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52218932595_906a2fc182_3k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2nypFo4)84EB-Exit44-1 (https://flic.kr/p/2nypFo4) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

I-84 East at Exit 55:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52218722784_16d8348498_4k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2nyoB1C)84EB-Exit55 (https://flic.kr/p/2nyoB1C) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr
This must be the one Dr Smith observed with signs now installed.  They really should've kept a pull-through for I-84 East here... perhaps with a couple "down and left" arrows. 

And today, on Rt 9:

Northbound at old Exit 4:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52233507862_cd12c52fae_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2nzGo6L)20220722_140453 (https://flic.kr/p/2nzGo6L) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

Northbound at old Exit 5:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52234502828_dd7201a855_h.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2nzMtSm)20220722_140532 (https://flic.kr/p/2nzMtSm) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

Southbound 1 mile advance for old Exit 7:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52234502678_ad486883ed_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2nzMtPL)20220722_181439 (https://flic.kr/p/2nzMtPL) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

The rest of the Rt 9 photos are here:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/albums/72157719337442409
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on July 22, 2022, 07:03:21 PM
Good to see the black bordered Route signs.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MATraveler128 on July 23, 2022, 07:53:04 AM
Why are the new exit numbers on CT 9 taped up? Are they covering up the old number or something?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on July 23, 2022, 11:43:40 AM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on July 23, 2022, 07:53:04 AM
Why are the new exit numbers on CT 9 taped up? Are they covering up the old number or something?

The taped up numbers are the new mileage-based numbers.  I'm guessing when they have more of the new signs in place, they'll remove the tape and reveal the new numbers.  The sections from Cromwell up to I-84 have overlayed old numbers over the new numbers. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on July 26, 2022, 09:10:07 AM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on July 22, 2022, 07:03:21 PM
Good to see the black bordered Route signs.
Didn't like 'em at first, but they are growing on me. Makes the route marker stand out more IMO.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on July 26, 2022, 01:20:00 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on July 26, 2022, 09:10:07 AM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on July 22, 2022, 07:03:21 PM
Good to see the black bordered Route signs.
Didn't like 'em at first, but they are growing on me. Makes the route marker stand out more IMO.

That's why I like them as well. Without it, the signs look too similar to Massachusetts and Maine.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on July 31, 2022, 08:05:40 PM
Every day there are more new signs on CT 9... south of Middletown, that is. 

Northbound:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52254706248_208460d04f_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2nBz2Db)20220731_162302 (https://flic.kr/p/2nBz2Db) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52251936715_47f8eb0059_3k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2nBjQmB)CT9NB-Exit08-new (https://flic.kr/p/2nBjQmB) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52251936680_09bb7bbcac_4k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2nBjQm1)CT9NB-Exit09 (https://flic.kr/p/2nBjQm1) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

North of Middletown, no progress in the past couple weeks.  Still no new sheets, or overheads. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: bob7374 on August 03, 2022, 12:09:04 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on July 20, 2022, 11:56:53 AM
CTDOT has posted the CT 8 Exit Renumbering and Sign Replacement contract to the CTsource Bid Board. The Solicitation # is 0015-0381. The sign plans are in the zipped 0015-0381 Contract Plans file, exit renumbering plans are in the file 12_ EXITRENUMBER while new sign plans are under 03_TRAFFIC. The URL for the Bid Board is:
https://portal.ct.gov/DAS/CTSource/BidBoard (https://portal.ct.gov/DAS/CTSource/BidBoard)

Some preliminary observations: The new CT 25 Left Exit number is 3. I-95 ramps will now be numbered 1A and 1B, the previous Exit 1 South End exit will now be 1C. The CT 15 South Merritt Parkway exit will be Exit 6. I-84 will be Exits 30 A and 30 C NB (only the NB plans show the new exit numbers). Exits 38-40 will not change. There will be no exit number given to the last exit and the blank exit tabs at the US 44/CT 8/CT 183 exit at the end of the freeway will be removed.
For those who haven't looked at the plans, I've downloaded examples for almost every CT 8 exit on the CT section of my New England Exit Renumbering Central page, direct link: https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/neexitrenumbering.html#ct8exits (https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/neexitrenumbering.html#ct8exits)

Next up for the site, I-95 in RI.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MATraveler128 on August 03, 2022, 06:58:09 AM
I'm glad CT 15 is scheduled to be converted to mileage based exit numbers even if it's not for three more years. It never really made sense to me why the exit numbers need to start at 27 instead of 1. Also it looks like Wikipedia has updated the CT 15 page to show that it is scheduled to be converted in 2025.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on August 03, 2022, 07:30:28 AM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on August 03, 2022, 06:58:09 AM
I'm glad CT 15 is scheduled to be converted to mileage based exit numbers even if it's not for three more years. It never really made sense to me why the exit numbers need to start at 27 instead of 1. Also it looks like Wikipedia has updated the CT 15 page to show that it is scheduled to be converted in 2025.
I think the CT section starts at exit 27 because it continued the numbering from NY.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MATraveler128 on August 03, 2022, 07:47:24 AM
Quote from: connroadgeek on August 03, 2022, 07:30:28 AM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on August 03, 2022, 06:58:09 AM
I'm glad CT 15 is scheduled to be converted to mileage based exit numbers even if it's not for three more years. It never really made sense to me why the exit numbers need to start at 27 instead of 1. Also it looks like Wikipedia has updated the CT 15 page to show that it is scheduled to be converted in 2025.
I think the CT section starts at exit 27 because it continued the numbering from NY.

That is true yes. Although now that the Hutch is converted, the exit numbers presently jump from 19 to 27. So there are historical reasons for this.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on August 03, 2022, 10:22:15 AM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on August 03, 2022, 07:47:24 AM
Quote from: connroadgeek on August 03, 2022, 07:30:28 AM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on August 03, 2022, 06:58:09 AM
I'm glad CT 15 is scheduled to be converted to mileage based exit numbers even if it's not for three more years. It never really made sense to me why the exit numbers need to start at 27 instead of 1. Also it looks like Wikipedia has updated the CT 15 page to show that it is scheduled to be converted in 2025.
I think the CT section starts at exit 27 because it continued the numbering from NY.

That is true yes. Although now that the Hutch is converted, the exit numbers presently jump from 19 to 27. So there are historical reasons for this.

The Exit 27 start is a couple of renumberings old.   Before the Hutch converted to mileage-based exits, the exit at the state line was Exit 30 for the Hutch.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on August 03, 2022, 12:42:15 PM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on August 03, 2022, 10:22:15 AM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on August 03, 2022, 07:47:24 AM
Quote from: connroadgeek on August 03, 2022, 07:30:28 AM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on August 03, 2022, 06:58:09 AM
I'm glad CT 15 is scheduled to be converted to mileage based exit numbers even if it's not for three more years. It never really made sense to me why the exit numbers need to start at 27 instead of 1. Also it looks like Wikipedia has updated the CT 15 page to show that it is scheduled to be converted in 2025.
I think the CT section starts at exit 27 because it continued the numbering from NY.

That is true yes. Although now that the Hutch is converted, the exit numbers presently jump from 19 to 27. So there are historical reasons for this.

The Exit 27 start is a couple of renumberings old.   Before the Hutch converted to mileage-based exits, the exit at the state line was Exit 30 for the Hutch.
The Hutch underwent a prior renumbering...I think that happened when interchanges with I-287 and I-684 were completed.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on August 03, 2022, 01:53:25 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on August 03, 2022, 12:42:15 PM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on August 03, 2022, 10:22:15 AM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on August 03, 2022, 07:47:24 AM
Quote from: connroadgeek on August 03, 2022, 07:30:28 AM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on August 03, 2022, 06:58:09 AM
I'm glad CT 15 is scheduled to be converted to mileage based exit numbers even if it's not for three more years. It never really made sense to me why the exit numbers need to start at 27 instead of 1. Also it looks like Wikipedia has updated the CT 15 page to show that it is scheduled to be converted in 2025.
I think the CT section starts at exit 27 because it continued the numbering from NY.

That is true yes. Although now that the Hutch is converted, the exit numbers presently jump from 19 to 27. So there are historical reasons for this.

The Exit 27 start is a couple of renumberings old.   Before the Hutch converted to mileage-based exits, the exit at the state line was Exit 30 for the Hutch.
The Hutch underwent a prior renumbering...I think that happened when interchanges with I-287 and I-684 were completed.

I would just hope for simplicity that CTDOT and NYSDOT get together on the King St exit and let the CT exit become 19B rather than having 2 different numbers for the same intersection.  Just start off with 28 becoming 5 and call it a day. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: The Ghostbuster on August 03, 2022, 02:50:05 PM
I dislike it when exit sequences don't restart when crossing state lines, such as was the case with CT 15. I believe Interstate 195 in Rhode Island originally didn't reset the exit numbers when it passed into Massachusetts; same with the Interstate 95 JFK Memorial Highway when it passed from Maryland into Delaware (back when the Maryland segment had sequential exit numbers). I have no problem with beltways that cross state lines not restarting their exit sequences, but that would be the exception.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on August 03, 2022, 04:58:09 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 03, 2022, 02:50:05 PM
I dislike it when exit sequences don't restart when crossing state lines, such as was the case with CT 15. I believe Interstate 195 in Rhode Island originally didn't reset the exit numbers when it passed into Massachusetts; same with the Interstate 95 JFK Memorial Highway when it passed from Maryland into Delaware (back when the Maryland segment had sequential exit numbers). I have no problem with beltways that cross state lines not restarting their exit sequences, but that would be the exception.
While some may classify it as a beltway, I-278 doesn't reset (at least Westbound) when it crosses into NJ.  And what of the case of I-86/NY 17 in PA near Waverly?  CTDOT should fast track I-84 and CT 15 for renumbering, since both are connected (in the case of I-84, on both ends) to highways in other states that have already been renumbered.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on August 05, 2022, 01:36:02 AM
It's from April, but I don't recall seeing it: a public radio segment with a DOT engineer about the exit renumbering process: https://www.ctpublic.org/news/2022-04-04/why-are-connecticut-highway-exit-numbers-changing

Nothing new, but interesting to hear it discussed (and "Route 571" is mentioned in passing)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on August 05, 2022, 06:52:28 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on July 22, 2022, 06:30:13 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on July 22, 2022, 03:23:23 AM
Switching gears, more new chorded truss BGS's are going up in the West Hartford area on I-84, including a new EB Exit Now for CT 71 with a black border on the shield (another reflective button copy sign bites the dust).  It's the first BGS with a black bordered shield in the Hartford area, yet right across the highway, you have new CT 9 BGS's with a MA 9 style shield.  There's also a full set of signs now for the Prospect/New Park exit, including a 1 mi chorded truss almost on top of the overhead gantry with the old Exit Now signage for Park Rd. 

Yup... caught some of those last week:
I-84 East at Exit 40:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52218722819_9a77dd4720_3k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2nyoB2e)84EB-Exit40 (https://flic.kr/p/2nyoB2e) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

I-84 East at Exit 43:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52218932595_906a2fc182_3k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2nypFo4)84EB-Exit44-1 (https://flic.kr/p/2nypFo4) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

I-84 East at Exit 55:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52218722784_16d8348498_4k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2nyoB1C)84EB-Exit55 (https://flic.kr/p/2nyoB1C) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr
This must be the one Dr Smith observed with signs now installed.  They really should've kept a pull-through for I-84 East here... perhaps with a couple "down and left" arrows. 

And today, on Rt 9:

Northbound at old Exit 4:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52233507862_cd12c52fae_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2nzGo6L)20220722_140453 (https://flic.kr/p/2nzGo6L) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

Northbound at old Exit 5:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52234502828_dd7201a855_h.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2nzMtSm)20220722_140532 (https://flic.kr/p/2nzMtSm) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

Southbound 1 mile advance for old Exit 7:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52234502678_ad486883ed_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2nzMtPL)20220722_181439 (https://flic.kr/p/2nzMtPL) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

The rest of the Rt 9 photos are here:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/albums/72157719337442409

Deep River is pretty shallow compared to Mianus  :bigass:
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 25, 2022, 09:38:36 PM
CT 9 update:

The contractor has been "moving right along" in recent weeks on the CT 9 sign replacement - southern contract.  Most (but not all) ground-based guide signs and auxiliary signs are now up.  We're still missing the big blue ATTRACTIONS logo signs for (former) Exits 3 & 7 and the "Jct 95 2 miles" sign.  No new overheads are up yet, but the foundations all seem to be in place.  All new exit numbers are still taped over... not sure when "the big reveal" will be.  There's still quite a bit to do on the northern contract through New Britain (lots of overheads still need to go up).  Middle contract still has a few overheads to go in as well.

Photos here:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/sets/72157719337442409/

Progress is also being made on I-84's West Hartford-to-East Hartford resigning.  Caught a new sign for Sisson Ave (EB), on the existing gantry.  Signs from Sisson Ave to I-91 in Hartford itself are being replaced on the existing support structures. 

This Saturday, I hope to check the progress of (at least) the I-91 project from North Haven up to Meriden (not holding out for anything spectacular yet there), and maybe Rt 2. 


Elsewhere in CT...

The project plans for the I-95 Exit 74 (East Lyme) reconstruction are up on CT.GOV/DOT's "Bid Board".  Sign plans are up there as well, which extend from Exit 73 up to Exit 75.  We can say goodbye to "Plainfield" as a control city on I-395, as the simplified way of doing things lets "Norwich" fly solo (why not "Worcester" too?).  The I-91 Dexter Coffin Bridge rehab project plans are also up as well.  Sign plans there just show the gantries on the bridge itself being replaced. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on August 29, 2022, 12:37:11 PM
Exit 74 just went through a reconstruction when they put in the Costco. They are going to change it again?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on August 29, 2022, 05:01:51 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on August 29, 2022, 12:37:11 PM
Exit 74 just went through a reconstruction when they put in the Costco. They are going to change it again?
Yes, they are going to replace the existing overpass with a wider bridge. The ramps are going to be realigned, and the I-95 mainline is going to be widened to accommodate full left and right shoulders (and possibly enough space for a third lane with restriping) through the interchange. The previous project at Exit 74 was just a short-term fix. Now comes the project that will bring the permanent solution to that interchange's problems.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 29, 2022, 05:22:13 PM
Basically, the access road they built between Rt 161 and Costco/ramps to-from I-95 South, will be shifted north to the other side of the power substation, giving proper length on/off ramps to/from I-95 South.  The present acceleration lane there is a joke... very similar to the Merritt Parkway.  The new one will be proper length.  On the northbound side, the new offramp will start 1/4 mile further to the west and will take over the former Mobil gas station and Starlight Motel properties.  This will also accommodate a loop ramp from Rt 161 South to I-95 North.  The present onramp to I-95 North will be for Rt 161 North traffic.  There will also be 3 lanes between Exits 74 & 75, more like operational lanes.  I believe the actual bridge carrying I-95 over Rt 161 will be wide enough to accommodate future 3 lanes in each direction (they'd be stupid not to make this happen).  The two northbound onramps will come together before entering the I-95 North mainline. 

The map at this link should explain things better:
https://ctexaminer.com/2021/06/14/142-million-east-lyme-exit-74-project-delayed-two-years/
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on August 29, 2022, 07:59:19 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on August 29, 2022, 05:22:13 PM
Basically, the access road they built between Rt 161 and Costco/ramps to-from I-95 South, will be shifted north to the other side of the power substation, giving proper length on/off ramps to/from I-95 South.  The present acceleration lane there is a joke... very similar to the Merritt Parkway.  The new one will be proper length.  On the northbound side, the new offramp will start 1/4 mile further to the west and will take over the former Mobil gas station and Starlight Motel properties.  This will also accommodate a loop ramp from Rt 161 South to I-95 North.  The present onramp to I-95 North will be for Rt 161 North traffic.  There will also be 3 lanes between Exits 74 & 75, more like operational lanes.  I believe the actual bridge carrying I-95 over Rt 161 will be wide enough to accommodate future 3 lanes in each direction (they'd be stupid not to make this happen).  The two northbound onramps will come together before entering the I-95 North mainline. 

The map at this link should explain things better:
https://ctexaminer.com/2021/06/14/142-million-east-lyme-exit-74-project-delayed-two-years/
It's also important to note why the geometry of this interchange is so obsolete is that this section of the Connecticut Turnpike that runs from the Baldwin Bridge to the I-95/395 split was originally constructed in the late 1940s as a bypass for Route 1. This bypass was incorporated into the Connecticut Turnpike when it opened approximately 10 years later in 1958. You'll notice that Exits 73 though 70 have a lot of the same geometric issues as Exit 74, as they were all constructed as part of this bypass.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 29, 2022, 09:11:07 PM
Yes, while this is true, the geometry of the Exit 74 southbound onramp was greatly altered by construction of COSTCO.  An extra curve was thrown in, which further slows traffic trying to speed up to highway speeds, coupled with a short merge area.

For reference, see the street view image here of the old ramp...
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3605337,-72.211446,3a,75y,159.04h,79.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3wDJxzaGcEPpfwX6d5NFkA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

...and to see the change, just move over to the southbound offramp.


Was the pre-turnpike section of Exits 70-76 built as a super 2 or 4 lanes divided? 
It's really in dire need of an upgrade, the entire way, to 3 lanes each way, with the Exits 71-72 mess reconfigured (I'd close Exit 71, personally). 

Perhaps it just hasn't been a priority since its cause of congestion is less "commuter" and more "seasonal tourist".  Regardless, during the summer, its virtually impassable. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on August 29, 2022, 11:34:27 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on August 29, 2022, 09:11:07 PM
Yes, while this is true, the geometry of the Exit 74 southbound onramp was greatly altered by construction of COSTCO.  An extra curve was thrown in, which further slows traffic trying to speed up to highway speeds, coupled with a short merge area.

For reference, see the street view image here of the old ramp...
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3605337,-72.211446,3a,75y,159.04h,79.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3wDJxzaGcEPpfwX6d5NFkA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

...and to see the change, just move over to the southbound offramp.


Was the pre-turnpike section of Exits 70-76 built as a super 2 or 4 lanes divided? 
It's really in dire need of an upgrade, the entire way, to 3 lanes each way, with the Exits 71-72 mess reconfigured (I'd close Exit 71, personally). 

Perhaps it just hasn't been a priority since its cause of congestion is less "commuter" and more "seasonal tourist".  Regardless, during the summer, its virtually impassable.
My understanding is that it was built in stages, 4 lanes over the Baldwin Bridge to Exit 70, and from Exit 74 to 76, and 2 lanes in between. The second set of lanes were added between Exit 70 and 74 in the 1950s before the bypass was incorporated into the Connecticut Turnpike.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on August 30, 2022, 04:41:01 AM
Good info.  I had always wondered why the section of the Turnpike from CT-9 to the I-95/395 split is so substandard beyond the typical reasons of voluminous traffic and lack of funding to fix it.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on August 30, 2022, 08:24:21 AM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on August 30, 2022, 04:41:01 AM
Good info.  I had always wondered why the section of the Turnpike from CT-9 to the I-95/395 split is so substandard beyond the typical reasons of voluminous traffic and lack of funding to fix it.
Years ago, CTDOT performed a study (they waste a lot of money on studies from which nothing comes out of) about adding a third lane on I-95 from Branford to Rhode Island. That study estimated the cost to add a third lane in each direction would be well over a billion dollars, back in the early 2000s, so probably 2 or 3 billion now. Regardless, I would nominate the stretch from Route 9 to the I-95/395 split to be the first section to be reconstructed and widened because it's probably the most substandard section of I-95 through Connecticut.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 30, 2022, 08:22:15 PM
I believe it was in the most recent 10-year plan, but only as far as the Rocky Neck Connector. 

Maybe they're still trying to figure out what to do at the I-95/I-395 interchange.  If Route 11 is indeed dead, that should shave off a billion right there from construction costs.  And the upcoming bridge over Rt 161 project should shave off another good chunk of change.   The biggest "issue" I forsee (for a Baldwin to Rocky Neck project) is the Lieutenant River wetlands between the Exit 70s.  With Rt 1 so close to I-95 right there as well, you've got a really tight spot.  Other than that, its pretty straight forward to get to the connector... about 2 or 3 overhead bridges to be replaced, two interchanges to modify/combine, and how to reconfigure the Exit 70s (I say consolidate at the westernmost one).  Still probably a 'Bil in today's funds, but definitely needed... 20 years ago!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on September 03, 2022, 06:55:04 PM
More old CT stuff: the CT Digital Archive has scanned "Cuts and Fills", the Highway Dept. newsletter that ran from 1941 to 1959: https://collections.ctdigitalarchive.org/islandora/object/30002%3Ao51579237

There's a lot of "who got promoted / married / shipped off to war / won the softball game" material, but also some neat (B+W) construction photos from the area, and a few maps.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: sharkyfour on September 07, 2022, 09:30:38 PM
Looks like someone put the "u" in Flatbush Ave on a new sign upside down, and nobody caught it until after it was already up...

https://www.wtnh.com/news/connecticut/hartford/grammar-error-hartford-exit-misspelled-on-i-84-west/
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on September 07, 2022, 10:44:22 PM
Quote from: sharkyfour on September 07, 2022, 09:30:38 PM
Looks like someone put the "u" in Flatbush Ave on a new sign upside down, and nobody caught it until after it was already up...

https://www.wtnh.com/news/connecticut/hartford/grammar-error-hartford-exit-misspelled-on-i-84-west/
And they're replacing the sign instead of just patching over the n!?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on September 07, 2022, 11:05:25 PM
Quote from: Alps on September 07, 2022, 10:44:22 PM
Quote from: sharkyfour on September 07, 2022, 09:30:38 PM
Looks like someone put the "u" in Flatbush Ave on a new sign upside down, and nobody caught it until after it was already up...

https://www.wtnh.com/news/connecticut/hartford/grammar-error-hartford-exit-misspelled-on-i-84-west/
And they're replacing the sign instead of just patching over the n!?

That's 7 exits before the Framington exit :)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: storm2k on September 08, 2022, 04:03:42 PM
Quote from: sharkyfour on September 07, 2022, 09:30:38 PM
Looks like someone put the "u" in Flatbush Ave on a new sign upside down, and nobody caught it until after it was already up...

https://www.wtnh.com/news/connecticut/hartford/grammar-error-hartford-exit-misspelled-on-i-84-west/

Spending the money needed for a whole new sign instead of a greenout to fix the name seems excessive.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on September 08, 2022, 04:31:04 PM
Quote from: storm2k on September 08, 2022, 04:03:42 PM
Quote from: sharkyfour on September 07, 2022, 09:30:38 PM
Looks like someone put the "u" in Flatbush Ave on a new sign upside down, and nobody caught it until after it was already up...

https://www.wtnh.com/news/connecticut/hartford/grammar-error-hartford-exit-misspelled-on-i-84-west/

Spending the money needed for a whole new sign instead of a greenout to fix the name seems excessive.
Literally all they have to do is flip the "n" upsidedown
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: DrSmith on September 08, 2022, 05:20:36 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on September 08, 2022, 04:31:04 PM
Quote from: storm2k on September 08, 2022, 04:03:42 PM
Quote from: sharkyfour on September 07, 2022, 09:30:38 PM
Looks like someone put the "u" in Flatbush Ave on a new sign upside down, and nobody caught it until after it was already up...

https://www.wtnh.com/news/connecticut/hartford/grammar-error-hartford-exit-misspelled-on-i-84-west/

Spending the money needed for a whole new sign instead of a greenout to fix the name seems excessive.
Literally all they have to do is flip the "n" upsidedown

In general for contracting, the buyer can refuse acceptance of a non-conforming item and it would be on the seller to eat the cost of rework. Alternatively they can accept the non-conforming item for a reduced price if the defect is correctable or acceptable.

And non-conformance means it did not meet the specifications, not necessarily that it is acceptable. If the buyer specifies something be 12" +/- 0.1" and you provide 13", even if that size works, it's non conforming and can be refused.

Unless the plans spelled it as "Flatbnsh" then it is the contractor's mistake and cost.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on September 08, 2022, 11:30:49 PM
Quote from: DrSmith on September 08, 2022, 05:20:36 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on September 08, 2022, 04:31:04 PM
Quote from: storm2k on September 08, 2022, 04:03:42 PM
Quote from: sharkyfour on September 07, 2022, 09:30:38 PM
Looks like someone put the "u" in Flatbush Ave on a new sign upside down, and nobody caught it until after it was already up...

https://www.wtnh.com/news/connecticut/hartford/grammar-error-hartford-exit-misspelled-on-i-84-west/

Spending the money needed for a whole new sign instead of a greenout to fix the name seems excessive.
Literally all they have to do is flip the "n" upsidedown

In general for contracting, the buyer can refuse acceptance of a non-conforming item and it would be on the seller to eat the cost of rework. Alternatively they can accept the non-conforming item for a reduced price if the defect is correctable or acceptable.

And non-conformance means it did not meet the specifications, not necessarily that it is acceptable. If the buyer specifies something be 12" +/- 0.1" and you provide 13", even if that size works, it's non conforming and can be refused.

Unless the plans spelled it as "Flatbnsh" then it is the contractor's mistake and cost.
Not guaranteed this was done by a contractor vs. the state's own office...
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on September 08, 2022, 11:31:07 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on September 08, 2022, 04:31:04 PM
Quote from: storm2k on September 08, 2022, 04:03:42 PM
Quote from: sharkyfour on September 07, 2022, 09:30:38 PM
Looks like someone put the "u" in Flatbush Ave on a new sign upside down, and nobody caught it until after it was already up...

https://www.wtnh.com/news/connecticut/hartford/grammar-error-hartford-exit-misspelled-on-i-84-west/

Spending the money needed for a whole new sign instead of a greenout to fix the name seems excessive.
Literally all they have to do is flip the "n" upsidedown
I looked at the sign and I'm not sure the letters are applied in such a way this is feasible
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on September 15, 2022, 04:44:57 PM
Still a long way to go on CT 9 north of I-91, but we get this nice new APL at the northbound split to CT 72
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52360773884_772c0be00b.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on September 15, 2022, 05:35:11 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on September 15, 2022, 04:44:57 PM
Still a long way to go on CT 9 north of I-91, but we get this nice new APL at the northbound split to CT 72
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52360773884_772c0be00b.jpg)
You know what pisses me off? The new APLs on I-91 for Exit 29 are two pieces and the seam is visible in daylight and they were obviously installed misaligned.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on September 15, 2022, 09:24:03 PM
I'd shorten the arrows on those APL signs. You could save 1/3rd of the height.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on September 16, 2022, 07:15:15 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on September 15, 2022, 09:24:03 PM
I'd shorten the arrows on those APL signs. You could save 1/3rd of the height.
The straight+left arrow is what interferes with that idea. But I've seen it and hopefully makes the next MUTCD.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RyanB06 on September 19, 2022, 05:40:19 PM
I don't have a photo of it, but I saw a new sign posted on CT-9 South as you head into Middletown yesterday. It's a California-style 'exits ahead' sign that reads more or less like this:

EXIT [covered, probably 24] Portland 1/4
EXIT [covered, probably 23B] Middletown 1/2
EXIT [covered, probably 23A] Harbor Area 3/4

I might be wrong on the distances but if I am I'm probably off a quarter mile.

Also, I noticed that while the advance sign for Exit 16/24 reads "Portland/Willimantic" (like the old sign it replaced), the sign at the exit reads simply "Portland". I'm wondering if that's a goof?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on September 19, 2022, 06:19:51 PM
Saw both of those last night.  The distances shoulde be "1", "1 1/4" and "1 1/2".  distance is "1".  I did notice the new (former)Exit 16 1/2 mile advance with "Willimantic".  As far as whether its a goof or not... one contract shows that sign as "NIC" (meaning not in contract), and the next shows it as "replace exit crown only".  Now I don't know if there were any addendums that reflected any changes... obviously there was, as the new exit numbers have changed a couple times, "NEW EXIT ##" signs have been put in, and "replace exit tab" was replaced with overlays. 

Meanwhile, northbound...

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52367841901_1f93301473_4k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2nMySVT)CT9NB-Exit15-new (https://flic.kr/p/2nMySVT) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52368261405_c7662cba27_4k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2nMB2CH)CT9NB-Exit16-2 (https://flic.kr/p/2nMB2CH) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

That last sign looks a little stubby without Willimantic.  Maybe the posts should have been a bit longer... or the spacing made a little "looser". 

All northbound fraction/mile posts are now up from I-95 to the Middletown/Cromwell line.  Southbound mileposts have been corrected.  And it appears MP 0.0 is the start of the I-95 Northbound Exit 69 offramp. 

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on September 19, 2022, 11:08:17 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on September 19, 2022, 06:19:51 PM
Meanwhile, northbound...

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52368261405_c7662cba27_4k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2nMB2CH)CT9NB-Exit16-2 (https://flic.kr/p/2nMB2CH) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

That last sign looks a little stubby without Willimantic.  Maybe the posts should have been a bit longer... or the spacing made a little "looser". 
No, you'd have to have a wider sign, and median width is limited. That's my guess. I've seen agencies put the longer name in smaller text. CT won't do that.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on September 20, 2022, 12:09:09 AM
Another thing about that sign: why does 66 come before 17?  Once again, like on I-95 at the 8/25 exit, CTDOT puts the higher route number first, which is wrong according to MUTCD.  And the turnoff is mainline CT 17 to boot; CT 66 doesn't join until the next intersection
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on September 20, 2022, 02:59:18 AM
The unique 5-ramp interchange at CT 17 and New London Turnpike ("NLT") in Glastonbury may lose the direct left exit ramp from 17 southbound to NLT eastbound. The ramp was there to support CT 2 traffic for the 12 years between the old expressway opening (1952) and the newer CT 2 expressway to the east (1964). It's not as useful now. The fact that it's really cool doesn't outweigh its disadvantages.

The state is planning to have everyone use the right-side ramp for both directions on NLT, accommodating this with... a roundabout.

Project page: https://portal.ct.gov/DOTGlastonbury53-189
Roundabout diagram: https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOT/documents/denviro/EnvMonitor/Glastonbury-53-189-Scoping/April2022Pavement-Limits80sc.pdf
Project map: https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOT/documents/denviro/EnvMonitor/Glastonbury-53-189-Scoping/Project-Map-Glastonbury-53-189.pdf
Meeting recording: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcIYDsTFJG4

The project appears to leave the 17 NB entrance ramp unchanged, though that could be reconfigured to a T-intersection (combined with 17 NB exit) and reclaim more land along NLT.

They will also remove a thru lane on 17 NB, but leave an auxiliary lane between Williams St entrance and NLT exit. 17 has not really been a real 4-lane freeway in this area for years.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on September 20, 2022, 04:55:53 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on September 19, 2022, 06:19:51 PM
Saw both of those last night.  The distances shoulde be "1", "1 1/4" and "1 1/2".  distance is "1".  I did notice the new (former)Exit 16 1/2 mile advance with "Willimantic".  As far as whether its a goof or not... one contract shows that sign as "NIC" (meaning not in contract), and the next shows it as "replace exit crown only".  Now I don't know if there were any addendums that reflected any changes... obviously there was, as the new exit numbers have changed a couple times, "NEW EXIT ##" signs have been put in, and "replace exit tab" was replaced with overlays. 

Meanwhile, northbound...

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52367841901_1f93301473_4k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2nMySVT)CT9NB-Exit15-new (https://flic.kr/p/2nMySVT) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52368261405_c7662cba27_4k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2nMB2CH)CT9NB-Exit16-2 (https://flic.kr/p/2nMB2CH) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

That last sign looks a little stubby without Willimantic.  Maybe the posts should have been a bit longer... or the spacing made a little "looser". 

All northbound fraction/mile posts are now up from I-95 to the Middletown/Cromwell line.  Southbound mileposts have been corrected.  And it appears MP 0.0 is the start of the I-95 Northbound Exit 69 offramp.

I notice the exit from CT-9 to CT-66 west no longer Meriden as a control city. I guess the state wants traffic to use CT-9 to I-91S.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on September 20, 2022, 09:35:41 AM
Quote from: Alps on September 19, 2022, 11:08:17 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on September 19, 2022, 06:19:51 PM
Meanwhile, northbound...

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52368261405_c7662cba27_4k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2nMB2CH)CT9NB-Exit16-2 (https://flic.kr/p/2nMB2CH) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

That last sign looks a little stubby without Willimantic.  Maybe the posts should have been a bit longer... or the spacing made a little "looser". 
No, you'd have to have a wider sign, and median width is limited. That's my guess. I've seen agencies put the longer name in smaller text. CT won't do that.
No, they'll give us dinky-ass town line signs though.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on September 29, 2022, 06:29:45 PM
And now a new diagrammatic to join the APL

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52392995797_f4131dd21b.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on September 29, 2022, 06:39:02 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on September 29, 2022, 06:29:45 PM
And now a new diagrammatic to join the APL

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52392995797_f4131dd21b.jpg)
reasons the mutcd should keep apl
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on October 03, 2022, 04:40:17 PM
Looks like, at least for the southern contract outside of the city of Middletown, most new signs are up on CT 9 from I-95 to Exit 11.  We are still missing 2 ground guide signs, NB, and a few overheads SB.  They've started work on the new overheads for the I-95 jct, and have completed the restriping at the junction itself.  The 3rd lane which came from Springbrook Rd right before the split is gone, so now the left lane only goes to I-95 North and the right lane only goes to I-95 South.  The new signs will reflect this with down arrows.  The space where the third lane was is now a wide area with painted white angled lines.  No signs observed for the new lane configuration, though traditional lane markings switch to the much smaller "exiting" markings at the 1/2 mile point before the jct. 

Would have gotten pics, but I came through at 11 at night.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on October 05, 2022, 08:48:53 PM
Some Notes:

1)  It took 5 months but the Exit 13 1/2 mile sign is up on CT-8 NB.  It was sitting there since April and put up a couple weeks ago. It was the last major sign to be put up.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52005020906_a96dcb43ab_k.jpg)

2) I-84 WB is Waterbury will get a new surprise AUX lane between Exit 22 on-ramp and Exit 21 off-ramp.  A nice addition that wasn't originally planned. Go tp Page 2. Traffic backs up with the Exit 22 on-ramp now ever since the widening from Exit 23 was completed.
https://mixmaster-rehab.com/uploads/files/September_22_Final.pdf?v=1663845683674

3) The CT-9 stoplight project doesn't sit right with me.  The Left exits and entrances proposed (in 2022 mind you) on CT-9 NB.  I know you'll say it's a land issue.  But is it? The plans call for the ramps to go below the highway so if both carriageways are close together with a jersey barrier wouldn't it take up the same space and allow the ramp curvatures to not be as sharp. Although I'm thankful the CT-17 on ramp to CT-9 NB will be done.  That should enter after the CT-66 off-ramp from the right IMHO like Exit 23 and 25 on I-84 EB does it.

4) same with I-91/I-691/CT-15 project, it's left me under impressed.  It's not removing any left exits and entrances. Amazing.


5) Still no extruded aluminum warning signs for the stoplights in Middletown even tho they may be going away soon.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on October 06, 2022, 04:43:33 PM
Apparently the latest round of Rt 9 improvements to get rid of the traffic lights got the axe, and late 2022/early 2023, we're supposed to get a new "public presentation".  That's what was said at the CT 9/17 onramp project meeting, which I watched on Youtube, and is available on the ConnDOT site.  The latest alternative (the one with the overpass to Rapallo Ave) got axed, as did the traffic circle plan before it (thank god!).  So I wonder what they'll think of next! 

Personally, I would make the CT 9/17 interchange (old Exit 13) a SPUI and provide full access from both directions of CT 9.  Extend it out to River Road.  Then you get better Harbor Area access.  But, we're stuck with what we're getting... at least a proper-length acceleration lane from CT 17 NB to CT 9 NB and no stop sign.  They really should widen the Union St overpass to 3 lanes southbound to give that 3rd lane a purpose that ends just before (old) Exit 14.  The vibe I got from the public meeting was that they just want to "get this done as quick as possible" and without excess land taking, etc.  This more solidifies the "days of new road building in CT are over" mantra. 

There's also a new study (surprise!) for I-95 from Branford to the RI border.  Here we go again...
https://www.i95easternct.com/

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: The Ghostbuster on October 06, 2022, 04:48:17 PM
Why do I have the feeling that the traffic signals on CT 9 in Middletown will never be removed, and the existing signaled intersections will never be altered? It must be my "Connecticut Roads Sense" (like Spiderman's spider sense).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on October 06, 2022, 05:51:45 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 06, 2022, 04:48:17 PM
Why do I have the feeling that the traffic signals on CT 9 in Middletown will never be removed, and the existing signaled intersections will never be altered? It must be my "Connecticut Roads Sense" (like Spiderman's spider sense).
Because there will always be people in power who will fight to keep things the way they are.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on October 06, 2022, 06:26:16 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on October 06, 2022, 05:51:45 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 06, 2022, 04:48:17 PM
Why do I have the feeling that the traffic signals on CT 9 in Middletown will never be removed, and the existing signaled intersections will never be altered? It must be my "Connecticut Roads Sense" (like Spiderman's spider sense).
Because there will always be people in power who will fight to keep things the way they are.

Hey.  In 18 days, we'll be marking the 50th anniversary of the announcement of the "temporary ending" of CT 11. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on October 06, 2022, 07:20:57 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on October 06, 2022, 04:43:33 PM
Apparently the latest round of Rt 9 improvements to get rid of the traffic lights got the axe, and late 2022/early 2023, we're supposed to get a new "public presentation".  That's what was said at the CT 9/17 onramp project meeting, which I watched on Youtube, and is available on the ConnDOT site.  The latest alternative (the one with the overpass to Rapallo Ave) got axed, as did the traffic circle plan before it (thank god!).  So I wonder what they'll think of next! 

Personally, I would make the CT 9/17 interchange (old Exit 13) a SPUI and provide full access from both directions of CT 9.  Extend it out to River Road.  Then you get better Harbor Area access.  But, we're stuck with what we're getting... at least a proper-length acceleration lane from CT 17 NB to CT 9 NB and no stop sign.  They really should widen the Union St overpass to 3 lanes southbound to give that 3rd lane a purpose that ends just before (old) Exit 14.  The vibe I got from the public meeting was that they just want to "get this done as quick as possible" and without excess land taking, etc.  This more solidifies the "days of new road building in CT are over" mantra. 

There's also a new study (surprise!) for I-95 from Branford to the RI border.  Here we go again...
https://www.i95easternct.com/

Since that section of CT-9 abuts the Connecticut River, I wonder if any of the improvements involve impacts to the river.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on October 07, 2022, 12:36:30 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on October 06, 2022, 04:43:33 PM
Apparently the latest round of Rt 9 improvements to get rid of the traffic lights got the axe, and late 2022/early 2023, we're supposed to get a new "public presentation".  That's what was said at the CT 9/17 onramp project meeting, which I watched on Youtube, and is available on the ConnDOT site.  The latest alternative (the one with the overpass to Rapallo Ave) got axed, as did the traffic circle plan before it (thank god!).  So I wonder what they'll think of next! 

Personally, I would make the CT 9/17 interchange (old Exit 13) a SPUI and provide full access from both directions of CT 9.  Extend it out to River Road.  Then you get better Harbor Area access.  But, we're stuck with what we're getting... at least a proper-length acceleration lane from CT 17 NB to CT 9 NB and no stop sign.  They really should widen the Union St overpass to 3 lanes southbound to give that 3rd lane a purpose that ends just before (old) Exit 14.  The vibe I got from the public meeting was that they just want to "get this done as quick as possible" and without excess land taking, etc.  This more solidifies the "days of new road building in CT are over" mantra. 

There's also a new study (surprise!) for I-95 from Branford to the RI border.  Here we go again...
https://www.i95easternct.com/



Another study?!? It's the 4th one. Look at the history page on the site, they list the previous studies. How many need to be done? They study it and it sits and nothing happens.
The I-84/CT-8 mixmaster is being studied again as well. What happened to the 2007-2010 one?!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on October 07, 2022, 05:42:20 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on October 07, 2022, 12:36:30 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on October 06, 2022, 04:43:33 PM
Apparently the latest round of Rt 9 improvements to get rid of the traffic lights got the axe, and late 2022/early 2023, we're supposed to get a new "public presentation".  That's what was said at the CT 9/17 onramp project meeting, which I watched on Youtube, and is available on the ConnDOT site.  The latest alternative (the one with the overpass to Rapallo Ave) got axed, as did the traffic circle plan before it (thank god!).  So I wonder what they'll think of next! 

Personally, I would make the CT 9/17 interchange (old Exit 13) a SPUI and provide full access from both directions of CT 9.  Extend it out to River Road.  Then you get better Harbor Area access.  But, we're stuck with what we're getting... at least a proper-length acceleration lane from CT 17 NB to CT 9 NB and no stop sign.  They really should widen the Union St overpass to 3 lanes southbound to give that 3rd lane a purpose that ends just before (old) Exit 14.  The vibe I got from the public meeting was that they just want to "get this done as quick as possible" and without excess land taking, etc.  This more solidifies the "days of new road building in CT are over" mantra. 

There's also a new study (surprise!) for I-95 from Branford to the RI border.  Here we go again...
https://www.i95easternct.com/



Another study?!? It's the 4th one. Look at the history page on the site, they list the previous studies. How many need to be done? They study it and it sits and nothing happens.
The I-84/CT-8 mixmaster is being studied again as well. What happened to the 2007-2010 one?!

It's almost as if the state knows what it needs to do, but has neither the funding or the political will to do it.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Rothman on October 07, 2022, 10:27:05 AM
Reminds me of the Rooftop in NY.  It is not needed and will never be built, but Governors will keep trying to appease the North Country by studying it.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on October 07, 2022, 07:09:00 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on October 06, 2022, 04:43:33 PM
Apparently the latest round of Rt 9 improvements to get rid of the traffic lights got the axe, and late 2022/early 2023, we're supposed to get a new "public presentation".  That's what was said at the CT 9/17 onramp project meeting, which I watched on Youtube, and is available on the ConnDOT site.  The latest alternative (the one with the overpass to Rapallo Ave) got axed, as did the traffic circle plan before it (thank god!).  So I wonder what they'll think of next! 

Personally, I would make the CT 9/17 interchange (old Exit 13) a SPUI and provide full access from both directions of CT 9.  Extend it out to River Road.  Then you get better Harbor Area access.  But, we're stuck with what we're getting... at least a proper-length acceleration lane from CT 17 NB to CT 9 NB and no stop sign.  They really should widen the Union St overpass to 3 lanes southbound to give that 3rd lane a purpose that ends just before (old) Exit 14.  The vibe I got from the public meeting was that they just want to "get this done as quick as possible" and without excess land taking, etc.  This more solidifies the "days of new road building in CT are over" mantra. 

There's also a new study (surprise!) for I-95 from Branford to the RI border.  Here we go again...
https://www.i95easternct.com/
I still think they should explore a re-route of CT 9/17 through Portland. That gives the riverfront completely back to Middletown and ensures the choke point can never happen again.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on October 07, 2022, 08:04:41 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on October 07, 2022, 07:09:00 PM
I still think they should explore a re-route of CT 9/17 through Portland. That gives the riverfront completely back to Middletown and ensures the choke point can never happen again.

Oh, I agree.  But good luck getting 2 bridges over the river built, not to mention pushing an expressway through Portland. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on October 11, 2022, 06:53:28 PM
I noticed lately I-691 backs up to I-84 West at the lane drop before it physically merged with I-84 West. It never did before. Would having the lane drop after the merge help (in effect having a 2-lane on-ramp) ??

I-84 East now backs up to I-691 as well. That I don't get. It's a well designed updated interchange. Getting on I-691 there's no merge.

Also drove i-91 Exit 29 to CT-15/US-5, there's still button copy on US-5/CT-15. Are those not being replaced?? One even had a new "right lane ends"  sign with 2 button copy signs left on the gantry.

Glad to see for i-91 Exit 28 there's a "RAMP 20mph"  yellow banner onthe BGS.  CT should do more of that.

You see the plans for CT-2/CT-17 which removes part of the CT-17 expressway road?? Aren't there better projects to put $$ towards such as the CT-2/I-395 interchange?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on October 11, 2022, 10:07:44 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on October 11, 2022, 06:53:28 PM
I-84 East now backs up to I-691 as well. That I don't get. It's a well designed updated interchange. Getting on I-691 there's no merge.

If you're referring to I-84 East to I-691 East, yeah, that's been that way for a while.  What really should happen is a 2-lane ramp.... create an operational lane from Exit 26 (Route 70) right to I-691 and make it an "option" lane.  Widen the I-84 East Exit 27 ramp to I-691 to 2 lanes.  Then perhaps extend this "3 lane section" of I-691 East right to Exit 3 (Route 10).  Part of the problem is traffic comes down the hill on I-84 East and slows, then encounters a lack of a decelleration lane into the ramp for I-691 East.... not to mention the shear volume of traffic using the ramp. 

QuoteAlso drove i-91 Exit 29 to CT-15/US-5, there's still button copy on US-5/CT-15. Are those not being replaced?? One even had a new "right lane ends"  sign with 2 button copy signs left on the gantry.
You would be correct.  The pull-thrus are gone so now there's nothing saying "I-84 EAST - LEFT 2 LANES" or anything like that.  In reality, the project should have included sign replacement on CT 15 from the Berlin Tpke split right up to I-84, or at the very least, replaced the signs within the work zone in East Hartford. 

QuoteYou see the plans for CT-2/CT-17 which removes part of the CT-17 expressway road?? Aren't there better projects to put $$ towards such as the CT-2/I-395 interchange?
I think its the matter of replacing a bridge, and since the bridge isn't technically needed due to it being constructed when CT 2 "went that way", it makes more sense to just yank it out. 

Just curious what are your thoughts on the CT 2/I-395 interchange?  Its not a major problem, per se.  I passed through there this afternoon.  If you're going to throw some money around, how about making Exit 78....errr... Exit 5 on I-395 Southbound a right hand exit and widen I-395 between there and Exit 79-A... cough... Exit 9.  Or again, at least make a proper decelleration lane at Exit 5 so that exiting traffic gets off the mainline sooner?  The sight lines through there aren't the greatest, either.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on October 12, 2022, 02:36:10 PM
The button copy on CT 15/US 5 probably won't go away until that stretch of highway gets mileage-based exits, and that could be several years away.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on October 19, 2022, 10:39:27 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on October 11, 2022, 10:07:44 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on October 11, 2022, 06:53:28 PM
I-84 East now backs up to I-691 as well. That I don't get. It's a well designed updated interchange. Getting on I-691 there's no merge.

If you're referring to I-84 East to I-691 East, yeah, that's been that way for a while.  What really should happen is a 2-lane ramp.... create an operational lane from Exit 26 (Route 70) right to I-691 and make it an "option" lane.  Widen the I-84 East Exit 27 ramp to I-691 to 2 lanes.  Then perhaps extend this "3 lane section" of I-691 East right to Exit 3 (Route 10).  Part of the problem is traffic comes down the hill on I-84 East and slows, then encounters a lack of a decelleration lane into the ramp for I-691 East.... not to mention the shear volume of traffic using the ramp. 

QuoteAlso drove i-91 Exit 29 to CT-15/US-5, there's still button copy on US-5/CT-15. Are those not being replaced?? One even had a new "right lane ends"  sign with 2 button copy signs left on the gantry.
You would be correct.  The pull-thrus are gone so now there's nothing saying "I-84 EAST - LEFT 2 LANES" or anything like that.  In reality, the project should have included sign replacement on CT 15 from the Berlin Tpke split right up to I-84, or at the very least, replaced the signs within the work zone in East Hartford. 

QuoteYou see the plans for CT-2/CT-17 which removes part of the CT-17 expressway road?? Aren't there better projects to put $$ towards such as the CT-2/I-395 interchange?
I think its the matter of replacing a bridge, and since the bridge isn't technically needed due to it being constructed when CT 2 "went that way", it makes more sense to just yank it out. 

Just curious what are your thoughts on the CT 2/I-395 interchange?  Its not a major problem, per se.  I passed through there this afternoon.  If you're going to throw some money around, how about making Exit 78....errr... Exit 5 on I-395 Southbound a right hand exit and widen I-395 between there and Exit 79-A... cough... Exit 9.  Or again, at least make a proper decelleration lane at Exit 5 so that exiting traffic gets off the mainline sooner?  The sight lines through there aren't the greatest, either.

To me it's just substandard and tight loop cloverleaf. Typical CT style of thinking small. I'd rather have dollars go towards upgrading Expwy interchanges than removing a long ramp such as CT-17 (even tho it's a left off ramp) After the project is done, if it goes according to the plans, it'll take longer to get through.

(just like the I-95 Exit 44 project. They took out the free flow ramps and it takes longer now w the stoplights. Some of the free flow or even channelized right turns could've stayed.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on October 20, 2022, 05:31:32 PM
I look at the I-395/CT 2-32 interchange and think "wow.. a free flowing cloverleaf interchange".  They're not that common in CT, while our neighbor to the north loves cloverleafs (a little too much, two interstates shouldn't connect with a cloverleaf). 

But, be careful what you wish for.  ConnDOT logic would overhaul the I-395/CT 2 interchange by removing a loop ramp and adding traffic lights, kinda like what they're proposing for the Merritt/US 7 in Norwalk. 

**UPDATE**

Wow, when you're right, you're right!  ConnDOT has just released its plans for improvements to the I-395/CT 2 interchange.  The contract is set to be released 4/1/2023 and work will be completed by 4/1/26. 
Here's a screenshot of what the interchange will look like:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52441962237_165f203717_h.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2nU7LjH)norwich395-2 (https://flic.kr/p/2nU7LjH) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr]
Basically, the two northern loops are converted to fill in the missing movements the interchange currently lacks (2W->395N and 395S->2W).  The loss of the ramps (395N->2W and 2W->395S) is the reason for the two new traffic signals. 

:D :D :D

j/k!!!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on October 21, 2022, 08:15:28 PM
New VMSs up just before exit 5 in Greenwich both directions. Why does CT use such crappy old school VMSs compared to NY?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Rothman on October 21, 2022, 08:23:35 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on October 21, 2022, 08:15:28 PM
New VMSs up just before exit 5 in Greenwich both directions. Why does CT use such crappy old school VMSs compared to NY?
Because CT exists as nothing more thsn a labor supply for NY.  Well, that and the insurer of the country, but mostly just a labor supply for NY.

Also, NY has its own ITS conference and loves the fancy gadgets.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: mariethefoxy on October 22, 2022, 01:34:22 AM
the newer CT VMSes do the job, they may not have the fancy colors and such but for what they are, they tell you about the traffic coming up.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on October 22, 2022, 01:50:43 AM
Egad!! The casino goers heading back to the Hartford area are going to absolutely love the fact they're going to have to pass through a traffic signal to get on 2 West from 395 North (and I see the old exit numbers being used on 395).  That's a bottleneck/hazard waiting to happen. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on October 22, 2022, 04:44:33 PM
What is it with CT and placing traffic lights on freeway/freeway interchanges?  Them and PA...
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on October 22, 2022, 05:32:46 PM
I hope everyone here knows that was a joke plan I made... check the dates.  That's not really a ConnDOT proposal.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on October 22, 2022, 05:35:20 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on October 20, 2022, 05:31:32 PM
I look at the I-395/CT 2-32 interchange and think "wow.. a free flowing cloverleaf interchange".  They're not that common in CT, while our neighbor to the north loves cloverleafs (a little too much, two interstates shouldn't connect with a cloverleaf). 

But, be careful what you wish for.  ConnDOT logic would overhaul the I-395/CT 2 interchange by removing a loop ramp and adding traffic lights, kinda like what they're proposing for the Merritt/US 7 in Norwalk. 

**UPDATE**

Wow, when you're right, you're right!  ConnDOT has just released its plans for improvements to the I-395/CT 2 interchange.  The contract is set to be released 4/1/2023 and work will be completed by 4/1/26. 
Here's a screenshot of what the interchange will look like:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52441962237_165f203717_h.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2nU7LjH)norwich395-2 (https://flic.kr/p/2nU7LjH) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr]
Basically, the two northern loops are converted to fill in the missing movements the interchange currently lacks (2W->395N and 395S->2W).  The loss of the ramps (395N->2W and 2W->395S) is the reason for the two new traffic signals. 

:popcorn:
:D :D :D

Where'd you see that? I can't find any info.

SO they remove lights from one highway (CT-9) and add them to others.  lol  No consistency ever except to impede traffic flow.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on October 22, 2022, 05:39:45 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on October 22, 2022, 05:35:20 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on October 20, 2022, 05:31:32 PM
I look at the I-395/CT 2-32 interchange and think "wow.. a free flowing cloverleaf interchange".  They're not that common in CT, while our neighbor to the north loves cloverleafs (a little too much, two interstates shouldn't connect with a cloverleaf). 

But, be careful what you wish for.  ConnDOT logic would overhaul the I-395/CT 2 interchange by removing a loop ramp and adding traffic lights, kinda like what they're proposing for the Merritt/US 7 in Norwalk. 

**UPDATE**

Wow, when you're right, you're right!  ConnDOT has just released its plans for improvements to the I-395/CT 2 interchange.  The contract is set to be released 4/1/2023 and work will be completed by 4/1/26. 
Here's a screenshot of what the interchange will look like:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52441962237_165f203717_h.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2nU7LjH)norwich395-2 (https://flic.kr/p/2nU7LjH) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr]
Basically, the two northern loops are converted to fill in the missing movements the interchange currently lacks (2W->395N and 395S->2W).  The loss of the ramps (395N->2W and 2W->395S) is the reason for the two new traffic signals. 

:popcorn:
:D :D :D

Where'd you see that? I can't find any info.

SO they remove lights from one highway (CT-9) and add them to others.  lol  No consistency ever except to impede traffic flow.

This was a design idea I threw together, knowing that ConnDOT likes to get rid of chanelizations and free flowing movements, and knowing that one of the proposals for the CT 15/US 7 interchange in Norwalk involves adding lights, I thought "oh god, what if that idea spread?" .  It's not really a proposal. 

And the lights on CT 9 aren't removed yet.  The last public info meeting that was online was for the Rt 17 North onramp lengthening project and they specifically said that project has nothing to do with getting rid of the traffic lights further up on Rt 9.  The ConnDOT officials in that meeting stated there would be yet another proposal issued with the next round of public hearings, early in 2023. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Rothman on October 22, 2022, 07:11:46 PM
And that is why he is called shadyjay.  Never believe him again.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeCL on October 26, 2022, 05:35:23 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on October 21, 2022, 08:15:28 PM
New VMSs up just before exit 5 in Greenwich both directions. Why does CT use such crappy old school VMSs compared to NY?
Ah man I kept forgetting to post this.. Why did they take the one down going NB at the weigh station.. I had to complain a lot of times to the DOT at night the lights never worked so you could never read the sign sign since it was the flip dot florescent type.. I remember one day for the first time in years I saw the lights work.. next thing I knew they took it down and put that crappy mobile unit down in a fixed setting.. It's stupid because it's not even tall enough...

But So all that digging it looks like that's what they were doing making the bases for the VMS.. It's funny because I always thought it was odd.. the Weigh station and the US 1 bridge in Stamford was all you got.. if you got on before then you never knew what was going on.

BTW looks like the one is coming off the bridge for exit 9 it's just a matter of time.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on October 26, 2022, 09:22:41 PM
Quote from: MikeCL on October 26, 2022, 05:35:23 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on October 21, 2022, 08:15:28 PM
New VMSs up just before exit 5 in Greenwich both directions. Why does CT use such crappy old school VMSs compared to NY?
Ah man I kept forgetting to post this.. Why did they take the one down going NB at the weigh station.. I had to complain a lot of times to the DOT at night the lights never worked so you could never read the sign sign since it was the flip dot florescent type.. I remember one day for the first time in years I saw the lights work.. next thing I knew they took it down and put that crappy mobile unit down in a fixed setting.. It's stupid because it's not even tall enough...

But So all that digging it looks like that's what they were doing making the bases for the VMS.. It's funny because I always thought it was odd.. the Weigh station and the US 1 bridge in Stamford was all you got.. if you got on before then you never knew what was going on.

BTW looks like the one is coming off the bridge for exit 9 it's just a matter of time.
Maybe this one before exit 5 will replace the one at exit 9 just like the weather station at exit 4 just south of that new VMS replaced the old weather station at exit 9 when they did the bridge replacement.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeCL on October 27, 2022, 02:41:54 AM
Quote from: connroadgeek on October 26, 2022, 09:22:41 PM
Quote from: MikeCL on October 26, 2022, 05:35:23 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on October 21, 2022, 08:15:28 PM
New VMSs up just before exit 5 in Greenwich both directions. Why does CT use such crappy old school VMSs compared to NY?
Ah man I kept forgetting to post this.. Why did they take the one down going NB at the weigh station.. I had to complain a lot of times to the DOT at night the lights never worked so you could never read the sign sign since it was the flip dot florescent type.. I remember one day for the first time in years I saw the lights work.. next thing I knew they took it down and put that crappy mobile unit down in a fixed setting.. It's stupid because it's not even tall enough...

But So all that digging it looks like that's what they were doing making the bases for the VMS.. It's funny because I always thought it was odd.. the Weigh station and the US 1 bridge in Stamford was all you got.. if you got on before then you never knew what was going on.

BTW looks like the one is coming off the bridge for exit 9 it's just a matter of time.
Maybe this one before exit 5 will replace the one at exit 9 just like the weather station at exit 4 just south of that new VMS replaced the old weather station at exit 9 when they did the bridge replacement.
Yeah maybe, looks like CT is doing away with VMS mounted on bridges now.. at least this one should be good.. not sure what was up but sometimes the VMS at exit 9 would get very garbled. I think that one was dual or Tri color?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on October 27, 2022, 10:25:04 AM
Quote from: MikeCL on October 26, 2022, 05:35:23 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on October 21, 2022, 08:15:28 PM
New VMSs up just before exit 5 in Greenwich both directions. Why does CT use such crappy old school VMSs compared to NY?
Ah man I kept forgetting to post this.. Why did they take the one down going NB at the weigh station.. I had to complain a lot of times to the DOT at night the lights never worked so you could never read the sign sign since it was the flip dot florescent type.. I remember one day for the first time in years I saw the lights work.. next thing I knew they took it down and put that crappy mobile unit down in a fixed setting.. It's stupid because it's not even tall enough...

But So all that digging it looks like that's what they were doing making the bases for the VMS.. It's funny because I always thought it was odd.. the Weigh station and the US 1 bridge in Stamford was all you got.. if you got on before then you never knew what was going on.

BTW looks like the one is coming off the bridge for exit 9 it's just a matter of time.
Still better than the old front-lit, vane-style displays. The ones with green text.
Sadly, I can't find any pictures of them.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on October 27, 2022, 10:50:08 AM
Quote from: MikeCL on October 27, 2022, 02:41:54 AM
Quote from: connroadgeek on October 26, 2022, 09:22:41 PM
Quote from: MikeCL on October 26, 2022, 05:35:23 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on October 21, 2022, 08:15:28 PM
New VMSs up just before exit 5 in Greenwich both directions. Why does CT use such crappy old school VMSs compared to NY?
Ah man I kept forgetting to post this.. Why did they take the one down going NB at the weigh station.. I had to complain a lot of times to the DOT at night the lights never worked so you could never read the sign sign since it was the flip dot florescent type.. I remember one day for the first time in years I saw the lights work.. next thing I knew they took it down and put that crappy mobile unit down in a fixed setting.. It's stupid because it's not even tall enough...

But So all that digging it looks like that's what they were doing making the bases for the VMS.. It's funny because I always thought it was odd.. the Weigh station and the US 1 bridge in Stamford was all you got.. if you got on before then you never knew what was going on.

BTW looks like the one is coming off the bridge for exit 9 it's just a matter of time.
Maybe this one before exit 5 will replace the one at exit 9 just like the weather station at exit 4 just south of that new VMS replaced the old weather station at exit 9 when they did the bridge replacement.
Yeah maybe, looks like CT is doing away with VMS mounted on bridges now.. at least this one should be good.. not sure what was up but sometimes the VMS at exit 9 would get very garbled. I think that one was dual or Tri color?
Connecticut has been getting rid of a lot if bridge-mounted signage lately, not just VMSs, but all types of signs they've been moving from bridges to standalone structures. Even the little signs that indicate the cross road that used to be mounted to the bridge are being replaced with ground-mounted signs.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeCL on October 27, 2022, 03:34:28 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on October 27, 2022, 10:25:04 AM
Quote from: MikeCL on October 26, 2022, 05:35:23 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on October 21, 2022, 08:15:28 PM
New VMSs up just before exit 5 in Greenwich both directions. Why does CT use such crappy old school VMSs compared to NY?
Ah man I kept forgetting to post this.. Why did they take the one down going NB at the weigh station.. I had to complain a lot of times to the DOT at night the lights never worked so you could never read the sign sign since it was the flip dot florescent type.. I remember one day for the first time in years I saw the lights work.. next thing I knew they took it down and put that crappy mobile unit down in a fixed setting.. It's stupid because it's not even tall enough...

But So all that digging it looks like that's what they were doing making the bases for the VMS.. It's funny because I always thought it was odd.. the Weigh station and the US 1 bridge in Stamford was all you got.. if you got on before then you never knew what was going on.

BTW looks like the one is coming off the bridge for exit 9 it's just a matter of time.
Still better than the old front-lit, vane-style displays. The ones with green text.
Sadly, I can't find any pictures of them.
The one that used to be mounted on the bridge in Darien that they took down like 5-7 years ago?

I looked at the DOT website I didn't see anything about Greenwich.. is this the one for the weigh station? Or the one right after the Mianus bridge?

https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/CTDOT-Construction-Advisories/2021/Replacement-and-Relocation-of-VMS-on-I-95-and-Route-7-in-Greenwich-Stamford-Norwalk-and-Westport

I didn't know you could check to see how much solar a rest stop was generating this is Darien, SB

https://apps.alsoenergy.com/kiosk/35240?dashkey=2a566973506557764541554b772b71553d&tag=626264
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on October 27, 2022, 06:30:38 PM
Quote from: MikeCL on October 27, 2022, 03:34:28 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on October 27, 2022, 10:25:04 AM
Quote from: MikeCL on October 26, 2022, 05:35:23 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on October 21, 2022, 08:15:28 PM
New VMSs up just before exit 5 in Greenwich both directions. Why does CT use such crappy old school VMSs compared to NY?
Ah man I kept forgetting to post this.. Why did they take the one down going NB at the weigh station.. I had to complain a lot of times to the DOT at night the lights never worked so you could never read the sign sign since it was the flip dot florescent type.. I remember one day for the first time in years I saw the lights work.. next thing I knew they took it down and put that crappy mobile unit down in a fixed setting.. It's stupid because it's not even tall enough...

But So all that digging it looks like that's what they were doing making the bases for the VMS.. It's funny because I always thought it was odd.. the Weigh station and the US 1 bridge in Stamford was all you got.. if you got on before then you never knew what was going on.

BTW looks like the one is coming off the bridge for exit 9 it's just a matter of time.
Still better than the old front-lit, vane-style displays. The ones with green text.
Sadly, I can't find any pictures of them.
The one that used to be mounted on the bridge in Darien that they took down like 5-7 years ago?

I looked at the DOT website I didn't see anything about Greenwich.. is this the one for the weigh station? Or the one right after the Mianus bridge?

https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/CTDOT-Construction-Advisories/2021/Replacement-and-Relocation-of-VMS-on-I-95-and-Route-7-in-Greenwich-Stamford-Norwalk-and-Westport

I didn't know you could check to see how much solar a rest stop was generating this is Darien, SB

https://apps.alsoenergy.com/kiosk/35240?dashkey=2a566973506557764541554b772b71553d&tag=626264
No, these were different. They had slanted plexiglass on the front of them and were front-lit. The display was electro-mechanical. Kinda like a Sloari board, but instead of flipping letters it used little pegs that were green on one side.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on October 27, 2022, 07:00:51 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on October 27, 2022, 06:30:38 PM
Quote from: MikeCL on October 27, 2022, 03:34:28 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on October 27, 2022, 10:25:04 AM
Quote from: MikeCL on October 26, 2022, 05:35:23 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on October 21, 2022, 08:15:28 PM
New VMSs up just before exit 5 in Greenwich both directions. Why does CT use such crappy old school VMSs compared to NY?
Ah man I kept forgetting to post this.. Why did they take the one down going NB at the weigh station.. I had to complain a lot of times to the DOT at night the lights never worked so you could never read the sign sign since it was the flip dot florescent type.. I remember one day for the first time in years I saw the lights work.. next thing I knew they took it down and put that crappy mobile unit down in a fixed setting.. It's stupid because it's not even tall enough...

But So all that digging it looks like that's what they were doing making the bases for the VMS.. It's funny because I always thought it was odd.. the Weigh station and the US 1 bridge in Stamford was all you got.. if you got on before then you never knew what was going on.

BTW looks like the one is coming off the bridge for exit 9 it's just a matter of time.
Still better than the old front-lit, vane-style displays. The ones with green text.
Sadly, I can't find any pictures of them.
The one that used to be mounted on the bridge in Darien that they took down like 5-7 years ago?

I looked at the DOT website I didn't see anything about Greenwich.. is this the one for the weigh station? Or the one right after the Mianus bridge?

https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/CTDOT-Construction-Advisories/2021/Replacement-and-Relocation-of-VMS-on-I-95-and-Route-7-in-Greenwich-Stamford-Norwalk-and-Westport

I didn't know you could check to see how much solar a rest stop was generating this is Darien, SB

https://apps.alsoenergy.com/kiosk/35240?dashkey=2a566973506557764541554b772b71553d&tag=626264
No, these were different. They had slanted plexiglass on the front of them and were front-lit. The display was electro-mechanical. Kinda like a Sloari board, but instead of flipping letters it used little pegs that were green on one side.
I remember those. Those old VMSs were part of the first generation of ITS technology that was installed along I-95 between Greenwich and Clinton back in the early '90s. They are long overdue for an upgrade.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on October 27, 2022, 07:01:53 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on October 27, 2022, 07:00:51 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on October 27, 2022, 06:30:38 PM
Quote from: MikeCL on October 27, 2022, 03:34:28 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on October 27, 2022, 10:25:04 AM
Quote from: MikeCL on October 26, 2022, 05:35:23 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on October 21, 2022, 08:15:28 PM
New VMSs up just before exit 5 in Greenwich both directions. Why does CT use such crappy old school VMSs compared to NY?
Ah man I kept forgetting to post this.. Why did they take the one down going NB at the weigh station.. I had to complain a lot of times to the DOT at night the lights never worked so you could never read the sign sign since it was the flip dot florescent type.. I remember one day for the first time in years I saw the lights work.. next thing I knew they took it down and put that crappy mobile unit down in a fixed setting.. It's stupid because it's not even tall enough...

But So all that digging it looks like that's what they were doing making the bases for the VMS.. It's funny because I always thought it was odd.. the Weigh station and the US 1 bridge in Stamford was all you got.. if you got on before then you never knew what was going on.

BTW looks like the one is coming off the bridge for exit 9 it's just a matter of time.
Still better than the old front-lit, vane-style displays. The ones with green text.
Sadly, I can't find any pictures of them.
The one that used to be mounted on the bridge in Darien that they took down like 5-7 years ago?

I looked at the DOT website I didn't see anything about Greenwich.. is this the one for the weigh station? Or the one right after the Mianus bridge?

https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/CTDOT-Construction-Advisories/2021/Replacement-and-Relocation-of-VMS-on-I-95-and-Route-7-in-Greenwich-Stamford-Norwalk-and-Westport

I didn't know you could check to see how much solar a rest stop was generating this is Darien, SB

https://apps.alsoenergy.com/kiosk/35240?dashkey=2a566973506557764541554b772b71553d&tag=626264
No, these were different. They had slanted plexiglass on the front of them and were front-lit. The display was electro-mechanical. Kinda like a Sloari board, but instead of flipping letters it used little pegs that were green on one side.
I remember those. Those old VMSs were part of the first generation of ITS technology that was installed along I-95 between Greenwich and Clinton back in the early '90s. They are long overdue for an upgrade.
They are called flip disc displays.
The one that I remember was located on I-91 NB at the on-ramp from Great Meadow Rd. in Wethersfield.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeCL on October 28, 2022, 03:08:34 PM
I always thought it was pretty cool but always had a few that failed to work.. Looks like the VMS NB between 13 & 14 is getting replaced as well.. I guess it's safe to say they are getting rid of all the muti-color VMS?

BTW I'm really curious how they are going to do the bridge replacement over the MNR tracks in Stamford.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on October 30, 2022, 09:19:20 PM
Drove I-95 North today and saw the VMSs being replaced.  Looks like they'll all be this style (95NB in Madison just as an example):

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52466117509_0581b1c98b_4k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2nWfyQV)95NB-VMS (https://flic.kr/p/2nWfyQV) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

This is the standard VMS now (3rd generation?) though there are some on I-84 and I-91 that are much wider and are used to display three different destinations with current travel times....
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6985127,-72.6438599,3a,25.6y,12.55h,89.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8KfXRI1XDIwnHPcCdNucjw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Then there's this oddball on I-91 NB just past Exit 33.  The whole gantry was put up for the sole purpose of holding the VMS.  Makes you wonder if they meant to put up the wider version, since it seems like overkill for the smaller VMS. 
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7900382,-72.6558273,3a,75y,30.55h,97.76t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1szWWrcwWpCrPen0K0tp8w7w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on October 30, 2022, 09:20:22 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on October 27, 2022, 10:25:04 AM
Still better than the old front-lit, vane-style displays. The ones with green text.
Sadly, I can't find any pictures of them.

Is this the style you speak of?

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0016309,-73.651692,3a,37y,57.12h,97.33t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sZinTpB508vXPV-h-SjxdCw!2e0!5s20110601T000000!7i13312!8i6656
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeCL on October 30, 2022, 09:40:42 PM
Another view

https://maps.app.goo.gl/S78HX5DUvJWABqD78?g_st=ic

However I think those are the flip dot displays the  vane style looks like the older VFD numbers display?

Btw why on earth did they take down that over the road VMS only to put in a fixed mobile VMS which is harder to see?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on October 31, 2022, 08:01:01 AM
Quote from: MikeCL on October 28, 2022, 03:08:34 PM
I always thought it was pretty cool but always had a few that failed to work.. Looks like the VMS NB between 13 & 14 is getting replaced as well.. I guess it's safe to say they are getting rid of all the muti-color VMS?

BTW I'm really curious how they are going to do the bridge replacement over the MNR tracks in Stamford.
I think they are also updating/replacing some of the cameras along I-95 as well, given that the cameras were installed nearly 30 years ago along with the first generation "flip-disc" VMSs. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: DrSmith on October 31, 2022, 10:00:00 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on October 30, 2022, 09:19:20 PM
Drove I-95 North today and saw the VMSs being replaced.  Looks like they'll all be this style (95NB in Madison just as an example):

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52466117509_0581b1c98b_4k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2nWfyQV)95NB-VMS (https://flic.kr/p/2nWfyQV) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

This is the standard VMS now (3rd generation?) though there are some on I-84 and I-91 that are much wider and are used to display three different destinations with current travel times....
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6985127,-72.6438599,3a,25.6y,12.55h,89.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8KfXRI1XDIwnHPcCdNucjw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Then there's this oddball on I-91 NB just past Exit 33.  The whole gantry was put up for the sole purpose of holding the VMS.  Makes you wonder if they meant to put up the wider version, since it seems like overkill for the smaller VMS. 
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7900382,-72.6558273,3a,75y,30.55h,97.76t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1szWWrcwWpCrPen0K0tp8w7w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

They've been using that style for many years now. That is the style that was used for the ones that were added in Enfield over 10 years ago now.

There is one (or a few?) mounted on top of a post in Waterbury. https://goo.gl/maps/GRF3Fsb4n33dWNRb6

As for the one I-91 northbound after Jennings Rd, I think the full span was to get the VMS over towards the through lanes. Between a slight curve and being located at the on ramp, a cantilever would have been too far to the right. Also I feel like all of that set in Hartford were installed either on bridges or on full span gantry; it's that most of them either had the larger style VMS and/or had other signs located on that structure as well.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on November 01, 2022, 01:16:56 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on October 30, 2022, 09:20:22 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on October 27, 2022, 10:25:04 AM
Still better than the old front-lit, vane-style displays. The ones with green text.
Sadly, I can't find any pictures of them.

Is this the style you speak of?

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0016309,-73.651692,3a,37y,57.12h,97.33t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sZinTpB508vXPV-h-SjxdCw!2e0!5s20110601T000000!7i13312!8i6656
Yes.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on November 05, 2022, 09:28:35 AM
Quote from: MikeCL on October 30, 2022, 09:40:42 PM
Another view

https://maps.app.goo.gl/S78HX5DUvJWABqD78?g_st=ic

However I think those are the flip dot displays the  vane style looks like the older VFD numbers display?

Btw why on earth did they take down that over the road VMS only to put in a fixed mobile VMS which is harder to see?
That one is finally getting replaced. You can see the new pole northbound between the state line and exit 2.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on November 05, 2022, 05:07:49 PM
Btw, what's with the odd setup with the truck weighing area!?!?! Trucks pull off and then have to circle back before they get on the highway.  Any other state would have them drive just straight through without the loop.  The extra-long on-ramp creates issues as because of the horrible design trucks need that long on-ramp to get up to speed. Regular drivers use the on-ramp to bypass backups.  I think well if the truck weigh station wasn't designed badly they wouldn't need that long on-ramp.

The same with some rest areas.  Cars pass the parking exit and then get to the entrance.  So you have to do a loop around.  Typical bad CT design.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Meriden,+CT/@41.5530457,-72.7432094,249m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!3m5!1s0x89e7ca2124b4cab7:0xf8fbded56523558a!8m2!3d41.5381535!4d-72.8070435!16zL20vMDFtMjJu
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on November 08, 2022, 01:35:26 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on November 05, 2022, 05:07:49 PM
Btw, what's with the odd setup with the truck weighing area!?!?! Trucks pull off and then have to circle back before they get on the highway.  Any other state would have them drive just straight through without the loop.  The extra-long on-ramp creates issues as because of the horrible design trucks need that long on-ramp to get up to speed. Regular drivers use the on-ramp to bypass backups.  I think well if the truck weigh station wasn't designed badly they wouldn't need that long on-ramp.

The same with some rest areas.  Cars pass the parking exit and then get to the entrance.  So you have to do a loop around.  Typical bad CT design.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Meriden,+CT/@41.5530457,-72.7432094,249m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!3m5!1s0x89e7ca2124b4cab7:0xf8fbded56523558a!8m2!3d41.5381535!4d-72.8070435!16zL20vMDFtMjJu

I think Connecticut likes to multitask. Its eastbound I-84 welcome center is also an exit.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on November 08, 2022, 07:41:56 PM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on November 08, 2022, 01:35:26 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on November 05, 2022, 05:07:49 PM
Btw, what's with the odd setup with the truck weighing area!?!?! Trucks pull off and then have to circle back before they get on the highway.  Any other state would have them drive just straight through without the loop.  The extra-long on-ramp creates issues as because of the horrible design trucks need that long on-ramp to get up to speed. Regular drivers use the on-ramp to bypass backups.  I think well if the truck weigh station wasn't designed badly they wouldn't need that long on-ramp.

The same with some rest areas.  Cars pass the parking exit and then get to the entrance.  So you have to do a loop around.  Typical bad CT design.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Meriden,+CT/@41.5530457,-72.7432094,249m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!3m5!1s0x89e7ca2124b4cab7:0xf8fbded56523558a!8m2!3d41.5381535!4d-72.8070435!16zL20vMDFtMjJu

I think Connecticut likes to multitask. Its eastbound I-84 welcome center is also an exit.
Exit 22 northbound on 95 as well - It's the Round Hill Rd and Rest Area exit all in one!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on November 09, 2022, 09:37:20 AM
Quote from: connroadgeek on November 08, 2022, 07:41:56 PM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on November 08, 2022, 01:35:26 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on November 05, 2022, 05:07:49 PM
Btw, what's with the odd setup with the truck weighing area!?!?! Trucks pull off and then have to circle back before they get on the highway.  Any other state would have them drive just straight through without the loop.  The extra-long on-ramp creates issues as because of the horrible design trucks need that long on-ramp to get up to speed. Regular drivers use the on-ramp to bypass backups.  I think well if the truck weigh station wasn't designed badly they wouldn't need that long on-ramp.

The same with some rest areas.  Cars pass the parking exit and then get to the entrance.  So you have to do a loop around.  Typical bad CT design.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Meriden,+CT/@41.5530457,-72.7432094,249m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!3m5!1s0x89e7ca2124b4cab7:0xf8fbded56523558a!8m2!3d41.5381535!4d-72.8070435!16zL20vMDFtMjJu

I think Connecticut likes to multitask. Its eastbound I-84 welcome center is also an exit.
Exit 22 northbound on 95 as well - It's the Round Hill Rd and Rest Area exit all in one!
Which I don't even know why they have an interchange at Round Hill Road, given that there's one at Mill Plain Road about 1/2 mile south, and at Route 1, about a mile north.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on November 09, 2022, 05:56:45 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on November 09, 2022, 09:37:20 AM
Which I don't even know why they have an interchange at Round Hill Road, given that there's one at Mill Plain Road about 1/2 mile south, and at Route 1, about a mile north.
Connecticut likes its exits I guess!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: bob7374 on November 11, 2022, 12:54:08 AM
Exit renumbering on CT 8 to start on November 22, and take 2 years:
https://www.ctpost.com/news/article/route-8-exit-numbers-ct-bridgeport-valley-17571706.php? (https://www.ctpost.com/news/article/route-8-exit-numbers-ct-bridgeport-valley-17571706.php?)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on November 11, 2022, 10:48:00 AM
Hopefully they do a better job than the mess on Route 9 and the signs are better than the last Route 8 sign replacement with oversized fonts and no spacing.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Plutonic Panda on November 16, 2022, 05:53:25 PM
Final report on I-95 improvements between Rhode Island and Branford to be released in Fall 2023. Looks to be widening, removing left highway ramps, and correcting other deficiencies such as short merging lanes.

https://www.roadsbridges.com/highway-maintenance/news/21437987/connecticut-department-of-transportation-looking-to-improve-i95
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on November 16, 2022, 06:35:27 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on November 16, 2022, 05:53:25 PM
Final report on I-95 improvements between Rhode Island and Branford to be released in Fall 2023. Looks to be widening, removing left highway ramps, and correcting other deficiencies such as short merging lanes.

https://www.roadsbridges.com/highway-maintenance/news/21437987/connecticut-department-of-transportation-looking-to-improve-i95
Would it be too much to ask for a I-95 SB to I-395 N ramp?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on November 16, 2022, 07:27:41 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on November 16, 2022, 06:35:27 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on November 16, 2022, 05:53:25 PM
Final report on I-95 improvements between Rhode Island and Branford to be released in Fall 2023. Looks to be widening, removing left highway ramps, and correcting other deficiencies such as short merging lanes.

https://www.roadsbridges.com/highway-maintenance/news/21437987/connecticut-department-of-transportation-looking-to-improve-i95
Would it be too much to ask for a I-95 SB to I-395 N ramp?

Only if it involves completing CT 11
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on November 16, 2022, 07:38:28 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on November 16, 2022, 07:27:41 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on November 16, 2022, 06:35:27 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on November 16, 2022, 05:53:25 PM
Final report on I-95 improvements between Rhode Island and Branford to be released in Fall 2023. Looks to be widening, removing left highway ramps, and correcting other deficiencies such as short merging lanes.

https://www.roadsbridges.com/highway-maintenance/news/21437987/connecticut-department-of-transportation-looking-to-improve-i95
Would it be too much to ask for a I-95 SB to I-395 N ramp?

Only if it involves completing CT 11

Both would be welcome, but it's more likely state will have a hard enough time getting done even a fraction of the improvements that will come from this latest study.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on November 16, 2022, 10:05:00 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on November 16, 2022, 07:27:41 PM
Only if it involves completing CT 11
If you finished 11 it would be better to have separate full interchanges between 11 & 395 and 395 & 95 rather than one big complicated 3-way interchange.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on November 17, 2022, 12:54:19 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on November 16, 2022, 10:05:00 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on November 16, 2022, 07:27:41 PM
Only if it involves completing CT 11
If you finished 11 it would be better to have separate full interchanges between 11 & 395 and 395 & 95 rather than one big complicated 3-way interchange.
Except a 3-way interchange was the original design.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on November 17, 2022, 08:31:31 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on November 17, 2022, 12:54:19 PM
Except a 3-way interchange was the original design.
Sure but it would be easier to have 11 end at 395 a bit north of 95 where there is plenty of land, and then add the two missing ramps to complete the 395/95 interchange where space is much tighter. Alternatively you could realign 95 a bit north into that empty space where the power line ROW is if you really want to build a big complex 3-way interchange. In any case it's not going to fit within the exit 75-76 footprint.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on November 17, 2022, 09:06:24 PM
Original-original plans for Rt 11 had it meeting I-95 somewhere in the Cross Road neck of the woods.  Then the interchange movements could've been made simpler and in a smaller space.  At some point I believe in the 1980s, the southern terminus was shifted to the present-day I-95/I-395 interchange. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on November 18, 2022, 01:59:42 PM
Public meeting on I-84 improvements in Danbury scheduled for December 14 https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/CTDOT-Press-Releases/2022/Public-Invited-to-Public-Information-Meeting-on-I-84-Danbury-Study
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on November 18, 2022, 06:29:40 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on November 18, 2022, 01:59:42 PM
Public meeting on I-84 improvements in Danbury scheduled for December 14 https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/CTDOT-Press-Releases/2022/Public-Invited-to-Public-Information-Meeting-on-I-84-Danbury-Study
Are they planning on picking one of the 22 concepts or are they planning on implementing one or more of the concepts? There's about 15 advancing concepts up for consideration which seems kind of high for a project like this.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: cockroachking on November 18, 2022, 11:31:11 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on November 18, 2022, 06:29:40 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on November 18, 2022, 01:59:42 PM
Public meeting on I-84 improvements in Danbury scheduled for December 14 https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/CTDOT-Press-Releases/2022/Public-Invited-to-Public-Information-Meeting-on-I-84-Danbury-Study
Are they planning on picking one of the 22 concepts or are they planning on implementing one or more of the concepts? There's about 15 advancing concepts up for consideration which seems kind of high for a project like this.
The concepts are just a bunch of different ideas, some only covering one interchange. The ultimate recommendations will be based off many of these "advancing" concepts.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on November 19, 2022, 12:12:57 AM
Click on "Learn More" and the map for Concept 14 (C/D road between exit 7 (US 7/202) and exit 8 (US 6)).

There's a partial diverging diamond shown for the exit 8 ramps to and from the west.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on November 24, 2022, 09:50:50 PM
CT 9 resigning update:

Happy Thanksgiving!  Sometime in the past couple days, these went up:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52522193845_7b6b279371_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2o2cYoi)20221124_144415 (https://flic.kr/p/2o2cYoi) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

... and this came down...

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52521714106_0a840c3af9_3k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2o2avLW)20221124_144354 (https://flic.kr/p/2o2avLW) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

...revealing this...

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52521714006_f2d9b55300_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2o2avKd)20221124_144458 (https://flic.kr/p/2o2avKd) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

The extra pavement is where the 3rd lane used to be, which was an onramp from Springbrook Road.  Now traffic entering from that onramp has to merge.  Its no big deal... its not a heavily trafficked onramp. 


Further north, not much progress as of late.  There are still next-to-nothing for sheet aluminums for the central and northern contracts up.  There are still several overheads not yet installed in Berlin, New Britain, and for I-84.  Two new overheads on CT 9 South in the southern contract are awaiting signs to be placed on their new support structures.  And there's a handful of ground-mount signs still to be installed. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on November 26, 2022, 06:19:01 PM
Why assign exit numbers to a terminus? If the highway wasn't ending at another highway we wouldn't call it an exit.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on November 28, 2022, 04:48:09 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on November 26, 2022, 06:19:01 PM
Why assign exit numbers to a terminus? If the highway wasn't ending at another highway we wouldn't call it an exit.

It seems to be the practice in a mileage based system.  MA added numbers to almost every terminus in the state in its renumbering, with I-190 South to I-290 West being the only exception.  Unless it's a single directional terminus (such as the southern end of I-395 in Waterford), having exit numbers is the norm.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on November 29, 2022, 03:06:47 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on November 28, 2022, 04:48:09 PM
It seems to be the practice in a mileage based system.  MA added numbers to almost every terminus in the state in its renumbering, with I-190 South to I-290 West being the only exception.  Unless it's a single directional terminus (such as the southern end of I-395 in Waterford), having exit numbers is the norm.
Shouldn't the exits be 1 and 1A in a mileage based system (or 0 and 0A)?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on November 29, 2022, 04:14:53 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on November 29, 2022, 03:06:47 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on November 28, 2022, 04:48:09 PM
It seems to be the practice in a mileage based system.  MA added numbers to almost every terminus in the state in its renumbering, with I-190 South to I-290 West being the only exception.  Unless it's a single directional terminus (such as the southern end of I-395 in Waterford), having exit numbers is the norm.
Shouldn't the exits be 1 and 1A in a mileage based system (or 0 and 0A)?

No.  If you're going to have multiple exits of the same milepoint, both/all exits have to have suffixes.  So therefore the 1A and 1B are correct.  You'll have an interesting somewhat of an exception at the east end of I-691 when you'll have 1A-1C for the I-91/CT 15 exits, and 1 for Preston Ave and West Main St (Current 12 and 13), but that would be because those exits would be based on CT 66 mileage which diverges east from the same point I-691 mileage diverges west.  If CT used Exit 0, it would be 0A and 0B.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeCL on November 29, 2022, 05:05:10 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on November 05, 2022, 09:28:35 AM
Quote from: MikeCL on October 30, 2022, 09:40:42 PM
Another view

https://maps.app.goo.gl/S78HX5DUvJWABqD78?g_st=ic

However I think those are the flip dot displays the  vane style looks like the older VFD numbers display?

Btw why on earth did they take down that over the road VMS only to put in a fixed mobile VMS which is harder to see?
That one is finally getting replaced. You can see the new pole northbound between the state line and exit 2.
That does me no good since I normally get on from the on-ramp.. now sure why they didn't put it back in the old location... I happened to see it coming from Brooklyn on Saturday early morning
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeCL on November 29, 2022, 05:06:10 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on November 08, 2022, 07:41:56 PM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on November 08, 2022, 01:35:26 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on November 05, 2022, 05:07:49 PM
Btw, what's with the odd setup with the truck weighing area!?!?! Trucks pull off and then have to circle back before they get on the highway.  Any other state would have them drive just straight through without the loop.  The extra-long on-ramp creates issues as because of the horrible design trucks need that long on-ramp to get up to speed. Regular drivers use the on-ramp to bypass backups.  I think well if the truck weigh station wasn't designed badly they wouldn't need that long on-ramp.

The same with some rest areas.  Cars pass the parking exit and then get to the entrance.  So you have to do a loop around.  Typical bad CT design.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Meriden,+CT/@41.5530457,-72.7432094,249m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!3m5!1s0x89e7ca2124b4cab7:0xf8fbded56523558a!8m2!3d41.5381535!4d-72.8070435!16zL20vMDFtMjJu

I think Connecticut likes to multitask. Its eastbound I-84 welcome center is also an exit.
Exit 22 northbound on 95 as well - It's the Round Hill Rd and Rest Area exit all in one!
Lol that one is funny because drivers cut back when they noticed they are in the wrong lane.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeCL on November 29, 2022, 05:08:44 PM
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20221129/eb0fb6d0040021195fd0ae284506ed6c.jpg)
New sign saw this the other day and a section of led's are out.. I haven't checked to see if it's fixed but I doubt it.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on November 30, 2022, 07:47:43 AM
ConnDOT and their bargain basement signs. Guess Connecticut can't afford the nicer ones like they have in New York and Florida. Connecticut's cheapness in electronic signs extends to those at the train stations as well. The message on that sign though is all too common :-(
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on November 30, 2022, 08:09:16 AM
Quote from: kurumi on November 19, 2022, 12:12:57 AM
Click on "Learn More" and the map for Concept 14 (C/D road between exit 7 (US 7/202) and exit 8 (US 6)).

There's a partial diverging diamond shown for the exit 8 ramps to and from the west.
Interesting how they included a detailed description of the bypass/tunnel concept that for obvious reasons, didn't advance beyond the initial screening process. When preparing the EIS, you need some kind of "throw away" alternative just so you can say you did your due diligence in analyzing a range of alternatives under NEPA.

IMHO, it would have been pretty cool if they had moved the bypass/tunnel option forward to construction, but in Connecticut, something like that would never happen in this day and age.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: DJStephens on December 03, 2022, 09:27:24 AM
Mixmaster rehabilitation story.  Construction Equipment website.
https://www.constructionequipmentguide.com/waterbury-conntransformation-continues-with-mixmaster-project/59032
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: seicer on December 03, 2022, 09:42:40 AM
Quote from: connroadgeek on November 30, 2022, 07:47:43 AM
ConnDOT and their bargain basement signs. Guess Connecticut can't afford the nicer ones like they have in New York and Florida. Connecticut's cheapness in electronic signs extends to those at the train stations as well. The message on that sign though is all too common :-(

I mean, things break, but this electronic sign is still commonplace. I find more of an issue with its size - it barely fits the message it needs to convey inside an already small frame that's been diluted further with horizontal black bars.

West Virginia installed multi-LED signs in the medians (and some over the highway) some years back. They were smaller than what I would have expected but the clarity in the display made up for that. Replacements for those median-mounted signs are much larger and often over the highway.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: DJStephens on December 03, 2022, 10:18:20 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on November 24, 2022, 09:50:50 PM
CT 9 resigning update:

Happy Thanksgiving!  Sometime in the past couple days, these went up:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52522193845_7b6b279371_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2o2cYoi)20221124_144415 (https://flic.kr/p/2o2cYoi)

... and this came down...

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52521714106_0a840c3af9_3k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2o2avLW)20221124_144354 (https://flic.kr/p/2o2avLW) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

...revealing this...

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52521714006_f2d9b55300_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2o2avKd)20221124_144458 (https://flic.kr/p/2o2avKd) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

Have to wonder, why is replacement of the entire gantry structure necessary?  Can understand signs themselves fade and lose legibility over time, but the gantry itself?    Salt spray on concrete bases and the attaching bolts?  That I could understand, in that climate, but if they are in good condition, why replace?   
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on December 03, 2022, 01:59:54 PM
Quote from: DJStephens on December 03, 2022, 10:18:20 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on November 24, 2022, 09:50:50 PM
CT 9 resigning update:

Happy Thanksgiving!  Sometime in the past couple days, these went up:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52522193845_7b6b279371_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2o2cYoi)20221124_144415 (https://flic.kr/p/2o2cYoi)

... and this came down...

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52521714106_0a840c3af9_3k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2o2avLW)20221124_144354 (https://flic.kr/p/2o2avLW) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

...revealing this...

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52521714006_f2d9b55300_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2o2avKd)20221124_144458 (https://flic.kr/p/2o2avKd) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

Have to wonder, why is replacement of the entire gantry structure necessary?  Can understand signs themselves fade and lose legibility over time, but the gantry itself?    Salt spray on concrete bases and the attaching bolts?  That I could understand, in that climate, but if they are in good condition, why replace?
The gantries date back to when the Route 9 freeway was originally built, back in the late '60s/early '70s timeframe, meaning they're 50 years old. They've seen a lot of wear-and-tear and have reached the end of their service life, which is why they're being replaced.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on December 03, 2022, 07:43:20 PM
Why is ConnDOT getting rid of the second city? No more New London/Providence and New Haven/NYC. Is there some change to MUTCD that allows only one control city now?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on December 03, 2022, 08:14:49 PM
I did find some information on page 21 of the document (page 22 of the PDF).  The only error is that Hartford, and not East Hartford is used for I-384, and Newington is omitted from CT 9

https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOT/documents/dtrafficdesign/SigningGuidelinespdf.pdf
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on December 07, 2022, 11:19:25 AM
Took a drive on CT 9 yesterday (and part of CT 72) to observe any sign replacement progress.  As far as the northern and central contracts go... little progress, if any, observed since my last travels a month ago.  No sheet aluminums yet, still missing the same half dozen overheads in each direction, etc etc.  (Same goes for Rt 72).  However, it looks like progress is being made on the fiber project for expanding traffic cameras and such. 

Most of the progress was in the southern contract.  Heading north, I observed a crew replacing a [former]Exit 6 1 mile advance and on the truck they had the replacement for [former]Exit 8.  Also, between raindrops, caught the new [former]Exit 7 overhead finally installed, southbound:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52549317985_202799729d_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2o4AZrT)20221206_160457 (https://flic.kr/p/2o4AZrT) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

We're still waiting on delivery of the "ATTRACTIONS" sign, and most likely the new [former]Exit 11 overhead SB, then this project will essentially be done south of Middletown proper (though there are still some panels to be replaced through Acheson Drive). 

And we're still waiting for the big reveal as far as exit numbers go.  If they're waiting until the central and northern projects are complete, then we may be waiting awhile. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on December 15, 2022, 09:28:37 PM
The Danbury I-84 Project Advisory Committee is whittling down ideas.

At their August 24 meeting (https://www.i84danbury.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/PAC-Meeting-10-Presentation_082422.pdf), they announced they skipped over the proposal to split 84/7 into local and express lanes in favor of a simple lane addition (which would also eliminate the left hand ramps at Interchange 3 and 7), which was the least expensive option and provided the most congestion relief.

At their October 10 meeting (https://www.i84danbury.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/PAC11-Presentation.pdf), they had this update on the planned interchange improvements.

For Interchanges 3 and 4, they have yet to decide how to fix the weave on 84 EB, one idea would be to add a new ramp to Seger street, the other is to add a new C-D road for Exit 4 access.

In the center segment around Interchanges 5 and 6, they eliminated the idea of an interchange with new C-D roads between Tamarack and North Street due to the large amount of property acquisition needed. They have 3 options, the main objective in this segment is better access to Danbury Hospital:
1. Eliminating the half interchange at North Street and building a new full interchange at Tamarack
2. Supplementing the half interchange at North Street, which currently has an EB on-ramp and WB off-ramp with another half interchange with an EB off-ramp and WB on-ramp at Great Plain Road
3. Building an EB C-D road between Interchanges 5 and 6 and converting Interchange 6 to full access with a WB on-ramp

Finally, for the eastern segment around Interchanges 7 and 8, they are undecided between C-D roads in both directions or just going WB.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on December 18, 2022, 02:03:02 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on December 15, 2022, 09:28:37 PM
The Danbury I-84 Project Advisory Committee is whittling down ideas.

At their August 24 meeting (https://www.i84danbury.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/PAC-Meeting-10-Presentation_082422.pdf), they announced they skipped over the proposal to split 84/7 into local and express lanes in favor of a simple lane addition (which would also eliminate the left hand ramps at Interchange 3 and 7), which was the least expensive option and provided the most congestion relief.

At their October 10 meeting (https://www.i84danbury.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/PAC11-Presentation.pdf), they had this update on the planned interchange improvements.

For Interchanges 3 and 4, they have yet to decide how to fix the weave on 84 EB, one idea would be to add a new ramp to Seger street, the other is to add a new C-D road for Exit 4 access.

In the center segment around Interchanges 5 and 6, they eliminated the idea of an interchange with new C-D roads between Tamarack and North Street due to the large amount of property acquisition needed. They have 3 options, the main objective in this segment is better access to Danbury Hospital:
1. Eliminating the half interchange at North Street and building a new full interchange at Tamarack
2. Supplementing the half interchange at North Street, which currently has an EB on-ramp and WB off-ramp with another half interchange with an EB off-ramp and WB on-ramp at Great Plain Road
3. Building an EB C-D road between Interchanges 5 and 6 and converting Interchange 6 to full access with a WB on-ramp

Finally, for the eastern segment around Interchanges 7 and 8, they are undecided between C-D roads in both directions or just going WB.
I would think braided ramps at Exits 3/4 and 7/8 in both directions would be the best solution to eliminate the weaving conditions that cause a lot of crashes in those areas.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on December 19, 2022, 01:28:09 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on December 18, 2022, 02:03:02 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on December 15, 2022, 09:28:37 PM
The Danbury I-84 Project Advisory Committee is whittling down ideas.

At their August 24 meeting (https://www.i84danbury.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/PAC-Meeting-10-Presentation_082422.pdf), they announced they skipped over the proposal to split 84/7 into local and express lanes in favor of a simple lane addition (which would also eliminate the left hand ramps at Interchange 3 and 7), which was the least expensive option and provided the most congestion relief.

At their October 10 meeting (https://www.i84danbury.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/PAC11-Presentation.pdf), they had this update on the planned interchange improvements.

For Interchanges 3 and 4, they have yet to decide how to fix the weave on 84 EB, one idea would be to add a new ramp to Seger street, the other is to add a new C-D road for Exit 4 access.

In the center segment around Interchanges 5 and 6, they eliminated the idea of an interchange with new C-D roads between Tamarack and North Street due to the large amount of property acquisition needed. They have 3 options, the main objective in this segment is better access to Danbury Hospital:
1. Eliminating the half interchange at North Street and building a new full interchange at Tamarack
2. Supplementing the half interchange at North Street, which currently has an EB on-ramp and WB off-ramp with another half interchange with an EB off-ramp and WB on-ramp at Great Plain Road
3. Building an EB C-D road between Interchanges 5 and 6 and converting Interchange 6 to full access with a WB on-ramp

Finally, for the eastern segment around Interchanges 7 and 8, they are undecided between C-D roads in both directions or just going WB.
I would think braided ramps at Exits 3/4 and 7/8 in both directions would be the best solution to eliminate the weaving conditions that cause a lot of crashes in those areas.
Braided ramps are expensive.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on December 19, 2022, 02:52:18 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on December 19, 2022, 01:28:09 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on December 18, 2022, 02:03:02 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on December 15, 2022, 09:28:37 PM
The Danbury I-84 Project Advisory Committee is whittling down ideas.

At their August 24 meeting (https://www.i84danbury.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/PAC-Meeting-10-Presentation_082422.pdf), they announced they skipped over the proposal to split 84/7 into local and express lanes in favor of a simple lane addition (which would also eliminate the left hand ramps at Interchange 3 and 7), which was the least expensive option and provided the most congestion relief.

At their October 10 meeting (https://www.i84danbury.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/PAC11-Presentation.pdf), they had this update on the planned interchange improvements.

For Interchanges 3 and 4, they have yet to decide how to fix the weave on 84 EB, one idea would be to add a new ramp to Seger street, the other is to add a new C-D road for Exit 4 access.

In the center segment around Interchanges 5 and 6, they eliminated the idea of an interchange with new C-D roads between Tamarack and North Street due to the large amount of property acquisition needed. They have 3 options, the main objective in this segment is better access to Danbury Hospital:
1. Eliminating the half interchange at North Street and building a new full interchange at Tamarack
2. Supplementing the half interchange at North Street, which currently has an EB on-ramp and WB off-ramp with another half interchange with an EB off-ramp and WB on-ramp at Great Plain Road
3. Building an EB C-D road between Interchanges 5 and 6 and converting Interchange 6 to full access with a WB on-ramp

Finally, for the eastern segment around Interchanges 7 and 8, they are undecided between C-D roads in both directions or just going WB.
I would think braided ramps at Exits 3/4 and 7/8 in both directions would be the best solution to eliminate the weaving conditions that cause a lot of crashes in those areas.
Braided ramps are expensive.
All the options for fixing I-84 through Danbury are going to be expensive. There are no cheap solutions to untangling that mess.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on December 19, 2022, 03:10:35 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on December 19, 2022, 02:52:18 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on December 19, 2022, 01:28:09 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on December 18, 2022, 02:03:02 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on December 15, 2022, 09:28:37 PM
The Danbury I-84 Project Advisory Committee is whittling down ideas.

At their August 24 meeting (https://www.i84danbury.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/PAC-Meeting-10-Presentation_082422.pdf), they announced they skipped over the proposal to split 84/7 into local and express lanes in favor of a simple lane addition (which would also eliminate the left hand ramps at Interchange 3 and 7), which was the least expensive option and provided the most congestion relief.

At their October 10 meeting (https://www.i84danbury.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/PAC11-Presentation.pdf), they had this update on the planned interchange improvements.

For Interchanges 3 and 4, they have yet to decide how to fix the weave on 84 EB, one idea would be to add a new ramp to Seger street, the other is to add a new C-D road for Exit 4 access.

In the center segment around Interchanges 5 and 6, they eliminated the idea of an interchange with new C-D roads between Tamarack and North Street due to the large amount of property acquisition needed. They have 3 options, the main objective in this segment is better access to Danbury Hospital:
1. Eliminating the half interchange at North Street and building a new full interchange at Tamarack
2. Supplementing the half interchange at North Street, which currently has an EB on-ramp and WB off-ramp with another half interchange with an EB off-ramp and WB on-ramp at Great Plain Road
3. Building an EB C-D road between Interchanges 5 and 6 and converting Interchange 6 to full access with a WB on-ramp

Finally, for the eastern segment around Interchanges 7 and 8, they are undecided between C-D roads in both directions or just going WB.
I would think braided ramps at Exits 3/4 and 7/8 in both directions would be the best solution to eliminate the weaving conditions that cause a lot of crashes in those areas.
Braided ramps are expensive.
All the options for fixing I-84 through Danbury are going to be expensive. There are no cheap solutions to untangling that mess.

ConnDOT has identified cheaper solutions for the problems at Exits ¾ and ⅞.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on December 19, 2022, 04:00:53 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on December 19, 2022, 03:10:35 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on December 19, 2022, 02:52:18 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on December 19, 2022, 01:28:09 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on December 18, 2022, 02:03:02 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on December 15, 2022, 09:28:37 PM
The Danbury I-84 Project Advisory Committee is whittling down ideas.

At their August 24 meeting (https://www.i84danbury.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/PAC-Meeting-10-Presentation_082422.pdf), they announced they skipped over the proposal to split 84/7 into local and express lanes in favor of a simple lane addition (which would also eliminate the left hand ramps at Interchange 3 and 7), which was the least expensive option and provided the most congestion relief.

At their October 10 meeting (https://www.i84danbury.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/PAC11-Presentation.pdf), they had this update on the planned interchange improvements.

For Interchanges 3 and 4, they have yet to decide how to fix the weave on 84 EB, one idea would be to add a new ramp to Seger street, the other is to add a new C-D road for Exit 4 access.

In the center segment around Interchanges 5 and 6, they eliminated the idea of an interchange with new C-D roads between Tamarack and North Street due to the large amount of property acquisition needed. They have 3 options, the main objective in this segment is better access to Danbury Hospital:
1. Eliminating the half interchange at North Street and building a new full interchange at Tamarack
2. Supplementing the half interchange at North Street, which currently has an EB on-ramp and WB off-ramp with another half interchange with an EB off-ramp and WB on-ramp at Great Plain Road
3. Building an EB C-D road between Interchanges 5 and 6 and converting Interchange 6 to full access with a WB on-ramp

Finally, for the eastern segment around Interchanges 7 and 8, they are undecided between C-D roads in both directions or just going WB.
I would think braided ramps at Exits 3/4 and 7/8 in both directions would be the best solution to eliminate the weaving conditions that cause a lot of crashes in those areas.
Braided ramps are expensive.
All the options for fixing I-84 through Danbury are going to be expensive. There are no cheap solutions to untangling that mess.

ConnDOT has identified cheaper solutions for the problems at Exits ¾ and ⅞.
That I have a hard time buying. CTDOT has presented a range of alternatives, yet I haven't seen any cost figures for any of the options presented. Knowing how things work in Connecticut, it'll probably be another 30 years before they put a shovel in the ground on whatever the decide to do, if anything.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on December 21, 2022, 05:00:58 PM
They did it. They put up a ground-mounted diagrammatic BGS for Exit 59 on I-84 E.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RyanB06 on December 21, 2022, 06:49:18 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on December 21, 2022, 05:00:58 PM
They did it. They put up a ground-mounted diagrammatic BGS for Exit 59 on I-84 E.
Hmmm. I thought for sure they'd have put up an APL like they did for the I-91/CT-15 interchange. I'll have to check it out this weekend when I head up to my cousin's place in Manchester for Christmas Day.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: mariethefoxy on December 22, 2022, 01:19:45 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on December 21, 2022, 05:00:58 PM
They did it. They put up a ground-mounted diagrammatic BGS for Exit 59 on I-84 E.

Whyyy does conndot do this, it's wide enough there to warrant an overhead sign.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on December 22, 2022, 03:06:35 AM
Quote from: mariethefoxy on December 22, 2022, 01:19:45 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on December 21, 2022, 05:00:58 PM
They did it. They put up a ground-mounted diagrammatic BGS for Exit 59 on I-84 E.

Whyyy does conndot do this, it's wide enough there to warrant an overhead sign.
1. ConnDOT doesn't like mounting signs on bridges anymore.
2. Because of the multi-use path next to the shoulder, there's not room for a mast arm post. The sign is abnormally tall to allow people to pass underneath it.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: roadman65 on December 31, 2022, 11:39:25 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/KeptFmopb6ViicVo9
I see Caltrans Freeway Entrance signs have made it to East Lyme.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on December 31, 2022, 12:24:16 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on December 31, 2022, 11:39:25 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/KeptFmopb6ViicVo9
I see Caltrans Freeway Entrance signs have made it to East Lyme.
They are going to be reconstructing that interchange soon. Let's see if the "Freeway Entrance" sign survives the reconstruction.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: sharkyfour on December 31, 2022, 12:40:08 PM
It's a really strange intersection since they moved the onramp a couple years ago.  Without the extra signage, in the moment you come up on that intersection with your GPS telling you to "turn now", it's not totally clear what path is the side road up to the DOT garage and what's the highway onramp.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on December 31, 2022, 01:07:11 PM
Has anyone noticed a lack of "merging traffic" signs in CT lately?  Seems like they have been removed and not replaced on CT 9, and I spotted several missing on I-95. 

Also, caught another new blue attractions sign recenty installed (within the past week) on CT 9...

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52598657975_cd48432079_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2o8XSvn)CT9NB-MM2.2 (https://flic.kr/p/2o8XSvn) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: roadman65 on January 01, 2023, 07:04:17 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on December 31, 2022, 12:24:16 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on December 31, 2022, 11:39:25 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/KeptFmopb6ViicVo9
I see Caltrans Freeway Entrance signs have made it to East Lyme.
They are going to be reconstructing that interchange soon. Let's see if the "Freeway Entrance" sign survives the reconstruction.

With US 1 nearby having a ramp, I'm surprised they allow the sharp turn here.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: roadman65 on January 02, 2023, 11:13:42 AM
Why does I-95 have no Exits 77,78,and 79?

It's Exit 76 for I-395 and Exit 80 for Old Mill Road in Waterford.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MATraveler128 on January 02, 2023, 11:16:57 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 02, 2023, 11:13:42 AM
Why does I-95 have no Exits 77,78,and 79?

It's Exit 76 for I-395 and Exit 80 for Old Mill Road in Waterford.

That's because they didn't want to have duplicate exit numbers on I-95 past the I-395 split since exit numbers on I-395 used to continue I-95's exit numbers.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on January 02, 2023, 11:40:11 AM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on January 02, 2023, 11:16:57 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 02, 2023, 11:13:42 AM
Why does I-95 have no Exits 77,78,and 79?

It's Exit 76 for I-395 and Exit 80 for Old Mill Road in Waterford.

That's because they didn't want to have duplicate exit numbers on I-95 past the I-395 split since exit numbers on I-395 used to continue I-95's exit numbers.

It would help if/when the state finally converts I-95's exit numbers from sequential numbers to mileage-based numbers.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: roadman65 on January 02, 2023, 11:46:22 AM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on January 02, 2023, 11:40:11 AM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on January 02, 2023, 11:16:57 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 02, 2023, 11:13:42 AM
Why does I-95 have no Exits 77,78,and 79?

It's Exit 76 for I-395 and Exit 80 for Old Mill Road in Waterford.

That's because they didn't want to have duplicate exit numbers on I-95 past the I-395 split since exit numbers on I-395 used to continue I-95's exit numbers.

It would help if/when the state finally converts I-95's exit numbers from sequential numbers to mileage-based numbers.
The signs will be replaced on I-95 when the current ones are out of date.

Hopefully soon as the overheads on the Gold Star Bridge still have centered exit tabs and the Left CT 184 exit has no yellow LEFT tab.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on January 02, 2023, 12:10:51 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 02, 2023, 11:46:22 AM
The signs will be replaced on I-95 when the current ones are out of date.

Hopefully soon as the overheads on the Gold Star Bridge still have centered exit tabs and the Left CT 184 exit has no yellow LEFT tab.
I-95 will get mileage based exit numbers last. Last plan I saw was 2029, so realistically we're probably at least a decade away.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: roadman65 on January 02, 2023, 02:28:40 PM
Hope they add mileage signs too. Many Interstates in Connecticut don't use them.  I thought that NJ was bad, however I did see one on the Merit Parkway entering the state from NY and there is one in Greenwich also on I-95, though using Bridgeport and not New Haven in uniform with control city guides.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on January 02, 2023, 03:50:48 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on January 02, 2023, 11:16:57 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 02, 2023, 11:13:42 AM
Why does I-95 have no Exits 77,78,and 79?

It’s Exit 76 for I-395 and Exit 80 for Old Mill Road in Waterford.

That’s because they didn’t want to have duplicate exit numbers on I-95 past the I-395 split since exit numbers on I-395 used to continue I-95’s exit numbers.
That was back from when the exits were numbered based on the Connecticut Turnpike routing. The I-95 designation was added from NY to Waterford shortly after the Turnpike was completed, and I-395 was added from Waterford to Killingly in the early 1980s, that also included the "free" section of I-395 from Killingly to Massachusetts. Interestingly, exit numbers on the "free" section of I-395 were a continuation of the Turnpike's numbering, which is why you had Exit 100 just before the Massachusetts state line. Since the Connecticut Turnpike was de-tolled, exit numbers and mileposts were reset along the I-395 section to reflect I-395 mileage rather than Turnpike mileage; the latter occurring in the late 1980s and the former occurring in 2015.

The other reason I've heard about the lack of Exits 77 through 79 on I-95 had to do with those numbers being reserved for the Route 11 freeway that was to have been extended to intersect I-95 either at or very close to the I-395 split. But after 50 years of back-and-forth, any extension of Route 11 to I-95 is pretty much dead.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on January 02, 2023, 04:03:56 PM
I've always wondered too why they skipped I-95 exits from 76 to 81 (NB) / 80 to 75 (SB).  My youngest recollection of being on that part of I-95 was when CT 52 was still signed on the turnpike.  There was no number for today's Exit 76 back then, the number being added about the time CT 52 became I-395.  Perhaps the reasoning behind the skipping of numbers was that Exit 81 may have been Exit 1, Exit 82 as Exit 2, and so on.  One theory behind this is that I once observed an exit sign that looked like the "8" was tacked on after the sign was fabricated. 

I also remember back in the CT 52 to I-395 days, they were really stingy on button copy lettering.  The "NORTH" letters from the I-95 sign was moved over to the I-395 sign (which previously said "CONN/TPKE" instead of "NORTH".  The I-95 pull-through was then devoid of direction from that time until 2000 when the signs were finally replaced.  Southbound at Exit 75, you had the odd "TurnPIke" lettering as well. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on January 02, 2023, 04:22:17 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on January 02, 2023, 04:03:56 PM
I've always wondered too why they skipped I-95 exits from 76 to 81 (NB) / 80 to 75 (SB).  My youngest recollection of being on that part of I-95 was when CT 52 was still signed on the turnpike.  There was no number for today's Exit 76 back then, the number being added about the time CT 52 became I-395.  Perhaps the reasoning behind the skipping of numbers was that Exit 81 may have been Exit 1, Exit 82 as Exit 2, and so on.  One theory behind this is that I once observed an exit sign that looked like the "8" was tacked on after the sign was fabricated. 

I also remember back in the CT 52 to I-395 days, they were really stingy on button copy lettering.  The "NORTH" letters from the I-95 sign was moved over to the I-395 sign (which previously said "CONN/TPKE" instead of "NORTH".  The I-95 pull-through was then devoid of direction from that time until 2000 when the signs were finally replaced.  Southbound at Exit 75, you had the odd "TurnPIke" lettering as well.
It's also interesting that they also spelled out "CONN TPKE" on most turnpike signage rather than using the Connecticut Turnpike shield (as is done on other toll roads throughout the country). In fact, I can recall there only being a scant number of Connecticut Turnpike shields, nearly all of them on local roads directing motorists to the nearest Turnpike interchange, and I don't recall any Connecticut Turnpike shields on the Turnpike itself, even before tolls were removed in the '80s.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: roadman65 on January 02, 2023, 04:34:27 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/VnCAWiBZeyoTQKq56
This assembly being changed out for this, is sort of sad.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3726358,-71.9680688,3a,75y,291.07h,86.83t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shUWw_mejX44TPkqI1XwjRg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192


I am guessing its because of the MUTCD not allowing street names and communities, towns, and cities not to be signed together.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on January 02, 2023, 05:26:05 PM
That change happened several years ago and was meant to direct traffic heading to Noank and Groton Long Point to utilize Exit 88/CT 117 to US 1.  This takes traffic away from Allyn Street and a residential area that is congested in the area of West Mystic, even though Allyn St is a state-maintained route.  It had nothing to do with not signing villages/towns with a street name. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on January 02, 2023, 09:15:30 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on January 02, 2023, 05:26:05 PM
That change happened several years ago and was meant to direct traffic heading to Noank and Groton Long Point to utilize Exit 88/CT 117 to US 1.  This takes traffic away from Allyn Street and a residential area that is congested in the area of West Mystic, even though Allyn St is a state-maintained route.  It had nothing to do with not signing villages/towns with a street name. 

For 10 days, back in 1973, Allyn Street had an official signed route number: 319. I don't know if signs were ever posted. There was opposition to promoting Allyn Street even further as a thru or access route, and the designation was withdrawn.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: roadman65 on January 03, 2023, 10:11:33 AM
I saw that Allyn Street is a residential road north of US 1.  I also saw CT 213 loops back to US 1 west of West Mystic closer to that other interchange that now directs motorists to Noank and Groton along Point. So resigning from the next SB exit isn't that much inconvenience.


Question about the Mianus River Bridge in Cos Cob. Is the current structure the same one that collapsed in 1983?  In other words did they just replace the missing piece or has CTDOT replaced the entire bridge? 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on January 03, 2023, 04:23:05 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 03, 2023, 10:11:33 AM
Question about the Mianus River Bridge in Cos Cob. Is the current structure the same one that collapsed in 1983?  In other words did they just replace the missing piece or has CTDOT replaced the entire bridge? 

Completely new bridge with full in/out shoulders too.

TWO QUESTIONS:

1) When did CT STOP making the blue button copy signs for the Turnpike?
Obv, based on Michael Summa photos there were a mix-n-match of blue signs with the then new "non-reflective button copy" forest green signs.

When I-91 was completed and CT-8/25 they used the new green signage. 
This one still hangs on:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50065916212_f8088c7c3c_o.jpg)

I'd imagine around 1978 or so, you'd see original blue signs for Exit 25 and then new non-reflective button copy for Exit 27 or Exit 27A etc.


2)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52605742960_31c7a59f63_o.jpg)
In the Michael Summa photo above, it's a photo of I-95 NB at Exit 47 for CT-34, then a left exit.  It shows I-95 is only 3-lanes through (4 including the Exit 47 off-ramp).  Years later it was 4-lanes through, 2 for I-91 and 2 for I-95 (5 including the Exit 47 off-ramp).  In the photo, it didn't look wide enough for a 4-lanes and it looks like a simple restriping wouldn't work.  When was I-95 widened to 4-through lanes through Exit 47 to the I-95/I-91 split??  (I'm not referring to the very recent improvements of the Pearl Harbor Bridge 2014 etc)

GSV from 2008 showing 4-lanes through at CT-34 exit 47.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.296881,-72.9162463,3a,75y,25.52h,83.89t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sbkrtBF8WMGF0VhsHZiQjRQ!2e0!5s20080601T000000!7i3328!8i1664

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.2974979,-72.9158711,3a,75y,14.4h,82.62t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sYD8h-Rud8lpdEOKNqd_spQ!2e0!5s20080501T000000!7i3328!8i1664
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: roadman65 on January 03, 2023, 11:09:58 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/W5pUvtKKrDdse14a9Q
Is there a reason why CT 34 got greened out for MLK?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on January 04, 2023, 12:36:37 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 03, 2023, 11:09:58 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/W5pUvtKKrDdse14a9Q
Is there a reason why CT 34 got greened out for MLK?

Right around the time the 91/95/34 interchange was being reconstructed, a parallel effort was underway to remove much of the CT 34 freeway (Oak St Connector). The roadway is still officially CT 34, but most 34 markers have been removed to discourage its use for thru traffic.

There's a sign or two on I-95 directing motorists to use CT 10 to get to CT 34 (example: https://goo.gl/maps/x4Fx9GBrBGfDL2ff8, https://goo.gl/maps/uPsXtdm7skGff2L16)

The state may eventually truncate CT 34's east terminus to CT 10, and use a secret route number for the remainder.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on January 05, 2023, 08:04:40 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on January 03, 2023, 04:23:05 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 03, 2023, 10:11:33 AM
Question about the Mianus River Bridge in Cos Cob. Is the current structure the same one that collapsed in 1983?  In other words did they just replace the missing piece or has CTDOT replaced the entire bridge? 

Completely new bridge with full in/out shoulders too.

TWO QUESTIONS:

1) When did CT STOP making the blue button copy signs for the Turnpike?
Obv, based on Michael Summa photos there were a mix-n-match of blue signs with the then new "non-reflective button copy" forest green signs.

When I-91 was completed and CT-8/25 they used the new green signage. 
This one still hangs on:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50065916212_f8088c7c3c_o.jpg)

I'd imagine around 1978 or so, you'd see original blue signs for Exit 25 and then new non-reflective button copy for Exit 27 or Exit 27A etc.


2)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52605742960_31c7a59f63_o.jpg)
In the Michael Summa photo above, it's a photo of I-95 NB at Exit 47 for CT-34, then a left exit.  It shows I-95 is only 3-lanes through (4 including the Exit 47 off-ramp).  Years later it was 4-lanes through, 2 for I-91 and 2 for I-95 (5 including the Exit 47 off-ramp).  In the photo, it didn't look wide enough for a 4-lanes and it looks like a simple restriping wouldn't work.  When was I-95 widened to 4-through lanes through Exit 47 to the I-95/I-91 split??  (I'm not referring to the very recent improvements of the Pearl Harbor Bridge 2014 etc)

GSV from 2008 showing 4-lanes through at CT-34 exit 47.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.296881,-72.9162463,3a,75y,25.52h,83.89t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sbkrtBF8WMGF0VhsHZiQjRQ!2e0!5s20080601T000000!7i3328!8i1664

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.2974979,-72.9158711,3a,75y,14.4h,82.62t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sYD8h-Rud8lpdEOKNqd_spQ!2e0!5s20080501T000000!7i3328!8i1664
I remember that sign assembly at the old I-95/I-91/CT-34 interchange in New Haven. IIRC, the sign panels in the picture were blue--heavily faded by the time they were replaced around 1990. Similarly, I recall the signs for the Exit 39A/B cloverleaf at US Route 1 in Milford were also of similar design, but were green...again heavily faded before those were replaced around 1990 as well.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: roadman65 on January 05, 2023, 01:23:45 PM
Another oddity is that US 1 at the north end of Columbus Avenue in New Haven uses, Church Street to reach Union Avenue instead of remaining on the last full block of Columbus.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on January 05, 2023, 08:45:11 PM
Because... until fairly recently, that portion of Columbus Ave was closed, as seen here:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.2989922,-72.9267415,3a,75y,264.32h,78.52t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sYCOnMit1xgKNqPq3omTPQw!2e0!5s20190701T000000!7i16384!8i8192
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: mvak36 on January 06, 2023, 01:36:53 PM
https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/news/usdot-large-bridge-grants-infrastructure-law/639734/

Quote
The U.S. Department of Transportation announced Wednesday the city of Chicago and transportation entities in California, Connecticut and Kentucky will each receive over $100 million in federal funds to make major bridge improvements.

...

$158 million to the Connecticut Department of Transportation to rehabilitate the northbound structure of the Gold Star Memorial Bridge, crossing I-95 over the Thames River in the state.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on January 06, 2023, 01:54:08 PM
Quote from: mvak36 on January 06, 2023, 01:36:53 PM
https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/news/usdot-large-bridge-grants-infrastructure-law/639734/

Quote
The U.S. Department of Transportation announced Wednesday the city of Chicago and transportation entities in California, Connecticut and Kentucky will each receive over $100 million in federal funds to make major bridge improvements.

...

$158 million to the Connecticut Department of Transportation to rehabilitate the northbound structure of the Gold Star Memorial Bridge, crossing I-95 over the Thames River in the state.
What are they doing to the Gold Star Memorial Bridge such that it costs $158 million?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on January 06, 2023, 02:33:14 PM
Quote from: mvak36 on January 06, 2023, 01:36:53 PM
https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/news/usdot-large-bridge-grants-infrastructure-law/639734/

Quote
The U.S. Department of Transportation announced Wednesday the city of Chicago and transportation entities in California, Connecticut and Kentucky will each receive over $100 million in federal funds to make major bridge improvements.

...

$158 million to the Connecticut Department of Transportation to rehabilitate the northbound structure of the Gold Star Memorial Bridge, crossing I-95 over the Thames River in the state.

Money that could have been used to replace the Cape Cod Canal bridges, but whatever, and it's off-topic anyway.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Rothman on January 06, 2023, 02:37:03 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on January 06, 2023, 02:33:14 PM
Quote from: mvak36 on January 06, 2023, 01:36:53 PM
https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/news/usdot-large-bridge-grants-infrastructure-law/639734/

Quote
The U.S. Department of Transportation announced Wednesday the city of Chicago and transportation entities in California, Connecticut and Kentucky will each receive over $100 million in federal funds to make major bridge improvements.

...

$158 million to the Connecticut Department of Transportation to rehabilitate the northbound structure of the Gold Star Memorial Bridge, crossing I-95 over the Thames River in the state.

Money that could have been used to replace the Cape Cod Canal bridges, but whatever, and it's off-topic anyway.
What a weird comment to make given that the Cape Cod bridges cost is more than ten times that amount.  Gold Star needs work, too.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: roadman65 on January 06, 2023, 04:34:00 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 06, 2023, 02:37:03 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on January 06, 2023, 02:33:14 PM
Quote from: mvak36 on January 06, 2023, 01:36:53 PM
https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/news/usdot-large-bridge-grants-infrastructure-law/639734/

Quote
The U.S. Department of Transportation announced Wednesday the city of Chicago and transportation entities in California, Connecticut and Kentucky will each receive over $100 million in federal funds to make major bridge improvements.

...

$158 million to the Connecticut Department of Transportation to rehabilitate the northbound structure of the Gold Star Memorial Bridge, crossing I-95 over the Thames River in the state.

Money that could have been used to replace the Cape Cod Canal bridges, but whatever, and it's off-topic anyway.
What a weird comment to make given that the Cape Cod bridges cost is more than ten times that amount.  Gold Star needs work, too.

The NB span opened in 1943. So yes, it probably needs it.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on January 08, 2023, 06:14:45 PM
Realigning I-84 / Hartford's mini big-dig is getting a little media attention again:  https://ctmirror.org/2023/01/06/ct-hartford-400-highway-traffic-plan-transportation-department/

Apparently the plan du jour has a new name ("Hartford 400", referencing Hartford's 400th anniversary next decade, in the hopes that it will incent the powers that be to move ahead in time for it), and has attracted a few design awards.

I don't think it's attracted the $15B+ needed to build it.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on January 09, 2023, 11:17:08 AM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on January 08, 2023, 06:14:45 PM
Realigning I-84 / Hartford's mini big-dig is getting a little media attention again:  https://ctmirror.org/2023/01/06/ct-hartford-400-highway-traffic-plan-transportation-department/

Apparently the plan du jour has a new name ("Hartford 400", referencing Hartford's 400th anniversary next decade, in the hopes that it will incent the powers that be to move ahead in time for it), and has attracted a few design awards.

I don't think it's attracted the $15B+ needed to build it.
The Hartford 400 concept is rather interesting and provides an opportunity to fix what was broken when the highway system around Hartford was originally built. The main obstacles to this being successfully implemented are money and getting a large group of stakeholders on board with the project. Money and stakeholder  buy-in have thus far been elusive for any of the other concepts put forth to fix the highway mess in and around Hartford.  I hope the Hartford 400 doesn't meet the same fate.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on January 09, 2023, 02:31:04 PM
Frankly, what Hartford needs is a bridge directly connecting local streets. But that's just me.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on January 09, 2023, 06:01:35 PM
I wonder if Hartford and Connecticut still have the kind of corporate leadership and stakeholders that could help move a project like this along. Then again, it was the old business "bishops"  that led to the highway mess to begin with.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: The Ghostbuster on January 09, 2023, 06:36:09 PM
Although I've never been to Connecticut, this proposal seems like a pipe dream to me. I would be very surprised if any of this is implemented.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: cstp3103 on January 12, 2023, 09:07:10 PM
I was on CT 9 today and discovered that the old exit numbers have been blacked out from most of the signs, but the new ones have not been added. Additionally, the "Old Exit X" signs are already up. Does anyone know how long this process usually takes?

Sorry for no pictures, I would have taken some if I wasn't driving
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on January 12, 2023, 09:51:04 PM
Quote from: cstp3103 on January 12, 2023, 09:07:10 PM
I was on CT 9 today and discovered that the old exit numbers have been blacked out from most of the signs, but the new ones have not been added. Additionally, the "Old Exit X" signs are already up. Does anyone know how long this process usually takes?

Sorry for no pictures, I would have taken some if I wasn't driving

It's CTDOT, so the over/under is 5 years.  I drove the far northern end of it today and there is still button copy at the 84 split and no enhanced mile markers to speak of yet.  CT 72 was supposed to be converted in late 21 and there is still old signage and no mile markers to speak of.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on January 13, 2023, 08:46:20 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on January 12, 2023, 09:51:04 PM
Quote from: cstp3103 on January 12, 2023, 09:07:10 PM
I was on CT 9 today and discovered that the old exit numbers have been blacked out from most of the signs, but the new ones have not been added. Additionally, the "Old Exit X" signs are already up. Does anyone know how long this process usually takes?

Sorry for no pictures, I would have taken some if I wasn't driving

It's CTDOT, so the over/under is 5 years.  I drove the far northern end of it today and there is still button copy at the 84 split and no enhanced mile markers to speak of yet.  CT 72 was supposed to be converted in late 21 and there is still old signage and no mile markers to speak of.
If the sign replacements on Route 8 are any indicator as to how long this could drag on for Routes 9 and 72, it could be a few more years until you see the new exit numbers unveiled on Routes 9 and 72.  They started sign replacements on Route 8 in 2019, and they now just let the last of 4 contracts to replace the remaining signs and renumber exits on Route 8, which is not scheduled to be completed until the end of next year.  So...for Route 8...4 contracts and 5 years to complete.  At the rate that Routes 9 and 72 are going, they might end up taking longer than Route 8. So maybe 2026 we might see the new exit numbers.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on January 13, 2023, 09:55:36 AM
The southern contract (I-95 to Middletown) had its last button copy signs replaced two days ago, and there's only one old sign left to remove.  Some ramp signage needs replacement, but that's it.

The middle contract (Exit 18-24) had almost zero progress in the past month, though I did notice the start of replacement of sheet aluminums on off ramp signage and a couple on the mainline.  The northern contract (Exit 25-I-84) has also seen almost zero progress in the past few months.  However, there is a new sheet sign for Iwo Jima Memorial/Exit 38?, except the new number isn't covered up. 

My guess is that we won't see "the great reveal" until the primary guide signs are replaced on the middle and northern contracts, otherwise we'll see duplicate numbers.  When that will be is anyone's guess.


Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on January 13, 2023, 11:36:58 AM
Why didn't they start at the northern end at the 84 interchange and work south doing one exit fully at a time? That way you don't have half-done changes, each exit gets done fully at once, and you avoid duplicate numbers and blacked out signs.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on January 13, 2023, 11:20:02 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on January 13, 2023, 11:36:58 AM
Why didn't they start at the northern end at the 84 interchange and work south doing one exit fully at a time? That way you don't have half-done changes, each exit gets done fully at once, and you avoid duplicate numbers and blacked out signs.

Because they split the project up into 3 separate contracts.  The northern contract was awarded first, then the middle contract, then the southern contract.  The middle and northern contracts originally had sequential exits only, while the southern contract took care of the signs from Middletown, south, and changed out the exit tabs (yes, the exit tabs) for ones with mile-based numbers.  At some point, the contracts were altered, since the new signs north of Middletown were fabricated with the new numbers, but with the old numbers tacked on. 

In addition, the signs north of Middletown lack the thick black borders and cram 3 digit route numbers into a 2 digit shield. 

It appears right now the holdout is with the overheads on all 3 contracts... those in Middletown are just having panels replaced, while the others not replaced yet are all new gantries, with their foundations mostly having been installed last summer. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on January 14, 2023, 01:44:24 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on January 13, 2023, 11:20:02 PM
Because they split the project up into 3 separate contracts.  The northern contract was awarded first, then the middle contract, then the southern contract.  The middle and northern contracts originally had sequential exits only, while the southern contract took care of the signs from Middletown, south, and changed out the exit tabs (yes, the exit tabs) for ones with mile-based numbers.  At some point, the contracts were altered, since the new signs north of Middletown were fabricated with the new numbers, but with the old numbers tacked on. 

In addition, the signs north of Middletown lack the thick black borders and cram 3 digit route numbers into a 2 digit shield. 

It appears right now the holdout is with the overheads on all 3 contracts... those in Middletown are just having panels replaced, while the others not replaced yet are all new gantries, with their foundations mostly having been installed last summer. 

Doesn't that all seem needlessly complicated? Seems like this type of job should be pretty simple and straightforward.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on January 14, 2023, 02:58:51 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on January 13, 2023, 11:20:02 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on January 13, 2023, 11:36:58 AM
Why didn't they start at the northern end at the 84 interchange and work south doing one exit fully at a time? That way you don't have half-done changes, each exit gets done fully at once, and you avoid duplicate numbers and blacked out signs.

Because they split the project up into 3 separate contracts.  The northern contract was awarded first, then the middle contract, then the southern contract.  The middle and northern contracts originally had sequential exits only, while the southern contract took care of the signs from Middletown, south, and changed out the exit tabs (yes, the exit tabs) for ones with mile-based numbers.  At some point, the contracts were altered, since the new signs north of Middletown were fabricated with the new numbers, but with the old numbers tacked on. 

In addition, the signs north of Middletown lack the thick black borders and cram 3 digit route numbers into a 2 digit shield. 

It appears right now the holdout is with the overheads on all 3 contracts... those in Middletown are just having panels replaced, while the others not replaced yet are all new gantries, with their foundations mostly having been installed last summer.

It boggles me why in Connecticut it takes so long to complete these sign replacement projects. About 4 years ago, NYSDOT let a contract to replace all of the signs and renumber exits along the entire length (71 miles) of I-84 through the state, that the contractor completed in about 9 months...which included the replacement of ground-mounted and overhead gantries in addition to the sign panels themselves, and all of the smaller sheet metal signs.

I remember back in the late '80s when CTDOT replaced the old Turnpike-style signs on I-95 between Stratford and New Haven, and from what I recall, that took more than a year as well...for a stretch of highway that was less than 20 miles. I recall the new overhead structures being erected and then they sat there for months until they started installing the new sign panels.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: bob7374 on January 14, 2023, 04:45:34 PM
According to CTDOT's latest project advertising schedule (12/13/2022), we will have 4 more route specific projects to complain about how slow they are starting later this year. They are:
0171-0480               Replace Aluminum Signs on Ramps on I-84, I-91 and CT 190, March 22
0170-5026               Replace Highway Signs and Supports on I-384/US 6, June 7
0146-0203               Replace Highway Signs and Supports on I-84, Vernon to Union, June 28
0083-0271               Replace Highway Signs and Support on CT 15, Milford to Meriden, July 26
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on January 14, 2023, 07:04:23 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on January 14, 2023, 02:58:51 PM
It boggles me why in Connecticut it takes so long to complete these sign replacement projects. About 4 years ago, NYSDOT let a contract to replace all of the signs and renumber exits along the entire length (71 miles) of I-84 through the state, that the contractor completed in about 9 months...which included the replacement of ground-mounted and overhead gantries in addition to the sign panels themselves, and all of the smaller sheet metal signs.

I remember back in the late '80s when CTDOT replaced the old Turnpike-style signs on I-95 between Stratford and New Haven, and from what I recall, that took more than a year as well...for a stretch of highway that was less than 20 miles. I recall the new overhead structures being erected and then they sat there for months until they started installing the new sign panels.

Because Connecticut thinks there is no point in doing this, doesn't want to do this, thinks it's a waste of money, and will drag its feet and will probably be the last state to finish.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on January 14, 2023, 09:28:06 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on January 14, 2023, 07:04:23 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on January 14, 2023, 02:58:51 PM
It boggles me why in Connecticut it takes so long to complete these sign replacement projects. About 4 years ago, NYSDOT let a contract to replace all of the signs and renumber exits along the entire length (71 miles) of I-84 through the state, that the contractor completed in about 9 months...which included the replacement of ground-mounted and overhead gantries in addition to the sign panels themselves, and all of the smaller sheet metal signs.

I remember back in the late '80s when CTDOT replaced the old Turnpike-style signs on I-95 between Stratford and New Haven, and from what I recall, that took more than a year as well...for a stretch of highway that was less than 20 miles. I recall the new overhead structures being erected and then they sat there for months until they started installing the new sign panels.

Because Connecticut thinks there is no point in doing this, doesn't want to do this, thinks it's a waste of money, and will drag its feet and will probably be the last state to finish.

In that case, they'll have to contend with New Hampshire if they want to be last to convert to mileage-based numbers. Connecticut may be dragging their feet out of reluctance to make the conversion, but as long as Chris Sununu is governor of New Hampshire, the subject of exit renumbering if completely off the table there.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on January 14, 2023, 10:08:37 PM
Drove CT 9 today up to Exit 22/Berlin.  Finally we're getting new sheet aluminums north of Middletown.  They've only made it up a few miles, but in that time they managed to screw up one of the new exit services sheets, with the "Lodging" symbol for Exit 19/NB being mounted 90 degrees to how it should be.  I mean, really, is there any quality control anymore?  Does someone really rivet that sheet to the sign and then someone else installs it, and noone says anything?  The "signal ahead" sign they put up SB before the Middletown lights that was upside down has been corrected, however. 

UPDATE 1/15 - new sheets now extend SB up to (former) Exit 23.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on January 15, 2023, 10:46:20 AM
I was on 9 yesterday from 23-28.  There was a newer speed limit sign by Exit 24 (the thinner 65), but the overhead exit now signage for 24 (along with the makeshift CT 9 pull thru for Newington/West Hartford) is still there, as is the bridge mount for Exit 22 southbound on the Christian Lane overpass, and the 1/2-mile signage for the 9/72 split northbound (although there are piers for the new gantry).  As for 72, there are really only three signage changes/eliminations that need to be made: removal of the old 1/4 mile advance gantry with the pull thru for 72/84 and Exit 6 signage; the eastbound bridge mounts for Exits 8 and 9 on the Curtis St overpass (piers are there), and the westbound tube gantry with the single exit now sign for Exit 2 just west of the 84/72 split.  Also: exit tabs will have to be added to the APL's for the CT 9 split on 72 east.   
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on January 15, 2023, 05:38:04 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on January 14, 2023, 10:08:37 PMThe "signal ahead" sign they put up SB before the Middletown lights that was upside down has been corrected,

and why the signal ahead signs aren't extruded aluminum is beyond me.  MA would've done it that way.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on January 17, 2023, 09:01:45 PM
IDK if you saw this but CT is AGAIN studying future I-84/Ct-8 Mixmaster (it was done in 2007 too) but this time the alternatives involve makingCT-8 a boulevard and making some of the ramps signalized.

Ugh

https://www.newmixwaterbury.com/project-alternatives/
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on January 18, 2023, 08:08:01 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on January 17, 2023, 09:01:45 PM
IDK if you saw this but CT is AGAIN studying future I-84/Ct-8 Mixmaster (it was done in 2007 too) but this time the alternatives involve makingCT-8 a boulevard and making some of the ramps signalized.

Ugh

https://www.newmixwaterbury.com/project-alternatives/
CTDOT is going to have to prepare an EIS/EIE for the Mixmaster reconfiguration, so they are looking at a range of alternatives that could be evaluated as part of the EIS/EIE. What you see about "bouelvardizing" Route 8 through the interchange is just presenting what the realm of the possible is. Given the amount of traffic the Mixmaster handles, I view the boulevard concept as more of a "throw away" option that is included in the analysis of alternatives for CTDOT to show in the EIS/EIE that they've done their due diligence in arriving at their preferred alternative, whatever that might be.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: SectorZ on January 18, 2023, 01:47:07 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on January 17, 2023, 09:01:45 PM
IDK if you saw this but CT is AGAIN studying future I-84/Ct-8 Mixmaster (it was done in 2007 too) but this time the alternatives involve makingCT-8 a boulevard and making some of the ramps signalized.

Ugh

https://www.newmixwaterbury.com/project-alternatives/

Is that 5 mile southern bypass a new idea?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on January 18, 2023, 06:11:43 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on January 18, 2023, 01:47:07 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on January 17, 2023, 09:01:45 PM
IDK if you saw this but CT is AGAIN studying future I-84/Ct-8 Mixmaster (it was done in 2007 too) but this time the alternatives involve makingCT-8 a boulevard and making some of the ramps signalized.

Ugh

https://www.newmixwaterbury.com/project-alternatives/

Is that 5 mile southern bypass a new idea?
Yes...again they are looking at the realm of the possible as part of the EIS/EIE development...including concepts that are completely pie in the sky, like a southern bypass for I-84 and "downgrading' Route 8 to a signalized boulevard through the interchange.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on January 18, 2023, 07:03:21 PM
The Great Reveal is coming next week!  Route 9's new exit numbers...

https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/CTDOT-Construction-Advisories/2023/Exit-Numbers-Changing-on-Route-9-from-Old-Saybrook-to-Farmington

With several overheads still to go up, I wonder if there's going to be a flurry of activity this week to get them installed, or whether there will be overlays on the old signs until the new ones go up. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on January 18, 2023, 08:28:47 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on January 18, 2023, 07:03:21 PM
The Great Reveal is coming next week!  Route 9's new exit numbers...

https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/CTDOT-Construction-Advisories/2023/Exit-Numbers-Changing-on-Route-9-from-Old-Saybrook-to-Farmington

With several overheads still to go up, I wonder if there's going to be a flurry of activity this week to get them installed, or whether there will be overlays on the old signs until the new ones go up.
Curious as to whether they will unveil the new exit numbers on Route 72 as well.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on January 19, 2023, 05:47:09 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on January 18, 2023, 08:28:47 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on January 18, 2023, 07:03:21 PM
The Great Reveal is coming next week!  Route 9's new exit numbers...

https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/CTDOT-Construction-Advisories/2023/Exit-Numbers-Changing-on-Route-9-from-Old-Saybrook-to-Farmington

With several overheads still to go up, I wonder if there's going to be a flurry of activity this week to get them installed, or whether there will be overlays on the old signs until the new ones go up.
Curious as to whether they will unveil the new exit numbers on Route 72 as well.

Probably not.  None of the OLD EXIT XX signs are up.  We got the preview of coming attractions a couple years ago, but I don't see it happening. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on January 19, 2023, 06:49:13 PM
I bet the exit numbers on Rt 17 will also be revealed as part of the Monday project.  ;-)

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on January 19, 2023, 07:15:15 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on January 19, 2023, 05:47:09 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on January 18, 2023, 08:28:47 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on January 18, 2023, 07:03:21 PM
The Great Reveal is coming next week!  Route 9's new exit numbers...

https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/CTDOT-Construction-Advisories/2023/Exit-Numbers-Changing-on-Route-9-from-Old-Saybrook-to-Farmington

With several overheads still to go up, I wonder if there's going to be a flurry of activity this week to get them installed, or whether there will be overlays on the old signs until the new ones go up.
Curious as to whether they will unveil the new exit numbers on Route 72 as well.

Probably not.  None of the OLD EXIT XX signs are up.  We got the preview of coming attractions a couple years ago, but I don't see it happening.
That makes no sense because, from my understanding, the northernmost contract to replace signs on Route 9 included Route 72 as well. Just like it makes no sense that CTDOT doesn't plan to renumber exits on Route 25 north of the Route 8 split as part of the exit renumbering contract for Route 8.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on January 19, 2023, 10:49:46 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on January 18, 2023, 08:08:01 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on January 17, 2023, 09:01:45 PM
IDK if you saw this but CT is AGAIN studying future I-84/Ct-8 Mixmaster (it was done in 2007 too) but this time the alternatives involve makingCT-8 a boulevard and making some of the ramps signalized.

Ugh

https://www.newmixwaterbury.com/project-alternatives/
CTDOT is going to have to prepare an EIS/EIE for the Mixmaster reconfiguration, so they are looking at a range of alternatives that could be evaluated as part of the EIS/EIE. What you see about "bouelvardizing" Route 8 through the interchange is just presenting what the realm of the possible is. Given the amount of traffic the Mixmaster handles, I view the boulevard concept as more of a "throw away" option that is included in the analysis of alternatives for CTDOT to show in the EIS/EIE that they've done their due diligence in arriving at their preferred alternative, whatever that might be.

I wouldn't be so sure, as with the US-7/Merritt interchange, the stoplight alternative made to the top two alternates. With this state, you never know
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on January 20, 2023, 12:05:56 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on January 19, 2023, 10:49:46 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on January 18, 2023, 08:08:01 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on January 17, 2023, 09:01:45 PM
IDK if you saw this but CT is AGAIN studying future I-84/Ct-8 Mixmaster (it was done in 2007 too) but this time the alternatives involve makingCT-8 a boulevard and making some of the ramps signalized.

Ugh

https://www.newmixwaterbury.com/project-alternatives/
CTDOT is going to have to prepare an EIS/EIE for the Mixmaster reconfiguration, so they are looking at a range of alternatives that could be evaluated as part of the EIS/EIE. What you see about "bouelvardizing" Route 8 through the interchange is just presenting what the realm of the possible is. Given the amount of traffic the Mixmaster handles, I view the boulevard concept as more of a "throw away" option that is included in the analysis of alternatives for CTDOT to show in the EIS/EIE that they've done their due diligence in arriving at their preferred alternative, whatever that might be.

I wouldn't be so sure, as with the US-7/Merritt interchange, the stoplight alternative made to the top two alternates. With this state, you never know
Converting the Merritt/7 interchange makes a little more sense, given that Super 7 will never be extended past where it currently ends at Gristmill Road. CTDOT has discussed realigning Route 7 between Gristmill Road and Main Street to eliminate the T intersection at Gristmill Road and soften the jog across the Norwalk River to allow a smoother transition from Super 7 to the south and Route 7 on its original alignment continuing north. Since the Merritt Parkway interchange is about a mile south of the Gristmill Road intersection, I can see the logic behind CTDOT considering a signalized intersection at the Merritt Parkway, as they would just pull the freeway terminus back to the Merritt Parkway, and Route 7 continuing north becomes essentially a 4-lane boulevard with a lower speed limit.

I can't say the same thing for Route 8 and I-84, as both highways carry a lot of traffic, and the current Mixmaster carries well over 100,000 VPD, perhaps as high as 150,000 VPD. Additionally, the Route 8/I-84 interchange happens to be right about at the midpoint of the Route 8 freeway's length between Bridgeport and Winsted, with about 30 miles of freeway, give or take, on either side of that interchange. Signalizing the Route 8 side of the interchange, you would end up with the same situation as you have with Route 9 in Middletown, which is quite dangerous IMHO with traffic moving at 70 MPH having to suddenly screech to a halt when the light turns red.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on January 20, 2023, 01:20:44 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/LiJZgxv.gif)
From the "what were they thinking" department.

According to Kurumi, there were once plans for a freeway stretching from Exit 5 on 84 down to Bethel. Patriot Drive in Danbury was built to be part of it.

This freeway would've been less than 3 miles from the planned Super 7 and any justification for it would've evaporated when Danbury Fair Mall opened, sucking retail from Downtown Danbury and Bethel
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on January 20, 2023, 05:21:12 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on January 20, 2023, 01:20:44 PM
According to Kurumi, there were once plans for a freeway stretching from Exit 5 on 84 down to Bethel. Patriot Drive in Danbury was built to be part of it.

Wow, that's an ancient map. It's like seeing a junior high school class picture online.

More info (and the 22-year-old map) is here: https://www.kurumi.com/roads/ct/dan-bethel.html.

The early 1960s were a fun time in CT highway history. Many ambitious plans at a large and small scale.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on January 20, 2023, 07:33:39 PM
Quote from: kurumi on January 20, 2023, 05:21:12 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on January 20, 2023, 01:20:44 PM
According to Kurumi, there were once plans for a freeway stretching from Exit 5 on 84 down to Bethel. Patriot Drive in Danbury was built to be part of it.

Wow, that's an ancient map. It's like seeing a junior high school class picture online.

More info (and the 22-year-old map) is here: https://www.kurumi.com/roads/ct/dan-bethel.html.

The early 1960s were a fun time in CT highway history. Many ambitious plans at a large and small scale.
They pretty much wanted to pave over the entire state back in the '60s. While it was a good thing that most of Connecticut's freeway proposals never saw the light of day, completing a few (Super 7, Route 25 or Route 34, I-291, and maybe extending I-84 to Rhode Island) would have made sense to finish out the state's highway network.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RyanB06 on January 21, 2023, 07:41:17 AM
Per a VMS I saw on Route 9 in Cromwell last night, the new exit numbers go up tomorrow, January 22.

I didn't think they had all the signs switched out yet, but apparently they've got enough where ConnDOT is going to go ahead and make the switchover anyway.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on January 21, 2023, 10:02:09 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on January 20, 2023, 07:33:39 PM
Quote from: kurumi on January 20, 2023, 05:21:12 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on January 20, 2023, 01:20:44 PM
According to Kurumi, there were once plans for a freeway stretching from Exit 5 on 84 down to Bethel. Patriot Drive in Danbury was built to be part of it.

Wow, that's an ancient map. It's like seeing a junior high school class picture online.

More info (and the 22-year-old map) is here: https://www.kurumi.com/roads/ct/dan-bethel.html.

The early 1960s were a fun time in CT highway history. Many ambitious plans at a large and small scale.
They pretty much wanted to pave over the entire state back in the '60s. While it was a good thing that most of Connecticut's freeway proposals never saw the light of day, completing a few (Super 7, Route 25 or Route 34, I-291, and maybe extending I-84 to Rhode Island) would have made sense to finish out the state's highway network.

Route 11 as well.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on January 21, 2023, 11:34:20 AM
Quote from: kurumi on January 20, 2023, 05:21:12 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on January 20, 2023, 01:20:44 PM
According to Kurumi, there were once plans for a freeway stretching from Exit 5 on 84 down to Bethel. Patriot Drive in Danbury was built to be part of it.

Wow, that's an ancient map. It's like seeing a junior high school class picture online.

More info (and the 22-year-old map) is here: https://www.kurumi.com/roads/ct/dan-bethel.html.

The early 1960s were a fun time in CT highway history. Many ambitious plans at a large and small scale.

This plan wasn't in the super ambitious 1966 Tri-State Transportation Commission plan so I don't think it was an idea taken very seriously
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on January 21, 2023, 12:39:21 PM
Quote from: RyanB06 on January 21, 2023, 07:41:17 AM
Per a VMS I saw on Route 9 in Cromwell last night, the new exit numbers go up tomorrow, January 22.

I didn't think they had all the signs switched out yet, but apparently they've got enough where ConnDOT is going to go ahead and make the switchover anyway.
They renumbered exits on I-395 when they were about midway through that sign replacement project. They simply overlaid the new exit numbers on top of the old ones on the old signs until the old signs were changed out.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on January 21, 2023, 10:22:25 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on January 21, 2023, 12:39:21 PM
Quote from: RyanB06 on January 21, 2023, 07:41:17 AM
Per a VMS I saw on Route 9 in Cromwell last night, the new exit numbers go up tomorrow, January 22.

I didn't think they had all the signs switched out yet, but apparently they've got enough where ConnDOT is going to go ahead and make the switchover anyway.
They renumbered exits on I-395 when they were about midway through that sign replacement project. They simply overlaid the new exit numbers on top of the old ones on the old signs until the old signs were changed out.

By this logic, CT 72 should have been done months ago.  Sign replacement is about 90% complete and was even put out to bid before the lower Route 9 projects.  I travel the section east of 84 constantly, and nothing had changed in about 4-6 months.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on January 23, 2023, 02:49:04 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on January 21, 2023, 10:22:25 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on January 21, 2023, 12:39:21 PM
Quote from: RyanB06 on January 21, 2023, 07:41:17 AM
Per a VMS I saw on Route 9 in Cromwell last night, the new exit numbers go up tomorrow, January 22.

I didn't think they had all the signs switched out yet, but apparently they've got enough where ConnDOT is going to go ahead and make the switchover anyway.
They renumbered exits on I-395 when they were about midway through that sign replacement project. They simply overlaid the new exit numbers on top of the old ones on the old signs until the old signs were changed out.

By this logic, CT 72 should have been done months ago.  Sign replacement is about 90% complete and was even put out to bid before the lower Route 9 projects.  I travel the section east of 84 constantly, and nothing had changed in about 4-6 months.
Another thing that adds to the challenge of Route 72 is that the current sequential numbers start at the west end of the freeway and increase heading east. The new exit numbers will start at the opposite end at Route 9 and increase heading west. This is due to an oddity with Route 72's signed orientation versus its orientation in the state's route logs. It's signed as an east-west route, but the mileage and eventually its distance-based exit numbers will be based off the route log, which is oriented north-south. Given that, MP 0 for Route 72 is at Route 9 in New Britain, rather than at Route 4 in Harwinton.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on January 24, 2023, 01:48:07 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on January 18, 2023, 06:11:43 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on January 18, 2023, 01:47:07 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on January 17, 2023, 09:01:45 PM
IDK if you saw this but CT is AGAIN studying future I-84/Ct-8 Mixmaster (it was done in 2007 too) but this time the alternatives involve makingCT-8 a boulevard and making some of the ramps signalized.

Ugh

https://www.newmixwaterbury.com/project-alternatives/

Is that 5 mile southern bypass a new idea?
Yes...again they are looking at the realm of the possible as part of the EIS/EIE development...including concepts that are completely pie in the sky, like a southern bypass for I-84 and "downgrading' Route 8 to a signalized boulevard through the interchange.
I say:
Divert CT 8 to the east after Exit 28, meeting I-84 at Hamilton Park, then run concurrently west through downtown Waterbury, leaving I-84 to the north at the current Mixmaster. Old CT becomes a sort-of Riverside Blvd.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on January 24, 2023, 04:50:18 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on January 23, 2023, 02:49:04 PM
Another thing that adds to the challenge of Route 72 is that the current sequential numbers start at the west end of the freeway and increase heading east. The new exit numbers will start at the opposite end at Route 9 and increase heading west. This is due to an oddity with Route 72's signed orientation versus its orientation in the state's route logs. It's signed as an east-west route, but the mileage and eventually its distance-based exit numbers will be based off the route log, which is oriented north-south. Given that, MP 0 for Route 72 is at Route 9 in New Britain, rather than at Route 4 in Harwinton.

You gotta wonder how many times the route log for Route 72 has been modified.  I remember when its southern/eastern terminus was at Washington St/Rt 66 in Middletown.  Prior to the Rt 72 expressway it ran on what is today Rt 372, then the expressway opened in sections... first encompassing the portion from the Berlin Tpke to Kensington, then extended to New Britain proper, then west to I-84, then west to where it ends today in Plainville.  Not to mention the changes that have occurred at its northern terminus. 
So its been stretched and pulled and pushed back more than a few times.  Some may call it the "taffy" route (hmmm... where have I heard that route called that before?). 

Had a spirituous discussion about the new exit numbers on Rt 9.  Some of my coworkers are saying "about time", others are saying "why waste the money".  Trying to explain the situation to non-road enthusiasts is.... challenging, to say the least!  I'll get a visual confirmation most likely this weekend.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on January 24, 2023, 05:30:44 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on January 21, 2023, 12:39:21 PM
Quote from: RyanB06 on January 21, 2023, 07:41:17 AM
Per a VMS I saw on Route 9 in Cromwell last night, the new exit numbers go up tomorrow, January 22.

I didn't think they had all the signs switched out yet, but apparently they've got enough where ConnDOT is going to go ahead and make the switchover anyway.
They renumbered exits on I-395 when they were about midway through that sign replacement project. They simply overlaid the new exit numbers on top of the old ones on the old signs until the old signs were changed out.

That project was done well. Effcient and the old exit number signs were extruded aluminum too. 
Since CT DOT did it once, why aren't they doing the others as good as the I-395 projects??
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on January 24, 2023, 08:29:38 PM
New numbers haven't made it to New Britain yet, but I did see a new gantry NB at SR 571 with new Exit Now for SR 571 and a 1 mi Ellis St sign.  The makeshift pull thru for 9 North is no more.  Plus I noticed CTDOT is going DelDOT a bit with new black on white signs at the 72 split that day "Left Lane Must Exit"  instead of the traditional black on yellow Left Lane Exit Only.

UPDATE: It's happening!!!  Looks like they started south from I-84 and will do northbound after. Drove southbound as far as I-91.  All of southbound from 84 and northbound up to the 72 split had the new numbers, including overlays on the old signage.   Just missed a couple of covers on the old exit signs near the 72 split SB and the ALT I-84 LGS still had the old number.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on January 28, 2023, 09:34:57 PM
Drove parts of Rt 9 today.  In my travels I drove both directions between Exit 15 (former Exit 9) and Exit 29 (former Exit 20N).  Northbound, new exit numbers begin at Exit 25 (former Exit 18).  Southbound, they are continuous through the entire section (and most likely extend south of Exit 9). 

Signs so new it doesn't even have an exit tab yet...
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52655145069_d40cd7ed5f_5k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2odXo9M)DSC03351 (https://flic.kr/p/2odXo9M) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

One thing I found curious was the exit number changed on this sign assembly, whose days are (supposebly) numbered... (former Exit 18)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52655349463_de8aef9a60_3k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2odYqUP)CT9NB-Exit25 (https://flic.kr/p/2odYqUP) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

Quality control strikes again...
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52655349418_2f1aaf7529_3k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2odYqU3)CT9NB-services-goof (https://flic.kr/p/2odYqU3) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

I-91 interchange...
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52654379157_6887ee77f9_4k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2odTstp)CT9NB-Exit29-3 (https://flic.kr/p/2odTstp) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

Looks like all the signs have been changed out, except those for Exit 12...
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52655306530_56c0ed10f3_5k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2odYd9A)CT9SB-Exit23B-2 (https://flic.kr/p/2odYd9A) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

Exit 15/former Exit 9...
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52655348788_f5430e58d9_3k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2odYqHb)CT9SB-Exit15-2 (https://flic.kr/p/2odYqHb) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr


More here...
CT 9 - Sign replacement/renumbering in progress:   https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/albums/72157719337442409
CT 9 - Completed new signs w/ new exit #s:  https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/albums/72157665390043554
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on January 28, 2023, 09:42:33 PM
Looks like they finished north of the 72 split last night.  Saw new Exit 39 signage in the rear view, plus they removed the cover on the one Old Exit sign SB that they missed.  So everything is done north of 91 except maybe the ALT I-84 LGS SB near the 91 interchange.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on February 05, 2023, 02:25:49 PM
Apologies for the double post, but it looks like things are finally rolling on the CT 72 conversion. Some new supplemental signage, plus a couple of old exit signs up between 84 and Corbin Ave. Snuck this Easter egg.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52670860311_889ea57460.jpg)

UPDATE: looks like they did more gore and supplemental signage work last night east of I-84.  Saw the uber wide new Exit 1D sign eastbound, plus new gore signs for Corbin Ave and I-84 East westbound.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on February 05, 2023, 07:43:24 PM
Why can't they get the spacing right on the signs? It's hard for me to believe they are not using computers and software that do all the heavy lifting on stuff like that.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on February 05, 2023, 10:16:08 PM
For those interested,

I have all new photos of the mile-based exits on CT 9 available on my CT 9 page...(still missing Exits 13-5 but those will come next week maybe)...
https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/sets/72157665390043554/

A couple new signs since a couple weeks ago:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52671838214_b936e48b6c_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2ofqWrC)CT9NB-Exit34c (https://flic.kr/p/2ofqWrC) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52672045908_c86de3fa5a_4k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2ofs1by)CT9NB-Exit40c (https://flic.kr/p/2ofs1by) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

There's still 3 mainline gantries NB and somewhere around 6 SB.  Sheets are mostly all up on the middle and northern contracts, but no new mile markers yet north of MM 25.  And there are still some signs since replaced that have yet to be removed (but have had their exit numbers changed). 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on February 06, 2023, 08:16:21 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on February 05, 2023, 10:16:08 PM
For those interested,

I have all new photos of the mile-based exits on CT 9 available on my CT 9 page...(still missing Exits 13-5 but those will come next week maybe)...
https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/sets/72157665390043554/

A couple new signs since a couple weeks ago:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52671838214_b936e48b6c_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2ofqWrC)CT9NB-Exit34c (https://flic.kr/p/2ofqWrC) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52672045908_c86de3fa5a_4k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2ofs1by)CT9NB-Exit40c (https://flic.kr/p/2ofs1by) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

There's still 3 mainline gantries NB and somewhere around 6 SB.  Sheets are mostly all up on the middle and northern contracts, but no new mile markers yet north of MM 25.  And there are still some signs since replaced that have yet to be removed (but have had their exit numbers changed).
The signs further south that use the black border on the state route shield look so much better than these.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: zzyzx on February 16, 2023, 04:51:39 PM
Someone posted on Reddit what appears to be original footage of the Merritt Parkway (https://www.reddit.com/r/Connecticut/comments/113wzn0/1930s_footage_of_the_merritt_parkway/) from the 1930s. OP's great uncle shot the footage just after it was opened, but isn't sure of the exact location (could possibly be Fairfield, Westport, Norwalk areas). Anyone have guesses of the exact location?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on February 16, 2023, 07:21:29 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on February 06, 2023, 08:16:21 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on February 05, 2023, 10:16:08 PM
For those interested,

I have all new photos of the mile-based exits on CT 9 available on my CT 9 page...(still missing Exits 13-5 but those will come next week maybe)...
https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/sets/72157665390043554/

A couple new signs since a couple weeks ago:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52671838214_b936e48b6c_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2ofqWrC)CT9NB-Exit34c (https://flic.kr/p/2ofqWrC) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52672045908_c86de3fa5a_4k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2ofs1by)CT9NB-Exit40c (https://flic.kr/p/2ofs1by) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

There's still 3 mainline gantries NB and somewhere around 6 SB.  Sheets are mostly all up on the middle and northern contracts, but no new mile markers yet north of MM 25.  And there are still some signs since replaced that have yet to be removed (but have had their exit numbers changed).
The signs further south that use the black border on the state route shield look so much better than these.

Don't understand why 40A is for 84 West and 40B for 84 East.  Would make sense that EB gets the lower letter since its the closest in to the terminus. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on February 16, 2023, 09:26:29 PM
Guess we'll find out when the enhanced mile markers make it up that far.  At the southern end, the mile markers continue down the Exit 1A ramp (the "left exit" to I-95 North).  There is no Mile 0.00 posted, but the lowest marker is 0.2 and just before merging onto I-95 North itself. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on February 19, 2023, 06:28:22 PM
UPDATE:
Rumors of CT 72 having mileage-based exits already are FALSE... drove it from Rt 9 to I-84 today and the sequential numbers are still up.  New gore signs are up with the new numbers tarped/taped, however.  Maybe the one for Exit 2/Old Exit 7 posted above "fell off". 

No mile markers observed yet on Rt 72 and no new enhanced markers still north of Middletown.  They are making progress with the new "sheets", however, and saw a new overhead SB near (former) Exit 23 that will replace two existing overheads.  No signs on the new one yet.  In Middletown, the (former) Exit 16 sign I posted earlier still does not have an exit tab, and advance (former) Exit 12 signs SB still haven't been replaced yet. 

And the "sideways lodging" sign is still sideways. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on February 20, 2023, 11:39:51 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on February 19, 2023, 06:28:22 PM
UPDATE:
Rumors of CT 72 having mileage-based exits already are FALSE... drove it from Rt 9 to I-84 today and the sequential numbers are still up.  New gore signs are up with the new numbers tarped/taped, however.  Maybe the one for Exit 2/Old Exit 7 posted above "fell off"

No mile markers observed yet on Rt 72 and no new enhanced markers still north of Middletown.  They are making progress with the new "sheets", however, and saw a new overhead SB near (former) Exit 23 that will replace two existing overheads.  No signs on the new one yet.  In Middletown, the (former) Exit 16 sign I posted earlier still does not have an exit tab, and advance (former) Exit 12 signs SB still haven't been replaced yet. 

And the "sideways lodging" sign is still sideways.

I happened to snap the pic before the tarps went up.  Haven't seen any OLD EXIT signage west of 84 yet (at least for soon to be former Exit 2 WB).
Title: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeCL on February 21, 2023, 10:40:49 PM
I wanted to ask what's going on 95 NB at 27A?

Edit is this what I think it is?? Something I have been saying for YEARS! You gotta widen the ramp for 27A

Who wants to sit in a 27 mile delay from Greenwich.

https://portal.ct.gov/CEQ/DOT/Scoping-Notice/Ramp-Widening-I-95-NB-Exit-27A-Bridgeport
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on February 22, 2023, 08:22:44 AM
Quote from: MikeCL on February 21, 2023, 10:40:49 PM
I wanted to ask what's going on 95 NB at 27A?

Edit is this what I think it is?? Something I have been saying for YEARS! You gotta widen the ramp for 27A

Who wants to sit in a 27 mile delay from Greenwich.

https://portal.ct.gov/CEQ/DOT/Scoping-Notice/Ramp-Widening-I-95-NB-Exit-27A-Bridgeport
They are widening the NB I-95 ramp to Route 8/25 from one lane to two. When they reconstructed the section of I-95 through Bridgeport in the early 2000s, they made the mistake of keeping the loop ramp going from I-95 NB to Route 8/25. At the time I knew a DOT engineer and I asked him about why they didn't make the ramp from I-95 NB to Route 8/25 a flyover. He said to me that they thought about building a flyover, but decided to keep the loop ramp as it is to "save money."
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on February 22, 2023, 12:35:52 PM
Even with two lanes, that 27A ramp will still be a bottleneck. It's a 270 degree loop ramp with odd elevation changes. You'll have the two rightmost lanes of 95 sitting still or going under 20 mph to enter the tight ramp which means everyone in the rest of the lanes is going to slow down because that's human nature. I guess this is better than doing nothing, but I don't see it fixing anything. You need a flyover like they did with the rt 34 left exit replacement in New Haven to make a significant improvement.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: The Ghostbuster on February 22, 2023, 01:09:44 PM
Would it be possible to combine Exits 27 and 27A into one continuous exit, or is there too little right-of-way to accomplish this?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on February 22, 2023, 01:18:01 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 22, 2023, 01:09:44 PM
Would it be possible to combine Exits 27 and 27A into one continuous exit, or is there too little right-of-way to accomplish this?
I think combining Exits 27 (B-C) and 27-A on the SB side would not be too hard. The NB side would be a bit more challenging, given the proximity of the tracks for the New Haven Line running right next to the current interchange.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeCL on February 22, 2023, 01:31:54 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on February 22, 2023, 08:22:44 AM
Quote from: MikeCL on February 21, 2023, 10:40:49 PM
I wanted to ask what's going on 95 NB at 27A?

Edit is this what I think it is?? Something I have been saying for YEARS! You gotta widen the ramp for 27A

Who wants to sit in a 27 mile delay from Greenwich.

https://portal.ct.gov/CEQ/DOT/Scoping-Notice/Ramp-Widening-I-95-NB-Exit-27A-Bridgeport
They are widening the NB I-95 ramp to Route 8/25 from one lane to two. When they reconstructed the section of I-95 through Bridgeport in the early 2000s, they made the mistake of keeping the loop ramp going from I-95 NB to Route 8/25. At the time I knew a DOT engineer and I asked him about why they didn't make the ramp from I-95 NB to Route 8/25 a flyover. He said to me that they thought about building a flyover, but decided to keep the loop ramp as it is to "save money."
As soon as you said "they made the mistake"  I knew they screwed up.. and I forgot this state likes to spend money.. I understand the curve is tight but when you say a flyover pretty much over the NB & SB lanes? Tbh I could see how that would cost more money but look how much more traffic they have now.


And you said the current way it is now was done in the 2000's? So how was it before?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on February 22, 2023, 08:17:18 PM
Quote from: MikeCL on February 22, 2023, 01:31:54 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on February 22, 2023, 08:22:44 AM
Quote from: MikeCL on February 21, 2023, 10:40:49 PM
I wanted to ask what's going on 95 NB at 27A?

Edit is this what I think it is?? Something I have been saying for YEARS! You gotta widen the ramp for 27A

Who wants to sit in a 27 mile delay from Greenwich.

https://portal.ct.gov/CEQ/DOT/Scoping-Notice/Ramp-Widening-I-95-NB-Exit-27A-Bridgeport
They are widening the NB I-95 ramp to Route 8/25 from one lane to two. When they reconstructed the section of I-95 through Bridgeport in the early 2000s, they made the mistake of keeping the loop ramp going from I-95 NB to Route 8/25. At the time I knew a DOT engineer and I asked him about why they didn't make the ramp from I-95 NB to Route 8/25 a flyover. He said to me that they thought about building a flyover, but decided to keep the loop ramp as it is to "save money."
As soon as you said "they made the mistake"  I knew they screwed up.. and I forgot this state likes to spend money.. I understand the curve is tight but when you say a flyover pretty much over the NB & SB lanes? Tbh I could see how that would cost more money but look how much more traffic they have now.


And you said the current way it is now was done in the 2000's? So how was it before?
The tight trumpet interchange between I-95 and Route 8/25 was originally built with Route 8/25 in 1968. When I-95 was reconstructed in the early 2000s, the bridges on the loop ramp were replaced, but the ramp itself was not changed from its original configuration.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on February 22, 2023, 09:26:43 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on February 22, 2023, 08:22:44 AM
Quote from: MikeCL on February 21, 2023, 10:40:49 PM
I wanted to ask what's going on 95 NB at 27A?

Edit is this what I think it is?? Something I have been saying for YEARS! You gotta widen the ramp for 27A

Who wants to sit in a 27 mile delay from Greenwich.

https://portal.ct.gov/CEQ/DOT/Scoping-Notice/Ramp-Widening-I-95-NB-Exit-27A-Bridgeport
They are widening the NB I-95 ramp to Route 8/25 from one lane to two. When they reconstructed the section of I-95 through Bridgeport in the early 2000s, they made the mistake of keeping the loop ramp going from I-95 NB to Route 8/25. At the time I knew a DOT engineer and I asked him about why they didn't make the ramp from I-95 NB to Route 8/25 a flyover. He said to me that they thought about building a flyover, but decided to keep the loop ramp as it is to "save money."

Whenever that happens (to save money), it bites us in the ass.  That loop ramp is terrible.  It's almost a 360.  You curve, you go down, then up, then down again.
They're still being cheap by adding a second lane. It should be a flyover.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on February 22, 2023, 09:29:16 PM
Is the i-84 Fartford signing contrat done? I still see several button copy signs up
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on February 22, 2023, 09:54:18 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on February 22, 2023, 09:29:16 PM
Is the i-84 Fartford signing contrat done? I still see several button copy signs up

West of the river is pretty much done save for a couple of bridge mounts near the Hartford tunnel.  The one immediately east of the Bulkeley is definitely not done.  All of the new mile markers are up, with a couple of them in the tunnel placed in the middle rather than on the side of the road.  Did see that CT 15 has been upgraded to a US route, according to a new Quebec style sign (direction flag on the bottom) just past the split from I-84 West.  Unfortunately it was raining and I couldn't snap a decent pic.   
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeCL on February 22, 2023, 10:29:49 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on February 22, 2023, 09:26:43 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on February 22, 2023, 08:22:44 AM
Quote from: MikeCL on February 21, 2023, 10:40:49 PM
I wanted to ask what's going on 95 NB at 27A?

Edit is this what I think it is?? Something I have been saying for YEARS! You gotta widen the ramp for 27A

Who wants to sit in a 27 mile delay from Greenwich.

https://portal.ct.gov/CEQ/DOT/Scoping-Notice/Ramp-Widening-I-95-NB-Exit-27A-Bridgeport
They are widening the NB I-95 ramp to Route 8/25 from one lane to two. When they reconstructed the section of I-95 through Bridgeport in the early 2000s, they made the mistake of keeping the loop ramp going from I-95 NB to Route 8/25. At the time I knew a DOT engineer and I asked him about why they didn't make the ramp from I-95 NB to Route 8/25 a flyover. He said to me that they thought about building a flyover, but decided to keep the loop ramp as it is to "save money."

Whenever that happens (to save money), it bites us in the ass.  That loop ramp is terrible.  It's almost a 360.  You curve, you go down, then up, then down again.
They're still being cheap by adding a second lane. It should be a flyover.
Maybe they need to talk to the contractors that did the work at the state border in port Chester.. they smoothed out the curve nicely and didn't BS around.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on February 23, 2023, 09:30:31 AM
Quote from: MikeCL on February 22, 2023, 10:29:49 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on February 22, 2023, 09:26:43 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on February 22, 2023, 08:22:44 AM
Quote from: MikeCL on February 21, 2023, 10:40:49 PM
I wanted to ask what's going on 95 NB at 27A?

Edit is this what I think it is?? Something I have been saying for YEARS! You gotta widen the ramp for 27A

Who wants to sit in a 27 mile delay from Greenwich.

https://portal.ct.gov/CEQ/DOT/Scoping-Notice/Ramp-Widening-I-95-NB-Exit-27A-Bridgeport
They are widening the NB I-95 ramp to Route 8/25 from one lane to two. When they reconstructed the section of I-95 through Bridgeport in the early 2000s, they made the mistake of keeping the loop ramp going from I-95 NB to Route 8/25. At the time I knew a DOT engineer and I asked him about why they didn't make the ramp from I-95 NB to Route 8/25 a flyover. He said to me that they thought about building a flyover, but decided to keep the loop ramp as it is to "save money."

Whenever that happens (to save money), it bites us in the ass.  That loop ramp is terrible.  It's almost a 360.  You curve, you go down, then up, then down again.
They're still being cheap by adding a second lane. It should be a flyover.
Maybe they need to talk to the contractors that did the work at the state border in port Chester.. they smoothed out the curve nicely and didn't BS around.
That's one thing I noticed about New York. They can take forever to plan out a project, but once they put shovels in the ground, they get it done quick. In Connecticut, there is nothing quick about either the planning or the execution of a highway project. It's been like that for as long as I can remember.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on February 23, 2023, 05:19:44 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on February 22, 2023, 09:54:18 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on February 22, 2023, 09:29:16 PM
Is the i-84 Fartford signing contrat done? I still see several button copy signs up

West of the river is pretty much done save for a couple of bridge mounts near the Hartford tunnel.  The one immediately east of the Bulkeley is definitely not done.  All of the new mile markers are up, with a couple of them in the tunnel placed in the middle rather than on the side of the road.  Did see that CT 15 has been upgraded to a US route, according to a new Quebec style sign (direction flag on the bottom) just past the split from I-84 West.  Unfortunately it was raining and I couldn't snap a decent pic.   

Eastbound, the Exit 53 "exit now" gantry is awaiting replacement.  Westbound, the Exit 54 gantry and an advance for Exits 51-50 just past it (on the Bulkley's east approach) were still awaiting replacement.  This was as of a couple weeks ago, in addition to the two existing bridge mounts for Exit 49/Asylum St. 

Meanwhile...

Portable VMSs on Rt 72 today said "NEW EXIT NUMBERS BEGIN 2/26".  There is still one gantry/WB and a couple/EB not yet replaced, and still no mile markers posted. 

I-691 has got a lot of new foundations for signs being replaced this year.  No new signs in the ground yet... probably later this summer.  Its to get new exit #s as well.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on February 23, 2023, 05:42:06 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on February 23, 2023, 09:30:31 AM
That's one thing I noticed about New York. They can take forever to plan out a project, but once they put shovels in the ground, they get it done quick. In Connecticut, there is nothing quick about either the planning or the execution of a highway project. It's been like that for as long as I can remember.
Before we get to patting NYS on the back, the redo of that interchange took 4 years. And the 684 to 84 east interchange got the 27A treatment when they redid it some years back.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on February 24, 2023, 09:54:37 AM
Quote from: connroadgeek on February 23, 2023, 05:42:06 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on February 23, 2023, 09:30:31 AM
That's one thing I noticed about New York. They can take forever to plan out a project, but once they put shovels in the ground, they get it done quick. In Connecticut, there is nothing quick about either the planning or the execution of a highway project. It's been like that for as long as I can remember.
Before we get to patting NYS on the back, the redo of that interchange took 4 years. And the 684 to 84 east interchange got the 27A treatment when they redid it some years back.
The curve on the 684N to 84E ramp needs to be softened, but to do so would require replacing the bridge that carries Starr Ridge Road over I-84 to eliminate the bridge pier that currently constrains the geometry of the ramp. Looks like from a time lapse of GSV images, it looks like they replaced the metal guardrail with concrete barrier and resurfaced the ramp. A cheap solution that kicks the can down the road on softening the curve on the ramp before it merges into 84 E.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on February 24, 2023, 10:45:46 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on February 22, 2023, 08:22:44 AM
Quote from: MikeCL on February 21, 2023, 10:40:49 PM
I wanted to ask what's going on 95 NB at 27A?

Edit is this what I think it is?? Something I have been saying for YEARS! You gotta widen the ramp for 27A

Who wants to sit in a 27 mile delay from Greenwich.

https://portal.ct.gov/CEQ/DOT/Scoping-Notice/Ramp-Widening-I-95-NB-Exit-27A-Bridgeport
They are widening the NB I-95 ramp to Route 8/25 from one lane to two. When they reconstructed the section of I-95 through Bridgeport in the early 2000s, they made the mistake of keeping the loop ramp going from I-95 NB to Route 8/25. At the time I knew a DOT engineer and I asked him about why they didn't make the ramp from I-95 NB to Route 8/25 a flyover. He said to me that they thought about building a flyover, but decided to keep the loop ramp as it is to "save money."
Will there be an option lane?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on February 24, 2023, 10:58:43 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on February 24, 2023, 10:45:46 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on February 22, 2023, 08:22:44 AM
Quote from: MikeCL on February 21, 2023, 10:40:49 PM
I wanted to ask what’s going on 95 NB at 27A?

Edit is this what I think it is?? Something I have been saying for YEARS! You gotta widen the ramp for 27A

Who wants to sit in a 27 mile delay from Greenwich.

https://portal.ct.gov/CEQ/DOT/Scoping-Notice/Ramp-Widening-I-95-NB-Exit-27A-Bridgeport
They are widening the NB I-95 ramp to Route 8/25 from one lane to two. When they reconstructed the section of I-95 through Bridgeport in the early 2000s, they made the mistake of keeping the loop ramp going from I-95 NB to Route 8/25. At the time I knew a DOT engineer and I asked him about why they didn't make the ramp from I-95 NB to Route 8/25 a flyover. He said to me that they thought about building a flyover, but decided to keep the loop ramp as it is to "save money."
Will there be an option lane?
Yes, the far right lane on I-95 NB will drop to Rt 8/25 NB and the second-from-right lane will be an option lane. There will be APL signs on I-95 NB approaching the interchange indicating this.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on February 24, 2023, 04:55:44 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on February 24, 2023, 09:54:37 AM
Quote from: connroadgeek on February 23, 2023, 05:42:06 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on February 23, 2023, 09:30:31 AM
That's one thing I noticed about New York. They can take forever to plan out a project, but once they put shovels in the ground, they get it done quick. In Connecticut, there is nothing quick about either the planning or the execution of a highway project. It's been like that for as long as I can remember.
Before we get to patting NYS on the back, the redo of that interchange took 4 years. And the 684 to 84 east interchange got the 27A treatment when they redid it some years back.
The curve on the 684N to 84E ramp needs to be softened, but to do so would require replacing the bridge that carries Starr Ridge Road over I-84 to eliminate the bridge pier that currently constrains the geometry of the ramp. Looks like from a time lapse of GSV images, it looks like they replaced the metal guardrail with concrete barrier and resurfaced the ramp. A cheap solution that kicks the can down the road on softening the curve on the ramp before it merges into 84 E.
The further solution for I-684/I-84 is to widen I-84 to 3 lanes to the CT state line.  That would help in both directions.  And the ramp from 84WB->684 should be 2 lanes.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on February 24, 2023, 07:34:35 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on February 24, 2023, 04:55:44 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on February 24, 2023, 09:54:37 AM
Quote from: connroadgeek on February 23, 2023, 05:42:06 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on February 23, 2023, 09:30:31 AM
That's one thing I noticed about New York. They can take forever to plan out a project, but once they put shovels in the ground, they get it done quick. In Connecticut, there is nothing quick about either the planning or the execution of a highway project. It's been like that for as long as I can remember.
Before we get to patting NYS on the back, the redo of that interchange took 4 years. And the 684 to 84 east interchange got the 27A treatment when they redid it some years back.
The curve on the 684N to 84E ramp needs to be softened, but to do so would require replacing the bridge that carries Starr Ridge Road over I-84 to eliminate the bridge pier that currently constrains the geometry of the ramp. Looks like from a time lapse of GSV images, it looks like they replaced the metal guardrail with concrete barrier and resurfaced the ramp. A cheap solution that kicks the can down the road on softening the curve on the ramp before it merges into 84 E.
The further solution for I-684/I-84 is to widen I-84 to 3 lanes to the CT state line.  That would help in both directions.  And the ramp from 84WB->684 should be 2 lanes.
I think New York plans to eventually widen I-84 from I-684 to the CT state line, as evidenced by the new bridges that carry I-84 over Dingle Ridge Road. In both directions, those bridges are wide enough to accommodate a third travel lane. The would still need to replace the bridges that carry I-84 over NY-121 with wider structures before they could start work to add the third lane.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3848581,-73.559502,132m/data=!3m1!1e3
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on February 25, 2023, 03:33:26 PM
While that's all well and good, it doesn't necessarily mean widening is "right around the corner". 

CT isn't that proactive in replacing bridges... except when they replaced Society Rd on I-95 in East Lyme.  They clearly made it wide enough to support 3 lanes in each direction, but it's the oddball... other bridge replacements in the area have been done "in kind", without any future-proofing.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3448723,-72.2288388,3a,83.5y,206.42h,81.9t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4bMfZlbvpDXBtqt-6nWUHw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on February 25, 2023, 03:46:05 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on February 24, 2023, 09:54:37 AM
Quote from: connroadgeek on February 23, 2023, 05:42:06 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on February 23, 2023, 09:30:31 AM
That's one thing I noticed about New York. They can take forever to plan out a project, but once they put shovels in the ground, they get it done quick. In Connecticut, there is nothing quick about either the planning or the execution of a highway project. It's been like that for as long as I can remember.

The curve on the 684N to 84E ramp needs to be softened, but to do so would require replacing the bridge that carries Starr Ridge Road over I-84 to eliminate the bridge pier that currently constrains the geometry of the ramp. Looks like from a time lapse of GSV images, it looks like they replaced the metal guardrail with concrete barrier and resurfaced the ramp. A cheap solution that kicks the can down the road on softening the curve on the ramp before it merges into 84 E.

I believe they did soften the ramp, I remember seeing plans for it.  The ramp is softer now than it was. I remember work in this area a few years ago, it's the same time they replaced the button copy signs. Is it 100% better, no
Before we get to patting NYS on the back, the redo of that interchange took 4 years. And the 684 to 84 east interchange got the 27A treatment when they redid it some years back.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on February 25, 2023, 03:49:16 PM
I'm also waiting to see how many button copy signs CTDOT leaves behind with the I-84 Fartford signing contract.  Or, how many surface street BGSs will be replaced with just shields and arrows.  I'm talking about the US-44/I-84 BGSs under the I-84/I-91 ramps on the surface streets.

I don't get the small control city fonting on the BGSs at the on-ramps?!?! They look like crap. Highway Gothic but too small and narrow with no spacing between the letters.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on February 25, 2023, 03:51:35 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on February 24, 2023, 04:55:44 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on February 24, 2023, 09:54:37 AM
Quote from: connroadgeek on February 23, 2023, 05:42:06 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on February 23, 2023, 09:30:31 AM
That's one thing I noticed about New York. They can take forever to plan out a project, but once they put shovels in the ground, they get it done quick. In Connecticut, there is nothing quick about either the planning or the execution of a highway project. It's been like that for as long as I can remember.
Before we get to patting NYS on the back, the redo of that interchange took 4 years. And the 684 to 84 east interchange got the 27A treatment when they redid it some years back.
The curve on the 684N to 84E ramp needs to be softened, but to do so would require replacing the bridge that carries Starr Ridge Road over I-84 to eliminate the bridge pier that currently constrains the geometry of the ramp. Looks like from a time lapse of GSV images, it looks like they replaced the metal guardrail with concrete barrier and resurfaced the ramp. A cheap solution that kicks the can down the road on softening the curve on the ramp before it merges into 84 E.
The further solution for I-684/I-84 is to widen I-84 to 3 lanes to the CT state line.  That would help in both directions.  And the ramp from 84WB->684 should be 2 lanes.

Speaking of NYS, the Cross County/Saw Mill/Yonkers Ave interchange has CTDOT written all over it.  Done on the cheap years ago and just utterly awful.  lol
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on February 25, 2023, 04:51:30 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on February 25, 2023, 03:49:16 PM
I'm also waiting to see how many button copy signs CTDOT leaves behind with the I-84 Fartford signing contract.  Or, how many surface street BGSs will be replaced with just shields and arrows.  I'm talking about the US-44/I-84 BGSs under the I-84/I-91 ramps on the surface streets.
They're all supposed to be replaced, I believe.  The ones around Route 9/372/5-15 in Berlin are in the process of being replaced, but with sheet aluminum standard signs (individual route markers, arrows, directions).  The older extruded and sheet aluminum signs, as seen below in the link, are still present for now.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6253381,-72.743629,3a,48y,81.57h,83.27t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sawp_rEG2smx3eWuK8b-fhQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

QuoteI don't get the small control city fonting on the BGSs at the on-ramps?!?! They look like crap. Highway Gothic but too small and narrow with no spacing between the letters.

Yeah, not a huge fan of that, either, but better than the sheet aluminums that were tried on CT 8 "in the valley". 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on February 25, 2023, 09:56:47 PM
Drove 72 west of I-84 this morning.  The Old Exit signs are up, new gore signs are up and blacked out, and the only gantries that need replacing are both westbound: the single tube exit now for current exit 2, and the 1 mile advance/lane ends for Exit 1.  There is a new empty chorded truss just west of Exit 1 for the expressway ends sign.  I'd expect the big reveal sometime in the next month or two, but exit tabs have yet to be added to the APL's for the EB terminus.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RyanB06 on February 26, 2023, 03:30:23 PM
I did the same today and can confirm. The numbers were supposed to change over on 72 today, so I'd expect any missing signage to go up tonight if at all. (This is Connecticut we're talking about, so....)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on February 26, 2023, 07:51:32 PM
ConnDOT is narrowing down the alternatives for rebuilding the Mixmaster in Waterbury. And they have dismissed the idea of turning Route 8 into a boulevard
(https://i.imgur.com/1Iavl2u.png)

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on February 26, 2023, 09:11:32 PM
Quote from: RyanB06 on February 26, 2023, 03:30:23 PM
I did the same today and can confirm. The numbers were supposed to change over on 72 today, so I'd expect any missing signage to go up tonight if at all. (This is Connecticut we're talking about, so....)

Ha!  Thought that with CT 9, and yet, we still have button copy signage up with mile-based exits... so.... yeah.... CT

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: SectorZ on February 27, 2023, 08:58:40 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 26, 2023, 07:51:32 PM
ConnDOT is narrowing down the alternatives for rebuilding the Mixmaster in Waterbury. And they have dismissed the idea of turning Route 8 into a boulevard
(https://i.imgur.com/1Iavl2u.png)

I like the South City Bypass idea, so it will be interesting to see how much further consideration that will get.

I know it's standard, but the "failure is always an option" no build scenario moving forward amazes me.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on February 27, 2023, 09:27:24 AM
The CT 72 exit number change is either underway, or already complete.  Saw the new WB Exit 4 (former 2) and EB Exit 2 (former 7) signage as I drove by on 84 East this morning. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on February 27, 2023, 11:56:33 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on February 27, 2023, 08:58:40 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 26, 2023, 07:51:32 PM
ConnDOT is narrowing down the alternatives for rebuilding the Mixmaster in Waterbury. And they have dismissed the idea of turning Route 8 into a boulevard
(https://i.imgur.com/1Iavl2u.png)

I like the South City Bypass idea, so it will be interesting to see how much further consideration that will get.

I know it's standard, but the "failure is always an option" no build scenario moving forward amazes me.
They have to include the "No Build" option in the preparation of the EIS/EIE to meet the requirements of NEPA. The "No Build" is used to establish a baseline against which to compare all of the "Build" alternatives that will be considered in the EIS/EIE.

If you look at it from the scientist's perspective, when performing an experiment, there will be a Control Group and an Experimental Group. The Control Group is the baseline against which the various Experimental Groups will be analyzed and compared.  The Control Group typically consists of things that are well known and established, where the Experimental Groups are the things that are unknown and we're trying to find out. In that context, you can think of the No-Build option as the Control group, and each of the various Build options as the Experimental Groups. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on February 27, 2023, 12:12:44 PM
Continuing the clinical analogy, which alternative would be the placebo? :-)

I'm happy to see the south bypass alternative advancing. That's one that occurred to me from looking at aerial photos (though without any diligence at all) where there's a corridor of less-developed land leading from I-84/CT 63 to I-84 east of CT 69. Whether that's due to terrain or other reasons, I don't know.

Have there been other CT projects besides I-84 Danbury where 10 to 20 alternatives have come up in brainstorming (and put online) before they get culled?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on February 27, 2023, 01:39:15 PM
Quote from: kurumi on February 27, 2023, 12:12:44 PM
Continuing the clinical analogy, which alternative would be the placebo? :-)

I'm happy to see the south bypass alternative advancing. That's one that occurred to me from looking at aerial photos (though without any diligence at all) where there's a corridor of less-developed land leading from I-84/CT 63 to I-84 east of CT 69. Whether that's due to terrain or other reasons, I don't know.

Have there been other CT projects besides I-84 Danbury where 10 to 20 alternatives have come up in brainstorming (and put online) before they get culled?
There's the saga about what to do with I-84, I-91, and just about every other freeway in and around Hartford. That originally started with replacing the I-84 viaduct through downtown Hartford, but that project's scope was expanded to include options for reconfiguring the highways in and around the capital city to better circulate traffic and undo some of the damage to Hartford and East Hartford that was caused with the construction of I-84 and I-91 back in the '05s and '60s.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on February 27, 2023, 03:41:40 PM
This is the only instance of the Clearview font being used on a highway sign that I know of in Connecticut.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3607316,-72.0536236,3a,41.8y,283.04h,88.51t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1shr6FO6_Rj4OI0UgezOpgyQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3Dhr6FO6_Rj4OI0UgezOpgyQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D307.63434%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on February 27, 2023, 05:15:33 PM
^^ If that exit gore sign is Clearview, it doesn't look half bad.

There used to be a couple guide sign examples... CT 9 NB at (former) Exit 30 and I-84 West at Exits 22-21 in Waterbury... both examples no longer exist.

CV only seems to have caught on in Vermont, where there's some 130 continuous miles of it on I-89 and a good 1/2 of I-91 of it.  Its not terrible... not a fan of the tail on the lowercase "l" but I guess it distinguishes it from the lowercase "i". 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on March 01, 2023, 01:31:43 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on February 27, 2023, 11:56:33 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on February 27, 2023, 08:58:40 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 26, 2023, 07:51:32 PM
ConnDOT is narrowing down the alternatives for rebuilding the Mixmaster in Waterbury. And they have dismissed the idea of turning Route 8 into a boulevard
(https://i.imgur.com/1Iavl2u.png)

I like the South City Bypass idea, so it will be interesting to see how much further consideration that will get.

I know it's standard, but the "failure is always an option" no build scenario moving forward amazes me.
They have to include the "No Build" option in the preparation of the EIS/EIE to meet the requirements of NEPA. The "No Build" is used to establish a baseline against which to compare all of the "Build" alternatives that will be considered in the EIS/EIE.

If you look at it from the scientist's perspective, when performing an experiment, there will be a Control Group and an Experimental Group. The Control Group is the baseline against which the various Experimental Groups will be analyzed and compared.  The Control Group typically consists of things that are well known and established, where the Experimental Groups are the things that are unknown and we're trying to find out. In that context, you can think of the No-Build option as the Control group, and each of the various Build options as the Experimental Groups. 

But will all of this be for nothing???  This is the second time we are doing this.  It was done in 2007, I even went to a meeting about it.  It's amazing how mny times things are repeated.  So will the state actually be able to keep the ball going with this.

A lot of alternatives still have some left exits and entrances, boy CT just can't let go of that.

CT-9

And I still say the CT-9 stoplight project is wrong, by having NB having a left exit and entrance.  I don't see why they can't just reverse it and put the ramps on the right side, it would make the ramp curvatures not as sharp.  It would still take up the same footprint.

CT-15 SB ramp to US-7
The decelleration lane was finally finished and open, makes a huge difference  It's Exit 40B.  Something simple that should've been done years ago.

Logo Signs and randome BGS
Noticed on I-84 WB, there's a new extruded aluminum Southbury Training School, State Police Exit 14 BGS that was put up a couple years ago that wasn't in a spot improvement project.  So, does CT DOT replace BGS signs outside of one of those 20 sign spot replacement contracts?

Does CT DOT plan to replace th button copy logo service signs?  Some of them are hard to read at night. I know they aren't owned by the state but they are maintained by the state.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on March 01, 2023, 11:47:07 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on March 01, 2023, 01:31:43 PMAnd I still say the CT-9 stoplight project is wrong, by having NB having a left exit and entrance.  I don't see why they can't just reverse it and put the ramps on the right side, it would make the ramp curvatures not as sharp.  It would still take up the same footprint.

Assuming the illustrations in https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOT/documents/dprojects/Project0082-0318/0082-0318-Public-Info-Handout-2018.pdf represent the current plan, I think that shifting the onramp to enter Route 9 northbound from the right would have a somewhat bigger footprint.

I wouldn't be surprised if the left exit is driven by some combination of environmental concerns due to the proximity to the river, aesthetic concerns, and awareness that the left lane northbound is already going to be disrupted by the left entrance ramp.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: cockroachking on March 02, 2023, 12:00:54 AM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on March 01, 2023, 11:47:07 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on March 01, 2023, 01:31:43 PMAnd I still say the CT-9 stoplight project is wrong, by having NB having a left exit and entrance.  I don't see why they can't just reverse it and put the ramps on the right side, it would make the ramp curvatures not as sharp.  It would still take up the same footprint.

Assuming the illustrations in https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOT/documents/dprojects/Project0082-0318/0082-0318-Public-Info-Handout-2018.pdf represent the current plan, I think that shifting the onramp to enter Route 9 northbound from the right would have a somewhat bigger footprint.

I wouldn't be surprised if the left exit is driven by some combination of environmental concerns due to the proximity to the river, aesthetic concerns, and awareness that the left lane northbound is already going to be disrupted by the left entrance ramp.
The left side ramps are obviously not ideal from an operational standpoint, but at this point they are still much better than signalized intersections.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on March 02, 2023, 05:33:40 AM
Quote from: cockroachking on March 02, 2023, 12:00:54 AM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on March 01, 2023, 11:47:07 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on March 01, 2023, 01:31:43 PMAnd I still say the CT-9 stoplight project is wrong, by having NB having a left exit and entrance.  I don't see why they can't just reverse it and put the ramps on the right side, it would make the ramp curvatures not as sharp.  It would still take up the same footprint.

Assuming the illustrations in https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOT/documents/dprojects/Project0082-0318/0082-0318-Public-Info-Handout-2018.pdf represent the current plan, I think that shifting the onramp to enter Route 9 northbound from the right would have a somewhat bigger footprint.

I wouldn't be surprised if the left exit is driven by some combination of environmental concerns due to the proximity to the river, aesthetic concerns, and awareness that the left lane northbound is already going to be disrupted by the left entrance ramp.
The left side ramps are obviously not ideal from an operational standpoint, but at this point they are still much better than signalized intersections.

IMO the left lane on ramp from CT-17 to CT-9 north (Figure 6 in the CDOT plan) could be more problematic due to the high speed merge, even without the traffic signals. I have less of an issue with the left-lane off-ramp to Rapallo Avenue, although I can easily see traffic backing up on to CT-9 during busy times. This is probably the best of a not ideal situation. I think any alternative would involve impact to the river, and even more $$ than the current plan will cost.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on March 02, 2023, 07:47:37 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on March 01, 2023, 01:31:43 PM
But will all of this be for nothing???  This is the second time we are doing this.  It was done in 2007, I even went to a meeting about it.  It's amazing how mny times things are repeated.

We'll do this dance every 10-15 years. How many times did we do this for the completion of route 11? The legislative branch needs to tell the executive they will not fund million dollar study after study for no reason. New rule is you get one bite at that apple, and then you need to s*it or get off the pot instead of kicking the can down the road so that your buddy's "consulting company" can rake in another $5 million to regurgitate the same environmental or transportation alternative study.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on March 02, 2023, 09:24:56 AM
Quote from: connroadgeek on March 02, 2023, 07:47:37 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on March 01, 2023, 01:31:43 PM
But will all of this be for nothing???  This is the second time we are doing this.  It was done in 2007, I even went to a meeting about it.  It's amazing how mny times things are repeated.

We'll do this dance every 10-15 years. How many times did we do this for the completion of route 11? The legislative branch needs to tell the executive they will not fund million dollar study after study for no reason. New rule is you get one bite at that apple, and then you need to s*it or get off the pot instead of kicking the can down the road so that your buddy's "consulting company" can rake in another $5 million to regurgitate the same environmental or transportation alternative study.
After how many studies, CTDOT finally gave up on trying to extend it to the I-95/395 interchange in Waterford. Up until about 10 years ago they were still thinking they could get it done, but once they uncovered Native American artifacts from the colonial and pre-colonial eras along the route during the last environmental study, that was the final nail in the coffin for that project.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on March 02, 2023, 09:48:46 AM
Quote from: connroadgeek on March 02, 2023, 07:47:37 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on March 01, 2023, 01:31:43 PM
But will all of this be for nothing???  This is the second time we are doing this.  It was done in 2007, I even went to a meeting about it.  It's amazing how mny times things are repeated.

We'll do this dance every 10-15 years. How many times did we do this for the completion of route 11? The legislative branch needs to tell the executive they will not fund million dollar study after study for no reason. New rule is you get one bite at that apple, and then you need to s*it or get off the pot instead of kicking the can down the road so that your buddy's "consulting company" can rake in another $5 million to regurgitate the same environmental or transportation alternative study.

The good news is Connecticut has seemed to stop being a fiscal basket case.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on March 02, 2023, 09:57:25 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 02, 2023, 09:48:46 AM
Quote from: connroadgeek on March 02, 2023, 07:47:37 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on March 01, 2023, 01:31:43 PM
But will all of this be for nothing???  This is the second time we are doing this.  It was done in 2007, I even went to a meeting about it.  It's amazing how mny times things are repeated.

We'll do this dance every 10-15 years. How many times did we do this for the completion of route 11? The legislative branch needs to tell the executive they will not fund million dollar study after study for no reason. New rule is you get one bite at that apple, and then you need to s*it or get off the pot instead of kicking the can down the road so that your buddy's "consulting company" can rake in another $5 million to regurgitate the same environmental or transportation alternative study.

The good news is Connecticut has seemed to stop being a fiscal basket case.
For now, until the money from Biden's "Blue State Bailout"...err...American Rescue Plan...and IIJA...run out.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on March 02, 2023, 02:28:36 PM
So, I don't know if it's poor road geometry or just heavy volume in general, but there's always a slowdown on I-84 EB from after Exit 62 to Exit 64-65. Traffic always has difficulty maintaining a consistent speed through that stretch.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on March 02, 2023, 02:31:30 PM
Quote from: cockroachking on March 02, 2023, 12:00:54 AM
The left side ramps are obviously not ideal from an operational standpoint, but at this point they are still much better than signalized intersections.

I agree with that, but after awhile the memoryof the stoplights will fade and they'll want to realign in with right side ramps in the future.  So, I say just do it right from the get go.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on March 02, 2023, 02:41:50 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 02, 2023, 02:28:36 PM
So, I don't know if it's poor road geometry or just heavy volume in general, but there's always a slowdown on I-84 EB from after Exit 62 to Exit 64-65. Traffic always has difficulty maintaining a consistent speed through that stretch.
and that's a well designed road (especially for CT Standards lol)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on March 02, 2023, 03:49:48 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on March 02, 2023, 02:41:50 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 02, 2023, 02:28:36 PM
So, I don't know if it's poor road geometry or just heavy volume in general, but there's always a slowdown on I-84 EB from after Exit 62 to Exit 64-65. Traffic always has difficulty maintaining a consistent speed through that stretch.
and that's a well designed road (especially for CT Standards lol)

It could be a number of things, such as usual volume, Boston-New York traffic (and Northeast Corridor traffic in general), traffic from 384 and 291, mall traffic, and the lane drop after the HOV merge east of Exit 66
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on March 02, 2023, 04:03:02 PM
https://www.ctinsider.com/politics/article/lawmakers-critical-dot-clear-cutting-trees-along-17810156.php

I'm with the DOT on this one.  Fairfield neighbors complaining about tree cutting along I-95 and Merritt.  They were upset about it being done at 2am.  As someone who's sat in traffic for tree cutting on I-95 on Saturday mornings at 10am, I'm glad to see the DOT trying to lessen traffic impacts.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on March 02, 2023, 04:03:16 PM
I usually attribute the slower traffic through that stretch to the relatively heavy volume of traffic entering at 62 and 63, and the heavy volume of traffic exiting at 63 and 64.   Lots of movement into/out of the right lane.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MultiMillionMiler on March 02, 2023, 04:08:30 PM
I'm actually in the Darien Rest Area at the moment, I notice they have traffic map displays on the TVs, is this a standard for CT, I haven't seen this at rest areas in other states?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on March 02, 2023, 05:18:25 PM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on March 02, 2023, 05:33:40 AM
IMO the left lane on ramp from CT-17 to CT-9 north (Figure 6 in the CDOT plan) could be more problematic due to the high speed merge, even without the traffic signals. I have less of an issue with the left-lane off-ramp to Rapallo Avenue, although I can easily see traffic backing up on to CT-9 during busy times. This is probably the best of a not ideal situation. I think any alternative would involve impact to the river, and even more $$ than the current plan will cost.

Unfortunately I believe the ramp to Rapallo is off the table and that they're planning on advancing the latest first plan announced, which is sending all traffic via a new roundabout at Washington St & deKoven Drive, site of today's Exit 23/23C/15.  So then everyone trying to reach Portland is going to have to go through a roundabout, go up Washington St for a block, then head up Main St for several blocks to get to the bridge? 

And then there's the issue of the to-be-extended ramp from 17N to 9N.... If CT 17 is still signed this way when all the work is done, traffic will have about 1/8 mile to get over 2 lanes of traffic to just exit again to continue on CT 17.  If it was a "right hand exit", then the merge lane could then just transition to an exit only lane, but still you're not looking at a lot of room to make the transition.  Personally I'd like to see the CT 9/17 South interchange become a SPUI, replacing Exit 23B/14 in the process and providing new access from the south to downtown.  Then you'd extend the pointless 3rd lane SB right to that interchange. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on March 02, 2023, 05:37:22 PM
Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on March 02, 2023, 04:08:30 PM
I'm actually in the Darien Rest Area at the moment, I notice they have traffic map displays on the TVs, is this a standard for CT, I haven't seen this at rest areas in other states?
They put those in when they revamped all of the rest areas about 5-10 years ago. The McDonalds at the Darien rest area is supposedly one of the ten busiest in the world or was before they added more food options as part of the renovations.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on March 02, 2023, 06:50:35 PM
Yup... here's the clip, which has some interior shots of the service plaza before it was replaced...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-ABWlGn5h8

McDonalds held the contract for the I-95 plazas back then, so the plaza was basically a large McDonalds restaurant, with offshoot vendors (such LaVazza coffee) in place.  The larger plazas also had a gift shop, something that is lacking in the new plazas (though Statement I believe was supposed to be this, but then they were replaced with It's Sugar, and then closed). 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on March 03, 2023, 01:52:34 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on March 02, 2023, 02:41:50 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 02, 2023, 02:28:36 PM
So, I don't know if it's poor road geometry or just heavy volume in general, but there's always a slowdown on I-84 EB from after Exit 62 to Exit 64-65. Traffic always has difficulty maintaining a consistent speed through that stretch.
and that's a well designed road (especially for CT Standards lol)

It is, but I'm wondering if the volume of traffic, combined with the slight upgrade and banked overpass over Buckland are causing the slowdowns.
The other problem is that traffic will move left to accommodate the heavy merges, but then some drivers will cut across two lanes to get to Exit 63.

The onramp from Buckland St. needs a ramp meter. That would definitely help keep traffic moving. I could have sworn I saw a vehicle counter deployed there in summer 2020.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on March 08, 2023, 01:07:35 PM
Looks like the DOT wants to remove the I-84 EB Exit 21 off-ramp.  I think it's a good idea as it would allow traffic merging on from CT-8 NB more time to merge.  Currently, the Rehab project made an AUX lane from the CT-8 on-ramp to Exit 22. I think it will stay permanent.  However, that means two original non-reflective button copy signs from the 1960s will be gone.
https://www.newmixwaterbury.com/media/ppidncn5/12930_01_hntb_exit21_v4_english_fact_sheet.pdf

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51056976927_a694d7dbc7_o.jpg)
and
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51056897651_139a5a1f84_o.jpg)

The Rehab project also added on an AUX lane for I-84 WB, from the Exit 22 on-ramp to the Exit 21 off-ramp.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52578787659_8ea7da1541_o.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on March 08, 2023, 03:02:52 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on March 08, 2023, 01:07:35 PM
Looks like the DOT wants to remove the I-84 EB Exit 21 off-ramp.  I think it's a good idea as it would allow traffic merging on from CT-8 NB more time to merge.  Currently, the Rehab project made an AUX lane from the CT-8 on-ramp to Exit 22. I think it will stay permanent.  However, that means two original non-reflective button copy signs from the 1960s will be gone.
https://www.newmixwaterbury.com/media/ppidncn5/12930_01_hntb_exit21_v4_english_fact_sheet.pdf

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51056976927_a694d7dbc7_o.jpg)
and
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51056897651_139a5a1f84_o.jpg)

The Rehab project also added on an AUX lane for I-84 WB, from the Exit 22 on-ramp to the Exit 21 off-ramp.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52578787659_8ea7da1541_o.jpg)
The auxiliary lane you see in the last picture was supposed to be a separate project from the Mixmaster rehab. In a rare instance where CTDOT actually does something intelligent, they negotiated a price and scope change to the Mixmaster contract to include the WB auxiliary lane project. Doing so, CTDOT avoids having to let another contract and go through a source selection process, and bring a return of construction to this area after the Mixmaster rehab would have been finished.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on March 09, 2023, 09:55:19 AM
ConnDOT is holding a meeting tonight regarding the I-84 Danbury project and meeting materials (https://www.i84danbury.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/PAC13-Presentation_030723.pdf) have already been uploaded.

They've further narrowed their options.

To correct the weave at Exits 3 and 4, they've chosen a new ramp to Segar Street over an extra C/D lane. And for 7 and 8, they've settled on C/D lanes in both directions instead of just EB. They're still undecided on what to do for Exits 5 and 6.

And while they wait for funding for the project some time in the 2030s, they have some other ideas that could be built much sooner, most notably converting the inside shoulder into a part time travel lane and a rebuild of Exit 8.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on March 09, 2023, 10:32:05 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 09, 2023, 09:55:19 AM
ConnDOT is holding a meeting tonight regarding the I-84 Danbury project and meeting materials (https://www.i84danbury.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/PAC13-Presentation_030723.pdf) have already been uploaded.

They've further narrowed their options.

To correct the weave at Exits 3 and 4, they've chosen a new ramp to Segar Street over an extra C/D lane. And for 7 and 8, they've settled on C/D lanes in both directions instead of just EB. They're still undecided on what to do for Exits 5 and 6.

And while they wait for funding for the project some time in the 2030s, they have some other ideas that could be built much sooner, most notably converting the inside shoulder into a part time travel lane and a rebuild of Exit 8.
It blows my mind about how log it takes for CTDOT to get a project from initial concept to construction, and they always cite lack of funding. But what I further don't understand is why CTDOT doesn't apply for federal grants, like BUILD or INFRA to at least get the ball rolling on major capital improvements to the highway system. I think CTDOT would get a lot done a lot quicker if they took advantage of the federal programs that are out there, instead of relying on the State Bond Commission borrowing more money and putting Connecticut further into debt. Yes, the BUILD and INFRA grant programs are competitive, but you have no chance of winning if you don't apply. (Kind of reminds me of the Connecticut Lottery's slogan back in the '90s: "You can't win if you don't play").
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on March 09, 2023, 12:46:31 PM
The City of Middletown has its own ideas for CT-9 within its borders.

https://www.middletownpress.com/news/article/middletown-propose-dot-adding-downtown-exit-route-17824672.php
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on March 09, 2023, 04:28:39 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on March 09, 2023, 10:32:05 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 09, 2023, 09:55:19 AM
ConnDOT is holding a meeting tonight regarding the I-84 Danbury project and meeting materials (https://www.i84danbury.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/PAC13-Presentation_030723.pdf) have already been uploaded.

They've further narrowed their options.

To correct the weave at Exits 3 and 4, they've chosen a new ramp to Segar Street over an extra C/D lane. And for 7 and 8, they've settled on C/D lanes in both directions instead of just EB. They're still undecided on what to do for Exits 5 and 6.

And while they wait for funding for the project some time in the 2030s, they have some other ideas that could be built much sooner, most notably converting the inside shoulder into a part time travel lane and a rebuild of Exit 8.
It blows my mind about how log it takes for CTDOT to get a project from initial concept to construction, and they always cite lack of funding. But what I further don't understand is why CTDOT doesn't apply for federal grants, like BUILD or INFRA to at least get the ball rolling on major capital improvements to the highway system. I think CTDOT would get a lot done a lot quicker if they took advantage of the federal programs that are out there, instead of relying on the State Bond Commission borrowing more money and putting Connecticut further into debt. Yes, the BUILD and INFRA grant programs are competitive, but you have no chance of winning if you don't apply. (Kind of reminds me of the Connecticut Lottery's slogan back in the '90s: "You can't win if you don't play").

The , in the 2030s they'll have to study it again bc too many years have gone by. Just like with the Waterbury Mixmaster, it was studied in 2007 and here we are again doing the same thing.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on March 09, 2023, 05:26:25 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on March 09, 2023, 10:32:05 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 09, 2023, 09:55:19 AM
ConnDOT is holding a meeting tonight regarding the I-84 Danbury project and meeting materials (https://www.i84danbury.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/PAC13-Presentation_030723.pdf) have already been uploaded.

They've further narrowed their options.

To correct the weave at Exits 3 and 4, they've chosen a new ramp to Segar Street over an extra C/D lane. And for 7 and 8, they've settled on C/D lanes in both directions instead of just EB. They're still undecided on what to do for Exits 5 and 6.

And while they wait for funding for the project some time in the 2030s, they have some other ideas that could be built much sooner, most notably converting the inside shoulder into a part time travel lane and a rebuild of Exit 8.
It blows my mind about how log it takes for CTDOT to get a project from initial concept to construction, and they always cite lack of funding. But what I further don't understand is why CTDOT doesn't apply for federal grants, like BUILD or INFRA to at least get the ball rolling on major capital improvements to the highway system. I think CTDOT would get a lot done a lot quicker if they took advantage of the federal programs that are out there, instead of relying on the State Bond Commission borrowing more money and putting Connecticut further into debt. Yes, the BUILD and INFRA grant programs are competitive, but you have no chance of winning if you don't apply. (Kind of reminds me of the Connecticut Lottery's slogan back in the '90s: "You can't win if you don't play").

The funny thing is, in the 1980s and 1990s, Connecticut was at the forefront of highway construction and improvements following the Mianus River Bridge collapse. Now they've done a complete 180.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on March 09, 2023, 06:03:37 PM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on March 09, 2023, 05:26:25 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on March 09, 2023, 10:32:05 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 09, 2023, 09:55:19 AM
ConnDOT is holding a meeting tonight regarding the I-84 Danbury project and meeting materials (https://www.i84danbury.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/PAC13-Presentation_030723.pdf) have already been uploaded.

They've further narrowed their options.

To correct the weave at Exits 3 and 4, they've chosen a new ramp to Segar Street over an extra C/D lane. And for 7 and 8, they've settled on C/D lanes in both directions instead of just EB. They're still undecided on what to do for Exits 5 and 6.

And while they wait for funding for the project some time in the 2030s, they have some other ideas that could be built much sooner, most notably converting the inside shoulder into a part time travel lane and a rebuild of Exit 8.
It blows my mind about how log it takes for CTDOT to get a project from initial concept to construction, and they always cite lack of funding. But what I further don't understand is why CTDOT doesn't apply for federal grants, like BUILD or INFRA to at least get the ball rolling on major capital improvements to the highway system. I think CTDOT would get a lot done a lot quicker if they took advantage of the federal programs that are out there, instead of relying on the State Bond Commission borrowing more money and putting Connecticut further into debt. Yes, the BUILD and INFRA grant programs are competitive, but you have no chance of winning if you don't apply. (Kind of reminds me of the Connecticut Lottery's slogan back in the '90s: "You can't win if you don't play").

The funny thing is, in the 1980s and 1990s, Connecticut was at the forefront of highway construction and improvements following the Mianus River Bridge collapse. Now they've done a complete 180.
How Connecticut ended up being flush with cash for highway repair/modernization projects in the '80s and '90s was thanks to the state cancelling a number of freeway projects for which federal funds had been earmarked, and Congress authorized Connecticut to redirect those funds to perform an overhaul to its existing highway network.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: bob7374 on March 09, 2023, 11:41:26 PM
Possible bad news for those looking forward to exit renumbering along CT 15. The 3/3/23 version of the schedule of advertised projects no longer includes a project for that route. The sign replacement project for I-291 is to be advertised on December 20. Projects for sign replacements on I-84 and I-384/US 6 are still listed.
https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOT/documents/dfiscalprojects/advschedule11-2021.pdf (https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOT/documents/dfiscalprojects/advschedule11-2021.pdf)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on March 10, 2023, 07:41:36 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on March 09, 2023, 11:41:26 PM
Possible bad news for those looking forward to exit renumbering along CT 15. The 3/3/23 version of the schedule of advertised projects no longer includes a project for that route. The sign replacement project for I-291 is to be advertised on December 20. Projects for sign replacements on I-84 and I-384/US 6 are still listed.
https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOT/documents/dfiscalprojects/advschedule11-2021.pdf (https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOT/documents/dfiscalprojects/advschedule11-2021.pdf)
Interested to see if they add exit numbers to the Windham Bypass, and what those numbers would be.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on March 10, 2023, 07:57:59 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on March 09, 2023, 11:41:26 PM
Possible bad news for those looking forward to exit renumbering along CT 15. The 3/3/23 version of the schedule of advertised projects no longer includes a project for that route. The sign replacement project for I-291 is to be advertised on December 20. Projects for sign replacements on I-84 and I-384/US 6 are still listed.
https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOT/documents/dfiscalprojects/advschedule11-2021.pdf (https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOT/documents/dfiscalprojects/advschedule11-2021.pdf)
Except for some extruded aluminum signs, everything on I-291 is original to the 1994 opening.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MATraveler128 on March 10, 2023, 09:08:53 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on March 10, 2023, 07:41:36 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on March 09, 2023, 11:41:26 PM
Possible bad news for those looking forward to exit renumbering along CT 15. The 3/3/23 version of the schedule of advertised projects no longer includes a project for that route. The sign replacement project for I-291 is to be advertised on December 20. Projects for sign replacements on I-84 and I-384/US 6 are still listed.
https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOT/documents/dfiscalprojects/advschedule11-2021.pdf (https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOT/documents/dfiscalprojects/advschedule11-2021.pdf)
Interested to see if they add exit numbers to the Windham Bypass, and what those numbers would be.

I'd say that the Willimantic Bypass is so short that they probably wouldn't even bother adding numbers to it, but if they did, I'd assume they'd be numbered 90, 92, and 93. Either way, looks like CT 15 is stuck with that goofy exit sequence for quite some time.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on March 10, 2023, 09:22:41 AM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on March 10, 2023, 09:08:53 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on March 10, 2023, 07:41:36 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on March 09, 2023, 11:41:26 PM
Possible bad news for those looking forward to exit renumbering along CT 15. The 3/3/23 version of the schedule of advertised projects no longer includes a project for that route. The sign replacement project for I-291 is to be advertised on December 20. Projects for sign replacements on I-84 and I-384/US 6 are still listed.
https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOT/documents/dfiscalprojects/advschedule11-2021.pdf (https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOT/documents/dfiscalprojects/advschedule11-2021.pdf)
Interested to see if they add exit numbers to the Windham Bypass, and what those numbers would be.

I'd say that the Willimantic Bypass is so short that they probably wouldn't even bother adding numbers to it, but if they did, I'd assume they'd be numbered 90, 92, and 93. Either way, looks like CT 15 is stuck with that goofy exit sequence for quite some time.
If I were to wager a guess, I would bet the Merritt Parkway Conservancy is fighting any sort of exit renumbering of the Merritt Parkway, for the same reasons they've fought against completing the interchange with Route 7 and other proposed improvements. "It's historic! We have to leave it the way it is!"
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on March 10, 2023, 09:53:43 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on March 10, 2023, 09:22:41 AM
If I were to wager a guess, I would bet the Merritt Parkway Conservancy is fighting any sort of exit renumbering of the Merritt Parkway, for the same reasons they've fought against completing the interchange with Route 7 and other proposed improvements. "It's historic! We have to leave it the way it is!"
That'll work about as well as Cape Cod's fight on the route 6 renumbering. Connecticut has dragged its feet seemingly more than any other state on renumbering. Maybe they were hoping to wait it out such that the standard would get repealed, become optional, or the feds would simply just forget about Connecticut after almost all others switched over.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on March 10, 2023, 10:20:30 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on March 10, 2023, 09:22:41 AM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on March 10, 2023, 09:08:53 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on March 10, 2023, 07:41:36 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on March 09, 2023, 11:41:26 PM
Possible bad news for those looking forward to exit renumbering along CT 15. The 3/3/23 version of the schedule of advertised projects no longer includes a project for that route. The sign replacement project for I-291 is to be advertised on December 20. Projects for sign replacements on I-84 and I-384/US 6 are still listed.
https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOT/documents/dfiscalprojects/advschedule11-2021.pdf (https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOT/documents/dfiscalprojects/advschedule11-2021.pdf)
Interested to see if they add exit numbers to the Windham Bypass, and what those numbers would be.

I'd say that the Willimantic Bypass is so short that they probably wouldn't even bother adding numbers to it, but if they did, I'd assume they'd be numbered 90, 92, and 93. Either way, looks like CT 15 is stuck with that goofy exit sequence for quite some time.
If I were to wager a guess, I would bet the Merritt Parkway Conservancy is fighting any sort of exit renumbering of the Merritt Parkway, for the same reasons they've fought against completing the interchange with Route 7 and other proposed improvements. "It's historic! We have to leave it the way it is!"
The Conservancy doesn't control the Wilbur Cross Highway portion of 5/15. Those exits could very well end up renumbered without their input.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: SectorZ on March 10, 2023, 10:29:54 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 10, 2023, 10:20:30 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on March 10, 2023, 09:22:41 AM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on March 10, 2023, 09:08:53 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on March 10, 2023, 07:41:36 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on March 09, 2023, 11:41:26 PM
Possible bad news for those looking forward to exit renumbering along CT 15. The 3/3/23 version of the schedule of advertised projects no longer includes a project for that route. The sign replacement project for I-291 is to be advertised on December 20. Projects for sign replacements on I-84 and I-384/US 6 are still listed.
https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOT/documents/dfiscalprojects/advschedule11-2021.pdf (https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOT/documents/dfiscalprojects/advschedule11-2021.pdf)
Interested to see if they add exit numbers to the Windham Bypass, and what those numbers would be.

I'd say that the Willimantic Bypass is so short that they probably wouldn't even bother adding numbers to it, but if they did, I'd assume they'd be numbered 90, 92, and 93. Either way, looks like CT 15 is stuck with that goofy exit sequence for quite some time.
If I were to wager a guess, I would bet the Merritt Parkway Conservancy is fighting any sort of exit renumbering of the Merritt Parkway, for the same reasons they've fought against completing the interchange with Route 7 and other proposed improvements. "It's historic! We have to leave it the way it is!"
The Conservancy doesn't control the Wilbur Cross Highway portion of 5/15. Those exits could very well end up renumbered without their input.

That would be a totally New England way to handle it, jumping from exit 53 to 61 in one mile.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Rothman on March 10, 2023, 11:01:53 AM
Quote from: connroadgeek on March 10, 2023, 09:53:43 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on March 10, 2023, 09:22:41 AM
If I were to wager a guess, I would bet the Merritt Parkway Conservancy is fighting any sort of exit renumbering of the Merritt Parkway, for the same reasons they've fought against completing the interchange with Route 7 and other proposed improvements. "It's historic! We have to leave it the way it is!"
That'll work about as well as Cape Cod's fight on the route 6 renumbering. Connecticut has dragged its feet seemingly more than any other state on renumbering. Maybe they were hoping to wait it out such that the standard would get repealed, become optional, or the feds would simply just forget about Connecticut after almost all others switched over.
*NY waves hello*
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on March 10, 2023, 11:04:27 AM
Quote from: Rothman on March 10, 2023, 11:01:53 AM
Quote from: connroadgeek on March 10, 2023, 09:53:43 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on March 10, 2023, 09:22:41 AM
If I were to wager a guess, I would bet the Merritt Parkway Conservancy is fighting any sort of exit renumbering of the Merritt Parkway, for the same reasons they've fought against completing the interchange with Route 7 and other proposed improvements. "It's historic! We have to leave it the way it is!"
That'll work about as well as Cape Cod's fight on the route 6 renumbering. Connecticut has dragged its feet seemingly more than any other state on renumbering. Maybe they were hoping to wait it out such that the standard would get repealed, become optional, or the feds would simply just forget about Connecticut after almost all others switched over.
*NY waves hello*

I think VT and NH would also wave hello.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MATraveler128 on March 10, 2023, 11:20:28 AM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on March 10, 2023, 11:04:27 AM
Quote from: Rothman on March 10, 2023, 11:01:53 AM
Quote from: connroadgeek on March 10, 2023, 09:53:43 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on March 10, 2023, 09:22:41 AM
If I were to wager a guess, I would bet the Merritt Parkway Conservancy is fighting any sort of exit renumbering of the Merritt Parkway, for the same reasons they've fought against completing the interchange with Route 7 and other proposed improvements. "It's historic! We have to leave it the way it is!"
That'll work about as well as Cape Cod's fight on the route 6 renumbering. Connecticut has dragged its feet seemingly more than any other state on renumbering. Maybe they were hoping to wait it out such that the standard would get repealed, become optional, or the feds would simply just forget about Connecticut after almost all others switched over.
*NY waves hello*

I think VT and NH would also wave hello.

New Hampshire wants to convert, but they’ll have to wait until Sununu is out of office to do so, whenever that may be. Vermont just half assed the conversion and I couldn’t help but think of the confusion for travelers as I went to Vermont recently.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on March 10, 2023, 01:10:22 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on March 10, 2023, 10:29:54 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 10, 2023, 10:20:30 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on March 10, 2023, 09:22:41 AM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on March 10, 2023, 09:08:53 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on March 10, 2023, 07:41:36 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on March 09, 2023, 11:41:26 PM
Possible bad news for those looking forward to exit renumbering along CT 15. The 3/3/23 version of the schedule of advertised projects no longer includes a project for that route. The sign replacement project for I-291 is to be advertised on December 20. Projects for sign replacements on I-84 and I-384/US 6 are still listed.
https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOT/documents/dfiscalprojects/advschedule11-2021.pdf (https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOT/documents/dfiscalprojects/advschedule11-2021.pdf)
Interested to see if they add exit numbers to the Windham Bypass, and what those numbers would be.

I'd say that the Willimantic Bypass is so short that they probably wouldn't even bother adding numbers to it, but if they did, I'd assume they'd be numbered 90, 92, and 93. Either way, looks like CT 15 is stuck with that goofy exit sequence for quite some time.
If I were to wager a guess, I would bet the Merritt Parkway Conservancy is fighting any sort of exit renumbering of the Merritt Parkway, for the same reasons they've fought against completing the interchange with Route 7 and other proposed improvements. "It's historic! We have to leave it the way it is!"
The Conservancy doesn't control the Wilbur Cross Highway portion of 5/15. Those exits could very well end up renumbered without their input.

That would be a totally New England way to handle it, jumping from exit 53 to 61 in one mile.

Would actually go back from 53 to 37 after the Sikorsky heading NB
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: SectorZ on March 10, 2023, 01:54:14 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on March 10, 2023, 01:10:22 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on March 10, 2023, 10:29:54 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 10, 2023, 10:20:30 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on March 10, 2023, 09:22:41 AM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on March 10, 2023, 09:08:53 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on March 10, 2023, 07:41:36 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on March 09, 2023, 11:41:26 PM
Possible bad news for those looking forward to exit renumbering along CT 15. The 3/3/23 version of the schedule of advertised projects no longer includes a project for that route. The sign replacement project for I-291 is to be advertised on December 20. Projects for sign replacements on I-84 and I-384/US 6 are still listed.
https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOT/documents/dfiscalprojects/advschedule11-2021.pdf (https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOT/documents/dfiscalprojects/advschedule11-2021.pdf)
Interested to see if they add exit numbers to the Windham Bypass, and what those numbers would be.

I'd say that the Willimantic Bypass is so short that they probably wouldn't even bother adding numbers to it, but if they did, I'd assume they'd be numbered 90, 92, and 93. Either way, looks like CT 15 is stuck with that goofy exit sequence for quite some time.
If I were to wager a guess, I would bet the Merritt Parkway Conservancy is fighting any sort of exit renumbering of the Merritt Parkway, for the same reasons they've fought against completing the interchange with Route 7 and other proposed improvements. "It's historic! We have to leave it the way it is!"
The Conservancy doesn't control the Wilbur Cross Highway portion of 5/15. Those exits could very well end up renumbered without their input.

That would be a totally New England way to handle it, jumping from exit 53 to 61 in one mile.

Would actually go back from 53 to 37 after the Sikorsky heading NB

Duh on me for that one, I was looking at KM on wikipedia, not miles.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: zzyzx on March 13, 2023, 11:00:46 PM
The I-95 Exit 74 Project started this week in East Lyme. It will be a 4.5 year project beginning the week of March 13th. It will involve lane closures, detours, and impact traffic in the Town. CTDOT will focus on widening Route 161 first and relocating utilities first.

From looking at the plans, I-95 will still be 4 lanes with auxiliary lanes between Exits 74 and 75. The bridge over 161 looks wide enough to accommodate 6 lanes of traffic and the exit ramp for Exit 74 SB.

Info from town website (https://eltownhall.com/first-selectmans-blog/exit74/)

Project presentation (https://eltownhall.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Town-of-East-Lyme-CT-DOT-Project-Number-44-156.pdf)

Full image plan (https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOT/documents/denviro/plans_east_lyme_44-156.pdf)

Project website (http://i-95eastlyme.com/) (under construction)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on March 14, 2023, 06:14:54 AM
Quote from: zzyzx on March 13, 2023, 11:00:46 PM
The I-95 Exit 74 Project started this week in East Lyme. It will be a 4.5 year project beginning the week of March 13th. It will involve lane closures, detours, and impact traffic in the Town. CTDOT will focus on widening Route 161 first and relocating utilities first.

From looking at the plans, I-95 will still be 4 lanes with auxiliary lanes between Exits 74 and 75. The bridge over 161 looks wide enough to accommodate 6 lanes of traffic and the exit ramp for Exit 74 SB.

Info from town website (https://eltownhall.com/first-selectmans-blog/exit74/)

Project presentation (https://eltownhall.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Town-of-East-Lyme-CT-DOT-Project-Number-44-156.pdf)

Full image plan (https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOT/documents/denviro/plans_east_lyme_44-156.pdf)

Project website (http://i-95eastlyme.com/) (under construction)
As CTDOT has been talking for at least 20 years about widening I-95 from Branford to Rhode Island, you would think they would incorporate that potential future highway expansion into the design of this project, but from the looks of it, it doesn't appear that wasn't taken into consideration.

I'm curious though, on their map with the project layout, they have stuff going on further west around Exit 73. Are they doing work at Exit 73 as well, or is that perhaps just resurfacing or something else?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on March 14, 2023, 07:19:53 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on March 14, 2023, 06:14:54 AM
Quote from: zzyzx on March 13, 2023, 11:00:46 PM
The I-95 Exit 74 Project started this week in East Lyme. It will be a 4.5 year project beginning the week of March 13th. It will involve lane closures, detours, and impact traffic in the Town. CTDOT will focus on widening Route 161 first and relocating utilities first.

From looking at the plans, I-95 will still be 4 lanes with auxiliary lanes between Exits 74 and 75. The bridge over 161 looks wide enough to accommodate 6 lanes of traffic and the exit ramp for Exit 74 SB.

Info from town website (https://eltownhall.com/first-selectmans-blog/exit74/)

Project presentation (https://eltownhall.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Town-of-East-Lyme-CT-DOT-Project-Number-44-156.pdf)

Full image plan (https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOT/documents/denviro/plans_east_lyme_44-156.pdf)

Project website (http://i-95eastlyme.com/) (under construction)
As CTDOT has been talking for at least 20 years about widening I-95 from Branford to Rhode Island, you would think they would incorporate that potential future highway expansion into the design of this project, but from the looks of it, it doesn't appear that wasn't taken into consideration.

I'm curious though, on their map with the project layout, they have stuff going on further west around Exit 73. Are they doing work at Exit 73 as well, or is that perhaps just resurfacing or something else?

Not sure if anything is happening at Exit 73.

It would indeed be nice if CT had a more solid plan for widening I-95 from Branford to RI, or even from Old Saybrook to I-395, but given CT DOT's glacial pace, it's good to see that they will do what they're proposing for now.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on March 14, 2023, 08:48:50 PM
CT DOT is like a child that takes the easy way out or puts off the hard work for later.  The Exit 74-75 project seems to fit that category.  They don't even touch the I-395 ramps, or widen the bridges for future expansion.

A good example, is the signing contract between Bridgeport and Shelton on CT-8.  They replace the signs but leave the harder gantries to replace that are on the overpasses for a separate project.  Why weren't the included in the original signing contract?

or they do studies so the public think they're doing something but in reality nothing gets done.  Anybody can study something.

Are all states this slow or is it a CT thing?  Do other states study things several times?

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on March 16, 2023, 11:24:56 AM
Even a local transit advocate is tired of the endless highway planning in the Nutmeg State:

https://ctmirror.org/2023/03/12/yet-another-i-95-study-fixing-nothing/
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: SectorZ on March 16, 2023, 12:27:49 PM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on March 16, 2023, 11:24:56 AM
Even a local transit advocate is tired of the endless highway planning in the Nutmeg State:

https://ctmirror.org/2023/03/12/yet-another-i-95-study-fixing-nothing/

I'm curious if there were genuine calls for pedestrian crossings and bike trails for 95 in the public session. If so, that is some epic-level trolling or people who maybe should beta-test their thoughts with friends and relatives before saying them in public.

Along with the guy that wants to turn Stamford into North Haverbrook with the monorail idea.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Plutonic Panda on March 16, 2023, 06:48:25 PM
Meh, the end of that article alludes to same crap "replace it with a boulevard or a train"  "get more people out of cars and onto trains."  Cool ideas. Been around for decades and those don't happen either. So this is just another anti car puff piece.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on March 17, 2023, 03:37:17 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on March 16, 2023, 12:27:49 PM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on March 16, 2023, 11:24:56 AM
Even a local transit advocate is tired of the endless highway planning in the Nutmeg State:

https://ctmirror.org/2023/03/12/yet-another-i-95-study-fixing-nothing/

I'm curious if there were genuine calls for pedestrian crossings and bike trails for 95 in the public session. If so, that is some epic-level trolling or people who maybe should beta-test their thoughts with friends and relatives before saying them in public.

Along with the guy that wants to turn Stamford into North Haverbrook with the monorail idea.

This guy has been around for years and is pro-train.  Which is fine. As he doesn't hate cars, he seems to prefer trains.  I hate to admit it, but Iagree with him on this article.  Why does the DOT study things over and over again??  What do other states do??
It seems political.  They don't want to do anything, so they do a study to say they're doing something without actually doing anything. 
I-84 in Waterbury and Danbury is being studied AGAIN, there's at least 3 studies going on right now in the state.

I-84 in Danbury was first proposed to be widened in 2000.  It's now 2023.  Barely anything has happened except for some ramp upgrades. The state can't handle a project that size it seems.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on March 19, 2023, 03:34:32 PM
Took a little circle trip drive today around CT to check on progress of CT 9 & 2 sign replacement contracts.

CT 9 has enhanced mile markers installed NB up to (almost) I-84.  Southbound there are none north of Middletown as of yet.  Most sheet signs are up, with the old extruded town line and exit service signs yet to be removed.  A couple new overheads are up, including the Exit 39 1 mile advance...
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52757853226_5180a2b797_3k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2oo2MH5)CT9NB-Exit39-1 (https://flic.kr/p/2oo2MH5) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

In the northbound direction there are two assemblies in New Britain still to be installed, and southbound there are 3 left to go.  So they're getting there, slowly be surely.

Looks like they made short work of the intersection redesign of the I-84 East onramp in Farmington (from US 6).  The new park & ride is huge.  They changed the ramp to a more "T" intersection for traffic from US 6 East onto I-84 East.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52758336058_712844d471_3k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2oo5geL)84onramp-Exit38 (https://flic.kr/p/2oo5geL) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

Over to Route 2 to check out progress there... looks like there's supports going in the ground/already in the ground from Colchester to Norwich.  My last trip a few weeks ago northwest of Colchester to Hartford didn't reveal much progress there.  Rt 11 also has new supports in.  As far as actual new signs, it looks like some of the onramp signage is in, as seen here at Exit 18 in Colchester...

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52758261175_d335bf91af_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2oo4SYF)CT2EBonramp-Exit18 (https://flic.kr/p/2oo4SYF) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

We may luck out and have thick black border shields on this entire contract, unlike the Rt 9 contract which saw thick shields from Middletown, south only. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on March 19, 2023, 03:39:14 PM
There was absolutely nothing new on CT 2 between I-84 and CT 17 when I drove it last week.  The South Glastonbury portion of CT 17 is untouched, but the Middletown portion had the exit number (21) for Main St Extension and even a couple of mile markers with CT 17 mileage. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on March 20, 2023, 11:47:12 AM
Has anyone been down Route 40 recently to see how progress with the sign replacement/exit renumbering has been going?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on March 20, 2023, 11:59:34 AM
Interesting that Google Maps has updated the exit numbers on CT 72, but not on CT 9; even though CT 72 was changed a month later.  Also, they didn't put 1A and 1B for the CT 9 ramps, though there is a new Exit Now assembly that has exit tabs (still none on the 1 and 1/2 mile advance APL's, and the gore sign is a yellow split arrow sign rather than an exit sign). 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: DrSmith on March 20, 2023, 07:26:26 PM
It seems with new mile posts being used, the old "M" markers through the 384 interchange are now gone. At least they were gone from I-291 the other week with new standard mile posts put up instead.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: BamaZeus on March 22, 2023, 04:59:29 PM
Quote from: zzyzx on February 16, 2023, 04:51:39 PM
Someone posted on Reddit what appears to be original footage of the Merritt Parkway (https://www.reddit.com/r/Connecticut/comments/113wzn0/1930s_footage_of_the_merritt_parkway/) from the 1930s. OP's great uncle shot the footage just after it was opened, but isn't sure of the exact location (could possibly be Fairfield, Westport, Norwalk areas). Anyone have guesses of the exact location?

I was going through my grandmother's photo albums several weeks ago to scan family pictures, and she actually took a couple of pictures of the Parkway in the early 40s.  She's not here for me to ask why she took the pictures, but I guess the highway being almost brand new was probably enough reason.

The 1st one is the Parkway at Grumman Ave in Norwalk in 1944.  My grandmother lived near that bridge at that time.  The 2nd one is likely on top of that same bridge, looking southwest toward the bridge at East Rocks Rd.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.1491173,-73.4112256,3a,75y,238.08h,94.27t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shrmMEJY62NzHTP-ww-bw5g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Hopefully these links work properly. 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/79c8ipa6kruw9hm/MerrittPkwyAtGrummanAve1944.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ju4kclb4y00dt02/scan3717.jpg?dl=0
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on March 22, 2023, 08:12:25 PM
Quote from: BamaZeus on March 22, 2023, 04:59:29 PM
Quote from: zzyzx on February 16, 2023, 04:51:39 PM
Someone posted on Reddit what appears to be original footage of the Merritt Parkway (https://www.reddit.com/r/Connecticut/comments/113wzn0/1930s_footage_of_the_merritt_parkway/) from the 1930s. OP's great uncle shot the footage just after it was opened, but isn't sure of the exact location (could possibly be Fairfield, Westport, Norwalk areas). Anyone have guesses of the exact location?

I was going through my grandmother's photo albums several weeks ago to scan family pictures, and she actually took a couple of pictures of the Parkway in the early 40s.  She's not here for me to ask why she took the pictures, but I guess the highway being almost brand new was probably enough reason.

...

Hopefully these links work properly. 

They work fine for me; thanks for uploading!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on March 23, 2023, 12:04:17 AM
Quote from: BamaZeus on March 22, 2023, 04:59:29 PM
Quote from: zzyzx on February 16, 2023, 04:51:39 PM
Someone posted on Reddit what appears to be original footage of the Merritt Parkway (https://www.reddit.com/r/Connecticut/comments/113wzn0/1930s_footage_of_the_merritt_parkway/) from the 1930s. OP's great uncle shot the footage just after it was opened, but isn't sure of the exact location (could possibly be Fairfield, Westport, Norwalk areas). Anyone have guesses of the exact location?

I was going through my grandmother's photo albums several weeks ago to scan family pictures, and she actually took a couple of pictures of the Parkway in the early 40s.  She's not here for me to ask why she took the pictures, but I guess the highway being almost brand new was probably enough reason.

The 1st one is the Parkway at Grumman Ave in Norwalk in 1944.  My grandmother lived near that bridge at that time.  The 2nd one is likely on top of that same bridge, looking southwest toward the bridge at East Rocks Rd.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.1491173,-73.4112256,3a,75y,238.08h,94.27t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shrmMEJY62NzHTP-ww-bw5g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Hopefully these links work properly. 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/79c8ipa6kruw9hm/MerrittPkwyAtGrummanAve1944.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ju4kclb4y00dt02/scan3717.jpg?dl=0

The more things change. Thank you(r grandma)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: The Ghostbuster on March 23, 2023, 12:19:33 PM
Has the Merritt Parkway changed much since its construction? It seems like the preservationists want to keep it in the 1930s. I know Exit 30 was for an intersection with Butternut Hollow Road, which according to Wikipedia, was closed in 1955. Also, the service areas just had gas stations until recently, and the parkway had tolls until 1988 (originally to finance the construction of the Wilbur Cross Parkway, which wasn't tolled). Also, does anyone know why the Merritt Parkway is missing Exit 32 and Exit 43?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: BamaZeus on March 23, 2023, 01:07:48 PM
43 was meant to be an extension of the Sherwood Island Connector from I-95, but it got rejected by the Westport NIMBYs.   It just became "No man's land" instead between 42-44
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on March 23, 2023, 02:17:17 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 23, 2023, 12:19:33 PM
Has the Merritt Parkway changed much since its construction? It seems like the preservationists want to keep it in the 1930s. I know Exit 30 was for an intersection with Butternut Hollow Road, which according to Wikipedia, was closed in 1955. Also, the service areas just had gas stations until recently, and the parkway had tolls until 1988 (originally to finance the construction of the Wilbur Cross Parkway, which wasn't tolled). Also, does anyone know why the Merritt Parkway is missing Exit 32 and Exit 43?

I think some interchanges were (must have been) improved, like CT-8 and US-7 and others. I also think accel/decel lanes were added.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on March 23, 2023, 03:51:55 PM
People were apparently up in arms when the CT 8 and CT 25 expressway interchanges were constructed.  It built sweeping modern interchanges over the parkway in the 1980s and some of it probably could have been done with loop ramps.  Several original bridges in the area were lost, but for some reason they kept the narrow barely-used Housatonic RR overpass vic. Route 25. 

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.2361319,-73.1872471,3a,47.7y,79.97h,84.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sxQQFsWKtVDGkqzFM5SJaLw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

That rail line was abandoned not too long after the Merritt opened. 

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Beeper1 on March 23, 2023, 06:49:44 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 23, 2023, 12:19:33 PM
Has the Merritt Parkway changed much since its construction? It seems like the preservationists want to keep it in the 1930s. I know Exit 30 was for an intersection with Butternut Hollow Road, which according to Wikipedia, was closed in 1955. Also, the service areas just had gas stations until recently, and the parkway had tolls until 1988 (originally to finance the construction of the Wilbur Cross Parkway, which wasn't tolled). Also, does anyone know why the Merritt Parkway is missing Exit 32 and Exit 43?

The Wilbur Cross had tolls once it opened.   There was a toll booth in Wallingford, a mile or so north of the East Haven Service Areas.    The tolls were removed at the same time as the Merritt tolls.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on March 23, 2023, 07:15:09 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 23, 2023, 12:19:33 PM
Has the Merritt Parkway changed much since its construction? It seems like the preservationists want to keep it in the 1930s. I know Exit 30 was for an intersection with Butternut Hollow Road, which according to Wikipedia, was closed in 1955. Also, the service areas just had gas stations until recently, and the parkway had tolls until 1988 (originally to finance the construction of the Wilbur Cross Parkway, which wasn't tolled). Also, does anyone know why the Merritt Parkway is missing Exit 32 and Exit 43?
I had to go back to 1949 in Historic Aerials to see Exit 30 open. It was gone by 1960!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on March 23, 2023, 10:21:37 PM
Drove 9 and 72 from Cromwell to Plainville tonight.  Looks like US 6 was rerouted through Berlin and demoted, as there was an enhanced CT 6 marker at MP 33 northbound.  And they're starting mileposts on CT 72, as the first mile westbound had them.  Also, the final old gantry WB (1/4 mile Exit 3/72 + 84 pull thru) was being removed and a new gantry already up.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on March 27, 2023, 01:20:11 PM
Quote from: Beeper1 on March 23, 2023, 06:49:44 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 23, 2023, 12:19:33 PM
Has the Merritt Parkway changed much since its construction? It seems like the preservationists want to keep it in the 1930s. I know Exit 30 was for an intersection with Butternut Hollow Road, which according to Wikipedia, was closed in 1955. Also, the service areas just had gas stations until recently, and the parkway had tolls until 1988 (originally to finance the construction of the Wilbur Cross Parkway, which wasn't tolled). Also, does anyone know why the Merritt Parkway is missing Exit 32 and Exit 43?

The Wilbur Cross had tolls once it opened.   There was a toll booth in Wallingford, a mile or so north of the East Haven Service Areas.    The tolls were removed at the same time as the Merritt tolls.
IIRC, there was a toll plaza at the West Rock Tunnel. I don't remember if it was at the east or west end of the tunnel.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on March 27, 2023, 05:38:45 PM
There was no plaza at the tunnel.  The only one north of Milford was in Wallingford, I believe just north of Exit 65.  There were, however, a pair of picnic areas a couple miles south of the tunnel... they still exist but no access is provided to them. 

Came through Rt 72 East yesterday... no mile markers yet.  Still no SB markers on CT 9 until you get to the Middletown line.  Still the same few gantries left to go up in New Britain, but they did get the gantry up where Rt 72 meets Rt 9...
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52773110344_a03bacfd9b_3k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2opnZ7Q)CT72EB-atCT9 (https://flic.kr/p/2opnZ7Q) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

No exit tabs on any of the other advance APL signs for said junction.


Also travelled part of I-91 in New Haven/North Haven and all of Rt 40 yesterday.  New sign foundations are going in for new overheads for Exits 9 & 10, so finally some progress with that project.  Nothing on Rt 40 whatsoever... no foundation work yet. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on March 27, 2023, 07:59:16 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on March 27, 2023, 05:38:45 PM
There was no plaza at the tunnel.  The only one north of Milford was in Wallingford, I believe just north of Exit 65.  There were, however, a pair of picnic areas a couple miles south of the tunnel... they still exist but no access is provided to them. 



Hmmm...from memory, I thought the toll plaza was at or near the tunnel. I guess the Wallingford plaza was the one I was recollecting.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on March 27, 2023, 09:10:05 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on March 27, 2023, 01:20:11 PM
Quote from: Beeper1 on March 23, 2023, 06:49:44 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 23, 2023, 12:19:33 PM
Has the Merritt Parkway changed much since its construction? It seems like the preservationists want to keep it in the 1930s. I know Exit 30 was for an intersection with Butternut Hollow Road, which according to Wikipedia, was closed in 1955. Also, the service areas just had gas stations until recently, and the parkway had tolls until 1988 (originally to finance the construction of the Wilbur Cross Parkway, which wasn't tolled). Also, does anyone know why the Merritt Parkway is missing Exit 32 and Exit 43?

The Wilbur Cross had tolls once it opened.   There was a toll booth in Wallingford, a mile or so north of the East Haven Service Areas.    The tolls were removed at the same time as the Merritt tolls.
IIRC, there was a toll plaza at the West Rock Tunnel. I don't remember if it was at the east or west end of the tunnel.

The toll booth in Wallingford was right by the Exit 65 Southbound exit ramp.  Don't ever remember one by the West Rock Tunnel, but I could see if there was one just north of it where the carriageways split for the tunnel. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on March 28, 2023, 09:00:14 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on March 27, 2023, 07:59:16 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on March 27, 2023, 05:38:45 PM
There was no plaza at the tunnel.  The only one north of Milford was in Wallingford, I believe just north of Exit 65.  There were, however, a pair of picnic areas a couple miles south of the tunnel... they still exist but no access is provided to them. 



Hmmm...from memory, I thought the toll plaza was at or near the tunnel. I guess the Wallingford plaza was the one I was recollecting.
There was a (usually) covered sign warning of icy conditions in the tunnel, but in all my research I've never heard of a toll booth before either end of the tunnel.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: BamaZeus on March 28, 2023, 02:38:21 PM
I don't ever remember a toll booth near the tunnel.  It was the Sikorsky Bridge and Wallingford.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: BamaZeus on March 28, 2023, 02:54:51 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on March 23, 2023, 03:51:55 PM
People were apparently up in arms when the CT 8 and CT 25 expressway interchanges were constructed.  It built sweeping modern interchanges over the parkway in the 1980s and some of it probably could have been done with loop ramps.  Several original bridges in the area were lost, but for some reason they kept the narrow barely-used Housatonic RR overpass vic. Route 25. 

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.2361319,-73.1872471,3a,47.7y,79.97h,84.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sxQQFsWKtVDGkqzFM5SJaLw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

That rail line was abandoned not too long after the Merritt opened. 



I definitely remember a cloverleaf interchange at Route 8 with the likely original block signage that lasted right up to the replacement, and the original bridge.  I found a pic of it.

https://www.knowol.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Merritt-Parkway-Bridge-16.png
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on March 28, 2023, 05:55:12 PM
https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/CTDOT-Construction-Advisories/2023/Exit-Numbers-Changing-on-Interstate-691-from-Cheshire-to-Middlefield

QuoteExit Numbers Changing on Interstate 691 from Cheshire to Middlefield
The Connecticut Department of Transportation (CTDOT) is announcing that exit numbering will be revised on Interstate 691 both Eastbound and Westbound from Cheshire to Middlefield beginning on April 24, 2023, weather permitting.

So this is interesting, considering not one new sign has been installed yet in this project (though some foundations are in, especially on the west end).  Wonder if we're going to see the new signs starting to go up on this date, and my guess is that, unlike the 9/72 boondoggle, we'll see the signs go up with the new numbers right away. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on March 28, 2023, 08:25:20 PM
Maybe they're starting to accelerate the exit renumbering plans.  However, the new numbers aren't up or listed yet.  The ones on Wikipedia probably are inaccurate.  I'd imagine them to look like this if CT 9 fudging numbers is any indication:

1A: 91 North
1B: 91/15 South
1C (WB ONLY): 15 North
2: US 5
3: Downtown Meriden
4: Lewis Ave (WB); 71 (EB)
5: 322 (WB); West Main St (EB)
7: 10
8 A/B or 8 & 9 (WB ONLY): 84

The 66 Exits would both be 1. 

Also drove through the Manchester complex and the M markers are all still there.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on March 28, 2023, 08:29:16 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on March 28, 2023, 05:55:12 PM
https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/CTDOT-Construction-Advisories/2023/Exit-Numbers-Changing-on-Interstate-691-from-Cheshire-to-Middlefield

QuoteExit Numbers Changing on Interstate 691 from Cheshire to Middlefield
The Connecticut Department of Transportation (CTDOT) is announcing that exit numbering will be revised on Interstate 691 both Eastbound and Westbound from Cheshire to Middlefield beginning on April 24, 2023, weather permitting.

So this is interesting, considering not one new sign has been installed yet in this project (though some foundations are in, especially on the west end).  Wonder if we're going to see the new signs starting to go up on this date, and my guess is that, unlike the 9/72 boondoggle, we'll see the signs go up with the new numbers right away.
Another interesting observation is that, per the press release, CTDOT's District 4 (Thomaston) is administering the highway rehabilitation/sign replacement/exit renumbering contract for I-691, despite the fact that I-691 lies entirely within CTDOT District 1 (Rocky Hill).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on March 29, 2023, 12:25:49 PM
I'm not a big fan of diverging diamonds but CT DOT is proposing one for US-6 Newtown Rd for I-84 WB on-ramp Exit 8, Danbury, CT.

Scroll down to Interchange 8 Improvements

https://www.i84danbury.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/PAC13-Presentation_030723.pdf?mibextid=Zxz2cZ

I don't mind it here as it is half a diverging diamond.
Still not to start until 2030s or so

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: The Ghostbuster on March 29, 2023, 01:34:03 PM
You mean if we're lucky, it will start in the 2030s. Considering Connecticut transportation history, we'll be lucky if it is constructed at all.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on March 29, 2023, 07:12:48 PM
Just realized CTDOT picked the worst week of the year to renumber I-691's exits.  Out of towners going to the Daffodil Festival at Hubbard Park on 4/29 and 4/30 are going to have fun when their GPS tells them to get off Exit 4, and they end up getting off the new exit 4. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on March 29, 2023, 11:37:20 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on March 29, 2023, 07:12:48 PM
Just realized CTDOT picked the worst week of the year to renumber I-691's exits.  Out of towners going to the Daffodil Festival at Hubbard Park on 4/29 and 4/30 are going to have fun when their GPS tells them to get off Exit 4, and they end up getting off the new exit 4. 
are you inviting us to daffodil festival
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on March 30, 2023, 09:09:52 AM
Quote from: Alps on March 29, 2023, 11:37:20 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on March 29, 2023, 07:12:48 PM
Just realized CTDOT picked the worst week of the year to renumber I-691's exits.  Out of towners going to the Daffodil Festival at Hubbard Park on 4/29 and 4/30 are going to have fun when their GPS tells them to get off Exit 4, and they end up getting off the new exit 4. 
are you inviting us to daffodil festival
If it isn't that, then it's the dogwood festival they have in Fairfield around this time of year.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on March 30, 2023, 11:02:18 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on March 28, 2023, 08:25:20 PM
Maybe they're starting to accelerate the exit renumbering plans.  However, the new numbers aren't up or listed yet.  The ones on Wikipedia probably are inaccurate.  I'd imagine them to look like this if CT 9 fudging numbers is any indication:

1A: 91 North
1B: 91/15 South
1C (WB ONLY): 15 North
2: US 5
3: Downtown Meriden
4: Lewis Ave (WB); 71 (EB)
5: 322 (WB); West Main St (EB)
7: 10
8 A/B or 8 & 9 (WB ONLY): 84

The 66 Exits would both be 1. 

Also drove through the Manchester complex and the M markers are all still there.
So here's a question: Why is CTDOT reversing the direction that exit numbers increase from east to west? The standard convention spelled out in the MUTCD requires exit numbers and mileposts to start at the south or west end of a highway and increase heading north or east. So for I-691, CTDOT would be violating the convention specified by the MUTCD by starting at the east end and increasing heading west.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: The Ghostbuster on March 30, 2023, 12:02:50 PM
There are plenty of instances where former sequentially-numbered exits had their exit sequence directions reversed when the roadway was converted to mileage-based exits.

In Connecticut: CT 72, the fore-mentioned Interstate 691
In Kentucky: Pennyrile Parkway (now Interstate 69/169), Western Kentucky Parkway (now Interstate 69, future Interstate 569).
In Maryland/Virginia: The Captial Beltway (Interstates 95/495).
In Massachusetts: MA 128 (portion not co-designated with Interstate 95).
In Oklahoma: Cimarron Turnpike, Indian Nation Toll Road, H.E. Bailey Turnpike.
In Pennsylvania: Interstate 283, Interstate 380.
In West Virginia: The West Virginia Turnpike.

Those are just a few examples that I can think of off the top of my head (with help from some old road atlases).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on March 30, 2023, 12:33:47 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 30, 2023, 12:02:50 PM
There are plenty of instances where former sequentially-numbered exits had their exit sequence directions reversed when the roadway was converted to mileage-based exits.

In Connecticut: CT 72, the fore-mentioned Interstate 691
In Kentucky: Pennyrile Parkway (now Interstate 69/169), Western Kentucky Parkway (now Interstate 69, future Interstate 569).
In Maryland/Virginia: The Captial Beltway (Interstates 95/495).
In Massachusetts: MA 128 (portion not co-designated with Interstate 95).
In Oklahoma: Cimarron Turnpike, Indian Nation Toll Road, H.E. Bailey Turnpike.
In Pennsylvania: Interstate 283, Interstate 380.
In West Virginia: The West Virginia Turnpike.

Those are just a few examples that I can think of off the top of my head (with help from some old road atlases).
The aforementioned routes now follow the standard convention starting at the south/west end and increasing heading north east.

I know that Route 72 in Connecticut increases heading "west" because CTDOT designates Route 72 as a north-south route in its route logs, as its alignment is more of a dogleg that runs east-west between New Britain and Bristol, and then turns north-south from Bristol to Harwinton. So what is publicly signed as its "eastern" end at Route 9 is actually the southern end of Route 72. So there's some sense to that.

As far as I-691 is concerned, it's about as east-to-west as a highway can be. In my mind there is no reason why they would start the mileage and exit numbering at its east end and increase heading west in violation of the MUTCD convention. I'm surprised the FHWA hasn't called CTDOT out on that.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on March 30, 2023, 12:56:53 PM
It wouldn't be the only instance of a 3di forgoing convention in favor of having the 0 exit/mile point at its parent.  I-581 does the same thing.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 30, 2023, 12:02:50 PM
In Maryland/Virginia: The Captial Beltway (Interstates 95/495).
You mean the Cookie Monster Expressway (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=33077.msg2831801#msg2831801)?

Actually, I-495 does go backwards, but that's for the very good reason of allowing the MD portion of the beltway to have a single set of exit numbers without causing issues for I-95.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on March 30, 2023, 01:40:28 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on March 30, 2023, 12:33:47 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 30, 2023, 12:02:50 PM
There are plenty of instances where former sequentially-numbered exits had their exit sequence directions reversed when the roadway was converted to mileage-based exits.

In Connecticut: CT 72, the fore-mentioned Interstate 691
In Kentucky: Pennyrile Parkway (now Interstate 69/169), Western Kentucky Parkway (now Interstate 69, future Interstate 569).
In Maryland/Virginia: The Captial Beltway (Interstates 95/495).
In Massachusetts: MA 128 (portion not co-designated with Interstate 95).
In Oklahoma: Cimarron Turnpike, Indian Nation Toll Road, H.E. Bailey Turnpike.
In Pennsylvania: Interstate 283, Interstate 380.
In West Virginia: The West Virginia Turnpike.

Those are just a few examples that I can think of off the top of my head (with help from some old road atlases).
The aforementioned routes now follow the standard convention starting at the south/west end and increasing heading north east.

I know that Route 72 in Connecticut increases heading "west" because CTDOT designates Route 72 as a north-south route in its route logs, as its alignment is more of a dogleg that runs east-west between New Britain and Bristol, and then turns north-south from Bristol to Harwinton. So what is publicly signed as its "eastern" end at Route 9 is actually the southern end of Route 72. So there's some sense to that.

As far as I-691 is concerned, it's about as east-to-west as a highway can be. In my mind there is no reason why they would start the mileage and exit numbering at its east end and increase heading west in violation of the MUTCD convention. I'm surprised the FHWA hasn't called CTDOT out on that.

I-691 is logged as North-South like CT 72 is.  A couple of others (CT 31 and CT 67) are logged East-West but signed North-South.  Plus here, it's most likely a case of logging miles from its parent. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on March 30, 2023, 08:33:24 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on March 30, 2023, 01:40:28 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on March 30, 2023, 12:33:47 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 30, 2023, 12:02:50 PM
There are plenty of instances where former sequentially-numbered exits had their exit sequence directions reversed when the roadway was converted to mileage-based exits.

In Connecticut: CT 72, the fore-mentioned Interstate 691
In Kentucky: Pennyrile Parkway (now Interstate 69/169), Western Kentucky Parkway (now Interstate 69, future Interstate 569).
In Maryland/Virginia: The Captial Beltway (Interstates 95/495).
In Massachusetts: MA 128 (portion not co-designated with Interstate 95).
In Oklahoma: Cimarron Turnpike, Indian Nation Toll Road, H.E. Bailey Turnpike.
In Pennsylvania: Interstate 283, Interstate 380.
In West Virginia: The West Virginia Turnpike.

Those are just a few examples that I can think of off the top of my head (with help from some old road atlases).
The aforementioned routes now follow the standard convention starting at the south/west end and increasing heading north east.

I know that Route 72 in Connecticut increases heading "west" because CTDOT designates Route 72 as a north-south route in its route logs, as its alignment is more of a dogleg that runs east-west between New Britain and Bristol, and then turns north-south from Bristol to Harwinton. So what is publicly signed as its "eastern" end at Route 9 is actually the southern end of Route 72. So there's some sense to that.

As far as I-691 is concerned, it's about as east-to-west as a highway can be. In my mind there is no reason why they would start the mileage and exit numbering at its east end and increase heading west in violation of the MUTCD convention. I'm surprised the FHWA hasn't called CTDOT out on that.

I-691 is logged as North-South like CT 72 is.  A couple of others (CT 31 and CT 67) are logged East-West but signed North-South.  Plus here, it's most likely a case of logging miles from its parent.
Strange why they would log I-691 as a north-south route. It's about as east-to-west as a highway can get.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on March 30, 2023, 09:27:40 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on March 30, 2023, 08:33:24 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on March 30, 2023, 01:40:28 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on March 30, 2023, 12:33:47 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 30, 2023, 12:02:50 PM
There are plenty of instances where former sequentially-numbered exits had their exit sequence directions reversed when the roadway was converted to mileage-based exits.

In Connecticut: CT 72, the fore-mentioned Interstate 691
In Kentucky: Pennyrile Parkway (now Interstate 69/169), Western Kentucky Parkway (now Interstate 69, future Interstate 569).
In Maryland/Virginia: The Captial Beltway (Interstates 95/495).
In Massachusetts: MA 128 (portion not co-designated with Interstate 95).
In Oklahoma: Cimarron Turnpike, Indian Nation Toll Road, H.E. Bailey Turnpike.
In Pennsylvania: Interstate 283, Interstate 380.
In West Virginia: The West Virginia Turnpike.

Those are just a few examples that I can think of off the top of my head (with help from some old road atlases).
The aforementioned routes now follow the standard convention starting at the south/west end and increasing heading north east.

I know that Route 72 in Connecticut increases heading "west" because CTDOT designates Route 72 as a north-south route in its route logs, as its alignment is more of a dogleg that runs east-west between New Britain and Bristol, and then turns north-south from Bristol to Harwinton. So what is publicly signed as its "eastern" end at Route 9 is actually the southern end of Route 72. So there's some sense to that.

As far as I-691 is concerned, it's about as east-to-west as a highway can be. In my mind there is no reason why they would start the mileage and exit numbering at its east end and increase heading west in violation of the MUTCD convention. I'm surprised the FHWA hasn't called CTDOT out on that.

I-691 is logged as North-South like CT 72 is.  A couple of others (CT 31 and CT 67) are logged East-West but signed North-South.  Plus here, it's most likely a case of logging miles from its parent.
Strange why they would log I-691 as a north-south route. It's about as east-to-west as a highway can get.
hell, most traffic heading east is going north on I-91 to bypass I-84
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: bob7374 on March 30, 2023, 10:51:03 PM
Quote from: Alps on March 30, 2023, 09:27:40 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on March 30, 2023, 08:33:24 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on March 30, 2023, 01:40:28 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on March 30, 2023, 12:33:47 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 30, 2023, 12:02:50 PM
There are plenty of instances where former sequentially-numbered exits had their exit sequence directions reversed when the roadway was converted to mileage-based exits.

In Connecticut: CT 72, the fore-mentioned Interstate 691
In Kentucky: Pennyrile Parkway (now Interstate 69/169), Western Kentucky Parkway (now Interstate 69, future Interstate 569).
In Maryland/Virginia: The Captial Beltway (Interstates 95/495).
In Massachusetts: MA 128 (portion not co-designated with Interstate 95).
In Oklahoma: Cimarron Turnpike, Indian Nation Toll Road, H.E. Bailey Turnpike.
In Pennsylvania: Interstate 283, Interstate 380.
In West Virginia: The West Virginia Turnpike.

Those are just a few examples that I can think of off the top of my head (with help from some old road atlases).
The aforementioned routes now follow the standard convention starting at the south/west end and increasing heading north east.

I know that Route 72 in Connecticut increases heading "west" because CTDOT designates Route 72 as a north-south route in its route logs, as its alignment is more of a dogleg that runs east-west between New Britain and Bristol, and then turns north-south from Bristol to Harwinton. So what is publicly signed as its "eastern" end at Route 9 is actually the southern end of Route 72. So there's some sense to that.

As far as I-691 is concerned, it's about as east-to-west as a highway can be. In my mind there is no reason why they would start the mileage and exit numbering at its east end and increase heading west in violation of the MUTCD convention. I'm surprised the FHWA hasn't called CTDOT out on that.

I-691 is logged as North-South like CT 72 is.  A couple of others (CT 31 and CT 67) are logged East-West but signed North-South.  Plus here, it's most likely a case of logging miles from its parent.
Strange why they would log I-691 as a north-south route. It's about as east-to-west as a highway can get.
hell, most traffic heading east is going north on I-91 to bypass I-84
If anyone wants to reach out to CTDOT to try to get an answer, this from their exit renumbering FAQ page:
All inquiries relating to exit numbering should be sent to DOT.TrafficEngineering@ct.gov with
the subject line Exit Numbering.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on March 31, 2023, 01:38:09 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on March 30, 2023, 08:33:24 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on March 30, 2023, 01:40:28 PM
I-691 is logged as North-South like CT 72 is.  A couple of others (CT 31 and CT 67) are logged East-West but signed North-South.  Plus here, it's most likely a case of logging miles from its parent.
Strange why they would log I-691 as a north-south route. It's about as east-to-west as a highway can get.

The highway log does note "LOG DIR / WEST" ... which I think is unique for east-west roads in the state. The reason could be the sequence in which it was built or funded: east of US 5 first, then CT 322 to US 5, and finally I-84 to CT 322.

IMO tying the exit numbering to this doesn't help the motorist, and ConnDOT could have made that an exception as well, increasing eastbound, opposite to the log mileposts.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on March 31, 2023, 10:23:29 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on March 30, 2023, 10:51:03 PM
If anyone wants to reach out to CTDOT to try to get an answer, this from their exit renumbering FAQ page:
All inquiries relating to exit numbering should be sent to DOT.TrafficEngineering@ct.gov with
the subject line Exit Numbering.

I still can't believe how buried into the ConnDOT site that page is.  Seems like something that should be front-and-center, or at least under "Major Projects".

https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/Traffic-Engineering/Exit-Renumbering
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on April 01, 2023, 08:42:27 PM
This was approved by the legislature over a year ago and had seemingly been quietly forgotten about since, but...

https://www.wtnh.com/news/connecticut/connecticut-dot-placing-cameras-in-construction-zones-to-crack-down-on-speeding/?fbclid=IwAR2Qo9Q4GT5qf1MaEPmxBkMoSBuzk4fV_4OiX7WfyTYs94C2cwEgdI3be3Y

Looks like Connecticut will be placing revenue generation cameras in a few freeway work zones after all.

I have to assume someone in a position of power got to nagging since I doubt ConnDOT actually wanted to do this, and the state police are on the record as being in opposition (because they see it as their jobs being automated away).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: mariethefoxy on April 07, 2023, 02:16:47 AM
I have a question with CT 34, does it still go all the way to I-95 on the service roads they built when they took out the little freeway spur in New Haven or was it truncated since the signs from 95 and 91 dont have 34 shields anymore.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on April 07, 2023, 09:01:23 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on April 01, 2023, 08:42:27 PM
This was approved by the legislature over a year ago and had seemingly been quietly forgotten about since, but...

https://www.wtnh.com/news/connecticut/connecticut-dot-placing-cameras-in-construction-zones-to-crack-down-on-speeding/?fbclid=IwAR2Qo9Q4GT5qf1MaEPmxBkMoSBuzk4fV_4OiX7WfyTYs94C2cwEgdI3be3Y

Looks like Connecticut will be placing revenue generation cameras in a few freeway work zones after all.

I have to assume someone in a position of power got to nagging since I doubt ConnDOT actually wanted to do this, and the state police are on the record as being in opposition (because they see it as their jobs being automated away).

I wonder -- in areas that are rabid with speed cameras, what is the speed tolerance?

The CT program authorization specifies a 15 mph tolerance, and that they be used only in work zones with speed limits of at least 45.   That doesn't seem unreasonable, although there is, of course, the concern of the slippery slope if the program evolves.

Here's the ConnDOT webpage on the speed cameras: https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/Know-the-Zone/About-Program
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: SectorZ on April 07, 2023, 09:44:44 AM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on April 07, 2023, 09:01:23 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on April 01, 2023, 08:42:27 PM
This was approved by the legislature over a year ago and had seemingly been quietly forgotten about since, but...

https://www.wtnh.com/news/connecticut/connecticut-dot-placing-cameras-in-construction-zones-to-crack-down-on-speeding/?fbclid=IwAR2Qo9Q4GT5qf1MaEPmxBkMoSBuzk4fV_4OiX7WfyTYs94C2cwEgdI3be3Y

Looks like Connecticut will be placing revenue generation cameras in a few freeway work zones after all.

I have to assume someone in a position of power got to nagging since I doubt ConnDOT actually wanted to do this, and the state police are on the record as being in opposition (because they see it as their jobs being automated away).

I wonder -- in areas that are rabid with speed cameras, what is the speed tolerance?

The CT program authorization specifies a 15 mph tolerance, and that they be used only in work zones with speed limits of at least 45.   That doesn't seem unreasonable, although there is, of course, the concern of the slippery slope if the program evolves.

Here's the ConnDOT webpage on the speed cameras: https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/Know-the-Zone/About-Program

I hope my state doesn't share registration info with them for revenue purposes given Connecticut won't for Massachusetts tolls.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on April 07, 2023, 11:26:20 AM
Quote from: mariethefoxy on April 07, 2023, 02:16:47 AM
I have a question with CT 34, does it still go all the way to I-95 on the service roads they built when they took out the little freeway spur in New Haven or was it truncated since the signs from 95 and 91 dont have 34 shields anymore.
I've never seen anything official from CTDOT about removing the Route 34 designation from the frontage roads in New Haven, and turning ownership of the frontage roads over to the City of New Haven. Looking at GSV imagery from November 2021, there appears to no longer be Route 34 signage on the frontage roads, but a sign at the intersection of Route 10 and Legion Avenue suggests that the Route 34 designation hasn't been officially removed from the frontage roads. My theory would be is that you still have the freeway stub that the frontage roads tie into at the bridge crossing the railyard, which is still--and will be--state maintained. Maintaining state ownership of the frontage roads as a logical connection between the I-95/I-91 interchange and Route 10 would make sense IMHO.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3065956,-72.9527205,3a,15y,182.67h,89.7t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1soL6dhkRDJmPe3srTDcFVQQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

My guess is that the City of New Haven has worked with CTDOT to de-emphasize Route 34 along the frontage roads so that through-traffic (particularly trucks) use I-95 and Route 10 instead of going through downtown to get to Route 34 heading west toward Derby. Signage on I-95 approaching the Route 10 interchange would suggest this.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.2859394,-72.9263807,3a,75y,240.33h,80.7t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suomFLII1BMeyd34cD8-IAQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: dgolub on April 08, 2023, 07:47:07 AM
Quote from: 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

These all seem to be broken links.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: dgolub on April 08, 2023, 07:48:38 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on April 07, 2023, 11:26:20 AM
Quote from: mariethefoxy on April 07, 2023, 02:16:47 AM
I have a question with CT 34, does it still go all the way to I-95 on the service roads they built when they took out the little freeway spur in New Haven or was it truncated since the signs from 95 and 91 dont have 34 shields anymore.
I've never seen anything official from CTDOT about removing the Route 34 designation from the frontage roads in New Haven, and turning ownership of the frontage roads over to the City of New Haven. Looking at GSV imagery from November 2021, there appears to no longer be Route 34 signage on the frontage roads, but a sign at the intersection of Route 10 and Legion Avenue suggests that the Route 34 designation hasn't been officially removed from the frontage roads. My theory would be is that you still have the freeway stub that the frontage roads tie into at the bridge crossing the railyard, which is still--and will be--state maintained. Maintaining state ownership of the frontage roads as a logical connection between the I-95/I-91 interchange and Route 10 would make sense IMHO.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3065956,-72.9527205,3a,15y,182.67h,89.7t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1soL6dhkRDJmPe3srTDcFVQQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

My guess is that the City of New Haven has worked with CTDOT to de-emphasize Route 34 along the frontage roads so that through-traffic (particularly trucks) use I-95 and Route 10 instead of going through downtown to get to Route 34 heading west toward Derby. Signage on I-95 approaching the Route 10 interchange would suggest this.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.2859394,-72.9263807,3a,75y,240.33h,80.7t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suomFLII1BMeyd34cD8-IAQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

This.  The latest Highway Log still has the designation in there, but it's now (largely) unsigned.  We'll see if it's still there in the next publication of the Highway Log.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on April 08, 2023, 02:04:30 PM
Quote from: dgolub on April 08, 2023, 07:48:38 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on April 07, 2023, 11:26:20 AM
Quote from: mariethefoxy on April 07, 2023, 02:16:47 AM
I have a question with CT 34, does it still go all the way to I-95 on the service roads they built when they took out the little freeway spur in New Haven or was it truncated since the signs from 95 and 91 dont have 34 shields anymore.
I've never seen anything official from CTDOT about removing the Route 34 designation from the frontage roads in New Haven, and turning ownership of the frontage roads over to the City of New Haven. Looking at GSV imagery from November 2021, there appears to no longer be Route 34 signage on the frontage roads, but a sign at the intersection of Route 10 and Legion Avenue suggests that the Route 34 designation hasn't been officially removed from the frontage roads. My theory would be is that you still have the freeway stub that the frontage roads tie into at the bridge crossing the railyard, which is still--and will be--state maintained. Maintaining state ownership of the frontage roads as a logical connection between the I-95/I-91 interchange and Route 10 would make sense IMHO.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3065956,-72.9527205,3a,15y,182.67h,89.7t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1soL6dhkRDJmPe3srTDcFVQQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

My guess is that the City of New Haven has worked with CTDOT to de-emphasize Route 34 along the frontage roads so that through-traffic (particularly trucks) use I-95 and Route 10 instead of going through downtown to get to Route 34 heading west toward Derby. Signage on I-95 approaching the Route 10 interchange would suggest this.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.2859394,-72.9263807,3a,75y,240.33h,80.7t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suomFLII1BMeyd34cD8-IAQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

This.  The latest Highway Log still has the designation in there, but it's now (largely) unsigned.  We'll see if it's still there in the next publication of the Highway Log.

I'd expect an eventual SR number for that route. SR 706 could be extended east from the northern frontage road it's on now. (SR 734 is currently in use.) Or give it a new number, like SR 795, and enjoy the confusion when it gets the occasional "I-695" treatment that SR 695 gets in the news.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on April 10, 2023, 11:33:42 PM
Quote from: mariethefoxy on April 07, 2023, 02:16:47 AM
I have a question with CT 34, does it still go all the way to I-95 on the service roads they built when they took out the little freeway spur in New Haven or was it truncated since the signs from 95 and 91 dont have 34 shields anymore.
I believe the answer is 34 exists up to the west side of town and exists for the I-95 interchange, but no longer exists on the two one-way roads connecting those.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MASTERNC on April 11, 2023, 03:13:58 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on April 01, 2023, 08:42:27 PM
This was approved by the legislature over a year ago and had seemingly been quietly forgotten about since, but...

https://www.wtnh.com/news/connecticut/connecticut-dot-placing-cameras-in-construction-zones-to-crack-down-on-speeding/?fbclid=IwAR2Qo9Q4GT5qf1MaEPmxBkMoSBuzk4fV_4OiX7WfyTYs94C2cwEgdI3be3Y

Looks like Connecticut will be placing revenue generation cameras in a few freeway work zones after all.

I have to assume someone in a position of power got to nagging since I doubt ConnDOT actually wanted to do this, and the state police are on the record as being in opposition (because they see it as their jobs being automated away).

I'm not sure revenue is the primary motivation when the cameras won't ticket vehicles going less than 15 over the limit, and the first violation is a written warning.  If they ran the cameras 24/7 and gave out $40 tickets to any offender like Maryland, I would say otherwise.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Plutonic Panda on April 11, 2023, 08:43:29 PM
Quote from: MASTERNC on April 11, 2023, 03:13:58 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on April 01, 2023, 08:42:27 PM
This was approved by the legislature over a year ago and had seemingly been quietly forgotten about since, but...

https://www.wtnh.com/news/connecticut/connecticut-dot-placing-cameras-in-construction-zones-to-crack-down-on-speeding/?fbclid=IwAR2Qo9Q4GT5qf1MaEPmxBkMoSBuzk4fV_4OiX7WfyTYs94C2cwEgdI3be3Y

Looks like Connecticut will be placing revenue generation cameras in a few freeway work zones after all.

I have to assume someone in a position of power got to nagging since I doubt ConnDOT actually wanted to do this, and the state police are on the record as being in opposition (because they see it as their jobs being automated away).

I'm not sure revenue is the primary motivation when the cameras won't ticket vehicles going less than 15 over the limit, and the first violation is a written warning.  If they ran the cameras 24/7 and gave out $40 tickets to any offender like Maryland, I would say otherwise.
That only shows it isn't about safety and only about revenue generation. Automated traffic needs to be federally banned except for school and work zones.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on April 12, 2023, 11:09:49 AM
Quote from: MASTERNC on April 11, 2023, 03:13:58 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on April 01, 2023, 08:42:27 PM
This was approved by the legislature over a year ago and had seemingly been quietly forgotten about since, but...

https://www.wtnh.com/news/connecticut/connecticut-dot-placing-cameras-in-construction-zones-to-crack-down-on-speeding/?fbclid=IwAR2Qo9Q4GT5qf1MaEPmxBkMoSBuzk4fV_4OiX7WfyTYs94C2cwEgdI3be3Y

Looks like Connecticut will be placing revenue generation cameras in a few freeway work zones after all.

I have to assume someone in a position of power got to nagging since I doubt ConnDOT actually wanted to do this, and the state police are on the record as being in opposition (because they see it as their jobs being automated away).

I'm not sure revenue is the primary motivation when the cameras won't ticket vehicles going less than 15 over the limit, and the first violation is a written warning.  If they ran the cameras 24/7 and gave out $40 tickets to any offender like Maryland, I would say otherwise.
Maryland is ridiculous to enforce work zone speed limits even when no workers are present.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MASTERNC on April 13, 2023, 10:29:45 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 12, 2023, 11:09:49 AM
Quote from: MASTERNC on April 11, 2023, 03:13:58 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on April 01, 2023, 08:42:27 PM
This was approved by the legislature over a year ago and had seemingly been quietly forgotten about since, but...

https://www.wtnh.com/news/connecticut/connecticut-dot-placing-cameras-in-construction-zones-to-crack-down-on-speeding/?fbclid=IwAR2Qo9Q4GT5qf1MaEPmxBkMoSBuzk4fV_4OiX7WfyTYs94C2cwEgdI3be3Y

Looks like Connecticut will be placing revenue generation cameras in a few freeway work zones after all.

I have to assume someone in a position of power got to nagging since I doubt ConnDOT actually wanted to do this, and the state police are on the record as being in opposition (because they see it as their jobs being automated away).

I'm not sure revenue is the primary motivation when the cameras won't ticket vehicles going less than 15 over the limit, and the first violation is a written warning.  If they ran the cameras 24/7 and gave out $40 tickets to any offender like Maryland, I would say otherwise.
Maryland is ridiculous to enforce work zone speed limits even when no workers are present.

Delaware enforced 24/7 in a pilot program (using fixed cameras), and Pennsylvania's annual reports seem to advocate for enforcement when workers aren't present.  Hopefully that doesn't happen (or is very limited in scope).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on April 13, 2023, 01:11:32 PM
Quote from: MASTERNC on April 13, 2023, 10:29:45 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 12, 2023, 11:09:49 AM
Quote from: MASTERNC on April 11, 2023, 03:13:58 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on April 01, 2023, 08:42:27 PM
This was approved by the legislature over a year ago and had seemingly been quietly forgotten about since, but...

https://www.wtnh.com/news/connecticut/connecticut-dot-placing-cameras-in-construction-zones-to-crack-down-on-speeding/?fbclid=IwAR2Qo9Q4GT5qf1MaEPmxBkMoSBuzk4fV_4OiX7WfyTYs94C2cwEgdI3be3Y

Looks like Connecticut will be placing revenue generation cameras in a few freeway work zones after all.

I have to assume someone in a position of power got to nagging since I doubt ConnDOT actually wanted to do this, and the state police are on the record as being in opposition (because they see it as their jobs being automated away).

I'm not sure revenue is the primary motivation when the cameras won't ticket vehicles going less than 15 over the limit, and the first violation is a written warning.  If they ran the cameras 24/7 and gave out $40 tickets to any offender like Maryland, I would say otherwise.
Maryland is ridiculous to enforce work zone speed limits even when no workers are present.

Delaware enforced 24/7 in a pilot program (using fixed cameras), and Pennsylvania's annual reports seem to advocate for enforcement when workers aren't present.  Hopefully that doesn't happen (or is very limited in scope).
I mean, I guess the only time you would want 24/7 enforcement if there's narrow lanes or a significant lane shift.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on April 15, 2023, 03:22:30 AM
Connecticut is getting another Exit 89 and 91: https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/CTDOT-Press-Releases/2023/Replacement-of-Highway-Signs-along-Route-6-and-Interstate-384

Quote
The existing signs have exceeded their useful service life and are in need of replacement...

To be in conformance with Federal standards, exit numbers on I-384 are required to be revised from the existing sequential numbering to mileage-based numbering.  Additionally, mileage-based exit numbers will be added to U.S. Route 6 signs...

The design plans for the project are expected to be completed in the summer of 2023 with construction commencing in 2024.

I-384's exit numbers will be adjusted slightly. The US 6 freeway near Willimantic will get new exit numbers for CT 32 and CT 195 (exit 89 and 91), but not its termini (both at CT 66).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on April 15, 2023, 07:57:22 AM
Work is beginning to remove the stop sign from the on-ramp from CT-17 to CT-9 in Middletown:

https://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/construction-begins-to-upgrade-dangerous-route-9-on-ramp-in-middletown/3011626/
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on April 15, 2023, 08:56:58 AM
Quote from: kurumi on April 15, 2023, 03:22:30 AM
Connecticut is getting another Exit 89 and 91: https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/CTDOT-Press-Releases/2023/Replacement-of-Highway-Signs-along-Route-6-and-Interstate-384

Quote
The existing signs have exceeded their useful service life and are in need of replacement...

To be in conformance with Federal standards, exit numbers on I-384 are required to be revised from the existing sequential numbering to mileage-based numbering.  Additionally, mileage-based exit numbers will be added to U.S. Route 6 signs...

The design plans for the project are expected to be completed in the summer of 2023 with construction commencing in 2024.

I-384's exit numbers will be adjusted slightly. The US 6 freeway near Willimantic will get new exit numbers for CT 32 and CT 195 (exit 89 and 91), but not its termini (both at CT 66).

Nor will the western terminus of I-384 as it flows into I-84.  Yet, the western terminus of I-691 does as it does so similarly.  It's understandable that the 66 connections don't, as it's mainline US 6. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: bob7374 on April 15, 2023, 11:34:45 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on April 15, 2023, 08:56:58 AM
Quote from: kurumi on April 15, 2023, 03:22:30 AM
Connecticut is getting another Exit 89 and 91: https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/CTDOT-Press-Releases/2023/Replacement-of-Highway-Signs-along-Route-6-and-Interstate-384

Quote
The existing signs have exceeded their useful service life and are in need of replacement...

To be in conformance with Federal standards, exit numbers on I-384 are required to be revised from the existing sequential numbering to mileage-based numbering.  Additionally, mileage-based exit numbers will be added to U.S. Route 6 signs...

The design plans for the project are expected to be completed in the summer of 2023 with construction commencing in 2024.

I-384's exit numbers will be adjusted slightly. The US 6 freeway near Willimantic will get new exit numbers for CT 32 and CT 195 (exit 89 and 91), but not its termini (both at CT 66).

Nor will the western terminus of I-384 as it flows into I-84.  Yet, the western terminus of I-691 does as it does so similarly.  It's understandable that the 66 connections don't, as it's mainline US 6. 
Those who jumped to the FAQ link saw that the CT 15 exit renumbering that was to be advertised this summer is now not taking place until 2025. The FAQ also says the I-384 exit renumbering won't happen until 2026. I guess I shouldn't be surprised with that date even if, as the press release says, work is to start in 2024. After all, they do have signs to replace  for all of 7 exits.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on April 19, 2023, 11:45:40 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on March 29, 2023, 07:12:48 PM
Just realized CTDOT picked the worst week of the year to renumber I-691's exits.  Out of towners going to the Daffodil Festival at Hubbard Park on 4/29 and 4/30 are going to have fun when their GPS tells them to get off Exit 4, and they end up getting off the new exit 4.
Just looking at traffic cams this morning, and I see no sign of exit renumbering taking place yet on I-691. Has anyone been on I-691 within the past couple of weeks to confirm whether or not exit renumbering is actually taking place?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on April 19, 2023, 05:15:53 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on April 19, 2023, 11:45:40 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on March 29, 2023, 07:12:48 PM
Just realized CTDOT picked the worst week of the year to renumber I-691's exits.  Out of towners going to the Daffodil Festival at Hubbard Park on 4/29 and 4/30 are going to have fun when their GPS tells them to get off Exit 4, and they end up getting off the new exit 4.
Just looking at traffic cams this morning, and I see no sign of exit renumbering taking place yet on I-691. Has anyone been on I-691 within the past couple of weeks to confirm whether or not exit renumbering is actually taking place?

Was on it last week and saw nothing yet, except a VMS saying the conversion was starting 4/24. 
Lots of new foundations in espec on the west end for new signs, though no supports up yet.  We may see the numbers changed on the existing signs before the new signs appear. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on April 19, 2023, 09:01:29 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on April 19, 2023, 05:15:53 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on April 19, 2023, 11:45:40 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on March 29, 2023, 07:12:48 PM
Just realized CTDOT picked the worst week of the year to renumber I-691's exits.  Out of towners going to the Daffodil Festival at Hubbard Park on 4/29 and 4/30 are going to have fun when their GPS tells them to get off Exit 4, and they end up getting off the new exit 4.
Just looking at traffic cams this morning, and I see no sign of exit renumbering taking place yet on I-691. Has anyone been on I-691 within the past couple of weeks to confirm whether or not exit renumbering is actually taking place?

Was on it last week and saw nothing yet, except a VMS saying the conversion was starting 4/24. 
Lots of new foundations in espec on the west end for new signs, though no supports up yet.  We may see the numbers changed on the existing signs before the new signs appear.

Was on it tonight between current Exits 4 and 10.  No new OLD/NEW exit LGS's are even up yet, so I have a feeling the 4/24 date may be the date that they start erecting the LGS's, with the actual conversion taking place after that.  The only thing that was noticeable were the new light poles that are replacing the poles that have been there since the US 6A days, plus the east side has been resurfaced and is much smoother.  I also drove 72 West today and can confirm that there are mileposts from MP 0.4 to 1.4, then they suddenly stop.  Nothing eastbound yet.  Also, mileposts are up on 9 South all the way up to 84. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alex on April 20, 2023, 08:22:03 AM
Quote from: mariethefoxy on April 07, 2023, 02:16:47 AM
I have a question with CT 34, does it still go all the way to I-95 on the service roads they built when they took out the little freeway spur in New Haven or was it truncated since the signs from 95 and 91 dont have 34 shields anymore.

Took the freeway stub into New Haven last month and the only reference of Route 34 was a shield for a detour on an intersecting street for the service roads.

Would anyone be opposed if the Connecticut exit renumbering discussion moves onto a separate thread? Non exit number news/posts get lost in the numerous exit number updates.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: The Ghostbuster on April 20, 2023, 11:13:19 AM
If you think a separate thread for the Connecticut Exit Renumbering plan would be best, by all means create a new thread. After all, if the Massachusetts Exit Renumbering plan had its own thread, Connecticut's should have one too.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on April 20, 2023, 12:02:39 PM
A separate thread makes sense, especially since the ConnDOT is (like so many other things) hell-bent on dragging out the renumbering process for as long as possible.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on April 20, 2023, 12:31:11 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 20, 2023, 11:13:19 AM
If you think a separate thread for the Connecticut Exit Renumbering plan would be best, by all means create a new thread. After all, if the Massachusetts Exit Renumbering plan had its own thread, Connecticut's should have one too.
Concur.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: SectorZ on April 20, 2023, 02:50:27 PM
I fourth breaking out the exit numbering to its own thread, especially with Massachusetts having its own the standard exists.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on April 20, 2023, 04:43:09 PM
I support continuing the discussion of whether or not to split it here for a few more pages.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on April 20, 2023, 06:03:15 PM
I bet we set a new record in the number of pages/posts on a "CT EXIT RENUMBERING" thread. 
:-)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: The Ghostbuster on April 20, 2023, 06:08:21 PM
From now on, all commentary for the conversion of Connecticut's exits to mileage-based should be posted at this new thread: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=33198.0.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on April 21, 2023, 04:53:16 PM
I-95 Gold Star Bridge SB in New London is closed due to a massive fire that started on the bridge...

https://www.wfsb.com/2023/04/21/crash-vehicle-fire-closes-i-95-groton/

News reports were saying the bridge was rated in poor condition and that work was starting to rebuild it.  Well, that's the I-95NB span, as the I-95SB span was overhauled just a few years ago.  (And technically, I believe the I-95SB bridge is the Submarine Veterans Bridge now, but it'll always be the Gold Star Bridge!)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on April 21, 2023, 06:58:59 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on April 21, 2023, 04:53:16 PM
I-95 Gold Star Bridge SB in New London is closed due to a massive fire that started on the bridge...

https://www.wfsb.com/2023/04/21/crash-vehicle-fire-closes-i-95-groton/

News reports were saying the bridge was rated in poor condition and that work was starting to rebuild it.  Well, that's the I-95NB span, as the I-95SB span was overhauled just a few years ago.  (And technically, I believe the I-95SB bridge is the Submarine Veterans Bridge now, but it'll always be the Gold Star Bridge!)

I wonder what the alternate routes around the crash site will be. Perhaps CT-2A near Mohegan Sun?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: froggie on April 21, 2023, 07:19:08 PM
Northbound has since fully reopened.  Southbound reopened to 2 lanes (the far left lanes) within the past hour...TV coverage at 6:20pm showed it as still closed, but a nearby ConnDOT traffic cam shows 2 lanes getting by.

RE Ted's post:  CT 2A is the next upstream river crossing...traffic could simply take I-395 on the west side, but it's a PITA to get to on the east side.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: zzyzx on April 21, 2023, 10:45:42 PM
The I-95 Exit 74 Project Website is now online. They added a few more final rendering photos from ground level:

(https://i.imgur.com/O7ewefS.jpeg)

(https://i.imgur.com/QEFjptr.jpeg)

(https://i.imgur.com/iECkNUS.jpeg)

https://i-95eastlyme.com/construction-photos/final-project-renderings (https://i-95eastlyme.com/construction-photos/final-project-renderings)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on April 22, 2023, 09:33:19 PM
Quote from: MASTERNC on April 11, 2023, 03:13:58 PM
I'm not sure revenue is the primary motivation when the cameras won't ticket vehicles going less than 15 over the limit, and the first violation is a written warning.  If they ran the cameras 24/7 and gave out $40 tickets to any offender like Maryland, I would say otherwise.


Heh. I'm used to referring to them as "revenue generation cameras" simply by default since that is very much what they are for the majority of jurisdictions that employ them.

In CT's case you're correct that this is... less about revenue than typical. It's more about politics, specifically "traffic fatalities are up and we need to look like we're doing something about it". So they temporarily authorize a minimum program and place multiple restraints on it.

Still, it is worth noting that the regular flow of traffic in CT is frequently >15 mph over the posted limit (thanks to stupidly low northeastern speed limits), so that threshold isn't as generous as it sounds.

Quote from: mariethefoxy on April 07, 2023, 02:16:47 AM
I have a question with CT 34, does it still go all the way to I-95 on the service roads they built when they took out the little freeway spur in New Haven or was it truncated since the signs from 95 and 91 dont have 34 shields anymore.

To add to what was already mentioned: signs were removed east of CT 10 at the city of New Haven's request, to route thru traffic around downtown instead of through it.

It's worth noting however that no pavement has actually changed hands: the surface alignment between the end of the Oak St Connector and CT 10 was one of three cases in CT where a state route had a locally maintained section.

What remains of the connector is still inventoried as CT 34 even though not signed as such. In the past one might expect this to be converted to an SR, but there's been a trend in the 21st century of DOTs being lazy allowing exceptions to their numbering rules to creep into existence (see for example Montana primary, formerly secondary but they didn't change the number, route 323). The connector stub could well end up being an unsigned section of CT 34 indefinitely rather than being renumbered to SR 7XX like the rules say it should.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on April 29, 2023, 07:53:37 AM
A Connecticut icon has passed:

https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/thehour/name/stew-leonard-obituary?id=51755958

A road-related nugget was that his dairy farm was taken by eminent domain for a highway; perhaps US 7?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on April 29, 2023, 12:52:06 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on April 22, 2023, 09:33:19 PM
Quote from: MASTERNC on April 11, 2023, 03:13:58 PM
I'm not sure revenue is the primary motivation when the cameras won't ticket vehicles going less than 15 over the limit, and the first violation is a written warning.  If they ran the cameras 24/7 and gave out $40 tickets to any offender like Maryland, I would say otherwise.


Heh. I'm used to referring to them as "revenue generation cameras" simply by default since that is very much what they are for the majority of jurisdictions that employ them.

In CT's case you're correct that this is... less about revenue than typical. It's more about politics, specifically "traffic fatalities are up and we need to look like we're doing something about it". So they temporarily authorize a minimum program and place multiple restraints on it.

Still, it is worth noting that the regular flow of traffic in CT is frequently >15 mph over the posted limit (thanks to stupidly low northeastern speed limits), so that threshold isn't as generous as it sounds.

Quote from: mariethefoxy on April 07, 2023, 02:16:47 AM
I have a question with CT 34, does it still go all the way to I-95 on the service roads they built when they took out the little freeway spur in New Haven or was it truncated since the signs from 95 and 91 dont have 34 shields anymore.

To add to what was already mentioned: signs were removed east of CT 10 at the city of New Haven's request, to route thru traffic around downtown instead of through it.

It's worth noting however that no pavement has actually changed hands: the surface alignment between the end of the Oak St Connector and CT 10 was one of three cases in CT where a state route had a locally maintained section.

What remains of the connector is still inventoried as CT 34 even though not signed as such. In the past one might expect this to be converted to an SR, but there's been a trend in the 21st century of DOTs being lazy allowing exceptions to their numbering rules to creep into existence (see for example Montana primary, formerly secondary but they didn't change the number, route 323). The connector stub could well end up being an unsigned section of CT 34 indefinitely rather than being renumbered to SR 7XX like the rules say it should.
My suspicion is they will retain Route 34's designation in CTDOT's route logs for the section between Route 10 and the I-91/I-95 interchange, but it will be unsigned. Seems like the City of New Haven doesn't want through-traffic (particularly semis) going through downtown, but they also don't want to take over maintenance of the frontage roads either.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on April 29, 2023, 01:59:30 PM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on April 29, 2023, 07:53:37 AM
A Connecticut icon has passed:

https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/thehour/name/stew-leonard-obituary?id=51755958

A road-related nugget was that his dairy farm was taken by eminent domain for a highway; perhaps US 7?
That would be ironic since Stew's has a location on US 7 in Brookfield.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on April 29, 2023, 06:41:30 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on April 29, 2023, 01:59:30 PM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on April 29, 2023, 07:53:37 AM
A Connecticut icon has passed:

https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/thehour/name/stew-leonard-obituary?id=51755958

A road-related nugget was that his dairy farm was taken by eminent domain for a highway; perhaps US 7?
That would be ironic since Stew's has a location on US 7 in Brookfield.

It's actually in Danbury just south of the Brookfield line.  And it's the old Route 7 (SR 805) as US 7 is on the expressway.  The road becomes US 202 just north of there. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on May 05, 2023, 04:42:30 PM
They moved the traffic work zone cams to I-84 EB at Exit 13.

Should the photo enforced signs be yellow as they're essentially warning you of the speed cameras ahead?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on May 30, 2023, 04:16:30 PM
I-84 Signage
https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/CTDOT-Press-Releases/2023/Replacing-Highway-Signs-and-Supports-Along-I84-from-Manchester-to-Mass-State-Line

Also, the new on-ramp to the "CT-25 Expressway" has opened in Newtown.  lol  The I-84 Exit 11 revamp is almost complete.  Looks like the off-ramp will stay two-lanes to the Wasserman Way traffic light.  The on-ramp to the long ramps that were to be partof the CT-25 Expressway from CT-34 West is now open.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: The Ghostbuster on May 30, 2023, 04:55:08 PM
Will the new signs on Interstate 84 have the current sequential numbers, or will they have mileage-based numbers? I am betting on the former, even though they should really do the latter.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Great Lakes Roads on May 30, 2023, 05:46:28 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 30, 2023, 04:55:08 PM
Will the new signs on Interstate 84 have the current sequential numbers, or will they have mileage-based numbers? I am betting on the former, even though they should really do the latter.

They will still be sequential until 2028 when I-84's exit numbers will be converted into mile-based...
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on May 31, 2023, 08:37:27 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on May 05, 2023, 04:42:30 PM
They moved the traffic work zone cams to I-84 EB at Exit 13.

Should the photo enforced signs be yellow as they're essentially warning you of the speed cameras ahead?
I'm curious as to how much tolerance the new workzone speed cameras give you before they snap your picture.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: sharkyfour on May 31, 2023, 08:42:33 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on May 31, 2023, 08:37:27 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on May 05, 2023, 04:42:30 PM
They moved the traffic work zone cams to I-84 EB at Exit 13.

Should the photo enforced signs be yellow as they're essentially warning you of the speed cameras ahead?
I'm curious as to how much tolerance the new workzone speed cameras give you before they snap your picture.

According to the press release, you'd have to be going 15mph over the posted work zone speed limit (of at least 45mph).  https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/CTDOT-Press-Releases/2023/CTDOT-Launches-Work-Zone-Speed-Safety-Camera-Pilot-Program
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Rothman on May 31, 2023, 08:45:50 AM
Quote from: sharkyfour on May 31, 2023, 08:42:33 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on May 31, 2023, 08:37:27 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on May 05, 2023, 04:42:30 PM
They moved the traffic work zone cams to I-84 EB at Exit 13.

Should the photo enforced signs be yellow as they're essentially warning you of the speed cameras ahead?
I'm curious as to how much tolerance the new workzone speed cameras give you before they snap your picture.

According to the press release, you'd have to be going 15mph over the posted work zone speed limit (of at least 45mph).  https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/CTDOT-Press-Releases/2023/CTDOT-Launches-Work-Zone-Speed-Safety-Camera-Pilot-Program
In NY, the tolerance for the new photo enforcement program is 9 mph, so be careful...one pilot camera downstate sent out some absurd number of tickets (tens of thousands)...
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on June 03, 2023, 02:19:17 PM
A new combo-exit advance signage popped up on CT-8 NB in Waterbury.
Downtown Waterbury Exit 32 isn't open at the moment.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52947994074_be40c1bb3e_b.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on June 03, 2023, 03:28:13 PM
My guess is that this one replaces the one for I-84 only mounted on the overpass just ahead. 

Just checked the contract plans for the CT 8 exit renumbering & sign modification... this one is not included (but a similar one will be placed SB), so the NB one is probably part of the Mixmaster rehab project.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: DJStephens on June 03, 2023, 08:16:10 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on April 29, 2023, 01:59:30 PM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on April 29, 2023, 07:53:37 AM
A Connecticut icon has passed:

https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/thehour/name/stew-leonard-obituary?id=51755958

A road-related nugget was that his dairy farm was taken by eminent domain for a highway; perhaps US 7?
That would be ironic since Stew's has a location on US 7 in Brookfield.
The obituary mentions that the Diary Farm taken was "Clover Farms" in Norwalk.  Must have been for that short US 7 freeway grade section that extends northwards out of Norwalk.   
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on June 03, 2023, 10:02:37 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on April 29, 2023, 06:41:30 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on April 29, 2023, 01:59:30 PM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on April 29, 2023, 07:53:37 AM
A Connecticut icon has passed:

https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/thehour/name/stew-leonard-obituary?id=51755958

A road-related nugget was that his dairy farm was taken by eminent domain for a highway; perhaps US 7?
That would be ironic since Stew's has a location on US 7 in Brookfield.

It's actually in Danbury just south of the Brookfield line.  And it's the old Route 7 (SR 805) as US 7 is on the expressway.  The road becomes US 202 just north of there.

I meant that you can see the store from Route 7
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on June 03, 2023, 10:03:41 PM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on April 29, 2023, 07:53:37 AM
A Connecticut icon has passed:

https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/thehour/name/stew-leonard-obituary?id=51755958

A road-related nugget was that his dairy farm was taken by eminent domain for a highway; perhaps US 7?

Stew Leonard's is the Northeast's answer to Buc-ee's
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on June 03, 2023, 10:36:53 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 03, 2023, 10:03:41 PM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on April 29, 2023, 07:53:37 AM
A Connecticut icon has passed:

https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/thehour/name/stew-leonard-obituary?id=51755958

A road-related nugget was that his dairy farm was taken by eminent domain for a highway; perhaps US 7?

Stew Leonard's is the Northeast's answer to Buc-ee's
Comparing Stew Leonards to Buc-ee's is like comparing apples to oranges. Buc-ee's is more of a truck/travel stop on steriods that provides fuel, goods, and services for travelers, whereas Stew Leonards is more of giant farmers market. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Rothman on June 03, 2023, 10:40:49 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on June 03, 2023, 10:36:53 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 03, 2023, 10:03:41 PM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on April 29, 2023, 07:53:37 AM
A Connecticut icon has passed:

https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/thehour/name/stew-leonard-obituary?id=51755958

A road-related nugget was that his dairy farm was taken by eminent domain for a highway; perhaps US 7?

Stew Leonard's is the Northeast's answer to Buc-ee's
Comparing Stew Leonards to Buc-ee's is like comparing apples to oranges. Buc-ee's is more of a truck/travel stop on steriods that provides fuel, goods, and services for travelers, whereas Stew Leonards is more of giant farmers market.
^This.  Stew Leonard's is a supermarket...
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on June 04, 2023, 11:03:53 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on June 03, 2023, 10:36:53 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 03, 2023, 10:03:41 PM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on April 29, 2023, 07:53:37 AM
A Connecticut icon has passed:

https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/thehour/name/stew-leonard-obituary?id=51755958

A road-related nugget was that his dairy farm was taken by eminent domain for a highway; perhaps US 7?

Stew Leonard's is the Northeast's answer to Buc-ee's
Comparing Stew Leonards to Buc-ee's is like comparing apples to oranges. Buc-ee's is more of a truck/travel stop on steriods that provides fuel, goods, and services for travelers, whereas Stew Leonards is more of giant farmers market.

They're both quirky regional supermarket chains with extremely loyal followings
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Rothman on June 04, 2023, 11:39:33 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 04, 2023, 11:03:53 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on June 03, 2023, 10:36:53 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 03, 2023, 10:03:41 PM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on April 29, 2023, 07:53:37 AM
A Connecticut icon has passed:

https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/thehour/name/stew-leonard-obituary?id=51755958

A road-related nugget was that his dairy farm was taken by eminent domain for a highway; perhaps US 7?

Stew Leonard's is the Northeast's answer to Buc-ee's
Comparing Stew Leonards to Buc-ee's is like comparing apples to oranges. Buc-ee's is more of a truck/travel stop on steriods that provides fuel, goods, and services for travelers, whereas Stew Leonards is more of giant farmers market.

They're both quirky regional supermarket chains with extremely loyal followings
Buc-ee's is not a supermarket.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on June 05, 2023, 08:45:32 AM
Quote from: Rothman on June 04, 2023, 11:39:33 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 04, 2023, 11:03:53 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on June 03, 2023, 10:36:53 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 03, 2023, 10:03:41 PM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on April 29, 2023, 07:53:37 AM
A Connecticut icon has passed:

https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/thehour/name/stew-leonard-obituary?id=51755958

A road-related nugget was that his dairy farm was taken by eminent domain for a highway; perhaps US 7?

Stew Leonard's is the Northeast's answer to Buc-ee's
Comparing Stew Leonards to Buc-ee's is like comparing apples to oranges. Buc-ee's is more of a truck/travel stop on steriods that provides fuel, goods, and services for travelers, whereas Stew Leonards is more of giant farmers market.

They're both quirky regional supermarket chains with extremely loyal followings
Buc-ee's is not a supermarket.

Yeat it is. Its locations are bigger than the typical supermarket (https://www.jacksonville.com/story/business/real-estate/2017/10/12/buc-ee-s-bringing-texas-size-convenience-store-northeast-florida/15776376007/)

QuoteYou read that right: At 52,600 square feet, that's a little bigger than a typical Publix or Winn-Dixie and eight or nine times the size of what Gate, Daily's or Race Trac has been opening lately
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on June 05, 2023, 12:48:01 PM
Functionally, I wouldn't equate Buck-ee's to a supermarket.  Yes, it's big, but it's really more of a convenience store that's really large because "everything is bigger in Texas" or something like that.  Next time, try looking at function, not just size.  There's is a lot differentiating a convenience store from a supermarket other than square footage.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on June 05, 2023, 02:33:01 PM
ConnDOT has gone on an absolute tear reflectorizing guide rails, medians and parapets. I've noticed a whole bunch of them being put up on various highways.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on June 05, 2023, 03:50:41 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on June 05, 2023, 02:33:01 PM
ConnDOT has gone on an absolute tear reflectorizing guide rails, medians and parapets. I've noticed a whole bunch of them being put up on various highways.
No reflectors for lane markings in the roadways?  Do you have pics of what you've seen thus far?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: BamaZeus on June 05, 2023, 05:03:01 PM
Quote from: DJStephens on June 03, 2023, 08:16:10 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on April 29, 2023, 01:59:30 PM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on April 29, 2023, 07:53:37 AM
A Connecticut icon has passed:

https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/thehour/name/stew-leonard-obituary?id=51755958

A road-related nugget was that his dairy farm was taken by eminent domain for a highway; perhaps US 7?
That would be ironic since Stew's has a location on US 7 in Brookfield.
The obituary mentions that the Diary Farm taken was "Clover Farms" in Norwalk.  Must have been for that short US 7 freeway grade section that extends northwards out of Norwalk.   

The address for Clover Farms was on Catherine St. in Norwalk, kinda directly across the river from Riverside Cemetery.  There was about 300 feet worth of clearance between the end of the street and the river, before the highway was built.

I don't know if the animals were kept there or not, and can't tell from historic aerials, but Super 7 definitely took up a lot of Stew's land where the house/business were.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on June 05, 2023, 07:33:59 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 03, 2023, 10:40:49 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on June 03, 2023, 10:36:53 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 03, 2023, 10:03:41 PM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on April 29, 2023, 07:53:37 AM
A Connecticut icon has passed:

https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/thehour/name/stew-leonard-obituary?id=51755958

A road-related nugget was that his dairy farm was taken by eminent domain for a highway; perhaps US 7?

Stew Leonard's is the Northeast's answer to Buc-ee's
Comparing Stew Leonards to Buc-ee's is like comparing apples to oranges. Buc-ee's is more of a truck/travel stop on steriods that provides fuel, goods, and services for travelers, whereas Stew Leonards is more of giant farmers market.
^This.  Stew Leonard's is a supermarket...
Stew's was sorta a prototypical Wegmans, if Wegmans were laid out like Ikea.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on June 05, 2023, 07:36:55 PM
Quote from: Alps on June 05, 2023, 07:33:59 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 03, 2023, 10:40:49 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on June 03, 2023, 10:36:53 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 03, 2023, 10:03:41 PM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on April 29, 2023, 07:53:37 AM
A Connecticut icon has passed:

https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/thehour/name/stew-leonard-obituary?id=51755958

A road-related nugget was that his dairy farm was taken by eminent domain for a highway; perhaps US 7?

Stew Leonard's is the Northeast's answer to Buc-ee's
Comparing Stew Leonards to Buc-ee's is like comparing apples to oranges. Buc-ee's is more of a truck/travel stop on steriods that provides fuel, goods, and services for travelers, whereas Stew Leonards is more of giant farmers market.
^This.  Stew Leonard's is a supermarket...
Stew's was sorta a prototypical Wegmans, if Wegmans were laid out like Ikea.

And had mascots and interactive gags.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on June 05, 2023, 08:54:17 PM
Quote from: Alps on June 05, 2023, 07:33:59 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 03, 2023, 10:40:49 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on June 03, 2023, 10:36:53 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 03, 2023, 10:03:41 PM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on April 29, 2023, 07:53:37 AM
A Connecticut icon has passed:

https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/thehour/name/stew-leonard-obituary?id=51755958

A road-related nugget was that his dairy farm was taken by eminent domain for a highway; perhaps US 7?

Stew Leonard's is the Northeast's answer to Buc-ee's
Comparing Stew Leonards to Buc-ee's is like comparing apples to oranges. Buc-ee's is more of a truck/travel stop on steriods that provides fuel, goods, and services for travelers, whereas Stew Leonards is more of giant farmers market.
^This.  Stew Leonard's is a supermarket...
Stew's was sorta a prototypical Wegmans, if Wegmans were laid out like Ikea.

With a touch of Chuck E Cheese with the animatronics
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on June 05, 2023, 08:58:03 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on June 05, 2023, 08:54:17 PM
Quote from: Alps on June 05, 2023, 07:33:59 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 03, 2023, 10:40:49 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on June 03, 2023, 10:36:53 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 03, 2023, 10:03:41 PM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on April 29, 2023, 07:53:37 AM
A Connecticut icon has passed:

https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/thehour/name/stew-leonard-obituary?id=51755958

A road-related nugget was that his dairy farm was taken by eminent domain for a highway; perhaps US 7?

Stew Leonard's is the Northeast's answer to Buc-ee's
Comparing Stew Leonards to Buc-ee's is like comparing apples to oranges. Buc-ee's is more of a truck/travel stop on steriods that provides fuel, goods, and services for travelers, whereas Stew Leonards is more of giant farmers market.
^This.  Stew Leonard's is a supermarket...
Stew's was sorta a prototypical Wegmans, if Wegmans were laid out like Ikea.

With a touch of Chuck E Cheese with the animatronics
I guess Chuck E Cheese is now a supermarket.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: BamaZeus on June 06, 2023, 05:03:36 PM
I don't want any besmirching of the Farm Fresh Five on this forum :)

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on June 07, 2023, 10:56:02 PM
Looks like Connecticut towns are going to get to use speed and traffic light cameras:

https://ctmirror.org/2023/06/07/ct-red-light-cameras-senate-approves-local-option/
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on June 08, 2023, 10:44:33 AM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on June 07, 2023, 10:56:02 PM
Looks like Connecticut towns are going to get to use speed and traffic light cameras:

https://ctmirror.org/2023/06/07/ct-red-light-cameras-senate-approves-local-option/


Yep that came real fast. Earlier this year the DOT started a pilot program for speed enforcement in work zones and they're like it won't go farther than this. Now, I'm June here we are.
More money and ridiculous slow speed limits 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on June 08, 2023, 11:49:25 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on June 08, 2023, 10:44:33 AM
Yep that came real fast. Earlier this year the DOT started a pilot program for speed enforcement in work zones and they're like it won't go farther than this. Now, I'm June here we are.
More money and ridiculous slow speed limits 

They were discrete lobbying efforts, I believe.

In theory, the requirement for DOT review should keep things from getting too far out of hand.  (In CT, speed limits changes have to be blessed by ConnDOT.   My street has a 30mph speed limit.   The neighborhood campaigned to lower that due to some issues -- the street was a pre-European trail, and has issues with poor sightlines, no sidewalks, etc. -- but the town officials pointed out that because of the ConnDOT approval process and their current standards...if they submitted a speed limit change request, they would be obliged to increase the speed limit to 35 or 40.)    Even so, I think I'm going to like driving through West Hartford (a particularly car-unfriendly town) even less than I do already.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on June 08, 2023, 02:46:17 PM
“keep it movin’” is becoming less and less in CT. Think about it, every where you go there’s a lack of lanes, basic turn lanes or aux lanes (that other states put in w/o a 2nd thought), stoplights, crosswalks, stop signs, extremely low speed limits, passing zones that have been taken away, granny going 5 below the speed limit, etc.

I think there’s more aggression out there bc we can’t “keep it movin” as there’s always something slowing you down. You just want to drive at a good pace for a bit.

I drove from Bridgeport to Danbury today. It was brutal up CT-25. Then, you finally get to I-84 and you want to gun it a bit but you can’t bc it’s backed up.

  I’m def not saying drive aggressive or reckless but driving at a good pace can’t be done in this state. But CT-25 should be a boulevard 4-lane of like 50mph between Trumbull and Danbury (think of NJ-17 or US-46 in spots in NJ) instead it’s 35mph tops!

Now, it’ll be worse with these towns, they will jump at the red-light and speed cameras. I can see Westport, Wilton, West Hartford jumping on it.

ON A SIDE NOTE:
Why is adding lanes or continuity of lanes such a hard thing to grasp in this state?
The new I-84 Exit 11 used to merge into one lane then open up to a pair or turn lanes at the stoplight.  It’s since been widened to accommodate two lanes ALL THE WAY to the stoplight but it’s still goes down to one lane. Makes zero sense.

I’ve seen the DOT actually take away lanes on existing pavement.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on June 08, 2023, 09:38:16 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on June 08, 2023, 02:46:17 PM
"keep it movin'"  is becoming less and less in CT. Think about it, every where you go there's a lack of lanes, basic turn lanes or aux lanes (that other states put in w/o a 2nd thought), stoplights, crosswalks, stop signs, extremely low speed limits, passing zones that have been taken away, granny going 5 below the speed limit, etc.

I think there's more aggression out there bc we can't "keep it movin"  as there's always something slowing you down. You just want to drive at a good pace for a bit.

I drove from Bridgeport to Danbury today. It was brutal up CT-25. Then, you finally get to I-84 and you want to gun it a bit but you can't bc it's backed up.

  I'm def not saying drive aggressive or reckless but driving at a good pace can't be done in this state. But CT-25 should be a boulevard 4-lane of like 50mph between Trumbull and Danbury (think of NJ-17 or US-46 in spots in NJ) instead it's 35mph tops!

Now, it'll be worse with these towns, they will jump at the red-light and speed cameras. I can see Westport, Wilton, West Hartford jumping on it.

ON A SIDE NOTE:
Why is adding lanes or continuity of lanes such a hard thing to grasp in this state?
The new I-84 Exit 11 used to merge into one lane then open up to a pair or turn lanes at the stoplight.  It's since been widened to accommodate two lanes ALL THE WAY to the stoplight but it's still goes down to one lane. Makes zero sense.

I've seen the DOT actually take away lanes on existing pavement.
There are never going to be new lanes. What we have is what we have, and people just need to travel in off peak hours or be prepared to go really slow.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Plutonic Panda on June 08, 2023, 10:50:18 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on June 08, 2023, 09:38:16 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on June 08, 2023, 02:46:17 PM
"keep it movin'"  is becoming less and less in CT. Think about it, every where you go there's a lack of lanes, basic turn lanes or aux lanes (that other states put in w/o a 2nd thought), stoplights, crosswalks, stop signs, extremely low speed limits, passing zones that have been taken away, granny going 5 below the speed limit, etc.

I think there's more aggression out there bc we can't "keep it movin"  as there's always something slowing you down. You just want to drive at a good pace for a bit.

I drove from Bridgeport to Danbury today. It was brutal up CT-25. Then, you finally get to I-84 and you want to gun it a bit but you can't bc it's backed up.

  I'm def not saying drive aggressive or reckless but driving at a good pace can't be done in this state. But CT-25 should be a boulevard 4-lane of like 50mph between Trumbull and Danbury (think of NJ-17 or US-46 in spots in NJ) instead it's 35mph tops!

Now, it'll be worse with these towns, they will jump at the red-light and speed cameras. I can see Westport, Wilton, West Hartford jumping on it.

ON A SIDE NOTE:
Why is adding lanes or continuity of lanes such a hard thing to grasp in this state?
The new I-84 Exit 11 used to merge into one lane then open up to a pair or turn lanes at the stoplight.  It's since been widened to accommodate two lanes ALL THE WAY to the stoplight but it's still goes down to one lane. Makes zero sense.

I've seen the DOT actually take away lanes on existing pavement.
There are never going to be new lanes. What we have is what we have, and people just need to travel in off peak hours or be prepared to go really slow.
That's a very sad state if true.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on June 09, 2023, 12:06:14 AM
This state is slow in passing or improving anything, unless it's a new revenue generating tool like a tax or an automated road pirate device.  The roads are 1950's infrastructure at best, with speed limits that were set in the 1970's when cars had inferior technology compared to today's standards.  There are many main roads in my town with a draconian 25 MPH speed limit that are straight and could easily support a 35 or 40 MPH limit; this includes state roads.  And intersections are so antiquated with no turn lanes that if one car gets too far to the right to make a left hand turn, the intersection will back up for over a half a mile.  But yeah, let's collect that dough on those ridiculously low speed limits and people getting caught in intersections trying to make impossible turns due to no arrows or lanes and do nothing about it.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on June 09, 2023, 08:42:22 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on June 09, 2023, 12:06:14 AM
This state is slow in passing or improving anything, unless it's a new revenue generating tool like a tax or an automated road pirate device.  The roads are 1950's infrastructure at best, with speed limits that were set in the 1970's when cars had inferior technology compared to today's standards.  There are many main roads in my town with a draconian 25 MPH speed limit that are straight and could easily support a 35 or 40 MPH limit; this includes state roads.  And intersections are so antiquated with no turn lanes that if one car gets too far to the right to make a left hand turn, the intersection will back up for over a half a mile.  But yeah, let's collect that dough on those ridiculously low speed limits and people getting caught in intersections trying to make impossible turns due to no arrows or lanes and do nothing about it.
The thing is they're not collecting dough on ridiculously low speed limits. The state does very little traffic enforcement. Almost none outside of the major holidays really.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on June 10, 2023, 12:42:19 AM
I find this hilarious: ConnDOT's headquarters is in the path of what was supposed to be the Southwest Portion of I-291

(https://i.imgur.com/rChEWjJ.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/csis0q6.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on June 10, 2023, 05:20:54 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 10, 2023, 12:42:19 AM
I find this hilarious: ConnDOT's headquarters is in the path of what was supposed to be the Southwest Portion of I-291

(https://i.imgur.com/rChEWjJ.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/csis0q6.jpg)
CTDOT needed a new HQ, and they had land for a highway that would never get built. So why not?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on June 11, 2023, 05:24:59 PM
Drove I-691 West today... caught some of the new signs that are up:

MP 0.0:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52967409014_d0efcd768a_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2oGxPkU)DSC04306 (https://flic.kr/p/2oGxPkU) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

I'm guessing this was meant to be put up EB... as this exit indirectly accesses CT 71 via Lewis Ave:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52967408959_bbff939f37_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2oGxPjX)DSC04307 (https://flic.kr/p/2oGxPjX) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

New Exit 5 (former Exit 4)... the overhead has yet to come down:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52966669422_904d7a3e08_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2oGu2uj)DSC04308 (https://flic.kr/p/2oGu2uj) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

Saw a couple new signs EB (including the god-aweful change of former Exit 7 to "Meriden" and former Exit 8 to "US 5/Downtown Meriden".  Didn't get pics, as I ended up returning via an alternate route to avoid most of I-84. 

The surface of I-691 is still very very rough.... I thought that project would've been done by now, or at least the first coat of new asphalt down... but no.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on June 11, 2023, 10:20:14 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on June 11, 2023, 05:24:59 PM
Drove I-691 West today... caught some of the new signs that are up:

MP 0.0:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52967409014_d0efcd768a_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2oGxPkU)DSC04306 (https://flic.kr/p/2oGxPkU) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

I'm guessing this was meant to be put up EB... as this exit indirectly accesses CT 71 via Lewis Ave:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52967408959_bbff939f37_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2oGxPjX)DSC04307 (https://flic.kr/p/2oGxPjX) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

New Exit 5 (former Exit 4)... the overhead has yet to come down:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52966669422_904d7a3e08_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2oGu2uj)DSC04308 (https://flic.kr/p/2oGu2uj) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

Saw a couple new signs EB (including the god-aweful change of former Exit 7 to "Meriden" and former Exit 8 to "US 5/Downtown Meriden".  Didn't get pics, as I ended up returning via an alternate route to avoid most of I-84. 

The surface of I-691 is still very very rough.... I thought that project would've been done by now, or at least the first coat of new asphalt down... but no.
Once again you can see the inconsistency with the state highway shields from one sign replacement project to the next. CTDOT needs to settle on a standard design for the state highway shield and stop flip-flopping between the thick black border, thin black border, and no border.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on June 12, 2023, 07:26:32 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on June 11, 2023, 10:20:14 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on June 11, 2023, 05:24:59 PM
Drove I-691 West today... caught some of the new signs that are up:

MP 0.0:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52967409014_d0efcd768a_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2oGxPkU)DSC04306 (https://flic.kr/p/2oGxPkU) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

I'm guessing this was meant to be put up EB... as this exit indirectly accesses CT 71 via Lewis Ave:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52967408959_bbff939f37_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2oGxPjX)DSC04307 (https://flic.kr/p/2oGxPjX) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

New Exit 5 (former Exit 4)... the overhead has yet to come down:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52966669422_904d7a3e08_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2oGu2uj)DSC04308 (https://flic.kr/p/2oGu2uj) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

Saw a couple new signs EB (including the god-aweful change of former Exit 7 to "Meriden" and former Exit 8 to "US 5/Downtown Meriden".  Didn't get pics, as I ended up returning via an alternate route to avoid most of I-84. 

The surface of I-691 is still very very rough.... I thought that project would've been done by now, or at least the first coat of new asphalt down... but no.
Once again you can see the inconsistency with the state highway shields from one sign replacement project to the next. CTDOT needs to settle on a standard design for the state highway shield and stop flip-flopping between the thick black border, thin black border, and no border.

I prefer the thick black border, but wonder why there is so much inconsistency.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on June 12, 2023, 09:35:59 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on June 11, 2023, 05:24:59 PM


The surface of I-691 is still very very rough.... I thought that project would've been done by now, or at least the first coat of new asphalt down... but no.
They did this on I-84 through Newtown a couple of years ago, but I don't get why CTDOT is now placing a new overlay of asphalt, then cutting out and refilling the damaged concrete sections.

Previously, CTDOT would mill out all of the old asphalt down to the underlying concrete surface, then make repairs to the concrete before placing new asphalt. Seems like a waste to place new asphalt then cut out and replace concrete sections and place more asphalt on top of that.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: SectorZ on June 12, 2023, 10:08:56 AM
Regarding the 691 posts above, why does CT use Helvetica for some 3DI shields? Happens to 384 on signs on 84 E/B as well.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on June 12, 2023, 11:06:07 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on June 12, 2023, 10:08:56 AM
Regarding the 691 posts above, why does CT use Helvetica for some 3DI shields? Happens to 384 on signs on 84 E/B as well.

Must've been a late 80's thing.  Both highways were signed as such between 1984 and 1988.  Plus the Helvetica shields are state shields, which is rare to see on a BGS in CT.  Just be thankful CTDOT shunned Clearview and relegated it to street blades only.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on June 12, 2023, 12:21:05 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on June 12, 2023, 11:06:07 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on June 12, 2023, 10:08:56 AM
Regarding the 691 posts above, why does CT use Helvetica for some 3DI shields? Happens to 384 on signs on 84 E/B as well.

Must've been a late 80's thing.  Both highways were signed as such between 1984 and 1988.  Plus the Helvetica shields are state shields, which is rare to see on a BGS in CT.  Just be thankful CTDOT shunned Clearview and relegated it to street blades only.
They used some weird fonts on highway signage in CT in the late 80s and 90s.  The exit signs on Route 8 through The Valley used some really strange font that was far from anything standard, but those sings are long gone. The one on Route 8 NB at Exit 18 was still there as recently as August 2017.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3373521,-73.0921788,3a,75y,333.29h,78.56t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s-kRhXxWcjH8wrBCccErWqA!2e0!5s20170801T000000!7i13312!8i6656?entry=ttu
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RyanB06 on June 12, 2023, 02:00:31 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on June 12, 2023, 12:21:05 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on June 12, 2023, 11:06:07 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on June 12, 2023, 10:08:56 AM
Regarding the 691 posts above, why does CT use Helvetica for some 3DI shields? Happens to 384 on signs on 84 E/B as well.

Must've been a late 80's thing.  Both highways were signed as such between 1984 and 1988.  Plus the Helvetica shields are state shields, which is rare to see on a BGS in CT.  Just be thankful CTDOT shunned Clearview and relegated it to street blades only.
They used some weird fonts on highway signage in CT in the late 80s and 90s.  The exit signs on Route 8 through The Valley used some really strange font that was far from anything standard, but those sings are long gone. The one on Route 8 NB at Exit 18 was still there as recently as August 2017.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3373521,-73.0921788,3a,75y,333.29h,78.56t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s-kRhXxWcjH8wrBCccErWqA!2e0!5s20170801T000000!7i13312!8i6656?entry=ttu
That's definitely more Helvetica. There is a similar sign on I-691 East at the Route 322 exit (probably isn't there anymore after the renumbering...meh).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on June 12, 2023, 07:31:07 PM
The 80s and 90s appear to be the last time that the state actually cared about improving its road infrastructure.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on June 12, 2023, 08:41:30 PM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on June 12, 2023, 07:26:32 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on June 11, 2023, 10:20:14 PM
Once again you can see the inconsistency with the state highway shields from one sign replacement project to the next. CTDOT needs to settle on a standard design for the state highway shield and stop flip-flopping between the thick black border, thin black border, and no border.

I prefer the thick black border, but wonder why there is so much inconsistency.
On a standalone shield, I also prefer the thick black border. On a guide sign you can't do that - green is a dark color so has to directly border white to meet the MUTCD. In which case I would just want to see a white square. No thin black borders - this is Connecticut, not mAss.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on June 14, 2023, 01:04:49 AM
Another I-691 replacement. The exit does take you directly to Preston Ave.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52973741045_2b4bb78bcf_c.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on June 14, 2023, 01:53:34 AM
I get it: they're trying to match the westbound exit, in which the ramp itself becomes East Main St.  But the bulk of eastbound traffic for East Main would have exited at 1B (old 10) and taken CT 15 Exit 67W to get to East Main.  The only portion of East Main this exit would best serve would be the area east of Research Parkway, which is less densely populated with retail establishments (the Wonder store is long gone but Huxley's is still there).  My thoughts: 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on June 14, 2023, 02:59:36 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on June 12, 2023, 09:35:59 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on June 11, 2023, 05:24:59 PM


The surface of I-691 is still very very rough.... I thought that project would've been done by now, or at least the first coat of new asphalt down... but no.
They did this on I-84 through Newtown a couple of years ago, but I don't get why CTDOT is now placing a new overlay of asphalt, then cutting out and refilling the damaged concrete sections.

Previously, CTDOT would mill out all of the old asphalt down to the underlying concrete surface, then make repairs to the concrete before placing new asphalt. Seems like a waste to place new asphalt then cut out and replace concrete sections and place more asphalt on top of that.
They are still doing this. They did it for the I-91 Exit 29 project. They're doing it for the CT 2 East Hartford rehab and for the I-84 WeHa rehab/aux lane add.
I wonder if it costs them less to do it like it is on I-691.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: zzyzx on June 14, 2023, 05:18:35 PM
The new work zone speed cameras are catching thousands of drivers violating the speed limit.

According to https://i-95eastlyme.com/ (https://i-95eastlyme.com/), CTDOT has issued over 1,500 speed violations per day along Exit 74 along I-95 in East Lyme:

QuoteBeginning on June 5th, the Connecticut Department of Transportation (CTDOT) implemented speed safety cameras in East Lyme. The system uses radar to identify vehicles traveling 15 mph or above the posted work zone speed limit. Cameras then capture a series of images of these vehicles, with the rear license plates used to identify registered owners.  If the information captured by the speed safety systems is determined to be accurate, a warning or citations will be mailed to the registered owners of the vehicle captured by the systems. First offenses will result in a written warning with no fine. Second offenses will result in a $75 fine, and every offense after that will result in a $150 fine.

Since this pilot program has begun in East Lyme, CTDOT has issued over 1,500 speed violations per day. Our Smart Work Zone cameras also monitor speed - those averages fluctuate from 65 mph - 80 mph through the work zone when the speed should be 50 mph. Please pay attention to the speed limit signs.

We are encouraging all who drive on Connecticut roadways to know the zone by being aware of work zones and how to travel through them safely. At first sight of orange, drivers should be more alert, slow down, and follow posted speed limits and work zone instructions. Drivers also need to be aware of emergency responders on the roadway and follow the state's Move Over Law. When approaching emergency responders, drivers must slow down and change lanes. 

The program has issued many tickets this past week. For the safety of everyone, please SLOW DOWN FOR WORK ZONES.

Also, the website has new renderings and aerial photos of the construction progress as of May: https://i-95eastlyme.com/the-project/completed-project-visual-sliders (https://i-95eastlyme.com/the-project/completed-project-visual-sliders)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: zzcarp on June 15, 2023, 11:31:46 AM
Quote from: zzyzx on June 14, 2023, 05:18:35 PM
The new work zone speed cameras are catching thousands of drivers violating the speed limit.

According to https://i-95eastlyme.com/ (https://i-95eastlyme.com/), CTDOT has issued over 1,500 speed violations per day along Exit 74 along I-95 in East Lyme:

QuoteBeginning on June 5th, the Connecticut Department of Transportation (CTDOT) implemented speed safety cameras in East Lyme. The system uses radar to identify vehicles traveling 15 mph or above the posted work zone speed limit. Cameras then capture a series of images of these vehicles, with the rear license plates used to identify registered owners.  If the information captured by the speed safety systems is determined to be accurate, a warning or citations will be mailed to the registered owners of the vehicle captured by the systems. First offenses will result in a written warning with no fine. Second offenses will result in a $75 fine, and every offense after that will result in a $150 fine.

Since this pilot program has begun in East Lyme, CTDOT has issued over 1,500 speed violations per day. Our Smart Work Zone cameras also monitor speed - those averages fluctuate from 65 mph - 80 mph through the work zone when the speed should be 50 mph. Please pay attention to the speed limit signs.

We are encouraging all who drive on Connecticut roadways to know the zone by being aware of work zones and how to travel through them safely. At first sight of orange, drivers should be more alert, slow down, and follow posted speed limits and work zone instructions. Drivers also need to be aware of emergency responders on the roadway and follow the state's Move Over Law. When approaching emergency responders, drivers must slow down and change lanes. 

The program has issued many tickets this past week. For the safety of everyone, please SLOW DOWN FOR WORK ZONES.

Also, the website has new renderings and aerial photos of the construction progress as of May: https://i-95eastlyme.com/the-project/completed-project-visual-sliders (https://i-95eastlyme.com/the-project/completed-project-visual-sliders)

When this happens, I wonder if the 50mph limit is posted too low. Seems like 55 or 60 may be appropriate or possibly even 65 if people are able to go as fast as an 80 mph average.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on June 15, 2023, 04:09:29 PM
It's time for another edition of Spot the Differences:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52977328944_ed7b1286b4.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on June 15, 2023, 04:40:46 PM
Quote from: zzcarp on June 15, 2023, 11:31:46 AM
Quote from: zzyzx on June 14, 2023, 05:18:35 PM
The new work zone speed cameras are catching thousands of drivers violating the speed limit.

According to https://i-95eastlyme.com/ (https://i-95eastlyme.com/), CTDOT has issued over 1,500 speed violations per day along Exit 74 along I-95 in East Lyme:

QuoteBeginning on June 5th, the Connecticut Department of Transportation (CTDOT) implemented speed safety cameras in East Lyme. The system uses radar to identify vehicles traveling 15 mph or above the posted work zone speed limit. Cameras then capture a series of images of these vehicles, with the rear license plates used to identify registered owners.  If the information captured by the speed safety systems is determined to be accurate, a warning or citations will be mailed to the registered owners of the vehicle captured by the systems. First offenses will result in a written warning with no fine. Second offenses will result in a $75 fine, and every offense after that will result in a $150 fine.

Since this pilot program has begun in East Lyme, CTDOT has issued over 1,500 speed violations per day. Our Smart Work Zone cameras also monitor speed - those averages fluctuate from 65 mph - 80 mph through the work zone when the speed should be 50 mph. Please pay attention to the speed limit signs.

We are encouraging all who drive on Connecticut roadways to know the zone by being aware of work zones and how to travel through them safely. At first sight of orange, drivers should be more alert, slow down, and follow posted speed limits and work zone instructions. Drivers also need to be aware of emergency responders on the roadway and follow the state's Move Over Law. When approaching emergency responders, drivers must slow down and change lanes. 

The program has issued many tickets this past week. For the safety of everyone, please SLOW DOWN FOR WORK ZONES.

Also, the website has new renderings and aerial photos of the construction progress as of May: https://i-95eastlyme.com/the-project/completed-project-visual-sliders (https://i-95eastlyme.com/the-project/completed-project-visual-sliders)

When this happens, I wonder if the 50mph limit is posted too low. Seems like 55 or 60 may be appropriate or possibly even 65 if people are able to go as fast as an 80 mph average.

Its a work zone.  People are just going way too fast.  Always have through that stretch of I-95.  I drove through there last week and slowed down to 55 with cars riding my ass and flying past me... and this was at 7am. 

Maybe some rumble strips would help that go across the pavement, like some states did approaching toll plazas.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Rothman on June 15, 2023, 04:42:59 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on June 15, 2023, 04:40:46 PM
Quote from: zzcarp on June 15, 2023, 11:31:46 AM
Quote from: zzyzx on June 14, 2023, 05:18:35 PM
The new work zone speed cameras are catching thousands of drivers violating the speed limit.

According to https://i-95eastlyme.com/ (https://i-95eastlyme.com/), CTDOT has issued over 1,500 speed violations per day along Exit 74 along I-95 in East Lyme:

QuoteBeginning on June 5th, the Connecticut Department of Transportation (CTDOT) implemented speed safety cameras in East Lyme. The system uses radar to identify vehicles traveling 15 mph or above the posted work zone speed limit. Cameras then capture a series of images of these vehicles, with the rear license plates used to identify registered owners.  If the information captured by the speed safety systems is determined to be accurate, a warning or citations will be mailed to the registered owners of the vehicle captured by the systems. First offenses will result in a written warning with no fine. Second offenses will result in a $75 fine, and every offense after that will result in a $150 fine.

Since this pilot program has begun in East Lyme, CTDOT has issued over 1,500 speed violations per day. Our Smart Work Zone cameras also monitor speed - those averages fluctuate from 65 mph - 80 mph through the work zone when the speed should be 50 mph. Please pay attention to the speed limit signs.

We are encouraging all who drive on Connecticut roadways to know the zone by being aware of work zones and how to travel through them safely. At first sight of orange, drivers should be more alert, slow down, and follow posted speed limits and work zone instructions. Drivers also need to be aware of emergency responders on the roadway and follow the state's Move Over Law. When approaching emergency responders, drivers must slow down and change lanes. 

The program has issued many tickets this past week. For the safety of everyone, please SLOW DOWN FOR WORK ZONES.

Also, the website has new renderings and aerial photos of the construction progress as of May: https://i-95eastlyme.com/the-project/completed-project-visual-sliders (https://i-95eastlyme.com/the-project/completed-project-visual-sliders)

When this happens, I wonder if the 50mph limit is posted too low. Seems like 55 or 60 may be appropriate or possibly even 65 if people are able to go as fast as an 80 mph average.

Its a work zone.  People are just going way too fast.  Always have through that stretch of I-95.  I drove through there last week and slowed down to 55 with cars riding my ass and flying past me... and this was at 7am. 

Maybe some rumble strips would help that go across the pavement, like some states did approaching toll plazas.

Photo enforcement...
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: zzcarp on June 15, 2023, 05:01:42 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on June 15, 2023, 04:40:46 PM
Quote from: zzcarp on June 15, 2023, 11:31:46 AM

When this happens, I wonder if the 50mph limit is posted too low. Seems like 55 or 60 may be appropriate or possibly even 65 if people are able to go as fast as an 80 mph average.

Its a work zone.  People are just going way too fast.  Always have through that stretch of I-95.  I drove through there last week and slowed down to 55 with cars riding my ass and flying past me... and this was at 7am. 

Maybe some rumble strips would help that go across the pavement, like some states did approaching toll plazas.

I get that it's a work zone. But you proved my point. It's posted at 50 in this work zone. I assume you were driving safely; it's possible the cars flying past you may have been driving safely as well. Yet you were speeding at 55. So it seems the zone should be posted at least at 55, possibly faster.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on June 15, 2023, 06:50:58 PM
I-691 EB Exit 2B (Old Exit 7), Downtown Meriden is just Meriden now. Notice, this sign isn't even demountable copy, it's adhesive now.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52976858517_ee19bcdecc_c.jpg)

The new signs overall seem pretty well designed.  The ramp signs have huge I-691 numbers like they did in the early 2000s. Even though, CT-322 has a thin black border, design wise it looks pretty good.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52973741045_2b4bb78bcf_c.jpg)

I did notice some dates, so the original demountable copy signs on I-691 between I-84 and Exit 4 have a date on them of 1985.  That surprised me as CT was def doing reflective button copy by that time.  Even as early as 1984 according to the date on the CT-78 gore sign on CT-2 which is button copy.

Other demountable copy signs were on CT-25 with dates of 1981 or 1982 on the back.

I'm guessing the I-691 signs just took that long to put up as the expressway didn't open until 1987-1988 or so?
The section between I-84 and Exit 4 used to be concrete until recently as well.

I also noticed, they're replacing the Amtrak BGS that was just installed just before Covid.  And, whatever happened to the BYS on CT-66 that said "EXPRESSWAY AHEAD?"  It's been gone for awhile now.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RyanB06 on June 15, 2023, 06:58:59 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on June 15, 2023, 04:09:29 PM
It's time for another edition of Spot the Differences:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52977328944_ed7b1286b4.jpg)
So they bagged one section of Southington for another one further away. At least they didn't substitute "Southington" for "Milldale" outright.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on June 15, 2023, 07:49:19 PM
Quote from: RyanB06 on June 15, 2023, 06:58:59 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on June 15, 2023, 04:09:29 PM
It's time for another edition of Spot the Differences:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52977328944_ed7b1286b4.jpg)
So they bagged one section of Southington for another one further away. At least they didn't substitute "Southington" for "Milldale" outright.

Well, then they'd have to do "Downtown Southington"  like they did EB for Meriden and Downtown Meriden because they already used Southington at Exit 5. :)

Milldale was used more for the convenience of truckers, since there are many warehouses in the area truckers frequent, as well as the TA Truck stop on CT 322 which refers to itself being in Milldale, not Southington.  Since there is no direct access to CT 322 at the I-84 junction, it was a welcome guide.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on June 15, 2023, 10:12:42 PM
One more from I-691 EB.  Broad St is now Downtown Meriden.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52977114447_1815eef0c3_c.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on June 18, 2023, 06:56:03 PM
One more I-691 sign pic:
It used to say Lewis Ave TO CT-71.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52979395163_044b5a0fe1_c.jpg)

New I-84 overheads are up as well.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on June 18, 2023, 07:10:24 PM
I sense something is afoot....
Here I present one gantry... two views... I-84 westbound and eastbound at Exit 53 in East Hartford.  Note the signs appear new, but their backs reveal otherwise. 


(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52984377496_3dbf586d0b_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2oJ3MtW)DSC04329 (https://flic.kr/p/2oJ3MtW) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr


(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52984376451_996b781000_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2oJ3MaV)84EB-Exit53 (https://flic.kr/p/2oJ3MaV) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr



So what's going on here?  Are these temporary overlays over the existing signs?  The gantry is supposed to be replaced (at least according to the contract plans).  So, why bother going through the trouble to do temporary overlays?  And please, tell me, this is not the latest round of ConnDOT cost savings... "Hey!  We can make every sign out of sheet aluminum, even the exit signs, and just staple them to whatever sign is there already!"


Also, travelled Route 2 from East Hartford down to Colchester, along with all of Route 11.  Outside of some new mile markers and some covered-over gore signs, there isn't anything new to speak of.  Seems like most activity is still concentrating east of Colchester (for now).  On Route 11, just the sheets are replaced, mostly.  No new extrudeds yet, except onramp signage.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on June 18, 2023, 07:15:34 PM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on June 12, 2023, 07:31:07 PM
The 80s and 90s appear to be the last time that the state actually cared about improving its road infrastructure.
Following the Mianus River Bridge collapse in 1983, Connecticut cancelled several proposed highway projects (I-291, I-491, I-84 extension toward Providence, and others) and used the freed-up funds to pay for a major highway and bridge rehabilitation program that ran through the remainder of the '80s and '90s. That money dried up in the early 2000s, and so Connecticut is back to scrounging the couch cushions for any funds they can find to pay to maintain what they have.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on June 18, 2023, 09:55:34 PM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on June 12, 2023, 07:31:07 PM
The 80s and 90s appear to be the last time that the state actually cared about improving its road infrastructure.

Traffic was growing rapidly in the 80s and 90s. It's been flat since the mid 2000s.

But that being said, it's absolutely not true that there have been *no* improvements. US 7 in Northern Ridgefield got widened to 4 lanes (I watched the construction project when I was a young child), Brookfield got a freeway bypass, The Quinnipiac River bridge in New Haven was widened to 10 lanes, auxiliary lanes were added to 95 between Stamford and Norwalk, and most recently, I-84 in Waterbury was widened to 6 lanes.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on June 19, 2023, 06:28:34 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 18, 2023, 09:55:34 PM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on June 12, 2023, 07:31:07 PM
The 80s and 90s appear to be the last time that the state actually cared about improving its road infrastructure.

Traffic was growing rapidly in the 80s and 90s. It's been flat since the mid 2000s.

But that being said, it's absolutely not true that there have been *no* improvements. US 7 in Northern Ridgefield got widened to 4 lanes (I watched the construction project when I was a young child), Brookfield got a freeway bypass, The Quinnipiac River bridge in New Haven was widened to 10 lanes, auxiliary lanes were added to 95 between Stamford and Norwalk, and most recently, I-84 in Waterbury was widened to 6 lanes.

There have certainly been improvements. But the state keeps stumbling on many bigger picture items, such as I-95 between New Haven and the RI birderm and I-84 in Hartford and Danbury.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on June 19, 2023, 11:24:50 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on June 18, 2023, 07:10:24 PM
I sense something is afoot....
Here I present one gantry... two views... I-84 westbound and eastbound at Exit 53 in East Hartford.  Note the signs appear new, but their backs reveal otherwise. 


(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52984377496_3dbf586d0b_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2oJ3MtW)DSC04329 (https://flic.kr/p/2oJ3MtW) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr


(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52984376451_996b781000_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2oJ3MaV)84EB-Exit53 (https://flic.kr/p/2oJ3MaV) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr



So what's going on here?  Are these temporary overlays over the existing signs?  The gantry is supposed to be replaced (at least according to the contract plans).  So, why bother going through the trouble to do temporary overlays?  And please, tell me, this is not the latest round of ConnDOT cost savings... "Hey!  We can make every sign out of sheet aluminum, even the exit signs, and just staple them to whatever sign is there already!"


Also, travelled Route 2 from East Hartford down to Colchester, along with all of Route 11.  Outside of some new mile markers and some covered-over gore signs, there isn't anything new to speak of.  Seems like most activity is still concentrating east of Colchester (for now).  On Route 11, just the sheets are replaced, mostly.  No new extrudeds yet, except onramp signage.
I saw those too. My only thought is that the contractor for the project is delayed in producing the replacement signage so ConnDOT did an in-house fix to last until it can be permanently replaced. It could also be temporary in order to increase nighttime readability. I'll bet the button copy on the BGSs in both directions has completely lost its reflection.

Personally I think its more egregious that they resurfaced the end of Exit 62 EB and did a piss-poor Crayola crayon job with the lines.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on June 20, 2023, 01:21:29 PM
I asked this question on this thread a while back but didn't get an answer:

Is there a particular reason why crosswalk signals in CT aren't timed with the phases of the traffic signals, like it is in NYC for example?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Rothman on June 20, 2023, 01:25:57 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on June 20, 2023, 01:21:29 PM
I asked this question on this thread a while back but didn't get an answer:

Is there a particular reason why crosswalk signals in CT aren't timed with the phases of the traffic signals, like it is in NYC for example?
You probably didn't get an answer because it is most likely this blanket statement is untrue.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on June 20, 2023, 01:33:01 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on June 18, 2023, 07:10:24 PM
I sense something is afoot....
Here I present one gantry... two views... I-84 westbound and eastbound at Exit 53 in East Hartford.  Note the signs appear new, but their backs reveal otherwise. 


(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52984377496_3dbf586d0b_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2oJ3MtW)DSC04329 (https://flic.kr/p/2oJ3MtW) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr


(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52984376451_996b781000_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2oJ3MaV)84EB-Exit53 (https://flic.kr/p/2oJ3MaV) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr



So what's going on here?  Are these temporary overlays over the existing signs?  The gantry is supposed to be replaced (at least according to the contract plans).  So, why bother going through the trouble to do temporary overlays?  And please, tell me, this is not the latest round of ConnDOT cost savings... "Hey!  We can make every sign out of sheet aluminum, even the exit signs, and just staple them to whatever sign is there already!"


Also, travelled Route 2 from East Hartford down to Colchester, along with all of Route 11.  Outside of some new mile markers and some covered-over gore signs, there isn't anything new to speak of.  Seems like most activity is still concentrating east of Colchester (for now).  On Route 11, just the sheets are replaced, mostly.  No new extrudeds yet, except onramp signage.

I was kind of surprised to see I-91 South placed on the I-84 WB sign, although it looks easy enough from GSV. Besides the Charter Oak Bridge, there's no other access to I-91 south from that area of East Hartford.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on June 20, 2023, 01:44:16 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 20, 2023, 01:25:57 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on June 20, 2023, 01:21:29 PM
I asked this question on this thread a while back but didn't get an answer:

Is there a particular reason why crosswalk signals in CT aren't timed with the phases of the traffic signals, like it is in NYC for example?
You probably didn't get an answer because it is most likely this blanket statement is untrue.
It's true at every intersection I've come across in this state, at least. It doesn't make sense to me, from a pedestrian safety standpoint. If peds are just going to cross and not obey the crossing signals, then what is the point of having them be push-to-activate?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on June 20, 2023, 02:59:38 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on June 20, 2023, 01:44:16 PM
It's true at every intersection I've come across in this state, at least. It doesn't make sense to me, from a pedestrian safety standpoint. If peds are just going to cross and not obey the crossing signals, then what is the point of having them be push-to-activate?
Anecdotal, but it seems like CT prefers all-walk phases when the buttons are pushed, but people are impatient and don't wait for the signal timing so they just go when the coast is clear.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on June 20, 2023, 05:27:00 PM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on June 20, 2023, 01:33:01 PM
I was kind of surprised to see I-91 South placed on the I-84 WB sign, although it looks easy enough from GSV. Besides the Charter Oak Bridge, there's no other access to I-91 south from that area of East Hartford.

Its really only meant for traffic entering from either Conn Blvd (US 44) or Governor St.  Most traffic bound for I-91 South from I-84 West would've already exited at Exit 57 and taken the Charter Oak Bridge.  Traffic in East Hartford itself to I-91 South is directed typically down US 5 to the Charter Oak Bridge. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on June 20, 2023, 07:27:01 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on June 20, 2023, 05:27:00 PM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on June 20, 2023, 01:33:01 PM
I was kind of surprised to see I-91 South placed on the I-84 WB sign, although it looks easy enough from GSV. Besides the Charter Oak Bridge, there's no other access to I-91 south from that area of East Hartford.

Its really only meant for traffic entering from either Conn Blvd (US 44) or Governor St.  Most traffic bound for I-91 South from I-84 West would've already exited at Exit 57 and taken the Charter Oak Bridge.  Traffic in East Hartford itself to I-91 South is directed typically down US 5 to the Charter Oak Bridge.

Those were "in-kind" replacements.  Really have to think the TO I-91 South thing is unnecessary; more of a leftover from when the ramp from the Founders Bridge to I-91 South was closed (the signage for Exit 54 used to read "I-91 South /Downtown Hartford, and even appeared in the Modern Lovers' Road Runner video).  That happened in 1990, so I think people have become accustomed to using the Charter Oak Bridge, and 90% of the traffic coming from Governor Street and Connecticut Boulevard is local traffic (plus 91 South traffic from Governor Street can always take CT 2 to CT 3 to access 91 South if they're headed to New Haven or points south of Wethersfield. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on June 20, 2023, 07:33:47 PM
Well... how do you like that!

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52990322073_abb3afa73a_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2oJzfAD)Screenshot 2023-06-20 193029 (https://flic.kr/p/2oJzfAD) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

I like the "Groton" added to the Exit 55 sign.


I remember when the Founders Bridge served as the connection from 91N->84E and 84W->91S.  I only briefly ever remember the original Exit 29 left exit to the Charter Oak Bridge being open (that ramp basically being where the present 15N->91N ramp is).  The 15N->91N ramp left 15N before it crossed 91N and entered on the right side of 91N where the most-recent/now-closed Exit 29 was located.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on June 21, 2023, 11:35:16 AM
Quote from: connroadgeek on June 20, 2023, 02:59:38 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on June 20, 2023, 01:44:16 PM
It's true at every intersection I've come across in this state, at least. It doesn't make sense to me, from a pedestrian safety standpoint. If peds are just going to cross and not obey the crossing signals, then what is the point of having them be push-to-activate?
Anecdotal, but it seems like CT prefers all-walk phases when the buttons are pushed, but people are impatient and don't wait for the signal timing so they just go when the coast is clear.
Right, which is why I don't understand why they don't get rid of the push-buttons and go to timed signals.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Rothman on June 21, 2023, 01:01:38 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on June 21, 2023, 11:35:16 AM
Quote from: connroadgeek on June 20, 2023, 02:59:38 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on June 20, 2023, 01:44:16 PM
It's true at every intersection I've come across in this state, at least. It doesn't make sense to me, from a pedestrian safety standpoint. If peds are just going to cross and not obey the crossing signals, then what is the point of having them be push-to-activate?
Anecdotal, but it seems like CT prefers all-walk phases when the buttons are pushed, but people are impatient and don't wait for the signal timing so they just go when the coast is clear.
Right, which is why I don't understand why they don't get rid of the push-buttons and go to timed signals.
I don't see how just crossing when the coast is clear is unique to Connecticut.

Reminds me of the very old joke about UMass that you can't find any of their alumni since they all moved away and got hit by cars by assuming people everywhere stop for pedestrians.

Bill Pullman excluded...
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on June 21, 2023, 02:38:59 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on June 20, 2023, 07:27:01 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on June 20, 2023, 05:27:00 PM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on June 20, 2023, 01:33:01 PM
I was kind of surprised to see I-91 South placed on the I-84 WB sign, although it looks easy enough from GSV. Besides the Charter Oak Bridge, there's no other access to I-91 south from that area of East Hartford.

Its really only meant for traffic entering from either Conn Blvd (US 44) or Governor St.  Most traffic bound for I-91 South from I-84 West would've already exited at Exit 57 and taken the Charter Oak Bridge.  Traffic in East Hartford itself to I-91 South is directed typically down US 5 to the Charter Oak Bridge.

Those were "in-kind" replacements.  Really have to think the TO I-91 South thing is unnecessary; more of a leftover from when the ramp from the Founders Bridge to I-91 South was closed (the signage for Exit 54 used to read "I-91 South /Downtown Hartford, and even appeared in the Modern Lovers' Road Runner video).  That happened in 1990, so I think people have become accustomed to using the Charter Oak Bridge, and 90% of the traffic coming from Governor Street and Connecticut Boulevard is local traffic (plus 91 South traffic from Governor Street can always take CT 2 to CT 3 to access 91 South if they're headed to New Haven or points south of Wethersfield.
I'll bet you a lot of people forget to take Exit 57 for 91 S and people complain to ConnDOT, so they added the additional destination.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: bob7374 on June 26, 2023, 11:05:12 PM
Looked at the latest CTDOT project advertising list updated through June 12. Three new sign contracts spotted for next year. They are also advertising a contract to replace aluminum signing along I-95 from Branford to Madison on March 27, 2024. The replacing of signs and supports along CT 15 between Milford and Meriden, perhaps to include exit renumbering, is to be advertised on May 8, 2024 while the replacing of signs and supports along I-95 between Clinton and New London, not to include new exit numbers is to be advertised on May 29, 2024.

The new schedule is at: https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOT/documents/dfiscalprojects/advschedule11-2021.pdf (https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOT/documents/dfiscalprojects/advschedule11-2021.pdf)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: mariethefoxy on June 27, 2023, 12:54:48 AM
Clinton to New London on 95 seems to be the last part of I-95 that consistently still has button copy. Same with I-91 from Hartford to Massachusetts.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on June 27, 2023, 08:52:52 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on June 26, 2023, 11:05:12 PM
Looked at the latest CTDOT project advertising list updated through June 12. Three new sign contracts spotted for next year. They are also advertising a contract to replace aluminum signing along I-95 from Branford to Madison on March 27, 2024. The replacing of signs and supports along CT 15 between Milford and Meriden, perhaps to include exit renumbering, is to be advertised on May 8, 2024 while the replacing of signs and supports along I-95 between Clinton and New London, not to include new exit numbers is to be advertised on May 29, 2024.

The new schedule is at: https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOT/documents/dfiscalprojects/advschedule11-2021.pdf (https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOT/documents/dfiscalprojects/advschedule11-2021.pdf)
Didn't realize the bridges for I-684 in Greenwich were ConnDOT maintained.

The I-91/I-691-US 5/CT 15 interchange project goes out to big in late September.

I-291 and CT 189/CT 187 sign replacement goes out to bid in December.

The Heroes Tunnel Project goes out to bid in March, 2024.

Looks like the sign replacement for the Wilbur Cross Parkway goes out to bid next May.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on June 27, 2023, 04:00:50 PM
Quote from: mariethefoxy on June 27, 2023, 12:54:48 AM
Clinton to New London on 95 seems to be the last part of I-95 that consistently still has button copy. Same with I-91 from Hartford to Massachusetts.

Only part of "Clinton to New London" on I-95 that still has button copy is Exits 68-70, and that dates to 1993 as part of the Baldwin Bridge replacement.  The rest was installed in 2000 and is "Phase IV" (with service bars).  There are a handful of signs along the Frontage Roads in New London and at I-95 Exit 83 which never got replaced, so they're probably late 80s vintage.

The big stretch of button copy on I-95 is Branford/Exit 54 to Guilford/Exit 59.  This stretch was installed c 1992 and replaced the original turnpike signage dating back to 1958.  So right now, since 1958, that stretch is only on its 2nd generation of signage. 

Still kind of shocked about the WCP getting new signs already.  Again, they're 2001 vintage, which isn't old, considering there's a lot older signs out there.  Still nothing on I-91 from the border down to Hartford, where the oldest button copy there dates to at least 1989, if not earlier (in Enfield and East Windsor).  And then there's the mid 80s signs on I-84 in East Hartford and Manchester which seem to be escaping all the projects. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on June 27, 2023, 11:07:16 PM
Glad to see the 91/691/15 interchange improvements are going ahead. It's a sign that Connecticut is still capable of undertaking major highway improvements. Hopefully that bodes well for improvements to I-84 in Danbury, Waterbury, and Hartford.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on June 28, 2023, 12:36:41 AM
Only thing that might preclude the CT 15 exit renumbering would be the fact that the Wethersfield/East Hartford section signage is still 1980's Phase III vintage much like I-91 from Hartford to the MA border.  That would probably become part of an I-91 project.  Overlays are always an option, but let's see if the Fairfield County Merritt preservationists can use it to buy more time.

Would CTDOT really add exit numbers to the 187/189 freeway?  If they were, they'd most likely be 8A and 8B based on CT 189 mileage (CTDOT recognizes the overlap as CT 189, but the mile markers are pretty close anyway).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on June 28, 2023, 05:14:06 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 27, 2023, 11:07:16 PM
Glad to see the 91/691/15 interchange improvements are going ahead. It's a sign that Connecticut is still capable of undertaking major highway improvements. Hopefully that bodes well for improvements to I-84 in Danbury, Waterbury, and Hartford.

It's dubbed the "Meriden Mix" .

https://meridenmix.com/
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on June 28, 2023, 09:40:53 AM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on June 28, 2023, 05:14:06 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 27, 2023, 11:07:16 PM
Glad to see the 91/691/15 interchange improvements are going ahead. It's a sign that Connecticut is still capable of undertaking major highway improvements. Hopefully that bodes well for improvements to I-84 in Danbury, Waterbury, and Hartford.

It's dubbed the "Meriden Mix" .

https://meridenmix.com/
I know that it would be more expensive, but I don't understand why they couldn't just reroute CT 15 east along these power lines (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4961674,-72.782372,1861m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4961674,-72.782372,1861m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu)), have it join I-91 to the I-691 interchange and leave from there.

That would undo at least a portion of the can of worms and eliminate weaving.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on June 28, 2023, 09:41:39 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on June 28, 2023, 09:40:53 AM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on June 28, 2023, 05:14:06 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 27, 2023, 11:07:16 PM
Glad to see the 91/691/15 interchange improvements are going ahead. It's a sign that Connecticut is still capable of undertaking major highway improvements. Hopefully that bodes well for improvements to I-84 in Danbury, Waterbury, and Hartford.

It's dubbed the "Meriden Mix" .

https://meridenmix.com/
I know that it would be more expensive, but I don't understand why they couldn't just reroute CT 15 east along these power lines (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4961674,-72.782372,1861m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4961674,-72.782372,1861m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu)), have it join I-91 to the I-691 interchange and leave from there.

That would undo at least a portion of the can of worms and eliminate weaving.

You just answered your own question
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on June 28, 2023, 09:43:59 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 28, 2023, 09:41:39 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on June 28, 2023, 09:40:53 AM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on June 28, 2023, 05:14:06 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 27, 2023, 11:07:16 PM
Glad to see the 91/691/15 interchange improvements are going ahead. It's a sign that Connecticut is still capable of undertaking major highway improvements. Hopefully that bodes well for improvements to I-84 in Danbury, Waterbury, and Hartford.

It's dubbed the "Meriden Mix" .

https://meridenmix.com/
I know that it would be more expensive, but I don't understand why they couldn't just reroute CT 15 east along these power lines (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4961674,-72.782372,1861m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4961674,-72.782372,1861m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu)), have it join I-91 to the I-691 interchange and leave from there.

That would undo at least a portion of the can of worms and eliminate weaving.

You just answered your own question
I mean aside from that.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on June 28, 2023, 10:08:58 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on June 27, 2023, 08:52:52 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on June 26, 2023, 11:05:12 PM
Looked at the latest CTDOT project advertising list updated through June 12. Three new sign contracts spotted for next year. They are also advertising a contract to replace aluminum signing along I-95 from Branford to Madison on March 27, 2024. The replacing of signs and supports along CT 15 between Milford and Meriden, perhaps to include exit renumbering, is to be advertised on May 8, 2024 while the replacing of signs and supports along I-95 between Clinton and New London, not to include new exit numbers is to be advertised on May 29, 2024.

The new schedule is at: https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOT/documents/dfiscalprojects/advschedule11-2021.pdf (https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOT/documents/dfiscalprojects/advschedule11-2021.pdf)
Didn't realize the bridges for I-684 in Greenwich were ConnDOT maintained.

I think NYSDOT performs routine maintenance on the segment of I-684 that enters Connecticut, while CTDOT funds and performs capital improvements to that stretch.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: The Ghostbuster on June 28, 2023, 11:05:11 AM
I tried opening the documents on the Merdian Mix website, but each time I got an "Internal Server Error" message. Is there an alternative way to view the documents?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: sharkyfour on June 28, 2023, 04:48:44 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 28, 2023, 11:05:11 AM
I tried opening the documents on the Merdian Mix website, but each time I got an "Internal Server Error" message. Is there an alternative way to view the documents?

Looks like the site is back up now.  This morning it was coming up with a security error and then some Christian camp site if you continued anyway...  Guessing their webhosting company isn't having a good day.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on June 29, 2023, 01:33:47 PM
Which sign is replacing which?

Unfortunately, CT DOT is replacing an extruded aluminum warning sign with a small sheet metal sign that omits the "REDUCE SPEED" portion.
I-691/CT-66 Combo.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53010723731_ede639361f_k.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on June 29, 2023, 07:24:24 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on June 28, 2023, 12:36:41 AM
Only thing that might preclude the CT 15 exit renumbering would be the fact that the Wethersfield/East Hartford section signage is still 1980's Phase III vintage much like I-91 from Hartford to the MA border.  That would probably become part of an I-91 project.  Overlays are always an option, but let's see if the Fairfield County Merritt preservationists can use it to buy more time.

Would CTDOT really add exit numbers to the 187/189 freeway?  If they were, they'd most likely be 8A and 8B based on CT 189 mileage (CTDOT recognizes the overlap as CT 189, but the mile markers are pretty close anyway).
I would apply the rule we use for freeways: Minimum of three exits to qualify.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: bob7374 on June 29, 2023, 07:25:38 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on June 29, 2023, 01:33:47 PM
Which sign is replacing which?

Unfortunately, CT DOT is replacing an extruded aluminum warning sign with a small sheet metal sign that omits the "REDUCE SPEED" portion.
I-691/CT-66 Combo.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53010723731_ede639361f_k.jpg)
Since, in my experience, nobody slows down anyway perhaps CTDOT is wisely saving some money on smaller sign.  :-D
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: The Ghostbuster on June 29, 2023, 09:55:06 PM
It appears the little sign is replacing the big sign. I have a Google Maps Street View image of the same location: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5279262,-72.746066,3a,75y,109.8h,86.31t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqePae90BDPTbgcpYufr3pg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on June 30, 2023, 12:21:17 AM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on June 28, 2023, 05:14:06 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 27, 2023, 11:07:16 PM
Glad to see the 91/691/15 interchange improvements are going ahead. It's a sign that Connecticut is still capable of undertaking major highway improvements. Hopefully that bodes well for improvements to I-84 in Danbury, Waterbury, and Hartford.

It's dubbed the "Meriden Mix" .

https://meridenmix.com/

Were the Waterbury and East Hartford "mixes" not enough?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on June 30, 2023, 09:45:42 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 30, 2023, 12:21:17 AM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on June 28, 2023, 05:14:06 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 27, 2023, 11:07:16 PM
Glad to see the 91/691/15 interchange improvements are going ahead. It's a sign that Connecticut is still capable of undertaking major highway improvements. Hopefully that bodes well for improvements to I-84 in Danbury, Waterbury, and Hartford.

It's dubbed the "Meriden Mix" .

https://meridenmix.com/

Were the Waterbury and East Hartford "mixes" not enough?
And the mix in New Haven, which is much better now than before it was reconstructed with the Q-Bridge. I don't know if you would consider the mess at the I-95/I-395/US-1 junction in Waterford as another "mix," but I think it would fit the definition IMHO.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: southshore720 on June 30, 2023, 04:38:16 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on June 30, 2023, 09:45:42 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 30, 2023, 12:21:17 AM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on June 28, 2023, 05:14:06 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 27, 2023, 11:07:16 PM
Glad to see the 91/691/15 interchange improvements are going ahead. It's a sign that Connecticut is still capable of undertaking major highway improvements. Hopefully that bodes well for improvements to I-84 in Danbury, Waterbury, and Hartford.

It's dubbed the "Meriden Mix" .

https://meridenmix.com/

Were the Waterbury and East Hartford "mixes" not enough?
And the mix in New Haven, which is much better now than before it was reconstructed with the Q-Bridge. I don't know if you would consider the mess at the I-95/I-395/US-1 junction in Waterford as another "mix," but I think it would fit the definition IMHO.
A mix in Waterford would've been more apt had they finished the much beleaguered Route 11!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on July 01, 2023, 08:26:07 AM
Quote from: southshore720 on June 30, 2023, 04:38:16 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on June 30, 2023, 09:45:42 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 30, 2023, 12:21:17 AM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on June 28, 2023, 05:14:06 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 27, 2023, 11:07:16 PM
Glad to see the 91/691/15 interchange improvements are going ahead. It's a sign that Connecticut is still capable of undertaking major highway improvements. Hopefully that bodes well for improvements to I-84 in Danbury, Waterbury, and Hartford.

It's dubbed the "Meriden Mix" .

https://meridenmix.com/

Were the Waterbury and East Hartford "mixes" not enough?
And the mix in New Haven, which is much better now than before it was reconstructed with the Q-Bridge. I don't know if you would consider the mess at the I-95/I-395/US-1 junction in Waterford as another "mix," but I think it would fit the definition IMHO.
A mix in Waterford would've been more apt had they finished the much beleaguered Route 11!

Waterford and East Lyme need a "mix"  for I-95/I-395/US-1.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on July 01, 2023, 11:43:29 AM
I-84/384/291/US6/US44 could also be a mix.

US5/CT15/CT372 - mini mix

CT 2/17/94 - micro mix
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on July 01, 2023, 02:16:08 PM
Quote from: kurumi on July 01, 2023, 11:43:29 AM
I-84/384/291/US6/US44 could also be a mix.

US5/CT15/CT372 - mini mix

CT 2/17/94 - micro mix

I-84/384 etc. is the East Hartford Mixmaster

The other two are pushing it
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on July 01, 2023, 02:16:59 PM
Quote from: kurumi on July 01, 2023, 11:43:29 AM
I-84/384/291/US6/US44 could also be a mix.

US5/CT15/CT372 - mini mix

CT 2/17/94 - micro mix

Might as well throw in I-84/CT 72/CT 372/SR 536 as a mix too. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: mariethefoxy on July 01, 2023, 05:11:53 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on June 29, 2023, 01:33:47 PM
Which sign is replacing which?

Unfortunately, CT DOT is replacing an extruded aluminum warning sign with a small sheet metal sign that omits the "REDUCE SPEED" portion.
I-691/CT-66 Combo.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53010723731_ede639361f_k.jpg)

this seems like a downgrade honestly, why would they replace a larger sign with something that's smaller and therefore harder to read at a distance.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on July 01, 2023, 07:54:04 PM
As I was driving I-395 today from end to end, it occured to me that this road has seen almost zero upgrades since it was constructed in 1958 (turnpike section) yet the traffic on its southern 10 miles or so has increased something like 300% in that time, largely due to the casinos in the area.  While its not as congested as I-95 is (especially west of New Haven), its seeing A LOT more traffic than it did in the early 90s.  Really, the only change on the road has been the elimination of the loop ramp at Exit 11 NB (outside of resurfacing and service plaza upgrades).

So what should I-395 have changed?

*  Convert Exit 5 (Route 32/New London) from a left hand exit to a right hand exit.  Just shift the I-395 SB thru lanes to be parallel to the NB lanes, and have a new 2-lane
    ramp exiting on the right, then flying over both directions of I-395.  There isn't presently much of a decelleration lane and due to the trees and the vertical/horizontal
    alignment of the ramp, you really don't spot it until you're right on top of it.
*  Adding a 3rd lane from Exit 5 to (at least) Exit 9, but realistically, up to Exit 13.

Or....

No need to invest in I-395 when there's other interstates in need of more help (which may be true, indeed).

Or replace more perfectly good extruded aluminum signs with flimsy, sheet metal knock-offs?  :-)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: sharkyfour on July 01, 2023, 08:01:52 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on July 01, 2023, 07:54:04 PM
As I was driving I-395 today from end to end, it occured to me that this road has seen almost zero upgrades since it was constructed in 1958 (turnpike section) yet the traffic on its southern 10 miles or so has increased something like 300% in that time, largely due to the casinos in the area.  While its not as congested as I-95 is (especially west of New Haven), its seeing A LOT more traffic than it did in the early 90s.  Really, the only change on the road has been the elimination of the loop ramp at Exit 11 NB (outside of resurfacing and service plaza upgrades).

So what should I-395 have changed?

*  Convert Exit 5 (Route 32/New London) from a left hand exit to a right hand exit.  Just shift the I-395 SB thru lanes to be parallel to the NB lanes, and have a new 2-lane
    ramp exiting on the right, then flying over both directions of I-395.  There isn't presently much of a decelleration lane and due to the trees and the vertical/horizontal
    alignment of the ramp, you really don't spot it until you're right on top of it.
*  Adding a 3rd lane from Exit 5 to (at least) Exit 9, but realistically, up to Exit 13.

Or....

No need to invest in I-395 when there's other interstates in need of more help (which may be true, indeed).

Or replace more perfectly good extruded aluminum signs with flimsy, sheet metal knock-offs?  :-)

My vote is there's much bigger fish to fry in CT.  I regularly go Windham to Guilford and back, and the 395 portion of the trip is usually the easiest with the least traffic.  95 from the 395 interchange to the Baldwin bridge is generally the most white-knuckle and could use some improvements, followed by 95 from the Hammonasset connector to New Haven as the worst parts in my book.

Also, going almost daily from Windham to Manchester or Hartford, I would kill for the route 6 expressway to be completed, not that that will ever happen.

Edit:  I wouldn't mind if Exit 5 was moved to the right, it can be a problem at times, but not the worst by far.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: The Ghostbuster on July 01, 2023, 08:20:24 PM
I wouldn't think Interstate 395 would need a lot of improvements, since I can't imagine that traffic on 395 is very heavy. One thing I would like to happen is to convert the 95/395 into a full interchange. Would that be possible or practical?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MATraveler128 on July 01, 2023, 09:47:47 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 01, 2023, 08:20:24 PM
I wouldn't think Interstate 395 would need a lot of improvements, since I can't imagine that traffic on 395 is very heavy. One thing I would like to happen is to convert the 95/395 into a full interchange. Would that be possible or practical?

It almost looks possible. Only issue is that there is a Christmas tree farm right near the interchange. I'm not sure how busy CT 85 gets to be able to warrant it. And who knows of ConnDOT can afford it.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on July 01, 2023, 09:49:58 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 01, 2023, 08:20:24 PM
I wouldn't think Interstate 395 would need a lot of improvements, since I can't imagine that traffic on 395 is very heavy. One thing I would like to happen is to convert the 95/395 into a full interchange. Would that be possible or practical?

The moves that are not served by the I-95/I-395 interchange at present (395S->95N and 95S->395N) are negligible enough where its not a major inconvenience.  CT 85 is the defacto connector to make those movements and its a 4-lane "arterial" (portions divided).  CT 85's commercial area (surrounding the Crystal Mall) isn't nearly as busy as it used to be, but we will see what any future  redevelopment at the mall brings.  CT 32 is also a secondary/unsigned connector, also 4 lanes, also divided, with fewer lights and less "commercialism".  Now, with that being said, any project involving Route 11 would probably be able to fill in the missing movements, but as long as Route 11 stays dead, I'd leave it alone.  Still makes me hold out hope, though, since they are renumbering the exits still counting up the mileage from I-95 and not Route 82. 

I was looking at the traffic maps today when I got home and saw I-95 a virtual parking lot for most of the 2-lane zone, northbound.  While summer holidays are a handful, there is the "daily grind" that would benefit from a widening (at least) in Branford, out to the Guilford line, transitioning to 2 lanes there, vs at an interchange.  And then, of course, from the Baldwin Bridge to New London needed to be 3 lanes some 20+ years ago.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on July 02, 2023, 09:01:28 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 01, 2023, 08:20:24 PM
I wouldn't think Interstate 395 would need a lot of improvements, since I can't imagine that traffic on 395 is very heavy. One thing I would like to happen is to convert the 95/395 into a full interchange. Would that be possible or practical?

Maybe not a full interchange, but at least an improvement to the crossing traffic around Exits 75-76, especially from the merge  southbound. I'm sure it's been discussed and plans created, but it needs to happen (along with widening from 395 to Branford).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on July 02, 2023, 03:59:01 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on July 01, 2023, 09:47:47 PM
It almost looks possible. Only issue is that there is a Christmas tree farm right near the interchange. I'm not sure how busy CT 85 gets to be able to warrant it. And who knows of ConnDOT can afford it.
You could move the 395 to 95 south ramp a bit north into that area where the power lines are and then use the existing space for a flyover to 95 north.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on July 02, 2023, 04:33:13 PM
I feel like the most important I-395 improvement would be connecting it to/from the east on I-95.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: sharkyfour on July 02, 2023, 04:44:25 PM
Quote from: Alps on July 02, 2023, 04:33:13 PM
I feel like the most important I-395 improvement would be connecting it to/from the east on I-95.

I can't imagine that would be worth it.  If anything, make further improvements to Route 32 between 95 and 395; it cuts 5 miles out of the trip.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on July 02, 2023, 05:13:50 PM
Quote from: sharkyfour on July 02, 2023, 04:44:25 PM
Quote from: Alps on July 02, 2023, 04:33:13 PM
I feel like the most important I-395 improvement would be connecting it to/from the east on I-95.

I can't imagine that would be worth it.  If anything, make further improvements to Route 32 between 95 and 395; it cuts 5 miles out of the trip.

Absolutely.  Plus it is a better route from the Hartford area to New London without the existence of a completed CT 11.  New London should not be a control for CT 11 South from CT 2; traffic should take 2 to 395 to 32. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on July 03, 2023, 08:54:56 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on July 02, 2023, 05:13:50 PM
Quote from: sharkyfour on July 02, 2023, 04:44:25 PM
Quote from: Alps on July 02, 2023, 04:33:13 PM
I feel like the most important I-395 improvement would be connecting it to/from the east on I-95.

I can't imagine that would be worth it.  If anything, make further improvements to Route 32 between 95 and 395; it cuts 5 miles out of the trip.

Absolutely.  Plus it is a better route from the Hartford area to New London without the existence of a completed CT 11.  New London should not be a control for CT 11 South from CT 2; traffic should take 2 to 395 to 32.
Regarding Route 11, now that there's not a snowball's chance in a blast furnace of it ever being completed to I-95, I think CTDOT would be wise to eliminate one of the carriageways and make it a Super-2 to save on maintenance costs. In its current form, it's way overbuilt and underutilized.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on July 03, 2023, 09:11:53 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on July 03, 2023, 08:54:56 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on July 02, 2023, 05:13:50 PM
Quote from: sharkyfour on July 02, 2023, 04:44:25 PM
Quote from: Alps on July 02, 2023, 04:33:13 PM
I feel like the most important I-395 improvement would be connecting it to/from the east on I-95.

I can't imagine that would be worth it.  If anything, make further improvements to Route 32 between 95 and 395; it cuts 5 miles out of the trip.

Absolutely.  Plus it is a better route from the Hartford area to New London without the existence of a completed CT 11.  New London should not be a control for CT 11 South from CT 2; traffic should take 2 to 395 to 32.
Regarding Route 11, now that there's not a snowball's chance in a blast furnace of it ever being completed to I-95, I think CTDOT would be wise to eliminate one of the carriageways and make it a Super-2 to save on maintenance costs. In its current form, it's way overbuilt and underutilized.
Well, that might actually cost more than maintaining the highway as-is.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: dantheman on July 03, 2023, 11:36:58 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on July 03, 2023, 09:11:53 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on July 03, 2023, 08:54:56 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on July 02, 2023, 05:13:50 PM
Quote from: sharkyfour on July 02, 2023, 04:44:25 PM
Quote from: Alps on July 02, 2023, 04:33:13 PM
I feel like the most important I-395 improvement would be connecting it to/from the east on I-95.

I can't imagine that would be worth it.  If anything, make further improvements to Route 32 between 95 and 395; it cuts 5 miles out of the trip.

Absolutely.  Plus it is a better route from the Hartford area to New London without the existence of a completed CT 11.  New London should not be a control for CT 11 South from CT 2; traffic should take 2 to 395 to 32.
Regarding Route 11, now that there's not a snowball's chance in a blast furnace of it ever being completed to I-95, I think CTDOT would be wise to eliminate one of the carriageways and make it a Super-2 to save on maintenance costs. In its current form, it's way overbuilt and underutilized.
Well, that might actually cost more than maintaining the highway as-is.
In the short term, that may be true, but I could see a super-2 conversion happening once some part of 11 needs either major pavement rehab or a bridge replacement. There are surprisingly few bridges on 11 (not counting the two unused ones at the stub at CT 82, which could both be removed rather than replaced). It might not be practical to avoid two bridges at Lake Hayward Road given how the two carriageways align with the ramps onto CT 2. But, when the West Road overpasses or the CT 11 overpasses over Witch Meadow Road or the Eightmile River reach the end of their life, it might be worth it to extend the Exit 5 ramps to all meet one carriageway, build a median crossover somewhere near Exit 6, and put a divider (or even a double-yellow line with a rumble strip) down the middle of one carriageway to avoid the cost of a second bridge.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Rothman on July 03, 2023, 12:46:51 PM
I always get the feeling that CT is strapped for cash, so converting CT 11 would be way down their priorty list due to their preservation needs all over the state.  Because of the little traffic on CT 11, the road should not be deteriorating as quickly, after all.

Of course, when I was a kid, people used it just to get to Ocean Beach Park in the summer.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on July 03, 2023, 04:33:57 PM
Quote from: dantheman on July 03, 2023, 11:36:58 AM
In the short term, that may be true, but I could see a super-2 conversion happening once some part of 11 needs either major pavement rehab or a bridge replacement. There are surprisingly few bridges on 11 (not counting the two unused ones at the stub at CT 82, which could both be removed rather than replaced). It might not be practical to avoid two bridges at Lake Hayward Road given how the two carriageways align with the ramps onto CT 2. But, when the West Road overpasses or the CT 11 overpasses over Witch Meadow Road or the Eightmile River reach the end of their life, it might be worth it to extend the Exit 5 ramps to all meet one carriageway, build a median crossover somewhere near Exit 6, and put a divider (or even a double-yellow line with a rumble strip) down the middle of one carriageway to avoid the cost of a second bridge.

You don't want to make it a median-less roadway... imagine all the head on collisions that would happen.  It wouldn't take much to throw up a jersey barrier. 

Ideally, if you can't extend Route 11 all the way to I-95/I-395, then it should get the US 7/Brookfield treatment and extend it a couple miles to meet Route 85 somewhere between Salem Four Corners and Chesterfield.  Then improve Route 85 from there, south.  Some early maps showed it as "proposed" to a point south of the four corners, merging into Route 85, then it was shown proposed to meet I-95 somewhere around the present Cross Road area, then rerouted again to meet at I-95/I-395. 

Again, wonder if the mile markers count up from that original proposed intersection with I-95 at Cross Road, or whether the route log was changed to have non-existant MP 0 be at I-95/I-395. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on July 03, 2023, 05:11:25 PM
I don't see why they just don't finish 11. It's got what another mile or two before its original terminus, and it would pass through mainly middle of nowhere with few properties impacted. I'd have it end on 395 though a mile or so north of the 95 interchange. That way 11 can end at 395 with a simple trumpet and you could leave the 395/95 interchange as is.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on July 03, 2023, 05:39:16 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on July 03, 2023, 05:11:25 PM
I don't see why they just don't finish 11. It's got what another mile or two before its original terminus, and it would pass through mainly middle of nowhere with few properties impacted. I'd have it end on 395 though a mile or so north of the 95 interchange. That way 11 can end at 395 with a simple trumpet and you could leave the 395/95 interchange as is.
During the last round of environmental studies conducted in the 2000s and 2010s, archeological crews CTDOT and the FHWA discovered artifacts that indicated the presence of colonial-era and pre-colonial ruins (both Native American and European colonist) along Route 11's path that could not be avoided. Those discoveries doomed any further attempt to complete Route 11 to I-95, and the FHWA and CTDOT abandoned further study of the extension thereafter.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: The Ghostbuster on July 03, 2023, 06:04:49 PM
They should, at least, remove the rusting, deteriorating underpass that currently crosses CT 82. Since it will never be utilized, it should be torn down.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on July 04, 2023, 12:10:58 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 03, 2023, 06:04:49 PM
They should, at least, remove the rusting, deteriorating underpass that currently crosses CT 82. Since it will never be utilized, it should be torn down.
Concur. IMHO, they should replace the incomplete interchange with a rotary.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on July 04, 2023, 01:59:44 AM
Compared to 11/85, using 2/395/693/32 to downtown New London is 5 miles longer, but all 4-lane divided highway (the main issues are 6 traffic lights on CT 32, and a high number of properties close to, or with driveways right on, CT 32).

When 11 starts needing rehab and reconstruction, suppose ConnDOT really pushes the 395/32 route (even with the concerns above), with improvements to the 2/395 interchange and other spots (such as a flyover from 395NB to 2WB, and making 395SB to 693SB a right-hand exit)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on July 04, 2023, 06:57:49 AM
Not sure if this been discussed before. Given that CT-11 will likely never be completed, certainly not in my lifetime, I wonder if as an alternative, the state could widen CT-85 from CT-82 down to I-395.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Rothman on July 04, 2023, 09:42:06 AM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on July 04, 2023, 06:57:49 AM
Not sure if this been discussed before. Given that CT-11 will likely never be completed, certainly not in my lifetime, I wonder if as an alternative, the state could widen CT-85 from CT-82 down to I-395.
I don't think CT 85 will be touched.  It's become developed along that stretch.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on July 04, 2023, 10:19:06 AM
Quote from: Rothman on July 04, 2023, 09:42:06 AM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on July 04, 2023, 06:57:49 AM
Not sure if this been discussed before. Given that CT-11 will likely never be completed, certainly not in my lifetime, I wonder if as an alternative, the state could widen CT-85 from CT-82 down to I-395.
I don't think CT 85 will be touched.  It's become developed along that stretch.
Maybe just some spot improvements on Route 85 might happen, like adding turn pockets at major intersections. But it won't be feasible to widen Route 85 without displacing a lot of homes and businesses.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on July 05, 2023, 01:55:22 PM
I'd build a loop flyover for traffic headed for CT 82 EB, remove the unused bridges and call it a day. I'm not sure how much benefit you would get by tagging on an extra mile to CT 11. Might be more advantageous to to the above and make improvements to CT 85 in Chesterfield, at the intersection with Chesterfield Rd.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on July 05, 2023, 07:58:59 PM
CT DOT was training on the never opened ramps to I-291 in Farmington.

Here's the Instagram link

https://www.instagram.com/p/CuVKLxKONWF/?igshid=Y2I2MzMwZWM3ZA==
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: bluecountry on July 08, 2023, 06:40:51 PM
CTDOT is really annoying and stupid, driving from eastern CT on 95 yesterday at 10 PM to NY, SB in Orange they have TWO of the three lanes closed.  Really?  In summer?  Friday?  At 10 PM?  Really?  Good lord.
And there were other sections similar in Fairfield and Norwalk.   :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on July 08, 2023, 06:43:55 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on July 05, 2023, 07:58:59 PM
CT DOT was training on the never opened ramps to I-291 in Farmington.

Here's the Instagram link

https://www.instagram.com/p/CuVKLxKONWF/?igshid=Y2I2MzMwZWM3ZA==
The link is broken.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on July 09, 2023, 07:40:53 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on July 08, 2023, 06:43:55 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on July 05, 2023, 07:58:59 PM
CT DOT was training on the never opened ramps to I-291 in Farmington.

Here's the Instagram link

https://www.instagram.com/p/CuVKLxKONWF/?igshid=Y2I2MzMwZWM3ZA==
The link is broken.

It works for me.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: SectorZ on July 09, 2023, 10:57:53 AM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on July 09, 2023, 07:40:53 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on July 08, 2023, 06:43:55 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on July 05, 2023, 07:58:59 PM
CT DOT was training on the never opened ramps to I-291 in Farmington.

Here's the Instagram link

https://www.instagram.com/p/CuVKLxKONWF/?igshid=Y2I2MzMwZWM3ZA==
The link is broken.

It works for me.

Same, and I don't even have an IG account.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on July 10, 2023, 10:32:39 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on June 19, 2023, 11:24:50 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on June 18, 2023, 07:10:24 PM
I sense something is afoot....
Here I present one gantry... two views... I-84 westbound and eastbound at Exit 53 in East Hartford.  Note the signs appear new, but their backs reveal otherwise. 


(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52984377496_3dbf586d0b_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2oJ3MtW)DSC04329 (https://flic.kr/p/2oJ3MtW) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr


(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52984376451_996b781000_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2oJ3MaV)84EB-Exit53 (https://flic.kr/p/2oJ3MaV) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr



So what's going on here?  Are these temporary overlays over the existing signs?  The gantry is supposed to be replaced (at least according to the contract plans).  So, why bother going through the trouble to do temporary overlays?  And please, tell me, this is not the latest round of ConnDOT cost savings... "Hey!  We can make every sign out of sheet aluminum, even the exit signs, and just staple them to whatever sign is there already!"


Also, travelled Route 2 from East Hartford down to Colchester, along with all of Route 11.  Outside of some new mile markers and some covered-over gore signs, there isn't anything new to speak of.  Seems like most activity is still concentrating east of Colchester (for now).  On Route 11, just the sheets are replaced, mostly.  No new extrudeds yet, except onramp signage.
I saw those too. My only thought is that the contractor for the project is delayed in producing the replacement signage so ConnDOT did an in-house fix to last until it can be permanently replaced. It could also be temporary in order to increase nighttime readability. I'll bet the button copy on the BGSs in both directions has completely lost its reflection.

Personally I think its more egregious that they resurfaced the end of Exit 62 EB and did a piss-poor Crayola crayon job with the lines.
Update on this: I did notice CBYD markings on the curbs of both directions near the supports, so no doubt they are getting replaced.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: The Ghostbuster on July 10, 2023, 12:23:01 PM
Did they ever figure out how they are going to reconstruct Interstate 84 through the Hartford area? Or has that plan gone dormant?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: SectorZ on July 10, 2023, 01:12:18 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 10, 2023, 12:23:01 PM
Did they ever figure out how they are going to reconstruct Interstate 84 through the Hartford area? Or has that plan gone dormant?

http://www.i84hartford.com/inthenews

They just kicked the can down a couple of decades, especially since another link (the FAQ) in there states the viaduct is structurally sound to 2040.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on July 11, 2023, 07:44:44 PM
Quote from: Rothman on July 03, 2023, 12:46:51 PM
I always get the feeling that CT is strapped for cash, so converting CT 11 would be way down their priorty list due to their preservation needs all over the state.  Because of the little traffic on CT 11, the road should not be deteriorating as quickly, after all.

Of course, when I was a kid, people used it just to get to Ocean Beach Park in the summer.

CT has so much money now.  Don't let them fool you
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on July 11, 2023, 07:53:29 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on July 10, 2023, 10:32:39 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on June 19, 2023, 11:24:50 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on June 18, 2023, 07:10:24 PM
I sense something is afoot....
Here I present one gantry... two views... I-84 westbound and eastbound at Exit 53 in East Hartford.  Note the signs appear new, but their backs reveal otherwise. 


(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52984377496_3dbf586d0b_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2oJ3MtW)DSC04329 (https://flic.kr/p/2oJ3MtW) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr


(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52984376451_996b781000_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2oJ3MaV)84EB-Exit53 (https://flic.kr/p/2oJ3MaV) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr



So what's going on here?  Are these temporary overlays over the existing signs?  The gantry is supposed to be replaced (at least according to the contract plans).  So, why bother going through the trouble to do temporary overlays?  And please, tell me, this is not the latest round of ConnDOT cost savings... "Hey!  We can make every sign out of sheet aluminum, even the exit signs, and just staple them to whatever sign is there already!"


Also, travelled Route 2 from East Hartford down to Colchester, along with all of Route 11.  Outside of some new mile markers and some covered-over gore signs, there isn't anything new to speak of.  Seems like most activity is still concentrating east of Colchester (for now).  On Route 11, just the sheets are replaced, mostly.  No new extrudeds yet, except onramp signage.
I saw those too. My only thought is that the contractor for the project is delayed in producing the replacement signage so ConnDOT did an in-house fix to last until it can be permanently replaced. It could also be temporary in order to increase nighttime readability. I'll bet the button copy on the BGSs in both directions has completely lost its reflection.

Personally I think its more egregious that they resurfaced the end of Exit 62 EB and did a piss-poor Crayola crayon job with the lines.
Update on this: I did notice CBYD markings on the curbs of both directions near the supports, so no doubt they are getting replaced.

I've noticed with several signing and light pole projects, that if there is a gantry or a light pole that is affixed to a bridge/jersey barrier, they skip it.

It seems that it's too much for them to complete. lol

On CT-8, they have a seperate sign project to do the gantries that are connected to jersey barriers and a new light pole project seems to be skipping the ones on the jersey barriers of the bridges.

As for CT-11, I thought FHWA pulled the plug b/c CT couldn't get it's act together to fund it, and that was the real final nail in the coffin.

Look at I-84, widening between Danbury and Waterbury was first mentioned in 2000.  Here we are in 2023 and they just can't seem to do it....and they aren't.  It was scaled back to Exits 3-8. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on July 15, 2023, 04:59:53 PM
Apparently, CTDOT decided to get lazy and changed EB signage to match WB signage despite most traffic here heading for West Main St and Meriden.  Has a strong flavor of MassDOT using NYC as a control for I-84 from the pike eastbound
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53048362604_feda0410a6.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RyanB06 on July 17, 2023, 09:19:12 PM
That sign has read "Southington" for as long as I can remember. Most traffic would be using Exit 4 for Chamberlain Highway to get to Meriden anyway, no?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on July 17, 2023, 10:53:10 PM
Quote from: RyanB06 on July 17, 2023, 09:19:12 PM
That sign has read "Southington" for as long as I can remember. Most traffic would be using Exit 4 for Chamberlain Highway to get to Meriden anyway, no?

Westbound has.  Eastbound (shown in my pic) always read West Main St and made no reference to CT 322.  Just wish they would've added a WEST banner here since the exit is at the eastern terminus of 322. Those that are going to the west side (including Hubbard Park and Castle Craig) would exit here.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on July 18, 2023, 04:51:24 PM
The preferred alt is.....stoplights. F-ing amazing. I can't believe it made it to the top.
http://7-15norwalk.com/documents/Route-7-15-Norwalk-Summer-2023-Newsletter.pdf
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on July 18, 2023, 05:10:10 PM
Well, in all honesty, if it gets the project built, sure, why not, go with the stoplight alternative.  With the expressway ending a mile north of the interchange at a traffic light, its not the end of the world.  Its not like we're redoing an interchange in the middle of an expressway and putting in lights, with 65 MPH traffic extending on either side for 10-20+ miles (like Rt 9). 

And this alternative should keep the MPC happy.... no flyovers.  No wide spanning bridges like the Rt 8 or Rt 25 interchange.  And it will be a heck of a lot safer than what we have today, with those ancient Main Ave ramps. 

The Super 7 is never going to Danbury.  But, if we could only get it extended to the CT 33 jct and not end at that rock wall, then I'd call it progress.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: The Ghostbuster on July 18, 2023, 05:26:32 PM
The redesign chosen for the US 7/CT 15 interchange confirms that the US 7 roadway will terminate at Grist Mill Rd. for all eternity (as if any more proof was needed for that). I doubt it would be possible to widen the two-lane segments of US 7 into four-lane undivided roadways between Grist Mill Rd. and Wooster Heights Rd.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on July 18, 2023, 08:16:57 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 18, 2023, 05:26:32 PM
The redesign chosen for the US 7/CT 15 interchange confirms that the US 7 roadway will terminate at Grist Mill Rd. for all eternity (as if any more proof was needed for that). I doubt it would be possible to widen the two-lane segments of US 7 into four-lane undivided roadways between Grist Mill Rd. and Wooster Heights Rd.
That was a known fact 20 years ago. After CTDOT decided to 4-lane the existing road through Wilton and from Route 35 to Danbury, that was the final nail in the coffin for any hopes of completing the freeway from Norwalk to Danbury. With CTDOT's plan to eventually eliminate the T-intersection at Gristmill road and soften the transition from Super 7 to the old alignment on Main Avenue, the traffic light option at Route 15 makes a little bit of sense.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on July 18, 2023, 08:28:22 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on July 18, 2023, 05:10:10 PM
Well, in all honesty, if it gets the project built, sure, why not, go with the stoplight alternative.  With the expressway ending a mile north of the interchange at a traffic light, its not the end of the world.  Its not like we're redoing an interchange in the middle of an expressway and putting in lights, with 65 MPH traffic extending on either side for 10-20+ miles (like Rt 9). 

And this alternative should keep the MPC happy.... no flyovers.  No wide spanning bridges like the Rt 8 or Rt 25 interchange.  And it will be a heck of a lot safer than what we have today, with those ancient Main Ave ramps. 

The Super 7 is never going to Danbury.  But, if we could only get it extended to the CT 33 jct and not end at that rock wall, then I'd call it progress.
You still have two freeways intersecting at less than a freeway-freeway interchange, though.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on July 18, 2023, 09:23:51 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on July 18, 2023, 04:51:24 PM
The preferred alt is.....stoplights. F-ing amazing. I can't believe it made it to the top.
http://7-15norwalk.com/documents/Route-7-15-Norwalk-Summer-2023-Newsletter.pdf

I can because the unfortunate reality is your feasible options are this or no build. The state has tried everything to get a proper freeway-freeway interchange to work and nothing does within the bounds of what is acceptable to construct. It would require either having flyovers, which you can't do because it is not in line with the historic character of the parkway; or having ramps come a lot closer to the backyards of the wealthy homeowners in the SW and NW quadrants than they already do, which you can't do because if you try to substantially impact the property values of anyone wealthy you will be stopped.

There also is the matter that some people in Wilton feel threatened by the idea of a full freeway-freeway interchange because they worry about it creating pressure to revive the idea of a northward extension of the freeway. They'll like this plan specifically because it precludes that.


That said it's important to not forget here that this is still Connecticut - the state has looked into doing something with the Merritt/7 interchange multiple times before and ended up going with the no build option every time. I am not convinced this time will be any different.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on July 19, 2023, 12:10:24 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on July 18, 2023, 08:16:57 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 18, 2023, 05:26:32 PM
The redesign chosen for the US 7/CT 15 interchange confirms that the US 7 roadway will terminate at Grist Mill Rd. for all eternity (as if any more proof was needed for that). I doubt it would be possible to widen the two-lane segments of US 7 into four-lane undivided roadways between Grist Mill Rd. and Wooster Heights Rd.
That was a known fact 20 years ago. After CTDOT decided to 4-lane the existing road through Wilton and from Route 35 to Danbury, that was the final nail in the coffin for any hopes of completing the freeway from Norwalk to Danbury. With CTDOT's plan to eventually eliminate the T-intersection at Gristmill road and soften the transition from Super 7 to the old alignment on Main Avenue, the traffic light option at Route 15 makes a little bit of sense.

What's their plan to soften the T at Grist Mill Rd?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on July 19, 2023, 01:26:58 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on July 19, 2023, 12:10:24 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on July 18, 2023, 08:16:57 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 18, 2023, 05:26:32 PM
The redesign chosen for the US 7/CT 15 interchange confirms that the US 7 roadway will terminate at Grist Mill Rd. for all eternity (as if any more proof was needed for that). I doubt it would be possible to widen the two-lane segments of US 7 into four-lane undivided roadways between Grist Mill Rd. and Wooster Heights Rd.
That was a known fact 20 years ago. After CTDOT decided to 4-lane the existing road through Wilton and from Route 35 to Danbury, that was the final nail in the coffin for any hopes of completing the freeway from Norwalk to Danbury. With CTDOT's plan to eventually eliminate the T-intersection at Gristmill road and soften the transition from Super 7 to the old alignment on Main Avenue, the traffic light option at Route 15 makes a little bit of sense.

What's their plan to soften the T at Grist Mill Rd?
The plan would realign Route 7 so that it curves to the right (east) at the present freeway terminus, crosses the Norwalk River, then curves to the left (north) as it joins Main Avenue heading north. Gristmill Road and Glover Avenue would be realigned to a new 4-way signalized intersection where the present T-intersection is located. One would have to turn to access Main Avenue heading south; thus, making the transition from Super 7 (south) to Route 7/Main Avenue (north) the through movement, and access to Main Avenue heading south and Gristmill Road/Glover Avenue requiring turn movements.

Right now there's no funding for the project, so I have no idea how long it will be until this becomes a reality.

https://www.norwalkct.gov/DocumentCenter/View/21710/North7-Traffic-Impact-Study-Feb-2021
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: The Ghostbuster on July 19, 2023, 02:55:30 PM
I know when it will become a reality. When hell freezes over!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on July 19, 2023, 07:23:37 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on July 19, 2023, 01:26:58 PM
The plan would realign Route 7 so that it curves to the right (east) at the present freeway terminus, crosses the Norwalk River, then curves to the left (north) as it joins Main Avenue heading north. Gristmill Road and Glover Avenue would be realigned to a new 4-way signalized intersection where the present T-intersection is located. One would have to turn to access Main Avenue heading south; thus, making the transition from Super 7 (south) to Route 7/Main Avenue (north) the through movement, and access to Main Avenue heading south and Gristmill Road/Glover Avenue requiring turn movements.

The plan in your link only actually realigns the north end of the freeway to make heading east on Grist Mill Rd the thru movement. You would still have to turn left at Main Ave to continue following Route 7.

Also informative in there is it shows the other now-eliminated alternative to build a free-flowing interchange between 7 and the Merritt... which, well, you can see why they crossed that off. It manages to avoid using flyovers and bringing ramps any closer to the homeoweners to the west than they already are, but it's janky as fuck with a bunch of tight curves and multiple weaves - and thus not really a great idea either.


At any rate, once again, this is Connecticut - pay no mind to the plans to realign the north end of the freeway, they're nothing more than a "what if" that the state is highly unlikely to ever follow through on.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on July 19, 2023, 08:30:50 PM
^ I think a modified version of that alternative could have worked.  Given that the freeway will never go north of Grist Mill, IMO there isn't a need for direct CT 15 SB to US 7 NB and US 7 SB to CT 15 NB movements.  Eliminating those two movements also gets rid of many of the bridges and weaves in that design.  If you further allow the US 7 NB to CT 15 NB movement to stop at the light for Main and the CT 15 SB to US 7 SB movement to have a light for a left turn, you'd still keep all existing movements except the US 7 through movements free-flow, and it's not like there's a freeway continuing north of there, so that would make a very nice compromise between the downgrade that got designated a preferred alternative and something that would inevitably piss off the NIMBYs.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on July 19, 2023, 08:59:03 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on July 18, 2023, 05:10:10 PM
Well, in all honesty, if it gets the project built, sure, why not, go with the stoplight alternative.  With the expressway ending a mile north of the interchange at a traffic light, its not the end of the world.  Its not like we're redoing an interchange in the middle of an expressway and putting in lights, with 65 MPH traffic extending on either side for 10-20+ miles (like Rt 9). 

And this alternative should keep the MPC happy.... no flyovers.  No wide spanning bridges like the Rt 8 or Rt 25 interchange.  And it will be a heck of a lot safer than what we have today, with those ancient Main Ave ramps. 

The Super 7 is never going to Danbury.  But, if we could only get it extended to the CT 33 jct and not end at that rock wall, then I'd call it progress.
I have commented to pretty much that effect
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: robby2161 on July 21, 2023, 06:14:03 PM
In other news, the portion of US-7 that was widened and rebuilt through Wilton in 2008 saw it's first resurfacing.  And in typical (these days) CT fashion, they completely cheaped out on the lane markings.  The dashed line is crooked in many spots, and several intersections they screwed up the spacing.  Feels really awkward to drive, as do many other recent CT repave jobs. 

Pic is US-7 southbound at CT-106 (Wolfpit Road) junction, the southern limit of the resurfacing project  It's like they didn't even bother to look at the lanes of US-7 on the opposite side of the intersection

https://yourimageshare.com/ib/47LINncX0m (https://yourimageshare.com/ib/47LINncX0m)

(http://#39;s%20first%20resurfacing. %20And%20in%20typical%20(these%20days)%20CT%20fashion,%20they%20completely%20cheaped%20out%20on%20the%20lane%20markings. %20The%20dashed%20line%20is%20crooked%20in%20many%20spots,%20and%20several%20intersections%20they%20screwed%20up%20the%20spacing. %20Feels%20really%20awkward%20to%20drive,%20as%20do%20many%20other%20recent%20CT%20repave%20jobs. %20%3Cbr%20/%3E%3Cbr%20/%3EPic%20is%20US-7%20southbound%20at%20CT-106%20(Wolfpit%20Road)%20junction,%20the%20southern%20limit%20of%20the%20resurfacing%20project %20It's%20like%20they%20didn't%20even%20bother%20to%20look%20at%20the%20lanes%20of%20US-7%20on%20the%20opposite%20side%20of%20the%20intersection%3Cbr%20/%3E%3Cbr%20/%3E%5Bimg%5DIn%20other%20news,%20the%20portion%20of%20US-7%20that%20was%20widened%20and%20rebuilt%20through%20Wilton%20in%202008%20saw%20it's%20first%20resurfacing. %20And%20in%20typical%20(these%20days)%20CT%20fashion,%20they%20completely%20cheaped%20out%20on%20the%20lane%20markings. %20The%20dashed%20line%20is%20crooked%20in%20many%20spots,%20and%20several%20intersections%20they%20screwed%20up%20the%20spacing. %20Feels%20really%20awkward%20to%20drive,%20as%20do%20many%20other%20recent%20CT%20repave%20jobs. %20%3Cbr%20/%3E%3Cbr%20/%3EPic%20is%20US-7%20southbound%20at%20CT-106%20(Wolfpit%20Road)%20junction,%20the%20southern%20limit%20of%20the%20resurfacing%20project %20It's%20like%20they%20didn't%20even%20bother%20to%20look%20at%20the%20lanes%20of%20US-7%20on%20the%20opposite%20side%20of%20the%20intersection%3Cbr%20/%3E%3Cbr%20/%3E%5Bimg%5D<a%20href="https://yourimageshare.com/ib/47LINncX0m"><img%20src="https://yourimageshare.com/ib/47LINncX0m.webp"%20title="Image%20-%2047LINncX0m%20-%20yourimageshare.com"%20alt="Image%20-%2047LINncX0m%20-%20yourimageshare.com"></a><center><a%20target="_blank"%20href="https://yourimageshare.com"><small>Image%20hosting</small></a></center>)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on July 22, 2023, 09:29:49 AM
They typically don't used bonded epoxy lane markings on surface streets.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Rothman on July 22, 2023, 10:06:41 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on July 22, 2023, 09:29:49 AM
They typically don't used bonded epoxy lane markings on surface streets.
This is true in CT?  Interesting.  In NY, entities will spray down "temporary" striping and markings and then come back with the epoxy later.

That said, epoxy costs have gone through the roof in recent years.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: bing101 on July 22, 2023, 11:53:48 AM

Here is a segment on the Merritt Parkway.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on July 27, 2023, 09:11:32 PM
The 2023 edition of ConnDOT's spot overhead sign replacement project is out.  Just head over to the "Bid Board" (via the ConnDOT page) and search for "  0170-5025  "

Among this year's highlights include basically replacing all approach I-95 signage on I-91 South in New Haven with APLs (and giving those I-95 ramps exit numbers), replacing some damaged signs/gantries with new ones (I-91 South Exit 47E, I-95 NB Exit 43, I-95 NB Exit 71), and finally giving a proper sign for I-395 North Exit 35 in Plainfield.  This is where I-395 North takes a hard left turn, and prior to the project to convert to mile-based exits, there was an overhead here.  The new overhead will have an "almost straight, but up/right arrow" for Exit 35 traffic and two up/left arrows for I-395 North.

As standard practice with these projects, the new signs essentially retain the "status quo" (with the exception of aligning exit tabs, LEFT exit tabs, etc).  One site is confusing on the contract plans, however... an advance for Exits 30-31-32 on I-91 South is showing a sign replacement on existing support, but the signs shown are the existing signs, complete with centered exit tabs, full length LEFT EXIT at the bottom of the Exit 30 sign, and the odd "84 EAST 2" placement, not to mention the "New London" control city remaining.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on July 31, 2023, 11:19:45 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on July 27, 2023, 09:11:32 PM
The 2023 edition of ConnDOT's spot overhead sign replacement project is out.  Just head over to the "Bid Board" (via the ConnDOT page) and search for "  0170-5025  "

Among this year's highlights include basically replacing all approach I-95 signage on I-91 South in New Haven with APLs (and giving those I-95 ramps exit numbers), replacing some damaged signs/gantries with new ones (I-91 South Exit 47E, I-95 NB Exit 43, I-95 NB Exit 71), and finally giving a proper sign for I-395 North Exit 35 in Plainfield.  This is where I-395 North takes a hard left turn, and prior to the project to convert to mile-based exits, there was an overhead here.  The new overhead will have an "almost straight, but up/right arrow" for Exit 35 traffic and two up/left arrows for I-395 North. 

As standard practice with these projects, the new signs essentially retain the "status quo" (with the exception of aligning exit tabs, LEFT exit tabs, etc).  One site is confusing on the contract plans, however... an advance for Exits 30-31-32 on I-91 South is showing a sign replacement on existing support, but the signs shown are the existing signs, complete with centered exit tabs, full length LEFT EXIT at the bottom of the Exit 30 sign, and the odd "84 EAST 2" placement, not to mention the "New London" control city remaining.
I wonder if they're going to do an sheet aluminum patch job like they did on I-84 EB just after the Bulkeley Bridge.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 02, 2023, 04:57:53 PM
A few new signs on I-691 East and CT 66 West:

Eastbound, Exit 7 (old Exit 3):
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53085346193_9ea8e53ca3_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2oSYgXx)691EB-Exit07-3 (https://flic.kr/p/2oSYgXx) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

Eastbound, Exit 3 (old Exit 5):
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53084850496_fe9b2ca7a3_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2oSVJB3)691EB-Exit03-3 (https://flic.kr/p/2oSVJB3) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

Eastbound, Exit 2A (old Exit 8):
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53085259420_a8a85df89d_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2oSXQas)691EB-Exit2A-4 (https://flic.kr/p/2oSXQas) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

Eastbound, Exit 1B (old Exit 10) advance:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53085346123_049f75fea3_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2oSYgWk)691EB-Exit1B-1 (https://flic.kr/p/2oSYgWk) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr
(a work in progress)

Westbound, Exit 1A
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53084283987_6d5558e4a4_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2oSSQcD)CT66WB-691WB-Exit1A (https://flic.kr/p/2oSSQcD) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

Essentially all the new gantries are up in the eastbound direction, and almost all the new signs (except one for Exit 1-A).  Its unclear whether the two gantries replaced during the "spot replacement" project last year will be modified (removal of the second control points for I-91 South and North (W Cross Pkwy and Springfield).  Given this whole area is going to get a remake as part of the I-91/CT 15/I-691 interchange project, it would be a waste.  The eastbound ramp to I-91 North will become 2 lanes as part of that project.

Westbound, there are still a few gantries left to replace.  These include Exits 1A/1B advance, Exit 1B, Exit 1C, Exit 2A all gantries, and Exit 7 1 mile. 

More recent I-691 photos - https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 02, 2023, 05:03:49 PM
Also drove CT 11 NB and CT 2 WB from Salem to East Hartford this past weekend to check on sign replacement there:

CT 82 at CT 11, former Exit 4 onramp, Salem:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53084284582_90dba40674_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2oSSQnU)CT82atCT11 (https://flic.kr/p/2oSSQnU) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

CT 11 NB, Exit 5:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53084851166_902f2160fe_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2oSVJNA)CT11NB-Exit05-1 (https://flic.kr/p/2oSVJNA) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53085346008_a84dee362c_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2oSYgUm)CT11NB-Exit05-2 (https://flic.kr/p/2oSYgUm) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

CT 2 WB, Exit 16:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53085260200_24fdedff3d_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2oSXQoU)CT2WB-Exit16-3 (https://flic.kr/p/2oSXQoU) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

No new overheads yet anywhere on CT 11 NB or CT 2 WB.  Thats probably why CT 11 hasn't gotten its new numbers yet, and they're keeping them well-wrapped until reveal day.  I find it interesting they recycled the old button copy exit tabs from the old signs and placed them on top of the new signs.  I would think overlays would be easier.  Most sheet aluminum signs have been replaced, including all new single-posted reassurance shields, town line signs (which omit the "INCORPORATED ####" middle line), and most MUTCD-compliant mile markers.  Most entrance extruded signs have been replaced, at least up to Marlborough, which all feature the thick state shield border. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: The Ghostbuster on August 03, 2023, 11:39:07 AM
Hopefully, the new exit numbers will be uncovered soon. I must admit, I've never seen a sign with two exit tabs on top of each other.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on August 03, 2023, 06:44:32 PM
- The old Exit 59 1/4mi diagramatic BGS on I-84 EB is now gone. Was replaced with a new ground mounted version, which is IMO too easy to miss with five lanes of freeway. It really should be overhead.

- There are FINALLY ground-mounted APLs at the end of the Exit 62 on I-84 EB. Not sure if it will fix the issue of cars choosing the wrong lane for Pavillions Drive, towards the Buckland Hills Mall.

- Signal replacement has begun on CT 30 in Vernon Center.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 03, 2023, 08:43:26 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on August 03, 2023, 06:44:32 PM
- The old Exit 59 1/4mi diagramatic BGS on I-84 EB is now gone. Was replaced with a new ground mounted version, which is IMO too easy to miss with five lanes of freeway. It really should be overhead.

Oh I agree.  I think it was a stopgap solution until there's a blanket sign replacement project to come in and replace all the signs and gantries.  There's an I-84 sign project from Vernon to Union set to go out to bid IIRC this fall, but still doesn't touch East Hartford-Manchester, whose signs date back to shortly after the days of the I-86 to I-84 conversion back in the 80s. 

There's a similar ground-mounted sign on I-91 South in Meriden just after Exit 18 that's a diagrammatic.  That one will become an overhead, but will only be a sign for Exit 17/Rt 15 SB and not a diagrammatic.  Then it will be replaced again as part of the I-91/I-691/Rt 15 interchange project. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeCL on August 05, 2023, 09:55:22 AM
Quote from: connroadgeek on March 02, 2023, 05:37:22 PM
Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on March 02, 2023, 04:08:30 PM
I'm actually in the Darien Rest Area at the moment, I notice they have traffic map displays on the TVs, is this a standard for CT, I haven't seen this at rest areas in other states?
They put those in when they revamped all of the rest areas about 5-10 years ago. The McDonalds at the Darien rest area is supposedly one of the ten busiest in the world or was before they added more food options as part of the renovations.
I tried searching but does anyone have old photos before they redid the rest stations? They are beyond hard to find.. I just wanted to show someone.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeCL on August 05, 2023, 10:14:51 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 12, 2023, 11:09:49 AM
Quote from: MASTERNC on April 11, 2023, 03:13:58 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on April 01, 2023, 08:42:27 PM
This was approved by the legislature over a year ago and had seemingly been quietly forgotten about since, but...

https://www.wtnh.com/news/connecticut/connecticut-dot-placing-cameras-in-construction-zones-to-crack-down-on-speeding/?fbclid=IwAR2Qo9Q4GT5qf1MaEPmxBkMoSBuzk4fV_4OiX7WfyTYs94C2cwEgdI3be3Y

Looks like Connecticut will be placing revenue generation cameras in a few freeway work zones after all.

I have to assume someone in a position of power got to nagging since I doubt ConnDOT actually wanted to do this, and the state police are on the record as being in opposition (because they see it as their jobs being automated away).

I'm not sure revenue is the primary motivation when the cameras won't ticket vehicles going less than 15 over the limit, and the first violation is a written warning.  If they ran the cameras 24/7 and gave out $40 tickets to any offender like Maryland, I would say otherwise.
Maryland is ridiculous to enforce work zone speed limits even when no workers are present.
Oh yes I saw so many flashes going off that one night no workers at all
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeCL on August 05, 2023, 10:48:07 AM
One more question for the SB Darien service station what is that building they are building near the Mcdonals drive-tru area? It seems a little on the larger size.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: The Ghostbuster on August 05, 2023, 12:28:35 PM
As everyone likely knows, there is a welcome center on Interstate 95 northbound just east of Exit 65 (there is a state police barracks on the other side). Why did Connecticut construct a welcome center nearly 74 miles east of the Connecticut/New York border. I would think a better location for a welcome center would have been the current location of the weigh station between Exits 2 and 3. Maybe a gas station-only service area should have been built at Westbrook instead.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on August 05, 2023, 01:28:35 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 05, 2023, 12:28:35 PM
As everyone likely knows, there is a welcome center on Interstate 95 northbound just east of Exit 65 (there is a state police barracks on the other side). Why did Connecticut construct a welcome center nearly 74 miles east of the Connecticut/New York border. I would think a better location for a welcome center would have been the current location of the weigh station between Exits 2 and 3. Maybe a gas station-only service area should have been built at Westbrook instead.

Per Connecticut's DCED, there is a welcome center at the Darien Northbound area. There's probably another welcome center in Westbrook to entice those who drive up on the Merritt and cut over to 95 north on their way to RI or Cape Cod (as I have done) and for those who didn't stop at Darien for whatever reason.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeCL on August 05, 2023, 07:47:58 PM
Damn forgot to grab the shot of the service station on the way back home
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 06, 2023, 08:52:28 AM
The former signage (pre-2000) for Westbrook said "TOURIST INFO".  The sign replacement project changed it to "REST AREA/CT WELCOME CENTER".  It should have been more "REST AREA/TOURIST INFO CENTER".  In much much larger states, 74 miles in is nothing compared to being 200-300 miles wide, but in CT, you're 3/4 of the way across the state, so the welcome center designation is a misnomer.  So think of it not as a welcome center, but as a tourist info center for the busy SE portion of CT, whether you've been on I-95 the whole time or you've cut across via the Merritt/Milford Pkwys.

As to why it was built, I'm not sure.  I doubt its turnpike-original.  My guess would be sometime in the 70s or early 80s.  Its style is different from the other state non-commercial rest areas.  Granted its run by the dept of tourism, not by ConnDOT, hence why it was closed for a couple of years some time back.  At least its open again, just not all year round.

In reality, it should go.  Its got very limited car parking, and trucks line its shoulders at night.  If I-95 ever gets widened in the area, it would have to go.  It's just too tight in that area and its onramp is almost immediately at the Exit 66 offramp. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 06, 2023, 04:48:42 PM
Quote from: MikeCL on August 05, 2023, 09:55:22 AM
Quote from: connroadgeek on March 02, 2023, 05:37:22 PM
Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on March 02, 2023, 04:08:30 PM
I'm actually in the Darien Rest Area at the moment, I notice they have traffic map displays on the TVs, is this a standard for CT, I haven't seen this at rest areas in other states?
They put those in when they revamped all of the rest areas about 5-10 years ago. The McDonalds at the Darien rest area is supposedly one of the ten busiest in the world or was before they added more food options as part of the renovations.
I tried searching but does anyone have old photos before they redid the rest stations? They are beyond hard to find.. I just wanted to show someone.

A 30-second google search turned up the following:

For the smaller (Branford-SB and Madison-NB):
https://patch.com/connecticut/branford/mcdonald-s-to-close-i-95-service-plaza-restaurants-inb9c6464be5

And the others:
https://patch.com/connecticut/norwalk/darien-rest-stops-to-be-completely-replaced-ed4e3480
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeCL on August 06, 2023, 04:53:58 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on August 06, 2023, 04:48:42 PM
Quote from: MikeCL on August 05, 2023, 09:55:22 AM
Quote from: connroadgeek on March 02, 2023, 05:37:22 PM
Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on March 02, 2023, 04:08:30 PM
I'm actually in the Darien Rest Area at the moment, I notice they have traffic map displays on the TVs, is this a standard for CT, I haven't seen this at rest areas in other states?
They put those in when they revamped all of the rest areas about 5-10 years ago. The McDonalds at the Darien rest area is supposedly one of the ten busiest in the world or was before they added more food options as part of the renovations.
I tried searching but does anyone have old photos before they redid the rest stations? They are beyond hard to find.. I just wanted to show someone.

A 30-second google search turned up the following:

For the smaller (Branford-SB and Madison-NB):
https://patch.com/connecticut/branford/mcdonald-s-to-close-i-95-service-plaza-restaurants-inb9c6464be5

And the others:
https://patch.com/connecticut/norwalk/darien-rest-stops-to-be-completely-replaced-ed4e3480

Thanks.. maybe I searched under the wrong search terms as these show much clearer photos might of also been I was only trying to search for the Darien photos since it was the first one you came to into CT.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on August 06, 2023, 05:13:25 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on August 06, 2023, 08:52:28 AM
The former signage (pre-2000) for Westbrook said "TOURIST INFO".  The sign replacement project changed it to "REST AREA/CT WELCOME CENTER".  It should have been more "REST AREA/TOURIST INFO CENTER".  In much much larger states, 74 miles in is nothing compared to being 200-300 miles wide, but in CT, you're 3/4 of the way across the state, so the welcome center designation is a misnomer.  So think of it not as a welcome center, but as a tourist info center for the busy SE portion of CT, whether you've been on I-95 the whole time or you've cut across via the Merritt/Milford Pkwys.

As to why it was built, I'm not sure.  I doubt its turnpike-original.  My guess would be sometime in the 70s or early 80s.  Its style is different from the other state non-commercial rest areas.  Granted its run by the dept of tourism, not by ConnDOT, hence why it was closed for a couple of years some time back.  At least its open again, just not all year round.

In reality, it should go.  Its got very limited car parking, and trucks line its shoulders at night.  If I-95 ever gets widened in the area, it would have to go.  It's just too tight in that area and its onramp is almost immediately at the Exit 66 offramp.

If the state wanted a tourist info center for traffic east of New Haven, I wonder why they didn't make provisions for one when they redesigned the rest areas om Branford and Madison. Even a kiosk would be OK (unless I missed it). 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 06, 2023, 07:56:04 PM
There are the tourism kiosks in the service plazas. 

However, in this digital era where everything we could possibly need is on our phones, is a welcome center really necessary?  I still enjoy them and using the opportunity to ask questions, use the facilities or grab a state map.  However in CT, you can't even do the latter! 

Welcome centers in VT, NH and ME seem to still be well patronized with friendly welcoming staff, with the racks stocked full of maps and brochures and whatnot.  Last time I was at the CT centers, there were no maps and about half of the brochures. 

I had a concept of constructing an off-highway travel plaza in Westbrook combining food and fuel and tourist info in a design similar to the on-highway service plazas, utilizing land formerly occupying a restaurant and existing gas station.  I came up with other concepts adjacent to existing non-commercial CT rest areas (N Stonington, Wallingford), in an effort to reduce the facility burden on ConnDOT and up the tourism ante (a counter in a privately-operated building to staff 8 hours/day vs an entire facility to take care of and keep open and secure 24/7). 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeCL on August 07, 2023, 03:03:16 PM
Got around to taking pictures today(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20230807/7d3f9f624c91b90a19db277e3e5499a7.jpg)
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20230807/f34ae4d775d0423c7cf92b70e3aa487a.jpg)
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20230807/09d0486d4a45164a594a83653b3cf608.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on August 07, 2023, 04:39:12 PM
$17 for a 2 cheeseburger value meal?!? :wow: :ded:  I could buy my own side of beef for that price.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on August 07, 2023, 06:39:45 PM
I'm guessing this is the Darien plaza? If so, the $17 would make sense.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 07, 2023, 08:00:26 PM
Here's some pre-rebuilding footage of the inside (and some of the outside) of Darien-NB:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-ABWlGn5h8

Think of the interiors back then as just a very large McDonalds with a couple "indentations" for smaller vendors.  Faber was the gift shop.  Edy's Ice Cream and Original Pizza of Boston I  believe were the other vendors.  Signage inside was primarily McDonalds, right down to the traditional McD's floor design of the time.  There was no convenience store back then... just a booth in the middle of the island for gas transactions. I do miss the gift shop... years ago I bought a shirt that had a map of CT on it, basically zoomed in showing roads, town names, etc (and not just the basic state outline).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on August 08, 2023, 01:35:10 PM
Is there a reason why the I-84/I-91 HOV lanes were not designed with jersey barriers, with appropriate breaks to allow for authorized access? Seems like more people than ever are just cutting across the gore to avoid accidents/traffic.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: zzyzx on August 08, 2023, 04:08:21 PM
The Day newspaper published an article this weekend about the Gold Star Bridge, and the traffic headaches that it caused prior to the second span opening in the 1970s. There's an interactive timeline and some historical images and signage of I-95 from around that time:

https://www.theday.com/local-news/20230805/the-two-decade-struggle-to-fix-gold-star-traffic-jams/ (https://www.theday.com/local-news/20230805/the-two-decade-struggle-to-fix-gold-star-traffic-jams/)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 08, 2023, 04:36:12 PM
Quote from: zzyzx on August 08, 2023, 04:08:21 PM
The Day newspaper published an article this weekend about the Gold Star Bridge, and the traffic headaches that it caused prior to the second span opening in the 1970s. There's an interactive timeline and some historical images and signage of I-95 from around that time:

https://www.theday.com/local-news/20230805/the-two-decade-struggle-to-fix-gold-star-traffic-jams/ (https://www.theday.com/local-news/20230805/the-two-decade-struggle-to-fix-gold-star-traffic-jams/)

Too bad its behind a paywall.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: zzyzx on August 08, 2023, 05:01:38 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on August 08, 2023, 04:36:12 PM
Quote from: zzyzx on August 08, 2023, 04:08:21 PM
The Day newspaper published an article this weekend about the Gold Star Bridge, and the traffic headaches that it caused prior to the second span opening in the 1970s. There's an interactive timeline and some historical images and signage of I-95 from around that time:

https://www.theday.com/local-news/20230805/the-two-decade-struggle-to-fix-gold-star-traffic-jams/ (https://www.theday.com/local-news/20230805/the-two-decade-struggle-to-fix-gold-star-traffic-jams/)

Too bad its behind a paywall.

The two-decade struggle to fix Gold Star traffic jams
By John Ruddy
Copy Desk Chief
j.ruddy@theday.com

Editor's note: This story was drawn mostly from the archives of The Day, with additional material from the Connecticut State Library and the Connecticut College website "Mapping Urban Renewal in New London: 1941-1975."

It all started with soda bottles.

The driver of a pickup on the Gold Star Memorial Bridge, then a single span with two lanes in each direction, tried to pass the car ahead of him. When he changed lanes, cases of bottles he was carrying shifted, and the truck fishtailed. Then it climbed over the low concrete median and struck an oncoming car.

Maybe it was the three serious injuries that resulted, or traffic at a standstill for hours, or just people's patience at a breaking point. But something about this accident in November 1967 struck a nerve. After years of worsening conditions on the bridge, letters started arriving at the governor's office, demanding action.

"Being a frequent user of this Bridge I like many other citizens have come to fear to cross it,"  one man wrote.

But little could be done. The solution was a second span, and that was already planned but still a long way off.

Fifty years ago in June, the Gold Star's long-awaited twin was finally finished, changing the region's transportation landscape. But even that didn't end the story.

The original span's completion in 1943 ended huge tie-ups on its predecessor, a converted railroad bridge that opened whenever a boat came along. But with time and more traffic, the Gold Star became the problem it was built to solve.

Fixing things was a bigger job the second time around. The solution had to account for busier roads, changes in traffic engineering and vast disruptions on the ground. A second span wasn't enough: The old bridge would also have to be widened to keep travel between New London and Groton flowing for the long haul.

The entire drama played out over 20 years of construction, demolition, upheaval and death.

Cars and trucks first drove across the across the Thames River between Groton and New London on repurposed railroad tracks.

By 1965, the four-lane span is part of Interstate 95, the primary north-south artery along the eastern seaboard.

* * *

The accident that took a 16-year-old's life in July 1958 was an earlier breaking point. The fact that he'd had his driver's license just two days and was going 100 mph didn't seem to matter as much as the location.

The crash occurred at the corner of Colman Street and the Bridge Approach, a four-lane road built for the Gold Star in the 1940s. There were businesses on both sides and intersections with other streets.

It was the second fatality at that spot, and the third on the approach, in a few months.

Three years before, when the state had announced plans to convert the approach to a limited-access highway, many in New London were dead set against the idea.

"We need this as much as we need a hole in the head,"  Spencer Moon complained about the expected loss of traffic to his Buick dealership and gas station.

But as the Bridge Approach became increasingly dangerous, the city changed its tune. After the third fatality, officials pleaded for the stalled project to begin.

The addition of service roads and overpasses at Briggs, Colman and Vauxhall streets wasn't just about safety in the immediate area. The approach would eventually be part of a Maine-to-Florida highway.

Most of Connecticut's stretch of Interstate 95 had just opened as the Connecticut Turnpike, which ran from Greenwich to East Lyme before turning north. The rest of the route, from Waterford to the Rhode Island line, would be upgraded piecemeal over the next few years. The Bridge Approach was one of the pieces, as was the bridge itself.

With approach construction underway in January 1960, the state announced a second bridge would be built next to the existing one. But years before that happened, the last section of highway opened in Groton, Stonington and North Stonington. As of December 1964, the narrow Gold Star was part of I-95.

A traffic nightmare was ahead.

* * *

For Samuel Bellin, the state might as well have dropped a bomb.

When initial plans for the new bridge were unveiled in late 1963, they included a four-lane access road from the Bridge Approach to Mohegan Avenue. It would run right through Hodges Square, wiping out the thriving business district.

"There are no empty stores here, such as you see downtown ...,"  said Bellin, who ran a pharmacy. "How can they do this?"

Bellin and his fellow merchants organized, and the city got behind them in opposing the loss of Hodges Square. Highway Commissioner Howard Ives warned the alternative might be worse but gave the city eight options to choose from.

New London reluctantly backed "Alternate G,"  which spared Hodges Square but still took 250 properties, including businesses on the new service roads.

The interchange to enter the bridge caused endless design complications, but the bridge itself would be a straightforward truss span like the Gold Star, only wider. Engineers had briefly considered a double-deck bridge and even a tunnel, but those ideas went nowhere.

Revisions to the interchange in 1967 that would take still more properties dismayed most city officials except the Redevelopment Agency, which was conducting widespread demolition of its own.

"Usually when highways are built, they take some valuable land and open other properties which in turn become valuable. This plan takes everything but returns nothing,"  Assessor Robert Flanagan complained.

The city's grand list was in for a $3 million hit. Among the properties to be sacrificed were the Meadows Restaurant, New London Motel, Fremont Funeral Home and London House apartments, which were almost new. Winthrop School next to the Old Town Mill was also targeted. Our Lady of Perpetual Help Church left town, though its building survived.

By the fall of 1969, as property owners collected damages, other aspects of the project were in place. With bids made and contracts signed, construction was set to begin.

* * *

Bumper to bumper and not moving, cars stretched west to the Waterford weigh station and north to Quaker Hill. The cause of the afternoon traffic jam, just before Christmas 1966, was a tractor-trailer that had jumped the bridge's median. That morning another truck had run out of fuel. Then it snowed overnight, and the next day cars were again stacked up for miles.

The only thing remarkable about this trio of tie-ups is that it wasn't remarkable at all.

Crashes and congestion on the bridge had gradually increased, but once I-95 opened, they spiked. Stories about closed lanes and late-arriving commuters were so common in The Day they were often relegated to inside pages.

In one case, an ambulance carrying a patient was rerouted many miles to the Mohegan-Pequot Bridge. In another, a woman in labor got a police escort past an accident scene.

Meanwhile, a separate drama was unfolding: People were jumping off the bridge. Since 1951, there had been about one suicide a year, with more attempts thwarted.

Dr. Charles Dyer, New London's health director, spent years begging the state for higher fences. Officials finally agreed in 1967. Two people leaped to their deaths while the fences were going up, but the march of troubled souls to the bridge slowed, then stopped.

Amid the traffic woes, public hearings were held and frustrations vented, but answers were elusive.

"Who the hell is responsible?"  asked Groton City Mayor Clarence Sharp, who later had a highway named after him.

Ideas included stoplights, TV monitors, motorcycle patrols and highway workers summoning wreckers with walkie-talkies. New London City Councilor Ruby Turner Morris proposed squeezing through traffic into one lane to keep the other free for entering vehicles.

There was no solution except to proceed with construction.

* * *

1940: Groton-New London Bridge opens.

1951: A woman jumps to her death from the bridge, beginning a 20-year suicide era that claims 19 lives.

1958: A series of fatal accidents on the Bridge Approach prompt the city to urge completion of the stalled service road project.

1964: News that plans for the new bridge would destroy Hodges Square causes an uproar, and access road locations are changed in response. With the completion of Connecticut's last stretch of Interstate 95, in Groton and Stonington, the bridge becomes part of the highway.

1967: Engineers again revise access road plans in response to complaints, and the taking of 250 properties begins. As increasing traffic jams become intolerable, local officials beg the state to speed the construction schedule. Suicide fences are erected, which reduce fatal jumps.

1973: The new bridge opens and temporarily accommodates three lanes of traffic in each direction as the original bridge closes.

1975: The original bridge opens to six lanes of northbound traffic, and the new bridge is converted to six lanes of southbound traffic.

* * *

By the spring of 1970, a line of piers was taking shape to the bridge's north. The six in the river required boring, dredging, driving piles into bedrock, pumping out water and pouring concrete into frames.

After the endless planning and negotiation of recent years, the substructure was erected quickly and finished well ahead of schedule.

The first steel girders were laid on the piers in May 1971, and the following year, sections of the superstructure, built on bridge-high staging at Whaling City Dredge and Dock in Groton, were floated into place on barges.

The usual misfortunes included a punctured water main, brief labor disputes, and the deaths of two workers, one crushed, the other electrocuted. When the Coast Guard barque Eagle sailed under the bridge in June 1972, safety nets caught two of its three masts and snapped off the tops.

The next month, the last section of framing was in place, but the opening was still a year off as the access-road interchange was transformed.

The existing, tidy cloverleaf morphed into a tangle of looping entrance ramps and overlapping highways. Route 32 was widened and relocated. The Colman and Briggs street overpasses, just a decade old, were demolished and rebuilt.

When the ribbon was cut to open the new bridge on June 13, 1973, the first car to cross was the same '41 Lincoln Continental that had inaugurated traffic on the original bridge three decades before.

But two more years of construction were ahead. While the new bridge carried three lanes in each direction, with familiar traffic problems, the old one was dismantled. Giant cranes lowered sections of it and raised wider replacements in the spring and summer of 1974.

When it was finally over, the result was two one-way bridges with five lanes apiece, which has worked smoothly ever since. But the end of the 20-year saga came with an unplanned nod to the past.

On Dec. 16, 1975, minutes after a ceremony opening the reconstructed bridge, two cars were damaged in a minor collision.

* * *

Bridge's current long-term drama is about maintenance

The 20-year odyssey of road improvements and bridge building from 1955 to 1975 ended the Gold Star Memorial Bridge's chronic traffic nightmare.

Since then, problems have been limited to things like weekend beach tie-ups and the occasional spectacular crash.

On Feb. 13, 2022, a tractor-trailer jackknifed and tore through the bridge's fence, snarling northbound traffic for five hours, just like in the old days. On April 21 of this year, a crash involving a heating oil truck killed the driver and set the southbound span on fire, closing Interstate 95 in both directions.

The bridge's latest multiyear saga isn't about traffic. This time, it's maintenance.

In 2017 the state Department of Transportation announced both bridges were due for extensive rehabilitation to keep them in good shape for the next 25 years. The southbound span was tackled first: substructure and steel repairs, expansion-joint replacement and deck repaving. Work wrapped up in late 2018 and cost $43.8 million, according to the DOT.

The structural integrity of the southbound bridge held firm through the massive fire in April, though officials said that was less about the rehab than other factors.

Last year, work began on the northbound span, whose condition was rated as "poor"  after a Federal Highway Administration inspection in 2019. That indicated a need to start repairs rather than an immediate emergency, and DOT said bridges rated poor can be used safely for "many, many years."

In December the FHA announced a $158 million federal grant for the job, which is estimated to total $407 million. It involves strengthening the truss and girder spans and replacing the deck. Adding a pedestrian and bicycle path is also under consideration.

The work is expected to be complete by 2029.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Rothman on August 09, 2023, 12:11:11 AM


Quote from: RobbieL2415 on August 08, 2023, 01:35:10 PM
Is there a reason why the I-84/I-91 HOV lanes were not designed with jersey barriers, with appropriate breaks to allow for authorized access? Seems like more people than ever are just cutting across the gore to avoid accidents/traffic.

Hehehehe.  I was around when they were built.  One slow vehicle makes them useless.  I stay out of them, unless there's a real jam.

They certainly looked cool when they built them and all the work done was a godsend for the formerly narrow I-91.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on August 09, 2023, 08:26:05 AM
Quote from: Rothman on August 09, 2023, 12:11:11 AM
One slow vehicle makes them useless.

Useless if you're trying to maintain 70+ mph.

When my wife is in the car and my itinerary permits, I prefer the HOV lanes, even when the mainline isn't backed up, because there's less exposure to crazed drivers weaving in and out of traffic at high speed, or the randomness of other drivers' speed and lane changes due to improper lane discipline and too-frequent entrances/exits.....
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on August 09, 2023, 12:36:34 PM
New update on the I-84 Danbury study. It looks like the working group is pretty enthusiastic about converting the inside shoulder between exits 4 and 7 into a part-time travel lane, saying they could open it in 2028.
https://www.i84danbury.com/course_cat/public-advisory-committee/
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Rothman on August 09, 2023, 02:51:34 PM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on August 09, 2023, 08:26:05 AM
Quote from: Rothman on August 09, 2023, 12:11:11 AM
One slow vehicle makes them useless.

Useless if you're trying to maintain 70+ mph.

When my wife is in the car and my itinerary permits, I prefer the HOV lanes, even when the mainline isn't backed up, because there's less exposure to crazed drivers weaving in and out of traffic at high speed, or the randomness of other drivers' speed and lane changes due to improper lane discipline and too-frequent entrances/exits.....
What a cute little Nestor you are.

ETA:  And just realized you'd be an actuary in CT, which is amusingly stereotypical. :D
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeCL on August 09, 2023, 06:59:19 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on August 07, 2023, 04:39:12 PM
$17 for a 2 cheeseburger value meal?!? :wow: :ded:  I could buy my own side of beef for that price.
lol I didn't pay a thing I used my points.. I've seen a person pay $50 once.. just unreal.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on August 09, 2023, 07:02:36 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 09, 2023, 12:36:34 PM
New update on the I-84 Danbury study. It looks like the working group is pretty enthusiastic about converting the inside shoulder between exits 4 and 7 into a part-time travel lane, saying they could open it in 2028.
https://www.i84danbury.com/course_cat/public-advisory-committee/
Five years to put up a few gantries with some arrow indicators?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Great Lakes Roads on August 09, 2023, 07:50:39 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on August 09, 2023, 07:02:36 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 09, 2023, 12:36:34 PM
New update on the I-84 Danbury study. It looks like the working group is pretty enthusiastic about converting the inside shoulder between exits 4 and 7 into a part-time travel lane, saying they could open it in 2028.
https://www.i84danbury.com/course_cat/public-advisory-committee/
Five years to put up a few gantries with some arrow indicators?
And a DDI with through movements at Exit 8?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on August 10, 2023, 10:05:10 AM
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on August 09, 2023, 07:50:39 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on August 09, 2023, 07:02:36 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 09, 2023, 12:36:34 PM
New update on the I-84 Danbury study. It looks like the working group is pretty enthusiastic about converting the inside shoulder between exits 4 and 7 into a part-time travel lane, saying they could open it in 2028.
https://www.i84danbury.com/course_cat/public-advisory-committee/
Five years to put up a few gantries with some arrow indicators?
And a DDI with through movements at Exit 8?

In China they'd start work on a project this small after the morning rush and have it in place by the afternoon rush.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Rothman on August 10, 2023, 11:46:13 AM
Quote from: connroadgeek on August 10, 2023, 10:05:10 AM
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on August 09, 2023, 07:50:39 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on August 09, 2023, 07:02:36 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 09, 2023, 12:36:34 PM
New update on the I-84 Danbury study. It looks like the working group is pretty enthusiastic about converting the inside shoulder between exits 4 and 7 into a part-time travel lane, saying they could open it in 2028.
https://www.i84danbury.com/course_cat/public-advisory-committee/
Five years to put up a few gantries with some arrow indicators?
And a DDI with through movements at Exit 8?

In China they'd start work on a project this small after the morning rush and have it in place by the afternoon rush.
Feel free to move there, then.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on August 11, 2023, 01:05:33 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 09, 2023, 12:36:34 PM
New update on the I-84 Danbury study. It looks like the working group is pretty enthusiastic about converting the inside shoulder between exits 4 and 7 into a part-time travel lane, saying they could open it in 2028.
https://www.i84danbury.com/course_cat/public-advisory-committee/
That's not a good idea. All it takes is someone to break down and they have nowhere to go and you have a huge wreck, a miles-long traffic jam, or both.
I remember this was talked about for I-95 from Bridgeport to Stamford many years ago and the same concern was brought up. Ultimately, using one of the shoulders as a travel lane on I-95 was a non-starter.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on August 11, 2023, 01:26:52 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on August 11, 2023, 01:05:33 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 09, 2023, 12:36:34 PM
New update on the I-84 Danbury study. It looks like the working group is pretty enthusiastic about converting the inside shoulder between exits 4 and 7 into a part-time travel lane, saying they could open it in 2028.
https://www.i84danbury.com/course_cat/public-advisory-committee/
That's not a good idea. All it takes is someone to break down and they have nowhere to go and you have a huge wreck, a miles-long traffic jam, or both.
I remember this was talked about for I-95 from Bridgeport to Stamford many years ago and the same concern was brought up. Ultimately, using one of the shoulders as a travel lane on I-95 was a non-starter.

To me it seems like a good idea, however, with the shoulder use it looks like they will take away the option lane at both Exit 7 EB and Exit 3 WB even when the shoulder is not in use.  That would be a step backwards as they just put that in after the recent signing project came through.

5 years does seem like a long time but this is CT and they seem to can't get their stuff together.  They built the entire I-95 in 3-4 years but it takes 5 years to up gantries and wiring etc.

The Exit 7 on-ramp WB needs something done as that backs up a lot to Federal Rd on US-7 and even causes the backup on I-84 WB back to Exit 11 at times.  I'd say extend the extra lane down to Exit 6 or 5.  The mainline backs up because people from Exit 7 merge over right away to another lane even though they don't have to.  Technically, there shouldn't be any backup on the mainline from the Exit 7 on-ramp b/c technically there is no merge.  You have 3 miles to merge over as an additional lane develops at that on-ramp.  But people merge over right away causing mainline traffic to slow.   Rinse and repeat and I-84 backs up to Exit 11 at times.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on August 11, 2023, 09:06:50 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on August 11, 2023, 01:05:33 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 09, 2023, 12:36:34 PM
New update on the I-84 Danbury study. It looks like the working group is pretty enthusiastic about converting the inside shoulder between exits 4 and 7 into a part-time travel lane, saying they could open it in 2028.
https://www.i84danbury.com/course_cat/public-advisory-committee/
That's not a good idea. All it takes is someone to break down and they have nowhere to go and you have a huge wreck, a miles-long traffic jam, or both.
I remember this was talked about for I-95 from Bridgeport to Stamford many years ago and the same concern was brought up. Ultimately, using one of the shoulders as a travel lane on I-95 was a non-starter.

They do it here on I-93 in Andover and Tewksbury and it doesn't seem to cause major problems.

Also, Stamford to Bridgeport is 23 miles, Exit 7 to Exit 3 on I-84 is less than 4 miles.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 22, 2023, 09:11:27 PM
I've been away in Northern New England since 8/12... looks like I haven't missed much here!

Anyways...

A press release turned me on to a little lane alteration project on Route 2, proposed to start in 2025.
http://portal.ct.gov/DOTGlastonbury53-196

Basically, on Route 2 East, the present left lane becomes an exit only lane for Route 17 South.  This means that thru traffic has to shift right one lane, and gets a 2nd lane at the merge in from Route 3.  This project will convert that lane from Route 3 into an operational lane and extend it to the Route 94/Hebron Ave exit, while the left 2 lanes become Route 2 East thru lanes.  The exit for Route 17 South gets a "decelleration lane" only.  Estimated cost:  $12 million, which in reality doesn't seem to be THAT bad.  Granted they only have to widen a small section, but they do have to do some bridge work to make it happen. 

The exit from Route 2 East to Route 17 South is a remnant of when the Glastonbury Expressway was first constructed.  That's why there's a left exit for New London Turnpike on Route 17 just after leaving Route 2.  This would've been surface road Route 2, pre-expressway. 

I still think more operational lanes are needed statewide, especially on I-91.  I think one in Cromwell between Exits 21 & 22 in both directions would be perfect and could be done with "minimal" effort.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on August 23, 2023, 04:48:33 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on August 22, 2023, 09:11:27 PM
I've been away in Northern New England since 8/12... looks like I haven't missed much here!

Anyways...

A press release turned me on to a little lane alteration project on Route 2, proposed to start in 2025.
http://portal.ct.gov/DOTGlastonbury53-196

Basically, on Route 2 East, the present left lane becomes an exit only lane for Route 17 South.  This means that thru traffic has to shift right one lane, and gets a 2nd lane at the merge in from Route 3.  This project will convert that lane from Route 3 into an operational lane and extend it to the Route 94/Hebron Ave exit, while the left 2 lanes become Route 2 East thru lanes.  The exit for Route 17 South gets a "decelleration lane" only.  Estimated cost:  $12 million, which in reality doesn't seem to be THAT bad.  Granted they only have to widen a small section, but they do have to do some bridge work to make it happen. 

The exit from Route 2 East to Route 17 South is a remnant of when the Glastonbury Expressway was first constructed.  That's why there's a left exit for New London Turnpike on Route 17 just after leaving Route 2.  This would've been surface road Route 2, pre-expressway. 

I still think more operational lanes are needed statewide, especially on I-91.  I think one in Cromwell between Exits 21 & 22 in both directions would be perfect and could be done with "minimal" effort.

Glad to see this will happen. It can be confusing for the unfamiliar. That area was actually worse when there was an on ramp to CT-2 eastbound from Griswold Street, and some drivers had to cut over two lanes to access CT-17. I was with my late grandmother when she tried that, and it was a white knuckle experience. I imagine the exit from CT-2 west to House Street was also nerve-wracking. Those exits were eliminated when the current configuration was implemented in the late 80s.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on August 23, 2023, 06:59:19 PM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on August 23, 2023, 04:48:33 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on August 22, 2023, 09:11:27 PM
I've been away in Northern New England since 8/12... looks like I haven't missed much here!

Anyways...

A press release turned me on to a little lane alteration project on Route 2, proposed to start in 2025.
http://portal.ct.gov/DOTGlastonbury53-196

Basically, on Route 2 East, the present left lane becomes an exit only lane for Route 17 South.  This means that thru traffic has to shift right one lane, and gets a 2nd lane at the merge in from Route 3.  This project will convert that lane from Route 3 into an operational lane and extend it to the Route 94/Hebron Ave exit, while the left 2 lanes become Route 2 East thru lanes.  The exit for Route 17 South gets a "decelleration lane" only.  Estimated cost:  $12 million, which in reality doesn't seem to be THAT bad.  Granted they only have to widen a small section, but they do have to do some bridge work to make it happen. 

The exit from Route 2 East to Route 17 South is a remnant of when the Glastonbury Expressway was first constructed.  That's why there's a left exit for New London Turnpike on Route 17 just after leaving Route 2.  This would've been surface road Route 2, pre-expressway. 

I still think more operational lanes are needed statewide, especially on I-91.  I think one in Cromwell between Exits 21 & 22 in both directions would be perfect and could be done with "minimal" effort.

Glad to see this will happen. It can be confusing for the unfamiliar. That area was actually worse when there was an on ramp to CT-2 eastbound from Griswold Street, and some drivers had to cut over two lanes to access CT-17. I was with my late grandmother tried that, and it was a white knuckle experience. I imagine the exit from CT-2 west to House Street was also nerve-wracking. Those exits were eliminated when the current configuration was implemented in the late 80s.
Fascinating. I looked at Historic Aerials. That onramp wasn't from Griswold, it was all the way down Bantle Road! It seems that at some point they made that entrance a solid white line (1985 aerial) to outlaw crossovers, not that some people wouldn't try to do it anyway. Same may have been done for the WB exit although there was somewhat more room from the 17 merge to that ramp.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on August 23, 2023, 11:00:24 PM
Didn't they just remove an on-ramp from Route 2?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on August 24, 2023, 11:06:33 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on August 23, 2023, 11:00:24 PM
Didn't they just remove an on-ramp from Route 2?

That was a little farther up at Sutton Ave (Exit 5B).  They removed the EB exit and WB entrance.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on August 24, 2023, 01:58:43 PM
Quote from: Alps on August 23, 2023, 06:59:19 PM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on August 23, 2023, 04:48:33 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on August 22, 2023, 09:11:27 PM
I've been away in Northern New England since 8/12... looks like I haven't missed much here!

Anyways...

A press release turned me on to a little lane alteration project on Route 2, proposed to start in 2025.
http://portal.ct.gov/DOTGlastonbury53-196

Basically, on Route 2 East, the present left lane becomes an exit only lane for Route 17 South.  This means that thru traffic has to shift right one lane, and gets a 2nd lane at the merge in from Route 3.  This project will convert that lane from Route 3 into an operational lane and extend it to the Route 94/Hebron Ave exit, while the left 2 lanes become Route 2 East thru lanes.  The exit for Route 17 South gets a "decelleration lane" only.  Estimated cost:  $12 million, which in reality doesn't seem to be THAT bad.  Granted they only have to widen a small section, but they do have to do some bridge work to make it happen. 

The exit from Route 2 East to Route 17 South is a remnant of when the Glastonbury Expressway was first constructed.  That's why there's a left exit for New London Turnpike on Route 17 just after leaving Route 2.  This would've been surface road Route 2, pre-expressway. 

I still think more operational lanes are needed statewide, especially on I-91.  I think one in Cromwell between Exits 21 & 22 in both directions would be perfect and could be done with "minimal" effort.

Glad to see this will happen. It can be confusing for the unfamiliar. That area was actually worse when there was an on ramp to CT-2 eastbound from Griswold Street, and some drivers had to cut over two lanes to access CT-17. I was with my late grandmother tried that, and it was a white knuckle experience. I imagine the exit from CT-2 west to House Street was also nerve-wracking. Those exits were eliminated when the current configuration was implemented in the late 80s.
Fascinating. I looked at Historic Aerials. That onramp wasn't from Griswold, it was all the way down Bantle Road! It seems that at some point they made that entrance a solid white line (1985 aerial) to outlaw crossovers, not that some people wouldn't try to do it anyway. Same may have been done for the WB exit although there was somewhat more room from the 17 merge to that ramp.

It was Bantle Road. I'm sure many saw the white line but did it anyway, which probably figured into the state's decision to remove it. As for WB, I'm not sure how many went from CT-17 over two lanes to the House Street Exit. It just seemed sort of dangerous to exit from highway speed on to a (present) cul-de-sac.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 30, 2023, 07:20:46 PM
I-84 resigning plans came out this morning.  This project goes from Vernon/vic Exit 65 to the Mass state line. 

Looks like most of the existing ground-mounted signs from Exits 65-71 are going all overhead, mostly on new 4-chord cantilevers, while Exits 72-73-74 (and some of Exit 70 WB) are remaining ground-mounts.  The onramp signage appears to be a mix of extruded aluminum (in more western sections) and sheet aluminum (booo...).  As far as changes, for the most part the control cities for each sign are remaining the same, including WB Exits 65 & 64 having "Vernon Center" and "Vernon Business District".  Exit 69-WB is having "Willington" replace "Putnam", while Exit 70-WB is "Stafford Springs", with Exit 73 becoming just "Union" in both directions.  For Exit 66, "Tunnel Road" is going on an auxiliary extruded sign.  "Uconn/Storrs" gets an aux sign as well.  No "ATTRACTIONS" logo signs are going up, but some "Food" / "Gas" / "Lodging" logo signs are getting replaced.  Didn't see any file for sheet aluminum signs, but I would assume it would be limited to town line signs or some sheets for exit services and park & ride.  All reassurance shields/ mileposts/speed limit signs were replaced a couple years ago.   

A new overhead will be going up WB just before the start of the HOV lane giving distances to HOV Exits, "15 to 91 SOUTH" / "Silver Lane" / "Hartford".  Gone is the "Restricted Lane" and we now get "HOV LANE" or "HOV RESTRICTION'.

NOTE Exit renumbering is not part of the sign plans.  My guess is we won't see that happen until the last of the old signage is replaced, from East Hartford to Vernon. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on August 31, 2023, 09:08:50 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on August 30, 2023, 07:20:46 PM
I-84 resigning plans came out this morning.  This project goes from Vernon/vic Exit 65 to the Mass state line. 

Looks like most of the existing ground-mounted signs from Exits 65-71 are going all overhead, mostly on new 4-chord cantilevers, while Exits 72-73-74 (and some of Exit 70 WB) are remaining ground-mounts.  The onramp signage appears to be a mix of extruded aluminum (in more western sections) and sheet aluminum (booo...).  As far as changes, for the most part the control cities for each sign are remaining the same, including WB Exits 65 & 64 having "Vernon Center" and "Vernon Business District".  Exit 69-WB is having "Willington" replace "Putnam", while Exit 70-WB is "Stafford Springs", with Exit 73 becoming just "Union" in both directions.  For Exit 66, "Tunnel Road" is going on an auxiliary extruded sign.  "Uconn/Storrs" gets an aux sign as well.  No "ATTRACTIONS" logo signs are going up, but some "Food" / "Gas" / "Lodging" logo signs are getting replaced.  Didn't see any file for sheet aluminum signs, but I would assume it would be limited to town line signs or some sheets for exit services and park & ride.  All reassurance shields/ mileposts/speed limit signs were replaced a couple years ago.   

A new overhead will be going up WB just before the start of the HOV lane giving distances to HOV Exits, "15 to 91 SOUTH" / "Silver Lane" / "Hartford".  Gone is the "Restricted Lane" and we now get "HOV LANE" or "HOV RESTRICTION'.

NOTE Exit renumbering is not part of the sign plans.  My guess is we won't see that happen until the last of the old signage is replaced, from East Hartford to Vernon.
Most of the sheet metal signs were replaced last year.

I'm honestly not sure why they didn't do EH to Vernon first. I find the signage from Vernon to Union to still be readable. The signs on the former stretch are older and way more worn out/faded.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on August 31, 2023, 12:12:57 PM
You won't see exit renumbering on I-84 until the Southbury-Southington section is completed.  Many of those signs are Phase IV 2000's vintage, plus there is quite a few curved tube gantries, and the mileposts are spotty west of MP 42 (Exit 30; no enhanced mile markers till you cross the Rochambeau bridge). 

That being said, thank God Putnam is being replaced WB for Exit 69.  Most Putnam bound traffic would have either exited at Exit 74 (CT 171), taken MA/CT 131 from Sturbridge,  or taken Exit 90 on the Mass Pike for I-395. Putnam (or Providence) is fine EB.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: The Ghostbuster on August 31, 2023, 03:32:40 PM
It seems to be a case of replace-signs-now, renumber-exits-later. Interstate 84 is said to be getting mileage-based exit numbers in 2028, and there probably won't be a need for extra-wide exit tabs since the final exit on 84, Exit 74, will in the future become Exit 97.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 31, 2023, 05:16:33 PM
Yes, thank god Putnam is going away.  Looks like CT exit signage is standardizing control points on guide signs, regardless of whether taking an earlier exit "cuts out the hypotenus".  Its like the MassPike Eastbound exit to I-84 West being signed "New York City".   With that being said, it makes me wonder what the Exit 59/I-84 signage will say when that signage finally gets replaced... will "Providence" be retained eastbound?  Will "Providence" rear its ugly unnecessary head westbound? 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on August 31, 2023, 06:47:26 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on August 30, 2023, 07:20:46 PM
I-84 resigning plans came out this morning.  This project goes from Vernon/vic Exit 65 to the Mass state line. 

Looks like most of the existing ground-mounted signs from Exits 65-71 are going all overhead, mostly on new 4-chord cantilevers, while Exits 72-73-74 (and some of Exit 70 WB) are remaining ground-mounts.  The onramp signage appears to be a mix of extruded aluminum (in more western sections) and sheet aluminum (booo...).  As far as changes, for the most part the control cities for each sign are remaining the same, including WB Exits 65 & 64 having "Vernon Center" and "Vernon Business District".  Exit 69-WB is having "Willington" replace "Putnam", while Exit 70-WB is "Stafford Springs", with Exit 73 becoming just "Union" in both directions.  For Exit 66, "Tunnel Road" is going on an auxiliary extruded sign.  "Uconn/Storrs" gets an aux sign as well.  No "ATTRACTIONS" logo signs are going up, but some "Food" / "Gas" / "Lodging" logo signs are getting replaced.  Didn't see any file for sheet aluminum signs, but I would assume it would be limited to town line signs or some sheets for exit services and park & ride.  All reassurance shields/ mileposts/speed limit signs were replaced a couple years ago.   

A new overhead will be going up WB just before the start of the HOV lane giving distances to HOV Exits, "15 to 91 SOUTH" / "Silver Lane" / "Hartford".  Gone is the "Restricted Lane" and we now get "HOV LANE" or "HOV RESTRICTION'.

NOTE Exit renumbering is not part of the sign plans.  My guess is we won't see that happen until the last of the old signage is replaced, from East Hartford to Vernon. 

Interesting about the LOGO signs, as they're usually independently owned and most are outdated and button copy.

I was wondering will CT DOT require a blanket updating of those?

Ground mounted going to overhead? Which seems to be opposite of what they've been doing lately.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 31, 2023, 09:55:42 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on August 31, 2023, 06:47:26 PM
Ground mounted going to overhead? Which seems to be opposite of what they've been doing lately.

I know, right?  Maybe its a visibility issue on I-84 with the roadway's geometry (hills and curves) between Vernon and Willington.   All the truck traffic doesn't help seeing signs, either.

Interesting I thought that the new logo signs are going up.  I'm not positive if these are new installs or direct replacements.  You don't usually see replacements of logo signs.  Some of the ones on Route 9 in Cromwell are still button copy, with an overlayed number.

Also interesting about the contract plans, the state route shields appear to be just a white square/rectangle, vs those with the thick black border on I-395 and southern Route 9.  Again, we'll just have to see when the installs go in. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on September 01, 2023, 01:47:54 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on August 31, 2023, 09:55:42 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on August 31, 2023, 06:47:26 PM
Ground mounted going to overhead? Which seems to be opposite of what they've been doing lately.

I know, right?  Maybe its a visibility issue on I-84 with the roadway's geometry (hills and curves) between Vernon and Willington.   All the truck traffic doesn't help seeing signs, either.

Interesting I thought that the new logo signs are going up.  I'm not positive if these are new installs or direct replacements.  You don't usually see replacements of logo signs.  Some of the ones on Route 9 in Cromwell are still button copy, with an overlayed number.

Also interesting about the contract plans, the state route shields appear to be just a white square/rectangle, vs those with the thick black border on I-395 and southern Route 9.  Again, we'll just have to see when the installs go in. 
Border's not supposed to appear on overhead signs unless it's inset from the edge. Plain square is just fine - I'm thinking the late 90s signs along I-84 east of Hartford.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on September 05, 2023, 12:05:32 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on August 11, 2023, 01:05:33 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 09, 2023, 12:36:34 PM
New update on the I-84 Danbury study. It looks like the working group is pretty enthusiastic about converting the inside shoulder between exits 4 and 7 into a part-time travel lane, saying they could open it in 2028.
https://www.i84danbury.com/course_cat/public-advisory-committee/
That's not a good idea. All it takes is someone to break down and they have nowhere to go and you have a huge wreck, a miles-long traffic jam, or both.
I remember this was talked about for I-95 from Bridgeport to Stamford many years ago and the same concern was brought up. Ultimately, using one of the shoulders as a travel lane on I-95 was a non-starter.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=33756.0

The rest of the world gets by without inside shoulders on freeways.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on September 05, 2023, 10:02:47 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on September 05, 2023, 12:05:32 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on August 11, 2023, 01:05:33 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 09, 2023, 12:36:34 PM
New update on the I-84 Danbury study. It looks like the working group is pretty enthusiastic about converting the inside shoulder between exits 4 and 7 into a part-time travel lane, saying they could open it in 2028.
https://www.i84danbury.com/course_cat/public-advisory-committee/
That's not a good idea. All it takes is someone to break down and they have nowhere to go and you have a huge wreck, a miles-long traffic jam, or both.
I remember this was talked about for I-95 from Bridgeport to Stamford many years ago and the same concern was brought up. Ultimately, using one of the shoulders as a travel lane on I-95 was a non-starter.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=33756.0

The rest of the world gets by without inside shoulders on freeways.
Just because they do doesn't mean those freeways without inside shoulders are superior in design to ours with inside shoulders. I've seen my fair share of pileups caused by folks who have broken down in the left lane on a stretch of highway with no inside shoulder.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on September 09, 2023, 02:49:59 PM
Anybody notice the new way CT DOT are striping the end of a slow vehicle lane?

The 10' broken dash line seems to end early and then they paint 3 big "merge left" arrows without the 10" broken line, so truckers or cars in the slow vehicle lane drift over sooner than they have to.  And with some of these aux/slow vehicle lanes trucks need as much as they can in that lane.

For awhile, they'd go from 10' to 4' dashes towards the end of the lane until the solid white line met up with it.  It seemed cleaner that way and you knew exactly how much time you had left.

Here's one example:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4149919,-73.2675884,3a,75y,255.7h,61.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQhDymSeJe8teoYQ4wWvp1g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on September 09, 2023, 03:38:48 PM
ConnDOT seems to start the short dashed line for exit-only lanes early compared to other states. For CT 17 SB from CT 2 EB, it starts 1/2 mile in advance. (the project ShadyJay mentioned on 22 August will remove the exit-only lane for 17).

In the same area westbound, CT 2 has two rows of short dashed lines: one for a lane merging in from Griswold Street, and the other for the CT 3 exit-only lane: https://goo.gl/maps/ShDhPRbL4QibT6mx6
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on September 10, 2023, 02:13:16 AM
Quote from: kurumi on September 09, 2023, 03:38:48 PM
ConnDOT seems to start the short dashed line for exit-only lanes early compared to other states. For CT 17 SB from CT 2 EB, it starts 1/2 mile in advance. (the project ShadyJay mentioned on 22 August will remove the exit-only lane for 17).

In the same area westbound, CT 2 has two rows of short dashed lines: one for a lane merging in from Griswold Street, and the other for the CT 3 exit-only lane: https://goo.gl/maps/ShDhPRbL4QibT6mx6
It's supposed to start at the first Exit Only sign.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on September 10, 2023, 02:14:03 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on September 09, 2023, 02:49:59 PM
Anybody notice the new way CT DOT are striping the end of a slow vehicle lane?

The 10' broken dash line seems to end early and then they paint 3 big "merge left" arrows without the 10" broken line, so truckers or cars in the slow vehicle lane drift over sooner than they have to.  And with some of these aux/slow vehicle lanes trucks need as much as they can in that lane.

For awhile, they'd go from 10' to 4' dashes towards the end of the lane until the solid white line met up with it.  It seemed cleaner that way and you knew exactly how much time you had left.

Here's one example:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4149919,-73.2675884,3a,75y,255.7h,61.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQhDymSeJe8teoYQ4wWvp1g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
The aerial view that goes with that same Street View is older and shows the dashed line.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: D-Dey65 on September 11, 2023, 08:50:19 PM
A few minutes ago, I was looking through GSV of US 1 in the Greenwich/Cos Cob area, and I didn't see a single sign telling motorists how they can get to any of the Metro-North stations there.


Now why is that? In neighboring Westchester County, they're in every city and village along US 1 that has a station.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on September 18, 2023, 04:45:30 PM
New signage on I-84 East in Waterbury.  Note the Exit 22 exit tab is extra wide as it's to accomodate space for "21-" or "21&" 22.

Exit 21 is currently closed for the rehab project.  The DOT wants to remove it for good in the interim before the whole interchange gets redone years down the road.

The Exit 21 removal project wouldn't start until 2024 or 2025. I believe it's a good idea as it will create an AUX lane between the CT-8 on-ramp and the Exit 22 off-ramp.  They would even make Exit 22 a two-lane off ramp directly at the gore.  Something CT DOT never does.

I say keep it closed, it's dumb to open it again only to close it again.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53192418410_bd080465ef_k.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on September 18, 2023, 04:55:24 PM
Looks like another case of using the MA spec state route shields, same as the ones used for I-691.  The tabs are probably extra wide to accommodate future mileage based exit numbers (20 would be 32B and 21-22 would either be 33A-B or just plain 33 if the exit is removed).  Still have a ways to go to update signage between Southbury and Southington, including mile markers.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: The Ghostbuster on September 19, 2023, 07:23:09 PM
Good thing those who replaced the signs planned ahead for the future conversion to mileage-based exits.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on September 20, 2023, 07:29:03 PM
Today, the contract plans were released for the I-384/US 6 resigning (and mileage-based exit numbers).  Pretty standard contract, but a couple items of note:  I-384's westbound control city has been changed to "East Hartford".  Formerly unsigned westbound exit to US 6/44 in Bolton gets a number.  Overhead signage for US 6/44 East jct in Bolton Notch gets removed and replaced with some sheets.

Just search for "  I-384  "  in the Bid Board site:  https://portal.ct.gov/DAS/CTSource/BidBoard
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on September 21, 2023, 08:13:21 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on September 20, 2023, 07:29:03 PM
Today, the contract plans were released for the I-384/US 6 resigning (and mileage-based exit numbers).  Pretty standard contract, but a couple items of note:  I-384's westbound control city has been changed to "East Hartford".  Formerly unsigned westbound exit to US 6/44 in Bolton gets a number.  Overhead signage for US 6/44 East jct in Bolton Notch gets removed and replaced with some sheets.

Just search for "  I-384  "  in the Bid Board site:  https://portal.ct.gov/DAS/CTSource/BidBoard

Weird. Change the control city from some place that a majority of people are going to, but don't add Willimantic going eastbound.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: The Ghostbuster on September 21, 2023, 11:16:10 AM
Will the US 6 Willimantic Bypass get exit numbers at the same time Interstate 384 gets mileage-based exit numbers?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on September 21, 2023, 12:40:46 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on September 21, 2023, 08:13:21 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on September 20, 2023, 07:29:03 PM
Today, the contract plans were released for the I-384/US 6 resigning (and mileage-based exit numbers).  Pretty standard contract, but a couple items of note:  I-384's westbound control city has been changed to "East Hartford".  Formerly unsigned westbound exit to US 6/44 in Bolton gets a number.  Overhead signage for US 6/44 East jct in Bolton Notch gets removed and replaced with some sheets.

Just search for "  I-384  "  in the Bid Board site:  https://portal.ct.gov/DAS/CTSource/BidBoard

Weird. Change the control city from some place that a majority of people are going to, but don't add Willimantic going eastbound.

Adding "East" to Hartford is extreme nitpicking.  I-691's control city westbound is still Waterbury, though it ends well before that.  However, all of the BGS's at entrance ramps no longer mention control cities (I-691 TO I-91 EB and I-691 TO I-84 WB). 

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 21, 2023, 11:16:10 AM
Will the US 6 Willimantic Bypass get exit numbers at the same time Interstate 384 gets mileage-based exit numbers?

I'd assume so, unless CTDOT jumps the gun and adds them first.  I saw some evidence of that on CT 3; the gore signs for Exit 13 and 11A SB are uncovered (though 11B is blacked out), the new services sign for Exit 13 has its numbers revealed, and the mile markers are in place. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on September 21, 2023, 05:05:59 PM
So all of I-691's onramps just have "TO I-91 (or) TO I-84" signage?  So I guess that means I-691 no longer has control cities.  Unless we're counting the ramps to I-691 from I-84 and I-91.  In that case, Meriden is the only control.  "Middletown" was removed from I-84 EB signage when I-84 was widened through the Cheshire-Southington area.
Signage on I-91 is in the process of being replaced and "Meriden" will be the only control city used.  Oh yeah, there's still the ramp from 15NB which has "Meriden/Waterbury" listed, but with the big I-91/I-691/Rt 15 interchange project coming, I bet Waterbury will fall from those as well. 

I do find it interesting that "Providence" is being retained as the I-384 East control city.  And, the use of "Charter Oak Br" as a control point on the HOV exit is continuing... could be because this contract stops short of the rest of the signs which still advertise the "C.O.B."  The contract plans for the I-384/US 6 project have the new exit numbers, so yes, this project will add mile-based exit numbers to both roads. 

Also, searching within the contract's "special provisions" pdf, one finds "OLD EXIT NUMBER" signs in the plans that are black-on-orange, vs white-on-green.  Curious, isn't it??!!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: sharkyfour on September 21, 2023, 07:42:23 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on September 21, 2023, 12:40:46 PM

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 21, 2023, 11:16:10 AM
Will the US 6 Willimantic Bypass get exit numbers at the same time Interstate 384 gets mileage-based exit numbers?

I'd assume so, unless CTDOT jumps the gun and adds them first.  I saw some evidence of that on CT 3; the gore signs for Exit 13 and 11A SB are uncovered (though 11B is blacked out), the new services sign for Exit 13 has its numbers revealed, and the mile markers are in place.

No, they won't.  They just redid the sheet metal signs on the US 6 Expressway in the last year or so and the exit gore signs got replaced with numberless ones.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: sharkyfour on September 21, 2023, 07:44:27 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on September 20, 2023, 07:29:03 PM
Today, the contract plans were released for the I-384/US 6 resigning (and mileage-based exit numbers).  Pretty standard contract, but a couple items of note:  I-384's westbound control city has been changed to "East Hartford".  Formerly unsigned westbound exit to US 6/44 in Bolton gets a number.  Overhead signage for US 6/44 East jct in Bolton Notch gets removed and replaced with some sheets.

Just search for "  I-384  "  in the Bid Board site:  https://portal.ct.gov/DAS/CTSource/BidBoard

Are they eliminating all the "Expressway Ends" signage at either end of the US-6 expressway?  I see it noted for I-384 but not for US-6 at all...
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on September 21, 2023, 09:58:55 PM
US-6 expressway ends signs will be sheet metal.  Every project as of late, the CT DOT has replaced a previous extruded aluminum sign with a sheet metal sign.  Stop being cheap.  I pay my exorbitant taxes, please use extruded aluminum. The state def has the money now.

Also of note: The logo services signs are included in this project too, just like the I-84 one.  Makes me wonder if they will continue to replace them in future projects.

I've wondered when they'd replace the button copy logo service signs considering they're not state maintained when they're put up.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51056393606_1f68910959_k.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on September 22, 2023, 10:57:52 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on September 21, 2023, 09:58:55 PM
US-6 expressway ends signs will be sheet metal.  Every project as of late, the CT DOT has replaced a previous extruded aluminum sign with a sheet metal sign.  Stop being cheap.  I pay my exorbitant taxes, please use extruded aluminum. The state def has the money now.

The east end of I-384 is getting extruded signs, it appears, but they're cheaping out on the Jct US 6/44 signage.    Why not US 6?
Okay, town line signs I can see being sheets.  Most states have used sheets for town lines for years.  I do miss the "TOWN/NEXT # EXITS" signs.  If there are more than 3 exits in a town, it would be nice to have such a sign, like "Manchester Next 3 Exits".   Exit services could be sheets, but it would be nicer to have the sheets attached to the bottom of the 1 or 1/2 mile sign, kind of like what Maine has done in the past on the Maine Turnpike. 

And onramp signage should be extruded aluminum... not the flimsy sheets.  Or, if you're going to use sheets, use individual blades and route markers like what VT uses.   
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on October 03, 2023, 10:22:04 PM
Not the best shot, but I got this at the reconstructed onramp from Colt Highway to I-84 East at Exit 38 in Farmington, CT last weekend...

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53232551756_7d6d1d0f36_3k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2p6YK3u)84EBonramp-Exit38 (https://flic.kr/p/2p6YK3u) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

This is one of the very few onramp signs with US 6 included, and the only one with "TO CT 9".  Previously, there was no extruded sign here... just some aluminum shield/town signs.

The US 6 West trailblazer just beyond the onramp is a little premature, as US 6 West has yet to merge into Colt Highway from I-84 West.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on October 04, 2023, 03:08:35 PM
Suprised it's extruded.  As we know CT is being on the cheap with it.

So, I drove I-691 today and noticed there are some button copy signs on the westbound side still.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53234949235_bd6b240429_k.jpg)

A sign that was put up as one of the recent 20 spot locations projects has been removed westbound. The "Exit 6 - Lewis Ave TO 71 3/4 Mile" sign is gone.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5438449,-72.7916542,3a,75y,268.86h,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sM45ZGugyjAVpSlhCaFJKTA!2e0!5s20220801T000000!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

However, Preston Ave remains on the Exit 1 advance signage eastbound.

But what really gets me:
All 4 extruded aluminum "expressway ends" signs have been removed on the eastbound side.  Only one flimsy "expressway ends 1/4 Mile" sheet metal sign is there.

Westbound, the "right lane ends" extruded sign is gone and only a sheet metal diamond road narrows sign is there.
How is that more safe for motorists?

I-84 EB, a new sign:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53220540786_3c8661d8d5_k.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on October 05, 2023, 09:59:50 PM
I-691 Westbound... The Exit 2-A gantries have yet to be replaced, and as of a couple weeks ago, the Exits 1B-C gantries are also not replaced yet.  I know the two Exit 2-A gantries (including the one linked above) are due to be modified as part of the 91N->691W improvment project, whose plans were released last week.  The plans show the new signs on a new gantry, and the signs will be replaced.  Yup... the signs that aren't even up yet will be replaced again in a project that most likely will kick off with boots on the ground in the spring of 2024.  Makes about as much sense as the removal of the former Exit 6 sign from the former Exit 7 gantry... seriously, do these different departments/desks at DOT communicate with each other?  You'd think someone from the "major projects" division would have reviewed the 20 spot sign locations and been like "Hey, we're replacing the signs next year anyway, so you don't have to put this one up".  Or... "just put up a sheet, a la RIDOT, and we'll put a permanent one up later".  I'm not a fan of making each direction have the same signage, regardless if its logical or not.  Preston Ave should remain Preston Ave.  Advertising former Exit 6 for "71/Chamberlain Hwy" is just wrong.  And we replaced "Broad St" with "Downtown" so now we have "Downtown Meriden" and "Meriden".  That eliminates confusion and makes perfect logical sense.... NOT!

Instead, we get extruded signs that seem to last a year before they're replaced, and then they cry poverty, claiming they don't have enough money to do extruded signs on the on-ramps, expressway ends signs, or even exit services/park & rides.  And that adding a service bar would put too much weight onto the sign.  How 'bout just tacking the symbols on sheet aluminum at the bottom of the 1 or 1/2 mile extruded sign.  Then, maybe, they won't get hit by renegade vehicles or knocked over in the wind.  Can't wait to see what damage the plows do to them. 

Now I can see the town line signs going to sheets... most states have been doing that for years (if they even post town line signs.. I don't think the NYS Thruway does).  What I do miss is that if there's multiple exits in a town, then there should be a "[town name] / NEXT ## EXITS" sign.  Like "Meriden/Next 8 Exits". 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on October 09, 2023, 03:14:16 PM
I still can't fathom they took down all the extruded warning signs (expressway ends on the east side and "right lane ends" on the western side.
It's more dangerous

I-84 mixmaster alternatives have been narrowed. Will this mean anything? It's the same stuff they did in 2007. And nothing happened except another study which is what they're doing now .

https://www.newmixwaterbury.com/project-alternatives/?fbclid=IwAR3Jw06VSjBdW725EG86538xxrD-fnXtul_kAD1x_knIbhp_7ZSNPnOqy4E_aem_ASnjyvICEeFdzbnIdzTLKzUkuP12dgGRtBrGLc_a2AxBy7rOFU4ns6eHX3W-cArK5g0&mibextid=Zxz2cZ
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: The Ghostbuster on October 09, 2023, 06:40:11 PM
So, if the Interstate 84/CT 8 interchange is ever reconstructed (and that's a big if, considering this is Connecticut), the new interchange would either be: A Modern Crossover Interchange; A Keep Route 8 Stacked Interchange; or A Naugatuck River Shift Interchange; all of whom would be Full System Interchanges. If these proposals ever proceed to be constructed, it would be a miracle. However, I'm not holding my breath.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on October 10, 2023, 01:21:20 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 09, 2023, 06:40:11 PM
So, if the Interstate 84/CT 8 interchange is ever reconstructed (and that's a big if, considering this is Connecticut), the new interchange would either be: A Modern Crossover Interchange; A Keep Route 8 Stacked Interchange; or A Naugatuck River Shift Interchange; all of whom would be Full System Interchanges. If these proposals ever proceed to be constructed, it would be a miracle. However, I'm not holding my breath.
The latest I read about the Waterbury I-84/Route 8 Mixmaster is that CTDOT is thinking about taking a piecemeal approach to its reconstruction/replacement. Essentially, they would reconstruct the interchange one piece at a time through multiple construction projects, much like what was done in New Haven with the Q-Bridge and the I-91/I-95/Route 34 interchange and adjacent roadways.  While it might make the reconstruction as a whole more manageable, it will likely stretch out the entire reconstruction of the interchange over the span of 10 to 20 years or more.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on October 10, 2023, 03:32:32 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 09, 2023, 06:40:11 PM
So, if the Interstate 84/CT 8 interchange is ever reconstructed (and that's a big if, considering this is Connecticut), the new interchange would either be: A Modern Crossover Interchange; A Keep Route 8 Stacked Interchange; or A Naugatuck River Shift Interchange; all of whom would be Full System Interchanges. If these proposals ever proceed to be constructed, it would be a miracle. However, I'm not holding my breath.

The current study was the exact same thing they did in 2007, so nothing will happen and they will have to redo the study again.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Plutonic Panda on October 10, 2023, 06:59:37 PM
1.1 billion in funds approved for transportation projects some are mass transit which is good but I'll post the road related ones and the link.

QuoteFix-it-First Bridge Repair: $98 million for rehabilitation, reconstruction, repair, or replacement of bridges on the state highway system, matching $40 million in federal funds. Some examples of projects include:

Middletown – replace bridge carrying I-91 over an unnamed brook
New Britain/Plainville – rehab/replace five bridges carrying Route 72

I-91/1-691/Route 15 Interchange in Meriden: $31.7 million for interchange reconstruction and realignment on I-91 North, I-691 West and Route 15 North to address operational and safety concerns to improve safety and decrease congestion, matching $223 million in federal funds.

Installation of Advanced Wrong-Way Driving Technology: $12.4 million to support the implementation of wrong-way driver detection systems at 70 high-risk locations statewide. The systems will alert drivers of incorrect direction by flashing red lights and state police will be notified in real time through special alerts.

State Local Bridge Program Improvements: $7.1 million for grants for local bridge projects across the state, to be matched by $7.1 million in local funds. Examples of projects include:
Burlington – Covey Road over Bunnell Brook
New Haven – Humphrey Street over Mill River
Washington – Rabbit Hill Road over Meeker Swamp Road
Windsor – Pleasant Valley Road over Podunk River

Groton/North Stonington Safety Improvements: $3 million for safety improvements and pavement rehabilitation from I-95 Exit 89 to the Rhode Island state line, matching $54 million in federal funds.

Article here: https://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/state-bond-commission-approves-1-1-billion-for-transportation-projects/3118845/
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeCL on October 13, 2023, 08:26:40 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on September 11, 2023, 08:50:19 PM
A few minutes ago, I was looking through GSV of US 1 in the Greenwich/Cos Cob area, and I didn't see a single sign telling motorists how they can get to any of the Metro-North stations there.


Now why is that? In neighboring Westchester County, they're in every city and village along US 1 that has a station.
That's a good question
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on October 13, 2023, 09:33:55 PM
Found 1 SB for Riverside:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0409117,-73.585981,3a,38.9y,319.36h,79.08t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sOpu-RYLeD3LFb8EFPHqi-Q!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DOpu-RYLeD3LFb8EFPHqi-Q%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D27.283035%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

Didn't see any on Rt 1 for Cos Cob or Greenwich (downtown) stations.  I did find this though:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0324869,-73.625657,3a,19.8y,342.87h,89.98t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sp20h56cqOrVirBAJdH9dow!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

And this:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0275725,-73.6298909,3a,39.8y,44.48h,89.92t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJiDDN7RWQf1WQKt7Ybh-0w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

CT has never been a huge fan of the RR station logo signs, typically prefering the text "RR STATION" sign.  There also could be a sign ordinance, given its Greenwich, after all.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: dgolub on October 14, 2023, 08:39:40 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on October 13, 2023, 09:33:55 PM
CT has never been a huge fan of the RR station logo signs, typically prefering the text "RR STATION" sign.  There also could be a sign ordinance, given its Greenwich, after all.

Connecticut still does better than Long Island in this respect.  Connecticut at least has signs on the highway indicating which exit to use.  Long Island has literally nothing.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on October 14, 2023, 06:38:49 PM
Took a drive around this morning before (and during) the rain to check on sign replacement and exit renumbering projects in southwest CT.  Drove I-91 up to Exit 10 and the length of CT 40.  I was hoping to find progress on CT 40's sign replacement (lumped in with I-91 Exits 9-18), but outside of new mile markers and some new sheets, there's little visible progress.  Also travelled more of CT 8 from Bridgeport to Ansonia (and last weekend from Winsted down to Waterbury).  In both trips, again, no visible progress on sign replacement, exit renumbering, etc.  There are a few scattered gantries in Derby and Bridgeport being replaced and saw no evidence of any excavation for new foundations or such.

I returned home via I-95, and stopped at the Milford-NB service plaza for lunch, where I caught this being built behind me in the parking lot:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53257306412_5b82f1d9c9_4k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2p9aBJU)95NB-MilfordPlaza-NewBldg (https://flic.kr/p/2p9aBJU) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

Similar structures are going up at other plazas, including Madison-SB.  I'm not sure what they'll be... it does remind me of a stand-alone Dunkin'.... perhaps either a "second prescence" at the plaza, or to replace their spot inside to make room for other tenants.  Madison-SB is "at capacity" but Milford-NB still has a vendor area available inside.  If these are going to be Dunkin' standalones, I suspect a lot of traffic around them, especially in the AM. 

And further up I-95, I stopped at the "Conn. Welcome Center" in Westbrook, NB.  It's still open, and the info center attendant said they'll probably stay open until the end of October/beginning of November, "same as last year" as he said. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RyanB06 on October 16, 2023, 07:40:20 PM
https://www.ctpost.com/news/article/i-95n-closed-norwalk-westport-bridge-replaced-18422100.php?cmpid=fbsocialflow

This is in the vicinity of Exit 17. They expect all work to be done in a 58-hour window from 8 p.m. this Friday until 6 a.m. this Sunday.

All traffic will be diverted to the southbound side during the work, but ConnDOT recommends avoiding the area entirely.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on October 17, 2023, 02:33:53 PM
Quote from: RyanB06 on October 16, 2023, 07:40:20 PM
https://www.ctpost.com/news/article/i-95n-closed-norwalk-westport-bridge-replaced-18422100.php?cmpid=fbsocialflow

This is in the vicinity of Exit 17. They expect all work to be done in a 58-hour window from 8 p.m. this Friday until 6 a.m. this Sunday.

All traffic will be diverted to the southbound side during the work, but ConnDOT recommends avoiding the area entirely.

Which basically means heavy delays this weekend along I-84 WB, CT 15 SB and I-684 SB.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on October 17, 2023, 07:51:47 PM
The closure is actually from 8 PM Friday to 6 AM Monday, and then in two weeks they will do it again to replace the southbound lanes. See the project's official website: https://www.i95norwalkwestport.com/
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeCL on October 17, 2023, 07:53:02 PM
So wait NB and SB traffic on the same side?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeCL on October 17, 2023, 07:55:44 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on October 14, 2023, 06:38:49 PM
Took a drive around this morning before (and during) the rain to check on sign replacement and exit renumbering projects in southwest CT.  Drove I-91 up to Exit 10 and the length of CT 40.  I was hoping to find progress on CT 40's sign replacement (lumped in with I-91 Exits 9-18), but outside of new mile markers and some new sheets, there's little visible progress.  Also travelled more of CT 8 from Bridgeport to Ansonia (and last weekend from Winsted down to Waterbury).  In both trips, again, no visible progress on sign replacement, exit renumbering, etc.  There are a few scattered gantries in Derby and Bridgeport being replaced and saw no evidence of any excavation for new foundations or such.

I returned home via I-95, and stopped at the Milford-NB service plaza for lunch, where I caught this being built behind me in the parking lot:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53257306412_5b82f1d9c9_4k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2p9aBJU)95NB-MilfordPlaza-NewBldg (https://flic.kr/p/2p9aBJU) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

Similar structures are going up at other plazas, including Madison-SB.  I'm not sure what they'll be... it does remind me of a stand-alone Dunkin'.... perhaps either a "second prescence" at the plaza, or to replace their spot inside to make room for other tenants.  Madison-SB is "at capacity" but Milford-NB still has a vendor area available inside.  If these are going to be Dunkin' standalones, I suspect a lot of traffic around them, especially in the AM. 

And further up I-95, I stopped at the "Conn. Welcome Center" in Westbrook, NB.  It's still open, and the info center attendant said they'll probably stay open until the end of October/beginning of November, "same as last year" as he said.
I asked the same question a few pages back and no one knew anything I'm curious too.. Maybe a stand alone welcome center? I mean Darien already has dunkin inside.

I even tried to look on the DOT website and I don't see anything showing.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on October 17, 2023, 09:15:35 PM
Quote from: MikeCL on October 17, 2023, 07:53:02 PM
So wait NB and SB traffic on the same side?
I imagine it would be a 2x2 crossover state.


EDIT: "All traffic will be diverted onto the southbound side of I-95 with two lanes in each direction. Rosenblatt also urges Connecticut drivers to avoid I-95 if possible this weekend."
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on October 18, 2023, 09:44:01 AM
Quote from: MikeCL on October 17, 2023, 07:55:44 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on October 14, 2023, 06:38:49 PM
Took a drive around this morning before (and during) the rain to check on sign replacement and exit renumbering projects in southwest CT.  Drove I-91 up to Exit 10 and the length of CT 40.  I was hoping to find progress on CT 40's sign replacement (lumped in with I-91 Exits 9-18), but outside of new mile markers and some new sheets, there's little visible progress.  Also travelled more of CT 8 from Bridgeport to Ansonia (and last weekend from Winsted down to Waterbury).  In both trips, again, no visible progress on sign replacement, exit renumbering, etc.  There are a few scattered gantries in Derby and Bridgeport being replaced and saw no evidence of any excavation for new foundations or such.

I returned home via I-95, and stopped at the Milford-NB service plaza for lunch, where I caught this being built behind me in the parking lot:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53257306412_5b82f1d9c9_4k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2p9aBJU)95NB-MilfordPlaza-NewBldg (https://flic.kr/p/2p9aBJU) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

Similar structures are going up at other plazas, including Madison-SB.  I'm not sure what they'll be... it does remind me of a stand-alone Dunkin'.... perhaps either a "second prescence" at the plaza, or to replace their spot inside to make room for other tenants.  Madison-SB is "at capacity" but Milford-NB still has a vendor area available inside.  If these are going to be Dunkin' standalones, I suspect a lot of traffic around them, especially in the AM. 

And further up I-95, I stopped at the "Conn. Welcome Center" in Westbrook, NB.  It's still open, and the info center attendant said they'll probably stay open until the end of October/beginning of November, "same as last year" as he said.
I asked the same question a few pages back and no one knew anything I'm curious too.. Maybe a stand alone welcome center? I mean Darien already has dunkin inside.

I even tried to look on the DOT website and I don't see anything showing.
From the colors they're using on the building exterior, I would guess it's a Starbucks they're building.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on October 18, 2023, 03:29:50 PM
Quote from: Alps on October 17, 2023, 09:15:35 PM
Quote from: MikeCL on October 17, 2023, 07:53:02 PM
So wait NB and SB traffic on the same side?
I imagine it would be a 2x2 crossover state.


EDIT: "All traffic will be diverted onto the southbound side of I-95 with two lanes in each direction. Rosenblatt also urges Connecticut drivers to avoid I-95 if possible this weekend."

I think in general most drivers should avoid I-95 in Connecticut where possible.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on October 18, 2023, 03:52:38 PM
New Exit 21 signage for the new 4th lane from Exit 22-Exit 21 on I-84 west in Waterbury.  The lane isn't open yet but is about to be.
This was actually a smart forward thinking part of the project as it was added into the rehab project later on.


(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53268666865_fd50449f04_k.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on October 18, 2023, 08:39:28 PM
So westbound gets a standard CT shield, while eastbound gets the Mass. outline shields?  On the same project?  Typical.

Any "lower deck" signs replaced yet?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on October 19, 2023, 11:55:19 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on October 18, 2023, 08:39:28 PM
So westbound gets a standard CT shield, while eastbound gets the Mass. outline shields?  On the same project?  Typical.

Any "lower deck" signs replaced yet?

Yes the CT-8 NB Exit 20 and SB Exit 19 exit now signs are installed.  The left exit tab is elongated because of the clearance.  I didn't get a change to the exit 20 one.  They both have the MA style 8s
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53269933476_ef9d8e6270_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2pahkjU)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on October 19, 2023, 06:45:36 PM
I don't understand why the upper and lower level Route 8 shields would be different. Aren't they all being replaced under the same project by the same contractor?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on October 19, 2023, 07:16:06 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on October 19, 2023, 06:45:36 PM
I don't understand why the upper and lower level Route 8 shields would be different. Aren't they all being replaced under the same project by the same contractor?

In my first pic, the CT-8 shield was from an earlier spot sign replacement contract and the new one is with the rehab project, which CT DOT has since switched to the border shields.  The rehab project replaced the Exit 21 sign on the same gantry from the spot replacement project.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on October 20, 2023, 06:15:42 PM
I-84 Hartford etc study presser:
https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/CTDOT-Press-Releases/2023/Governor-Lamont-Announces-Advancement-of-the-CTDOT-Greater-Hartford-Mobility-Study
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on October 22, 2023, 05:18:48 PM
Some signage updates on I-691 near the I-91/CT 15 interchange

Eastbound gantry at Exit 1B (Old 10) has new signage.  The Exit Now signage now matches the 1 mi and 1/2 mi advance and omits "W Cross Pkwy".  Also a new 1 mi advance for CT 66 Exit 1 (Old 12) with East Main St has been added to the middle, along with a new 1/2 mile left exit for 91 North with just Hartford and no Springfield.

Westbound signage has been updated between US 5 and Colony St.  The Exit Now for Broad St (US 5) matches EB with Downtown Meriden, while the 1/2 mile and Exit Now for Exit 2B now matches the plain Meriden EB, save for the 1/4 mile advance for trucks to Downtown Meriden.  The long gantry with the empty slot from the old Exit 3 sign has also been replaced.  However, the WB signage up to the 1/2 mile advance for Broad St remains.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on October 22, 2023, 09:30:40 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on October 22, 2023, 05:18:48 PM
Some signage updates on I-691 near the I-91/CT 15 interchange

Eastbound gantry at Exit 1B (Old 10) has new signage.  The Exit Now signage now matches the 1 mi and 1/2 mi advance and omits "W Cross Pkwy".  Also a new 1 mi advance for CT 66 Exit 1 (Old 12) with East Main St has been added to the middle, along with a new 1/2 mile left exit for 91 North with just Hartford and no Springfield.

Westbound signage has been updated between US 5 and Colony St.  The Exit Now for Broad St (US 5) matches EB with Downtown Meriden, while the 1/2 mile and Exit Now for Exit 2B now matches the plain Meriden EB, save for the 1/4 mile advance for trucks to Downtown Meriden.  The long gantry with the empty slot from the old Exit 3 sign has also been replaced.  However, the WB signage up to the 1/2 mile advance for Broad St remains.

Westbound:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53275386544_775a29ac1d_3k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2paLhkj)CT66WB-Exit01 (https://flic.kr/p/2paLhkj) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr
(the gantry was a spot replacement some 10 years ago.  the signs were just replaced.  I-691 pull-thru is no more)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53275499075_3d51d738fe_4k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2paLRMv)691WB-Exit1C (https://flic.kr/p/2paLRMv) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr
(note Exit 1-C exit now sign/gantry not replaced yet)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53275308293_a1f0e62268_4k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2paKT5a)691WB-Exit2A (https://flic.kr/p/2paKT5a) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr
(new signs on existing 1970s gantry.  most likely will be replaced when 91N->15/691 project is complete, as I-691 will get a 4th lane, ending just past this gantry).

Really, I'd like to talk to the sign designers and want to know why they think that having two instances of "Meriden" on the same sign makes sense.  Before, you had "Broad St" and "Downtown Meriden".  Now you have "Meriden" and "Downtown Meriden".  And further west, "Lewis Ave" has been replaced with "71/Chamberlain Highway" in an effort to standardize both directions of travel with the same signage.  Well, you know what?  Sometimes the ramps just don't go to the same place!  Same eastbound, with "Preston Ave" being replaced with "East Main ST". 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on October 22, 2023, 09:38:17 PM
Eastbound:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53274136792_b64839a0f4_4k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2paDSPS)691EB-Exit1B (https://flic.kr/p/2paDSPS) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

There's that dreaded "East Main St" sign which should say "Preston Ave".  You can get to East Main St a lot quicker if you get off onto I-91/CT 15 South and take the first exit, which leads directly to East Main St! 

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53275307898_501b55c4dd_4k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2paKSXm)691EB-Exit1A-CT66EB (https://flic.kr/p/2paKSXm) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

Okay, these two gantries and signs were only put up like 2 years ago.  There was nothing wrong with them... except that they had an extra control city (Springfield and W. Cross Pkwy).  And not to mention both of these gantries are in the middle of a just-starting major infrastructure project (the "Meriden Mix") that will make the I-691 EB to I-91 NB ramp 2 lanes wide.  So why not wait until then to replace the signs?  Not to mention, the loss of the pull-thrus.... the second sign had a cool "BEGIN 66 EAST" pull-thru, which made the exit number 1C to 1 make sense.  But now, that's gone.  CT 66 East doesn't get a single notification of a trailblazer or anything until after the expressway ends. 

But... this is progress.  I guess??!!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on October 23, 2023, 06:29:09 AM
Why do all the exit 1s not have a suffix? Shouldn't it be 1A, 1B, and 1C instead of 1, 1A, and 1B?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on October 23, 2023, 08:46:50 AM
Quote from: connroadgeek on October 23, 2023, 06:29:09 AM
Why do all the exit 1s not have a suffix? Shouldn't it be 1A, 1B, and 1C instead of 1, 1A, and 1B?
Because that Exit 1 is for Route 66, whereas the other suffixed Exit 1s are for I-691, given that I-691 ends at I-91 and Route 66 continues east from there.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on October 23, 2023, 12:22:35 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on October 23, 2023, 08:46:50 AM
Quote from: connroadgeek on October 23, 2023, 06:29:09 AM
Why do all the exit 1s not have a suffix? Shouldn't it be 1A, 1B, and 1C instead of 1, 1A, and 1B?
Because that Exit 1 is for Route 66, whereas the other suffixed Exit 1s are for I-691, given that I-691 ends at I-91 and Route 66 continues east from there.
That makes sense, but if this is the eastern terminus of I-691 how can it be exit 1? Shouldn't exit 1 be on the western end?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: The Ghostbuster on October 23, 2023, 12:39:17 PM
Since CT 66's western end is at the 91/691 interchange, it makes perfect sense to number the Preston Ave. (EB) and E. Main St. (WB) exits as Exit 1, since both fall within Mile 0 and Mile 2 of the CT 66 route. Now if CT 66 were still US 6A with its western terminus still at Woodbury, that would be a different story.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on October 23, 2023, 03:19:31 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on October 23, 2023, 12:22:35 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on October 23, 2023, 08:46:50 AM
Quote from: connroadgeek on October 23, 2023, 06:29:09 AM
Why do all the exit 1s not have a suffix? Shouldn't it be 1A, 1B, and 1C instead of 1, 1A, and 1B?
Because that Exit 1 is for Route 66, whereas the other suffixed Exit 1s are for I-691, given that I-691 ends at I-91 and Route 66 continues east from there.
That makes sense, but if this is the eastern terminus of I-691 how can it be exit 1? Shouldn't exit 1 be on the western end?
Sometimes 3dis have mile 0 at their parent rather than at the southern/western end.  Evidently I-691 uses this method of numbering.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on October 23, 2023, 04:43:22 PM
Quote from: vdeane on October 23, 2023, 03:19:31 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on October 23, 2023, 12:22:35 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on October 23, 2023, 08:46:50 AM
Quote from: connroadgeek on October 23, 2023, 06:29:09 AM
Why do all the exit 1s not have a suffix? Shouldn't it be 1A, 1B, and 1C instead of 1, 1A, and 1B?
Because that Exit 1 is for Route 66, whereas the other suffixed Exit 1s are for I-691, given that I-691 ends at I-91 and Route 66 continues east from there.
That makes sense, but if this is the eastern terminus of I-691 how can it be exit 1? Shouldn't exit 1 be on the western end?
Sometimes 3dis have mile 0 at their parent rather than at the southern/western end.  Evidently I-691 uses this method of numbering.
Looks like you are correct as in the photo you can see the little 691 "mile zero" mile marker right at the exit ramp.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on October 23, 2023, 05:31:55 PM
The former sequential numbering system had the I-84 interchange at the west end of I-691 be Exits 1 & 2, then they counted up from there heading east, with the final number being Exit 13 on Route 66.  Back then, there were no mileposts publicly posted.  Apparently I-691 is logged (in ConnDOT reference) in reverse, with MP 0 at I-91 and mileage counting up as you travel west.  Because CT 66 is logged normally (as an east/west road, with mileposts increasing as you travel east (if mileposts were posted)), with MP 0 being at I-91, you have the former Exits 10, 11, 12 becoming Exits 1B, 1A, then 1.  Mileage-based exits are supposed to eliminate confusion, but this just seems more confusing.  Couple to that, motorists don't even know they've left I-691 and are on CT 66, except if noticing the I-691 East MP 0.  There are no mileposts on the CT 66 portion, no trailblazers, no nothing, and the former convenient "BEGIN 66 EAST" pull-thru at Exit 1-A is now gone (lasting a whopping 2 years, as a result of a spot replacement). 

Again, the spot replacement desk must not talk to the major projects desk, as they could've saved some $$$ by eliminating 2 sites from the 2020 version.  I can think of a dozen presently-mounted overpass signs in need of replacement statewide.  The trick is... are these going to be replaced in a blanket project a year or two after they're replaced in a spot project?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on October 23, 2023, 06:16:14 PM
"I-691 is north-south" >_>
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on October 23, 2023, 08:13:04 PM
Quote from: Alps on October 23, 2023, 06:16:14 PM
"I-691 is north-south" >_>

And for that reason, I'm not a huge fan of the I-691 designation.  I would think an "I-X84" would be better, with MP 0 at I-84. 

I still remember the day I noticed that CT 66 was renumbered.  There was a sign westbound at the merge from Preston Ave that said "NOTICE/66 IS NOW 691".  Many of the gantries just replaced were still up (don't remember if they were repainted yellow yet).  I do remember the ramp to Rt 15 North/Berlin Tpke was a ground-mount that didn't get elevated until the late 1980s. 

Oh, how I wish digital cameras were around back then.... and for me to have the hindsight to take pictures of the signs. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on October 23, 2023, 08:26:59 PM
Quote from: Alps on October 23, 2023, 06:16:14 PM
"I-691 is north-south" >_>
Reminds me of something NCDOT once said...
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on October 23, 2023, 10:59:09 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on October 23, 2023, 08:13:04 PM
Quote from: Alps on October 23, 2023, 06:16:14 PM
"I-691 is north-south" >_>

And for that reason, I'm not a huge fan of the I-691 designation.  I would think an "I-X84" would be better, with MP 0 at I-84. 

At the time that the freeway that would become I-691 was being completed, the only available X84 designation (following AASHTO's rules for designating 3-digit interstates) would be 884, since 284 and 484 were still assigned to unbuilt freeways in East Hartford and Hartford, respectively, and of course 684 that cuts through the southwesternmost corner of the state. They could have gone against the numbering rules and assigned it 584 or 784 (since 184 and 384 are already assigned to other routes).

But...then again...there has been on-and-off talk over the past 50 years about designating Route 8 as an interstate as well (X84, X95, or maybe even X90 if the freeway were extended to the Mass Pike). Connecticut actually applied for an interstate designation for Route 8 in 1972, that was rejected by the FHWA and AASHTO due to some sections, particularly between Shelton and Seymour and through Naugatuck not meeting interstate design standards.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on October 23, 2023, 11:55:47 PM
Quote from: vdeane on October 23, 2023, 08:26:59 PM
Quote from: Alps on October 23, 2023, 06:16:14 PM
"I-691 is north-south" >_>
Reminds me of something NCDOT once said...

A couple of other routes are logged differently from the way they are signed.  CT 72 is also logged north-south, but signed east-west.  For this same reason, CT 72's exits were renumbered from east to west earlier this year, despite old numbers going west to east.  Going the other way, CT 31 and CT 67 are mostly signed north-south, but are logged east-west. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on October 24, 2023, 12:48:20 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on October 23, 2023, 05:31:55 PMMileage-based exits are supposed to eliminate confusion, but this just seems more confusing. 


Which means just because the FHWA MUTCD says so, doesn't really mean it makes sense in all areas.

BTW, I-684 starts its mileage and exits at I-287, not I-84, so, why couldn't 691's mileage and exits have remained the same.

AND, don't forget, in addition to the BEGIN CT-66 sign being taken down, the 4 EXPRESSWAY ENDS extruded signs have been removed as well.  In their place, a tilted, small, sheet metal sign EXPRESSWAY ENDS in their place.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on October 24, 2023, 12:58:47 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on October 23, 2023, 11:55:47 PM
Quote from: vdeane on October 23, 2023, 08:26:59 PM
Quote from: Alps on October 23, 2023, 06:16:14 PM
"I-691 is north-south" >_>
Reminds me of something NCDOT once said...

A couple of other routes are logged differently from the way they are signed.  CT 72 is also logged north-south, but signed east-west.  For this same reason, CT 72's exits were renumbered from east to west earlier this year, despite old numbers going west to east.  Going the other way, CT 31 and CT 67 are mostly signed north-south, but are logged east-west. 
I was referring to how NCDOT insisted I-587 was north-south because it's a spur of I-87 when it is clearly east-west.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: The Ghostbuster on October 24, 2023, 02:08:18 PM
Heck, North Carolina's temporary Interstate 495 was signed north-south when it too was east-west. Interstate 691 should have always been considered an east-west highway.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on October 24, 2023, 04:33:35 PM
The two-lane exit from I-95 NB to CT-8-25 is now two-lanes.  Funny how 25 comes first on the sign, but later exits itself later on up the road indicating 8 is the main route.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53283597050_57bbba2e34_k.jpg)


I-84 WB has signs again underneath
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53282243982_76b2e87d7e_k.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on October 24, 2023, 06:06:24 PM
Wow... the CT 8/25 exit widening went quick!  Good job, ConnDOT, proving construction projects don't have to drag on for years!
The I-84 lower deck signs don't look bad, either.  At least they kept the pull-thru.  Kind of important, especially when you have exits on the left and on the right.

Great... more new signs for me to get pics of!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on October 24, 2023, 09:20:46 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on October 24, 2023, 06:06:24 PM
Wow... the CT 8/25 exit widening went quick!  Good job, ConnDOT, proving construction projects don't have to drag on for years!
The I-84 lower deck signs don't look bad, either.  At least they kept the pull-thru.  Kind of important, especially when you have exits on the left and on the right.

Great... more new signs for me to get pics of!

Wish they would have corrected the order of 8 and 25 (should just truncate 25 to the split, but I digress), but CTDOT did it in kind.  Maybe when southbound signage is replaced/exits renumbered it will be corrected.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on October 24, 2023, 10:37:11 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on October 24, 2023, 09:20:46 PM
Wish they would have corrected the order of 8 and 25 (should just truncate 25 to the split, but I digress), but CTDOT did it in kind.  Maybe when southbound signage is replaced/exits renumbered it will be corrected.

The sign just matches local convention. Traffic reporters have long called it "the 25/8 connector", so 25 comes first.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on October 25, 2023, 12:15:15 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on October 24, 2023, 09:20:46 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on October 24, 2023, 06:06:24 PM
Wow... the CT 8/25 exit widening went quick!  Good job, ConnDOT, proving construction projects don't have to drag on for years!
The I-84 lower deck signs don't look bad, either.  At least they kept the pull-thru.  Kind of important, especially when you have exits on the left and on the right.

Great... more new signs for me to get pics of!

Wish they would have corrected the order of 8 and 25 (should just truncate 25 to the split, but I digress), but CTDOT did it in kind.  Maybe when southbound signage is replaced/exits renumbered it will be corrected.
Quote from: Duke87 on October 24, 2023, 10:37:11 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on October 24, 2023, 09:20:46 PM
Wish they would have corrected the order of 8 and 25 (should just truncate 25 to the split, but I digress), but CTDOT did it in kind.  Maybe when southbound signage is replaced/exits renumbered it will be corrected.

The sign just matches local convention. Traffic reporters have long called it "the 25/8 connector", so 25 comes first.

Yeah, it's not in numerical order, but in early planning stages the freeway was called Route 25. Route 8 was a relative newcomer, having been relocated to Bridgeport from its original Stratford terminus in 1951.

In almost every other entrance BGS (such as Chopsey Hill Rd), the order is 8/25.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on October 25, 2023, 08:15:17 PM
The Trumbull//Waterbury on that APL looks weird off-center, and that 8 north exit only sign is missing its crown like the 8 south exit only sign has.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on October 27, 2023, 11:21:24 PM
Seems like everyday there's a new sign or sign modification on I-84 in Waterbury.

Based on these new signs, I think Exit 21 EB, is permanently closed.  Officially, the project of removing Exit 21 is supposed to start in 2025 or so.  So, it looks like the current rehab communicated with the future project and will keep it closed and create an AUX lane between CT-8 and exit 22.

I say that b/c the Exit 22 signs have had the Meadow St/Bank St removed from the 1/2 mile advanced sign which was put up last month.  The other exit 22 signs now have EXIT ONLYs on them.  (A look at the future plans show Exit 22 eventually being a 2-lane off-ramp. So will the Exit 22 "exit now" sign be modified again?)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53291277593_92ce53692c_k.jpg)
Now look closely at the old sign that was put up last month.  The old one had demountable copy, the current one has adhesive letters.  Is it a new sign or just an overlay? Also note, the Exit 22 exit tab border is thicker on the newer sign. If it is a new sign, why keep the extra space?
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53283401538_1224f16669_k.jpg)

Here's the new advance exit 22 arrow sign.  Btw, the EXIT ONLY is over the wrong lane.  It's over a current thru-lane.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53291500440_95acc4e574_k.jpg)
Here's the old (old, meaning a month lol), new Exit 22 arrow sign.  The new sign has adhesive lettering and the month old version had demountable copy and a thinner exit tab border.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53220540786_3c8661d8d5_k.jpg)


Lastly, another new sign and will this be modified once Exit 21 is officially removed?  They plan to make it a two-lane off ramp by restriping with an option lane.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53291277483_363c05eea6_k.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: rover on October 30, 2023, 10:33:23 PM
So the 8/25 NB exit from I-95 NB now is two lanes?
How long did it take?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on October 31, 2023, 05:59:12 PM
I want to say the contract plans were released a year ago.  All they really had to do was widen a couple hundred foot section from the gore, onto the ramp.  Most of the ramp was already 2 lanes wide. 

They also restriped I-95 North so the previous exit only lane is now an exit only lane and an "option" lane.  I haven't seen it in person, but they probably restriped over part of the already-wide shoulder for a short distance.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on November 03, 2023, 07:05:40 PM
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53308228240_2bb244c5b3_k.jpg)

A view under the Waterbury mixmaster.  You have 6-lanes total on the bottom street level.  At left: 2 going north on Meadow St.  Middle: 2 going south to I-84 and right: 2 going south as well, on Meadow St going towards Bank St. 

The DOT plans to take out the right 2 lanes to Bank St and make them a protected bike lane.
The other 4 will be configured to 3.  One NB on Meadow St, one SB on Meadow St and a left turn lane for I-84.  Sigh.
This will be done in coordination of the EB I-84 Exit 21 off-ramp removal.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on November 05, 2023, 07:17:01 PM
Checked out the new signage in relation to the Exit 27-A widening earlier today...

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53312020413_6b4ad74c1a_3k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2pe13iK)95NB-Exit26-2 (https://flic.kr/p/2pe13iK) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53311778216_d7892eeab9_4k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2pdYNiW)95NB-Exit27-3 (https://flic.kr/p/2pdYNiW) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53310910122_acb1d63281_5k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2pdUmfN)95NB-Exit27A (https://flic.kr/p/2pdUmfN) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

Also, here we are in early November, and the "seasonal - MID MAY TO MID SEPT" tourist info center on I-95 NB in Westbrook CT is still open.  No idea when (if?) the barricades will go up for the season, but its still "business as usual" at the facility.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on November 06, 2023, 07:00:46 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on November 03, 2023, 07:05:40 PM
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53308228240_2bb244c5b3_k.jpg)

A view under the Waterbury mixmaster.  You have 6-lanes total on the bottom street level.  At left: 2 going north on Meadow St.  Middle: 2 going south to I-84 and right: 2 going south as well, on Meadow St going towards Bank St. 

The DOT plans to take out the right 2 lanes to Bank St and make them a protected bike lane.
The other 4 will be configured to 3.  One NB on Meadow St, one SB on Meadow St and a left turn lane for I-84.  Sigh.
This will be done in coordination of the EB I-84 Exit 21 off-ramp removal.
Not under the Mixmaster ,which is the west shore with 8. This is the next interchange east.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on November 06, 2023, 09:19:59 PM
Here's a timelapse video of the I-95 southbound bridge over Route 33 in Westport being replaced over the weekend using the lateral slide method.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Y4hCnlCT6E
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on November 08, 2023, 03:04:32 PM
Quote from: Alps on November 06, 2023, 07:00:46 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on November 03, 2023, 07:05:40 PM
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53308228240_2bb244c5b3_k.jpg)

A view under the Waterbury mixmaster.  You have 6-lanes total on the bottom street level.  At left: 2 going north on Meadow St.  Middle: 2 going south to I-84 and right: 2 going south as well, on Meadow St going towards Bank St. 

The DOT plans to take out the right 2 lanes to Bank St and make them a protected bike lane.
The other 4 will be configured to 3.  One NB on Meadow St, one SB on Meadow St and a left turn lane for I-84.  Sigh.
This will be done in coordination of the EB I-84 Exit 21 off-ramp removal.
Not under the Mixmaster ,which is the west shore with 8. This is the next interchange east.

People here refer to the whole structure as the mixmaster.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on November 08, 2023, 06:43:40 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on November 08, 2023, 03:04:32 PM
Quote from: Alps on November 06, 2023, 07:00:46 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on November 03, 2023, 07:05:40 PM

A view under the Waterbury mixmaster.  You have 6-lanes total on the bottom street level.  At left: 2 going north on Meadow St.  Middle: 2 going south to I-84 and right: 2 going south as well, on Meadow St going towards Bank St. 

The DOT plans to take out the right 2 lanes to Bank St and make them a protected bike lane.
The other 4 will be configured to 3.  One NB on Meadow St, one SB on Meadow St and a left turn lane for I-84.  Sigh.
This will be done in coordination of the EB I-84 Exit 21 off-ramp removal.
Not under the Mixmaster ,which is the west shore with 8. This is the next interchange east.

People here refer to the whole structure as the mixmaster.
Ah. I figured it was just the interchange on the west side, but I'll trust you on it.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kramie13 on November 10, 2023, 10:08:31 AM
Is there a reason why there is no "exit 1" on I-95?  When the exit numbers switch to a mile-based system exit 2 will become exit 1 but right now I find it really weird that the sequential numbers start at 2.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on November 10, 2023, 10:18:54 AM
Quote from: kramie13 on November 10, 2023, 10:08:31 AM
Is there a reason why there is no "exit 1" on I-95?  When the exit numbers switch to a mile-based system exit 2 will become exit 1 but right now I find it really weird that the sequential numbers start at 2.

Supposedly, the old Greenwich toll plaza was considered "Exit 1".
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: The Ghostbuster on November 10, 2023, 01:05:19 PM
I always found that strange, although not as strange as the CT 15 Merritt Parkway starting at Exit 27 (although I do know why it did, though I still think it should have started as Exit 1).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on November 10, 2023, 02:30:49 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 10, 2023, 01:05:19 PM
I always found that strange, although not as strange as the CT 15 Merritt Parkway starting at Exit 27 (although I do know why it did, though I still think it should have started as Exit 1).
CT 15's exit numbers end at 91, at least until mile-based exits come to the route.
And I-84 (old I-86) used to end at 105 before the CT 15 concurrency was removed.
The idea was to have a continuous set of exit numbers starting at the interchange at the Cross Bronx and I-678.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on November 10, 2023, 04:48:24 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 10, 2023, 01:05:19 PM
I always found that strange, although not as strange as the CT 15 Merritt Parkway starting at Exit 27 (although I do know why it did, though I still think it should have started as Exit 1).
I mean, Interchanges 1, 6, 14C, 18W, and 18E on the NJ Turnpike are all toll plazas on the mainline. So CT wouldn't be alone in this.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on November 10, 2023, 06:11:22 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on November 10, 2023, 02:30:49 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 10, 2023, 01:05:19 PM
I always found that strange, although not as strange as the CT 15 Merritt Parkway starting at Exit 27 (although I do know why it did, though I still think it should have started as Exit 1).
CT 15's exit numbers end at 91, at least until mile-based exits come to the route.
And I-84 (old I-86) used to end at 105 before the CT 15 concurrency was removed.
The idea was to have a continuous set of exit numbers starting at the interchange at the Cross Bronx and I-678.

CT 15's exit numbers end twice... first at I-91 in Meriden, then restart in Wethersfield and end at I-84.  But back when I-84 from East Hartford to Mass was I-86, it was also cosigned as part of CT 15, and hence the exit numbering sequence of CT 15 continued.  That portion of I-84 is still called the "Wilbur Cross Highway", though you won't find signs in the field referencing it.  Pre-interstate, it was the Wilbur Cross Parkway, complete with the same style wooden/shingle signs like on the Merritt, and at least one set of service areas (gas stations) in Vernon, I believe.  When I-84 to Providence was cancelled, it was rerouted back onto its present route and the exit numbers were changed to I-84's series.  The CT 15 multiplex was removed at that time.  And sometime around then as well, it was decided to reroute US 44 back onto surface roads from Vernon to Willington. 

I-95 Exit 1 would NOT have been the toll plaza, as the toll plaza location was after today's Exit 2 (where the weigh station is now).  Unless, what is now Exit 2 was Exit 1 back then, but I've seen old turnpike maps and no exit 1 is shown.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on November 10, 2023, 06:29:16 PM
CT 15 was truncated to its current end in 1980.  However, the exit numbers remained on then I-86 until 1984 or so when the I-84 designation was restored to its current route and the exit numbers changed to I-84 numbers.  It had been on the Sturbridge route prior to the introduction of I-86, which was supposed to continue west to I-91 in Wethersfield as a re-designation of what was supposed to be I-491 (but remains the CT 3 expressway only completed to CT 2).  The Providence route was originally supposed to be I-82.  The exit numbers on the Sturbridge route went up to 106, and for some reason skipped 103.  The removal of US 44 from Manchester to Wilington (and the related cancelation of US 44A and extension of CT 74) happened in 1982.

Don't think I ever remember seeing I-84 related numbers on what is now I-384 or on the US 6 Willimantic bypass when they carried the I-84 designation.   
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on November 10, 2023, 06:57:09 PM
Interesting proposals for CT 25/111 area in Trumbull, for Metro COG, 2019, include a New Jersey-style quadrant roadway (sort of a jughandle, but not exactly) and a SPUI: https://metrocog-website.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/Website+Content/Corridor+Studies/25+%2B+111/Routes+25-111+Executive+Summary.pdf
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on November 12, 2023, 07:40:06 PM
Quote from: kurumi on November 10, 2023, 06:57:09 PM
Interesting proposals for CT 25/111 area in Trumbull, for Metro COG, 2019, include a New Jersey-style quadrant roadway (sort of a jughandle, but not exactly) and a SPUI: https://metrocog-website.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/Website+Content/Corridor+Studies/25+%2B+111/Routes+25-111+Executive+Summary.pdf
Sounds like another waste of money on a study that will only be put on a shelf to collect dust. I don't expect anything to be done with Route 25 within my lifetime.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on November 12, 2023, 08:02:05 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on November 10, 2023, 10:18:54 AM
Quote from: kramie13 on November 10, 2023, 10:08:31 AM
Is there a reason why there is no "exit 1" on I-95?  When the exit numbers switch to a mile-based system exit 2 will become exit 1 but right now I find it really weird that the sequential numbers start at 2.

Supposedly, the old Greenwich toll plaza was considered "Exit 1".

I noticed the first few gantries in CT on I-95 are NY State gantries with CT owned signs on them.  Any idea why?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on November 13, 2023, 09:17:11 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on November 12, 2023, 08:02:05 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on November 10, 2023, 10:18:54 AM
Quote from: kramie13 on November 10, 2023, 10:08:31 AM
Is there a reason why there is no "exit 1" on I-95?  When the exit numbers switch to a mile-based system exit 2 will become exit 1 but right now I find it really weird that the sequential numbers start at 2.

Supposedly, the old Greenwich toll plaza was considered "Exit 1".

I noticed the first few gantries in CT on I-95 are NY State gantries with CT owned signs on them.  Any idea why?
I think those gantries date back to when I-95 was originally built in that area. When the Connecticut Turnpike opened in 1958, it temporarily ended at Exit 2, as the bridge over the Byram River and the New England Thruway in New York were not yet built. The New England Thruway, the Byram River Bridge at the state line, and the small stretch of turnpike between the Byram River and Exit 2 were completed and opened in 1961. You'll also notice that things like catch basins in the highway median between the state line at the Delevan Avenue underpass (Exit 2) are to New York design specifications, whereas the roadway from exit 2 onward was built to Connecticut design specifications.

I suspect all of that work was completed under one construction contract awarded by the State of New York (probably under some arrangement with Connecticut, with Connecticut transferring to New York the money needed to build the section between the state line and Exit 2), thus the New York-style sign structures between the state line and Exit 2.

As for why I-95 in Connecticut starts as Exit 2 and not Exit 1, it was typical at the time for toll roads to number their exits in a way where the first and last exit were for through traffic headed toward the state line or the toll road's terminus, so "Exit 1" on the Connecticut Turnpike would have been continuing on the mainline towards New York.  I do recall the Ohio Turnpike had an identical situation where the first numbered exit was Exit 2 (before renumbering to mileage-based numbers), and through traffic headed west toward the Indiana Toll Road was considered "Exit 1." 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: DJStephens on November 13, 2023, 10:29:41 AM
Quote from: kurumi on November 10, 2023, 06:57:09 PM
Interesting proposals for CT 25/111 area in Trumbull, for Metro COG, 2019, include a New Jersey-style quadrant roadway (sort of a jughandle, but not exactly) and a SPUI: https://metrocog-website.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/Website+Content/Corridor+Studies/25+%2B+111/Routes+25-111+Executive+Summary.pdf
First few pages of the document indicates scoping and public meetings all occurred over five years ago.   Anything ever come of it?  Would suspect politics, wealth, and NIMBYism would make something of this project's magnitude, in this particular area extremely difficult.   As for Connecticut as a whole, is it slowly depopulating, mainly due to taxes and extreme costs of living there?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: The Ghostbuster on November 13, 2023, 12:49:37 PM
I like the idea of replacing the CT 25/CT 111 signaled intersection with an interchange. However, I doubt any of the improvements listed in the document will ever be implemented. This is Connecticut after all.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on November 13, 2023, 05:43:49 PM
Quote from: DJStephens on November 13, 2023, 10:29:41 AM
First few pages of the document indicates scoping and public meetings all occurred over five years ago.   Anything ever come of it?  Would suspect politics, wealth, and NIMBYism would make something of this project's magnitude, in this particular area extremely difficult.   As for Connecticut as a whole, is it slowly depopulating, mainly due to taxes and extreme costs of living there?

Connecticut population by Census...

1980: 3.113m
1990: 3.289m
2000: 3.412m
2010: 3.579m
2020: 3.597m
2021: 3.623m (est.)
2022: 3.626m (est.)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on November 13, 2023, 10:42:09 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on November 13, 2023, 05:43:49 PM
Quote from: DJStephens on November 13, 2023, 10:29:41 AM
First few pages of the document indicates scoping and public meetings all occurred over five years ago.   Anything ever come of it?  Would suspect politics, wealth, and NIMBYism would make something of this project's magnitude, in this particular area extremely difficult.   As for Connecticut as a whole, is it slowly depopulating, mainly due to taxes and extreme costs of living there?

Connecticut population by Census...

1980: 3.113m
1990: 3.289m
2000: 3.412m
2010: 3.579m
2020: 3.597m
2021: 3.623m (est.)
2022: 3.626m (est.)
The mass migration of New Yorkers into Connecticut to escape that state's even harsher tax and regulatory environment outpaces the rate of Connecticut residents leaving to find places with lower taxes and better cost of living...but not by much.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Pete from Boston on November 13, 2023, 11:51:30 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on November 13, 2023, 10:42:09 PM
The mass migration of New Yorkers into Connecticut to escape that state's even harsher tax and regulatory environment outpaces the rate of Connecticut residents leaving to find places with lower taxes and better cost of living...but not by much.

What specifically indicates that's the primary motivation for in-migration of New Yorkers to Connecticut? NYC folks have been decamping in all directions to suburbia for longer than I've been alive in search of more space at lower housing costs (driven in NYC by supply and demand more than anything), with a steady stream of newcomers ready to take their place. Is there data to indicate taxes and "regulatory environment" are the culprits?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on November 14, 2023, 06:20:20 AM
I don't think it was just because of housing costs and taxes. At least in the first year of the pandemic, higher density living became synonymous with higher risks of infections, and the popularity of the ability to work from anywhere (for some) made places like Connecticut more attractive.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on November 14, 2023, 06:21:40 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on November 13, 2023, 10:42:09 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on November 13, 2023, 05:43:49 PM
Quote from: DJStephens on November 13, 2023, 10:29:41 AM
First few pages of the document indicates scoping and public meetings all occurred over five years ago.   Anything ever come of it?  Would suspect politics, wealth, and NIMBYism would make something of this project's magnitude, in this particular area extremely difficult.   As for Connecticut as a whole, is it slowly depopulating, mainly due to taxes and extreme costs of living there?

Connecticut population by Census...

1980: 3.113m
1990: 3.289m
2000: 3.412m
2010: 3.579m
2020: 3.597m
2021: 3.623m (est.)
2022: 3.626m (est.)
The mass migration of New Yorkers into Connecticut to escape that state's even harsher tax and regulatory environment outpaces the rate of Connecticut residents leaving to find places with lower taxes and better cost of living...but not by much.

The population has been pretty stable for nearly half a century. City dwellers looking for a suburban lifestyle and people leaving for warmer climates and lower cost of living as they retire has always been a thing. Turns out 5-6 decades of cold and shoveling snow is more than enough for those that can afford to retire south, and the lower taxes and cost of living is the cherry on top though that financial advantage has shrunk considerably post-Covid. In looking at the data, the population bounces around a little +/- a few tens of thousands each year, but it looks more like a steady state to me.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on November 14, 2023, 08:29:36 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on November 13, 2023, 09:17:11 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on November 12, 2023, 08:02:05 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on November 10, 2023, 10:18:54 AM
Quote from: kramie13 on November 10, 2023, 10:08:31 AM
Is there a reason why there is no "exit 1" on I-95?  When the exit numbers switch to a mile-based system exit 2 will become exit 1 but right now I find it really weird that the sequential numbers start at 2.

Supposedly, the old Greenwich toll plaza was considered "Exit 1".

I noticed the first few gantries in CT on I-95 are NY State gantries with CT owned signs on them.  Any idea why?
I think those gantries date back to when I-95 was originally built in that area. When the Connecticut Turnpike opened in 1958, it temporarily ended at Exit 2, as the bridge over the Byram River and the New England Thruway in New York were not yet built. The New England Thruway, the Byram River Bridge at the state line, and the small stretch of turnpike between the Byram River and Exit 2 were completed and opened in 1961. You'll also notice that things like catch basins in the highway median between the state line at the Delevan Avenue underpass (Exit 2) are to New York design specifications, whereas the roadway from exit 2 onward was built to Connecticut design specifications.

I suspect all of that work was completed under one construction contract awarded by the State of New York (probably under some arrangement with Connecticut, with Connecticut transferring to New York the money needed to build the section between the state line and Exit 2), thus the New York-style sign structures between the state line and Exit 2.

As for why I-95 in Connecticut starts as Exit 2 and not Exit 1, it was typical at the time for toll roads to number their exits in a way where the first and last exit were for through traffic headed toward the state line or the toll road's terminus, so "Exit 1" on the Connecticut Turnpike would have been continuing on the mainline towards New York.  I do recall the Ohio Turnpike had an identical situation where the first numbered exit was Exit 2 (before renumbering to mileage-based numbers), and through traffic headed west toward the Indiana Toll Road was considered "Exit 1." 
I would just like to acknowledge your brilliance in assembling this reply.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: roadman65 on November 20, 2023, 10:05:44 AM
https://maps.app.goo.gl/vKd49HejNmz2XXkQ6
Aren't the new mile based supposed to be installed on I-84? This should be Exit 63.

Also considering exit numbers on I-84 in the Hartford area are high, this means that I-84 ain't far behind I-95 in a race for closest interchanges on a freeway.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on November 20, 2023, 12:53:33 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 20, 2023, 10:05:44 AM
https://maps.app.goo.gl/vKd49HejNmz2XXkQ6
Aren't the new mile based supposed to be installed on I-84? This should be Exit 63.
Not for a while yet.  The long-distance interstates will the the last routes in CT to be converted.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: The Ghostbuster on November 20, 2023, 01:18:38 PM
Actually, that exit will probably be numbered Exit 66 (or 67) in the future. It has been predicted that Interstate 84 will get new numbers in 2028, but actual exit renumbering haven't exactly occurred on the predetermined dates, but it probably will be a few years from now.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on November 21, 2023, 07:27:11 PM
The I-84 WB aux lane between Exit 22 and Exit 21 is now open.

Here's a pic from a year ago.  Yes, in this pic it was almost complete, yet it took about a year to open it.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52578787659_6bd4c9a799_k.jpg)

Drivers around here are upset, the ramp from CT-8 NB to I-84 EB is closed long-term for the third time.  This time was supposed to be only 6 weeks starting in August and it is closed b/c they have to pave the I-84 mainline.  The ramp itself is fine.  Why it can't be open until the final repaving is beyond me. When people comment on the rehab project FB page asking questions, some admin of the page deletes them.

Then, they said there would be 2 weekend closures of all but one lane on two weekends for waterproofing and final repaving.  They said it had to be done in the daylight hours b/c of dew points and the material setting right.  They did the first weekend fine and abruptly cancelled the second scheduled weekend. They say it'll just be done during night construction hours. 

Sooooooooooooo, what about the dew point explanation?  Did the work really had to be done during the day? or are they just not doing the waterproofing part and doing it at night?  (this is also why the ramp is closed between all this, although the ramp is fine and the mainline is driven over even though the pavement is uneven)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on November 29, 2023, 09:08:26 AM
West Hartford would, of course, be one of the first towns to jump on Connecticut's legalization of photo enforcement.

https://www.fox61.com/article/news/local/hartford-county/west-hartford/major-changes-coming-west-hartfords-traffic-lights-improve-driving/520-86c39579-ffe9-4ddb-bb71-d5d0fed6aa9b

tl;dr: West Hartford, arguably the most car-hostile town in the Hartford metro area, has filed the paperwork to introduce 15 red-light and speed cameras.

I'm not necessarily opposed to photo enforcement when proper safeguards are in place...and it looks like CT's trying to pursue those safeguards (proper signage, only in areas with demonstrated need, human review before tickets issued, not recorded on MVR, steps taken to protect privacy).   But West Hartford has annoyed me since I moved to the area.  I respect their efforts to be more bike- and pedestrian-friendly, but given the town's location and the issues with crossing the metro area in a car....
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on November 29, 2023, 07:51:35 PM
WeHa has bad traffic due to a lack of arterial surface streets. The Trout Brook Connector and the US 44 freeway would have alleviated a lot of it, but NIMBYs won that battle and now everyone getting off I-84 at Exit 43 is shoehorn onto Park Rd., Ttout Brook Dr., and Raymond Rd.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: mariethefoxy on November 30, 2023, 05:41:02 AM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on November 29, 2023, 09:08:26 AM
West Hartford would, of course, be one of the first towns to jump on Connecticut's legalization of photo enforcement.

https://www.fox61.com/article/news/local/hartford-county/west-hartford/major-changes-coming-west-hartfords-traffic-lights-improve-driving/520-86c39579-ffe9-4ddb-bb71-d5d0fed6aa9b

tl;dr: West Hartford, arguably the most car-hostile town in the Hartford metro area, has filed the paperwork to introduce 15 red-light and speed cameras.

I'm not necessarily opposed to photo enforcement when proper safeguards are in place...and it looks like CT's trying to pursue those safeguards (proper signage, only in areas with demonstrated need, human review before tickets issued, not recorded on MVR, steps taken to protect privacy).   But West Hartford has annoyed me since I moved to the area.  I respect their efforts to be more bike- and pedestrian-friendly, but given the town's location and the issues with crossing the metro area in a car....

if NYC is any indication, it starts as oh we need it by the school zones, then suddenly you have random cameras everywhere that operate 24/7, once they get addicted to the extra revenue, all "Safeguards" go out the window.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeCL on December 06, 2023, 01:10:30 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on October 18, 2023, 09:44:01 AM
Quote from: MikeCL on October 17, 2023, 07:55:44 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on October 14, 2023, 06:38:49 PM
Took a drive around this morning before (and during) the rain to check on sign replacement and exit renumbering projects in southwest CT.  Drove I-91 up to Exit 10 and the length of CT 40.  I was hoping to find progress on CT 40's sign replacement (lumped in with I-91 Exits 9-18), but outside of new mile markers and some new sheets, there's little visible progress.  Also travelled more of CT 8 from Bridgeport to Ansonia (and last weekend from Winsted down to Waterbury).  In both trips, again, no visible progress on sign replacement, exit renumbering, etc.  There are a few scattered gantries in Derby and Bridgeport being replaced and saw no evidence of any excavation for new foundations or such.

I returned home via I-95, and stopped at the Milford-NB service plaza for lunch, where I caught this being built behind me in the parking lot:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53257306412_5b82f1d9c9_4k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2p9aBJU)95NB-MilfordPlaza-NewBldg (https://flic.kr/p/2p9aBJU) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

Similar structures are going up at other plazas, including Madison-SB.  I'm not sure what they'll be... it does remind me of a stand-alone Dunkin'.... perhaps either a "second prescence" at the plaza, or to replace their spot inside to make room for other tenants.  Madison-SB is "at capacity" but Milford-NB still has a vendor area available inside.  If these are going to be Dunkin' standalones, I suspect a lot of traffic around them, especially in the AM. 

And further up I-95, I stopped at the "Conn. Welcome Center" in Westbrook, NB.  It's still open, and the info center attendant said they'll probably stay open until the end of October/beginning of November, "same as last year" as he said.
I asked the same question a few pages back and no one knew anything I'm curious too.. Maybe a stand alone welcome center? I mean Darien already has dunkin inside.

I even tried to look on the DOT website and I don't see anything showing.
From the colors they're using on the building exterior, I would guess it's a Starbucks they're building.

Yep been doing long truck driving and can confirm it's going to be starbucks.. it kinda seems pointless  is this some type of long term contract to build all of that?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: zzyzx on December 15, 2023, 08:50:26 PM
I did not have this on my CTDOT reconstruction calendar...

CTDOT is planning on combining Exits 71 and 72 Southbound in Old Lyme into one interchange, with a frontage road and traffic signal.

Is this the new CTDOT method, removing trumpet interchanges and replacing them with ramps and traffic signals? While it's a good start, it does nothing to address widening I-95 in the area, nor does it look like the Northbound ramps will be combined, which also has a short weave.

This plan is a significant change to the one in the 2004 Branford to RI state line widening plans for I-95, which included 2 separate exits in a sort of "scissor weave" with the Exit 71 deceleration ramps crossing over the Exit 72 acceleration ramps.

They're planning on starting this project in 2028, which is right after the Exit 74 project in East Lyme is set to be complete.

Article with rendering linked below from the CT Examiner (no paywall)

https://ctexaminer.com/2023/12/13/i-95-exits-71-and-72-southbound-will-be-combined-in-2028-plan/ (https://ctexaminer.com/2023/12/13/i-95-exits-71-and-72-southbound-will-be-combined-in-2028-plan/)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on December 15, 2023, 10:52:33 PM
Saw this too, and was a little disappointed for many of the reasons already stated (lack of mainline widening, no changes NB, etc). 

While eliminating the trumpet ramps to the north and replacing them with a light is not ideal, it does address the crossing traffic issue.  Maine recently converted one of its turnpike interchanges from a trumpet to a diamond, with no road heading west (similar to this case in CT).

I was not a fan of the former proposal in the old I-95 widening study that retained the present Exit 71 / 72 on/off ramps but had bridges in place instead of ramp changes.  So in that regard, this seems better, and cheaper.  Just wished they'd combine it into a consolidated Exit 71/72 NB/SB project with a little bit of widening and overpass replacement, and fast track the thing.  The proposal here isn't supposed to be a shovel until 2028... at the earliest!

But, alas, ConnDOT doing projects "half-ass" seems to be a thing lately.  I-95 Exit 74-75 project seems great, but doesn't widen out to Exit 76.  I-91 NB Exit 29/Charter Oak Bridge alleviated the congestion NB, but didn't do anything to fix the problem SB.  The Route 9/Middletown project is creating a NB acceleration lane from Route 17, but isn't touching SB.  And back in the 1990s, the Merritt Parkway/US 7 got half an interchange, with the other half in study ever since. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on December 15, 2023, 11:17:28 PM
I can tell you that progressing from Concept Development (the level shown here) to construction, for a project like this, 3 years is totally normal and reasonable, so if it's going to enter design in 2024, it's not going to be ready for a shovel until at least late 2027. That's not Connecticut or this project, that's the reality of engineering.

I just hope that whoever wins the next stages of design convinces CT of a way to eliminate the NB weave.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on December 16, 2023, 03:49:20 PM
Quote from: zzyzx on December 15, 2023, 08:50:26 PM
I did not have this on my CTDOT reconstruction calendar...

CTDOT is planning on combining Exits 71 and 72 Southbound in Old Lyme into one interchange, with a frontage road and traffic signal.

Is this the new CTDOT method, removing trumpet interchanges and replacing them with ramps and traffic signals? While it's a good start, it does nothing to address widening I-95 in the area, nor does it look like the Northbound ramps will be combined, which also has a short weave.

This plan is a significant change to the one in the 2004 Branford to RI state line widening plans for I-95, which included 2 separate exits in a sort of "scissor weave" with the Exit 71 deceleration ramps crossing over the Exit 72 acceleration ramps.

They're planning on starting this project in 2028, which is right after the Exit 74 project in East Lyme is set to be complete.

Article with rendering linked below from the CT Examiner (no paywall)

https://ctexaminer.com/2023/12/13/i-95-exits-71-and-72-southbound-will-be-combined-in-2028-plan/ (https://ctexaminer.com/2023/12/13/i-95-exits-71-and-72-southbound-will-be-combined-in-2028-plan/)
It would make more sense to extend the Rocky Neck Connector as a 2-lane road northwest from I-95 to Fourmile River Road. Then convert Exit 72 to a diamond interchange and eliminate Exit 71 entirely. I would sure hope that when they reconstruct these interchanges, they do so in a way it can easily be expanded to three travel lanes with minimal work, as CTDOT has been discussing for at least the past 20 years, widening I-95 to 3 lanes from Branford to Rhode Island.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on December 17, 2023, 02:19:17 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on December 15, 2023, 10:52:33 PM
Saw this too, and was a little disappointed for many of the reasons already stated (lack of mainline widening, no changes NB, etc). 

While eliminating the trumpet ramps to the north and replacing them with a light is not ideal, it does address the crossing traffic issue.  Maine recently converted one of its turnpike interchanges from a trumpet to a diamond, with no road heading west (similar to this case in CT).

I was not a fan of the former proposal in the old I-95 widening study that retained the present Exit 71 / 72 on/off ramps but had bridges in place instead of ramp changes.  So in that regard, this seems better, and cheaper.  Just wished they'd combine it into a consolidated Exit 71/72 NB/SB project with a little bit of widening and overpass replacement, and fast track the thing.  The proposal here isn't supposed to be a shovel until 2028... at the earliest!

But, alas, ConnDOT doing projects "half-ass" seems to be a thing lately.  I-95 Exit 74-75 project seems great, but doesn't widen out to Exit 76.  I-91 NB Exit 29/Charter Oak Bridge alleviated the congestion NB, but didn't do anything to fix the problem SB.  The Route 9/Middletown project is creating a NB acceleration lane from Route 17, but isn't touching SB.  And back in the 1990s, the Merritt Parkway/US 7 got half an interchange, with the other half in study ever since.
Just because they didn't fix the issues going southbound with the I-91 Exit 29 project doesn't mean they won't address it in the future.

Widening Exit 86 on CT 15 would require additional retrofitting of the deck of the Charter Oak Bridge and a realignment of I-91 SB to at least Exit 28.
Until that happens, they really should do a better job at emphasizing on signage that if Exit 86 is backed up, use Exit 87. There should really be additional signage for that.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Rothman on December 17, 2023, 04:26:02 PM


Quote from: RobbieL2415 on December 17, 2023, 02:19:17 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on December 15, 2023, 10:52:33 PM
Saw this too, and was a little disappointed for many of the reasons already stated (lack of mainline widening, no changes NB, etc). 

While eliminating the trumpet ramps to the north and replacing them with a light is not ideal, it does address the crossing traffic issue.  Maine recently converted one of its turnpike interchanges from a trumpet to a diamond, with no road heading west (similar to this case in CT).

I was not a fan of the former proposal in the old I-95 widening study that retained the present Exit 71 / 72 on/off ramps but had bridges in place instead of ramp changes.  So in that regard, this seems better, and cheaper.  Just wished they'd combine it into a consolidated Exit 71/72 NB/SB project with a little bit of widening and overpass replacement, and fast track the thing.  The proposal here isn't supposed to be a shovel until 2028... at the earliest!

But, alas, ConnDOT doing projects "half-ass" seems to be a thing lately.  I-95 Exit 74-75 project seems great, but doesn't widen out to Exit 76.  I-91 NB Exit 29/Charter Oak Bridge alleviated the congestion NB, but didn't do anything to fix the problem SB.  The Route 9/Middletown project is creating a NB acceleration lane from Route 17, but isn't touching SB.  And back in the 1990s, the Merritt Parkway/US 7 got half an interchange, with the other half in study ever since.
Just because they didn't fix the issues going southbound with the I-91 Exit 29 project doesn't mean they won't address it in the future.

:D

Dude...this is CT.  Maybe 100 years from now... :D

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on December 20, 2023, 12:08:12 AM
https://hartfordmobility.com/ghms/PEL/Appendix%20L%20-%20Implementation%20Plan.pdf

Hartford Mobility study is complete.

They propose extending the I-284 stub up to I-91. Page 8 of the link I provided. It actually makes sense as there's not much development in their alignment.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on December 20, 2023, 12:25:09 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on December 20, 2023, 12:08:12 AM
https://hartfordmobility.com/ghms/PEL/Appendix%20L%20-%20Implementation%20Plan.pdf

Hartford Mobility study is complete.

They propose extending the I-284 stub up to I-91. Page 8 of the link I provided. It actually makes sense as there's not much development in their alignment.
*They propose routing I-84 northward at the I-284 stub and then west to I-91
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on December 20, 2023, 07:33:38 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on December 20, 2023, 12:08:12 AM
https://hartfordmobility.com/ghms/PEL/Appendix%20L%20-%20Implementation%20Plan.pdf

Hartford Mobility study is complete.

They propose extending the I-284 stub up to I-91. Page 8 of the link I provided. It actually makes sense as there's not much development in their alignment.

RIP Xfinity Theater.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on December 20, 2023, 07:56:59 AM
QuoteThe railroad and CTfastrak would be reconstructed from approximately Sigourney Street to Albany/Main Street. New platforms
would be provided to access the rail service approximately 800 feet west of the existing Union Station with the possibility
for a new or improved Union Station.

WTF does that even mean?
See, this is why I don't like these "studies". All they do is promote concepts without actually looking into the intricacies of the existing infrastructure.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: The Ghostbuster on December 20, 2023, 10:42:23 AM
I doubt the relocated Interstate 84/Interstate 91 interchange via CT 500 will be built for the same reason Interstate 284 wasn't built: environmental concerns. In fact, I doubt any of these projects will proceed to construction. This is Connecticut, after all.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on December 20, 2023, 11:46:55 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on December 20, 2023, 07:56:59 AM
The railroad and CTfastrak would be reconstructed from approximately Sigourney Street to Albany/Main Street. New platforms
would be provided to access the rail service approximately 800 feet west of the existing Union Station with the possibility
for a new or improved Union Station.

That's the consultant-speak for "we want to realign I-84, but Union Station (specifically, the rail and bus platforms) is in the way.  So we're going to move Union Station too."

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 20, 2023, 10:42:23 AM
I doubt the relocated Interstate 84/Interstate 91 interchange via CT 500 will be built for the same reason Interstate 284 wasn't built: environmental concerns. In fact, I doubt any of these projects will proceed to construction. This is Connecticut, after all.

The condition of the Aetna viaduct means that something is going to eventually happen.   The question is whether it will be an intentional ConnDOT project, or an expected but unscheduled tragedy.

That being said, they've been talking for, what, over 20 years about what they're going to do, and this is the second or third time a discrete plan has been presented?

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on December 20, 2023, 12:12:28 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 20, 2023, 10:42:23 AM
I doubt the relocated Interstate 84/Interstate 91 interchange via CT 500 will be built for the same reason Interstate 284 wasn't built: environmental concerns. In fact, I doubt any of these projects will proceed to construction. This is Connecticut, after all.
IIRC it was the wetlands and farmlands in South Windsor and East Windsor that were of greatest concern when I-284 was proposed.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on December 20, 2023, 03:38:39 PM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on December 20, 2023, 11:46:55 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on December 20, 2023, 07:56:59 AM
The railroad and CTfastrak would be reconstructed from approximately Sigourney Street to Albany/Main Street. New platforms
would be provided to access the rail service approximately 800 feet west of the existing Union Station with the possibility
for a new or improved Union Station.

That's the consultant-speak for "we want to realign I-84, but Union Station (specifically, the rail and bus platforms) is in the way.  So we're going to move Union Station too."

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 20, 2023, 10:42:23 AM
I doubt the relocated Interstate 84/Interstate 91 interchange via CT 500 will be built for the same reason Interstate 284 wasn't built: environmental concerns. In fact, I doubt any of these projects will proceed to construction. This is Connecticut, after all.

The condition of the Aetna viaduct means that something is going to eventually happen.   The question is whether it will be an intentional ConnDOT project, or an expected but unscheduled tragedy.

That being said, they've been talking for, what, over 20 years about what they're going to do, and this is the second or third time a discrete plan has been presented?



They study and then nothing happens then they study it again.

Look at the Waterbury I-84 Mixmaster.  It was studied in 2007, I even went to a meeting and here they are again studying it again.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on December 20, 2023, 05:34:24 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on December 20, 2023, 12:12:28 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 20, 2023, 10:42:23 AM
I doubt the relocated Interstate 84/Interstate 91 interchange via CT 500 will be built for the same reason Interstate 284 wasn't built: environmental concerns. In fact, I doubt any of these projects will proceed to construction. This is Connecticut, after all.
IIRC it was the wetlands and farmlands in South Windsor and East Windsor that were of greatest concern when I-284 was proposed.
This, and they really want to reconstruct existing I-84, which is easier with a new alignment and demo the old. It'll restore and beautify downtown. Etc.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on December 20, 2023, 10:17:13 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on December 20, 2023, 12:12:28 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 20, 2023, 10:42:23 AM
I doubt the relocated Interstate 84/Interstate 91 interchange via CT 500 will be built for the same reason Interstate 284 wasn't built: environmental concerns. In fact, I doubt any of these projects will proceed to construction. This is Connecticut, after all.
IIRC it was the wetlands and farmlands in South Windsor and East Windsor that were of greatest concern when I-284 was proposed.
Those concerns would still hold true, but unlike the original I-284 proposal that would have run up along the east bank of the Connecticut River to I-291, the relocation of I-84 would be a shorter routing along the east bank to a new crossing a couple miles north of the current one. Still to be determined is if I-91 would remain on its existing alignment through downtown Hartford or rerouted over the same proposed crossing for I-84, then diverge from I-84 roughly where the current interchange with Route 2 is today, then follow Route 2 to the Charter Oak Bridge, the cross back over the Connecticut River via the COB.

That would open up a lot of land along the west bank of the river through downtown Hartford to be reclaimed, and potentially provides and opportunity to fix the mess of freeways and ramps in East Hartford, if it is planned, designed and implemented properly.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on December 21, 2023, 03:58:34 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on December 20, 2023, 10:17:13 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on December 20, 2023, 12:12:28 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 20, 2023, 10:42:23 AM
I doubt the relocated Interstate 84/Interstate 91 interchange via CT 500 will be built for the same reason Interstate 284 wasn't built: environmental concerns. In fact, I doubt any of these projects will proceed to construction. This is Connecticut, after all.
IIRC it was the wetlands and farmlands in South Windsor and East Windsor that were of greatest concern when I-284 was proposed.
Those concerns would still hold true, but unlike the original I-284 proposal that would have run up along the east bank of the Connecticut River to I-291, the relocation of I-84 would be a shorter routing along the east bank to a new crossing a couple miles north of the current one. Still to be determined is if I-91 would remain on its existing alignment through downtown Hartford or rerouted over the same proposed crossing for I-84, then diverge from I-84 roughly where the current interchange with Route 2 is today, then follow Route 2 to the Charter Oak Bridge, the cross back over the Connecticut River via the COB.

That would open up a lot of land along the west bank of the river through downtown Hartford to be reclaimed, and potentially provides and opportunity to fix the mess of freeways and ramps in East Hartford, if it is planned, designed and implemented properly.
That would be a nightmare to implement properly. You'd still need approaches into downtown from north and south to handle all of the local traffic, plus widen 2 for the through traffic. I-91 is actually a good ride on the west shore and I think it should stay.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: SectorZ on December 21, 2023, 04:10:07 PM
Quote from: Alps on December 21, 2023, 03:58:34 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on December 20, 2023, 10:17:13 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on December 20, 2023, 12:12:28 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 20, 2023, 10:42:23 AM
I doubt the relocated Interstate 84/Interstate 91 interchange via CT 500 will be built for the same reason Interstate 284 wasn't built: environmental concerns. In fact, I doubt any of these projects will proceed to construction. This is Connecticut, after all.
IIRC it was the wetlands and farmlands in South Windsor and East Windsor that were of greatest concern when I-284 was proposed.
Those concerns would still hold true, but unlike the original I-284 proposal that would have run up along the east bank of the Connecticut River to I-291, the relocation of I-84 would be a shorter routing along the east bank to a new crossing a couple miles north of the current one. Still to be determined is if I-91 would remain on its existing alignment through downtown Hartford or rerouted over the same proposed crossing for I-84, then diverge from I-84 roughly where the current interchange with Route 2 is today, then follow Route 2 to the Charter Oak Bridge, the cross back over the Connecticut River via the COB.

That would open up a lot of land along the west bank of the river through downtown Hartford to be reclaimed, and potentially provides and opportunity to fix the mess of freeways and ramps in East Hartford, if it is planned, designed and implemented properly.
That would be a nightmare to implement properly. You'd still need approaches into downtown from north and south to handle all of the local traffic, plus widen 2 for the through traffic. I-91 is actually a good ride on the west shore and I think it should stay.

That and the money to reconstruct the 91/5/15 interchange south of the Charter Oak would literally be money set on fire if they just kill off 91 west of the river in Hartford.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on December 21, 2023, 05:17:26 PM
Actually the latest study released keeps I-91 on the west side of the river... just caps it.  Its I-84 that gets the major reroute.  So you're looking at a few miles of relocated I-84 and a new bridge over the river north of the Bulkeley.  And they want to add another "local" crossing, roughly in line with the Whitehead Highway into East Hartford.  Not sure why that is needed, as the Founders could serve that role just fine and without any major capacity issues. 

If everything gets capped, is there going to be a route for Hazmats to get around?  I-93's tunnels in Boston (and I-90 east of 128) are blocked for Hazmats.   

And is the existing Aetna viaduct going to stay up long enough for all this to be done?  Get through the permits?  Environmental?  And I'm sure there will be NIMBYs.  And curious to see what the new I-84/I-91 interchange will look like.  The North Meadows does have a fair bit of room to make it happen. 

If this does get built, great.  It frees up the Mixmaster area in East Hartford.  It reverts the Bulkeley back to a local street, Connecticut Boulevard, as it should be.  And "MOST" construction could be done without terribly impacting existing traffic (except at either end).  Still, it would be nice to have I-291 to get around the whole mess (and I-491 as well).  But.... you know.... CT...   
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on December 21, 2023, 10:38:52 PM
I like the CT 2 extension to I-91 at Jennings Road, which would decouple the Bulkeley Bridge from I-91 (replacing the two ramps that remain there now).

The proposed additional bridge at the Whitehead Highway (SR 598) is interesting. They mention converting SR 598 into a boulevard (which makes sense; the existing freeway is outdated). It sits on top of the Park River. How would this be done?

* lift its grade to the existing street network (the public library sits over a tunnel at Main Street)?
* leave as is but with signalized connectors to adjacent streets?
* or, uncap the river and let traffic use Arch Street and Sheldon Street instead?

The 3-way interchange with I-91 would disappear (since I-91 would be buried). Then the new bridge would connect with East River Drive, sort of a continuous connector to Silver Lane. Maybe the whole thing would become extended SR 502. I'd be surprised if it got a signed route number.

Originally, the 1950s Hartford Bridge Commission called for 7 bridges over the CT River in the Hartford area. Five were built (3, 5/15, 2, 84, 291).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: SectorZ on December 22, 2023, 06:50:04 AM
Quote from: kurumi on December 21, 2023, 10:38:52 PM
I like the CT 2 extension to I-91 at Jennings Road, which would decouple the Bulkeley Bridge from I-91 (replacing the two ramps that remain there now).

The proposed additional bridge at the Whitehead Highway (SR 598) is interesting. They mention converting SR 598 into a boulevard (which makes sense; the existing freeway is outdated). It sits on top of the Park River. How would this be done?

* lift its grade to the existing street network (the public library sits over a tunnel at Main Street)?
* leave as is but with signalized connectors to adjacent streets?
* or, uncap the river and let traffic use Arch Street and Sheldon Street instead?

The 3-way interchange with I-91 would disappear (since I-91 would be buried). Then the new bridge would connect with East River Drive, sort of a continuous connector to Silver Lane. Maybe the whole thing would become extended SR 502. I'd be surprised if it got a signed route number.

Originally, the 1950s Hartford Bridge Commission called for 7 bridges over the CT River in the Hartford area. Five were built (3, 5/15, 2, 84, 291).

I'm curious as to how they plan to get 91 under the Park River.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on December 22, 2023, 08:06:26 AM
I'd think that any new crossing at the Whitehead would be contingent on getting the feds to change the regulatory status of the Connecticut River.   It's currently considered "navigable" to the Founders Bridge.  Barring a change in status, a new crossing would either need significant height (c.f. the Charter Oak US 5/CT 15 bridge), or would need to be a draw bridge.

Quote from: SectorZ on December 22, 2023, 06:50:04 AM
I'm curious as to how they plan to get 91 under the Park River.

If the Ted Williams tunnel can get the MassPike under a channel in Boston Harbor, I imagine a Geno Auriemma tunnel can take I-91 beneath the Park River.

Personally, I think the depression of I-91 south of the Founders Bridge and the new CT River Crossing are the parts of the plan least likely to occur.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on December 23, 2023, 07:17:51 AM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on December 22, 2023, 08:06:26 AM
I'd think that any new crossing at the Whitehead would be contingent on getting the feds to change the regulatory status of the Connecticut River.   It's currently considered "navigable" to the Founders Bridge.  Barring a change in status, a new crossing would either need significant height (c.f. the Charter Oak US 5/CT 15 bridge), or would need to be a draw bridge.

Quote from: SectorZ on December 22, 2023, 06:50:04 AM
I'm curious as to how they plan to get 91 under the Park River.

If the Ted Williams tunnel can get the MassPike under a channel in Boston Harbor, I imagine a Geno Auriemma tunnel can take I-91 beneath the Park River.

Personally, I think the depression of I-91 south of the Founders Bridge and the new CT River Crossing are the parts of the plan least likely to occur.


The Connecticut River is navigable and/or tidal from Long Island Sound to Hartford, so I'm not sure how the feds would change its status.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on December 23, 2023, 11:18:57 AM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on December 23, 2023, 07:17:51 AM
The Connecticut River is navigable and/or tidal from Long Island Sound to Hartford, so I'm not sure how the feds would change its status.

If the Army Corps of Engineers were to recommend to a federal court that the Connecticut River between the Founders Bridge and the proposed new bridge was not "navigable", and the court agreed, then the legal status of the river would change, reducing the need for a high or movable bridge.

Admittedly, this is probably one of those "easier said than done" things.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: SectorZ on December 23, 2023, 02:04:57 PM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on December 23, 2023, 11:18:57 AM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on December 23, 2023, 07:17:51 AM
The Connecticut River is navigable and/or tidal from Long Island Sound to Hartford, so I'm not sure how the feds would change its status.

If the Army Corps of Engineers were to recommend to a federal court that the Connecticut River between the Founders Bridge and the proposed new bridge was not "navigable", and the court agreed, then the legal status of the river would change, reducing the need for a high or movable bridge.

Admittedly, this is probably one of those "easier said than done" things.

I think the last thing upstream they go to is the Covanta Electric Station just east of the Charter Oak Bridge. If not, then the Buckeye Terminal in Wethersfield a couple of miles south is.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on December 23, 2023, 03:25:58 PM
New signage on I-84 WB at Waterbury Mixmaster.  Note the signs are on a new gantry that was never there before...ever.  Before the rehab project this is not where the signs were.  They moved them forward to this location.  The result, the drivers really never get a chance to see the tops of the signs between the beams.  Signs were previously on a beam that had extra space ahead of it so drivers could see the whole sign.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53414636233_9c5f089463_k.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on December 23, 2023, 06:12:40 PM
Weird seeing a gantry like that in what is essentially a tunnel. Should have used horizontal oriented signs mounted to the beams.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on December 26, 2023, 08:28:52 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on December 22, 2023, 06:50:04 AM
Quote from: kurumi on December 21, 2023, 10:38:52 PM
I like the CT 2 extension to I-91 at Jennings Road, which would decouple the Bulkeley Bridge from I-91 (replacing the two ramps that remain there now).

The proposed additional bridge at the Whitehead Highway (SR 598) is interesting. They mention converting SR 598 into a boulevard (which makes sense; the existing freeway is outdated). It sits on top of the Park River. How would this be done?

* lift its grade to the existing street network (the public library sits over a tunnel at Main Street)?
* leave as is but with signalized connectors to adjacent streets?
* or, uncap the river and let traffic use Arch Street and Sheldon Street instead?

The 3-way interchange with I-91 would disappear (since I-91 would be buried). Then the new bridge would connect with East River Drive, sort of a continuous connector to Silver Lane. Maybe the whole thing would become extended SR 502. I'd be surprised if it got a signed route number.

Originally, the 1950s Hartford Bridge Commission called for 7 bridges over the CT River in the Hartford area. Five were built (3, 5/15, 2, 84, 291).

I'm curious as to how they plan to get 91 under the Park River.

- If Whitehead Hwy becomes Whitehead Ave., then Exit 29A is almost certainly getting reconfigured. The I-91 SB flyover of the NB on ramp goes away, as well. Assuming it crosses at grade with Commerce St., there's enough height for a new bridge over the river. Exit 29A could be relocated to serve Van Dyke Ave. and the Colt Building area.

- A northward CT 2 extension should end at at US 5 near the E. Hartford/S. Windsor line, IMHO, with an extension of Jennings Rd. east of the river to US 5. Doing this would allow for an additional surface streets connection to Hartford and relieve traffic at the Exit 3 ramps on I-291 by giving an alternate route to/from downtown.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on December 26, 2023, 10:24:21 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on December 15, 2023, 10:52:33 PM
But, alas, ConnDOT doing projects "half-ass" seems to be a thing lately.

In many cases this is due to NIMBYs killing any proper solution, though in the case of exits 71-72 I imagine it's mostly a question of that what's now proposed is less expensive to build than any alternative that eliminates the weave but maintains free-flow. Also less impervious surface / smaller footprint, which is seen as a plus in its own right.

And, well, the traffic counts between Rocky Neck Connector and SB I-95 do not necessitate free-flow be maintained, so it's totally acceptable to kill it if something else worthwhile can be gained as a result. The traffic signal will probably result in fewer crashes than the weave does.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on December 31, 2023, 10:32:27 AM
Given its relevance regarding blocking construction of I-291, why does Hartford need reservoirs? Why can't they just draw water from the Connecticut River? Is it too salty and/or polluted?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: SectorZ on December 31, 2023, 12:40:46 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on December 31, 2023, 10:32:27 AM
Given its relevance regarding blocking construction of I-291, why does Hartford need reservoirs? Why can't they just draw water from the Connecticut River? Is it too salty and/or polluted?

My town gets water from the Merrimack River without issue, I can't see the Connecticut River being worse than the Merrimack for water quality.

Connecticut has come a long way from doing things like dumping raw sewage from the old prison in Wethersfield (now the DMV) into the Wethersfield Cove right next to the river.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Rothman on December 31, 2023, 01:21:23 PM
How does Bundy's Island, or whatever it's called, work for Springfield, MA?  Do they use river water there?

Connecticut River was infamous for having syringes pop up on shore, so...yuk.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: SectorZ on December 31, 2023, 07:43:00 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 31, 2023, 01:21:23 PM
How does Bundy's Island, or whatever it's called, work for Springfield, MA?  Do they use river water there?

Connecticut River was infamous for having syringes pop up on shore, so...yuk.

https://waterandsewer.org/about-the-commission/system-description/

Appears all the water comes from reservoirs, primary is Cobble Mountain in Granville and backup is Ludlow Reservoir (labeled as Springfield Reservoir on Google Maps) in Ludlow.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on January 02, 2024, 06:10:50 PM
Back to CT news...

In the struggle to figure out how to get rid of the lights on Route 9 in Middletown, there's now "Alternative 11".  This alternative gets rid of both traffic lights (at Washington St and Hartford Ave) and constructs a new exit to downtown just before the current Route 17 North overpass on Route 9 North, which would lead to a roundabout and pass beneath Route 9 to existing Union Street.  Much of the area this traverses east of Route 9 is vacant land.  While it would be a good access to downtown, it does not provide easy access to the Arrigoni Bridge to Portland.  One would either have to make their way to Main St and slog through several lights, or take deKoven Drive and make their way to the bridge. 

Alternative 1 is still on the table, which would elevate Route 9 South so that the existing access from Route 9 North to Washington St could be maintained.

Both Alternative 1 & 11 have the same solution for the Hartford Ave light (beneath the Arrigoni itself), in regards to elevating Route 9 South so that traffic from Hartford Ave can proceed non-stop onto Route 9 North.   Added for both alternatives, the acceleration lane (entering on the left) from Hartford Ave to Route 9 North would have its own lane, extended up to Route 99 in Cromwell.  There's plenty of room to accomodate this lane in the wide variable median.

Now if Alternative 11 does go through, it would require a rerouting of Route 17, as the next exit on Route 9 North after the merge would be Route 99/Cromwell.  I would think Alternative 1 would also force a relocation of Route 17 North, as traffic would have less than 1/4 mile to merge left to get off onto Washington/deKoven. 

There was a good alternative floating around, which would have had a Route 9 North exit to Rapallo Ave flyover Route 9 South.  This would have put you one light away from the entrance to the Arrigoni.  But apparently it was shot down. 

Here are the links:

Project site:  https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/Projects/0082-0318-Route-9-Middletown-Home

Alternative 1 map:  https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOT/documents/dprojects/Project0082-0318/0082-0318-Alt-1-Plan.jpg?sc_lang=en&hash=DCD4B3BBF4A659BCDA5E9CA0C6C95B9F

Alternative 11 map:  https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOT/documents/dprojects/Project0082-0318/0082-0318-Alt-11-Plan.jpg?sc_lang=en&hash=3BB4430FF54767B2F6A0782BEBED4C26


Honestly, the way to do it the right way would be to construct a new interchange north of the Arrigoni, looping around to meet the bridge.  Or, send Route 9 to Portland (via two bridges) and retain existing Route 9 as a boulevard.  But those ideas probably won't happen (let's see if what they're planning for Hartford actually happens).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: The Ghostbuster on January 02, 2024, 06:26:23 PM
I like Alternative 1 better than Alternative 11. Or rather, I would if either of these alternatives had any chance of being implemented, which I doubt will ever happen. It seems like Connecticut's DOT is too scared of politicians, NIMBYS, and special interest groups (probably all three) to ever make any kind of road improvements to the state's highway system. All the power seems to be in the hands of the Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone (BANANA) groups.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on January 03, 2024, 10:38:51 AM
Was their ever an alternative drawn that is a reroute of CT 9 through Portland?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on January 03, 2024, 06:39:09 PM
I like that Alt. 11 is all right hand exits. To me that is the safest traffic flow, plus it puts more traffic into Middletown which is most of the time a good thing for commerce (outside of college weekends).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on January 03, 2024, 07:17:43 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on January 03, 2024, 10:38:51 AM
Was their ever an alternative drawn that is a reroute of CT 9 through Portland?

I recall a proposal from back in the 1980s or so which would have routed CT-9 across the River naar the southeast bend and to follow Portland's riverfront before crossing back over around the Arrigoni Bridge. I think the idea is that it would free up the Middletown riverfront for more recreational uses, while Portland's riverfront is mostly industrial.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on January 03, 2024, 09:10:45 PM
I don't think it was a proposal that got anywhere... it was more of a "hey, wouldn't this be nice?" idea. 

But what a reliever it would be for the Arrigoni Bridge... for Middletown's waterfront... for thru traffic on Route 9... for those traveling between Portland and Hartford... etc.
I used to take Route 9 to the Hartford area each morning and would see the huge lines of cars coming off the Arrigoni onto Route 9, and then see the reverse in the evening, sometimes backing up to Cromwell/Rt 372.  It still backs up that far, definitely on summer weekends. 

As I was on Route 9 North tonight heading to Portland, I wondered about how much longer the drive would take if I had to get off either on Alt 1 or 11 and sit through more traffic lights just to get to the bridge. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on January 05, 2024, 12:32:39 AM
There's a recent thread about California "S" routes in its GIS database.

It turns out Connecticut has similar datasets online: https://geodata.ct.gov/maps/CTDOT::ctdot-historical-state-routes-and-local-roads/about

Unfortunately, "State Route Network Historical" which looked really tantalizing (I mean, year by year from 1922 onward would be the holy grail), has no rows (yet).

But State Routes (https://connecticut-ctdot.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/CTDOT::state-routes-3/explore?location=41.521780%2C-72.757055%2C10.31) has signed routes, and unsigned (including the 900s) and some networks that typically aren't numbered on other maps.

There's a (State Institution) Route 359 at UConn in Mansfield. There's a (State Forest) Route 108 in East Hampton. (Like Texas, some of the different designations use duplicate numbers. But these are not signed.) Play with the filters to see more.

There are a few other interesting datasets (local roads, etc.)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: cockroachking on January 05, 2024, 08:58:16 PM
This map (https://www.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html?url=https://services1.arcgis.com/FCaUeJ5SOVtImake/ArcGIS/rest/services/CTDOT_State_Routes_and_Local_Roads/FeatureServer&source=sd) is my personal favorite from CTDOT, mostly because of the color coding for the different types of state routes.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: dgolub on January 06, 2024, 09:05:44 AM
With Alternative 11, it looks like there would be no way for traffic from CT 17 to reach the Arrigoni Bridge without making a U-turn somewhere.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on January 06, 2024, 11:30:26 AM
Quote from: dgolub on January 06, 2024, 09:05:44 AM
With Alternative 11, it looks like there would be no way for traffic from CT 17 to reach the Arrigoni Bridge without making a U-turn somewhere.

I'm also not seeing a way from CT-9/17 N to exit at Washington Street (CT-66) which can be done now. I know someone who has used that exit driving from southern New England to Pennsylvania.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on January 06, 2024, 11:36:19 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on January 03, 2024, 09:10:45 PM
I don't think it was a proposal that got anywhere... it was more of a "hey, wouldn't this be nice?" idea. 

But what a reliever it would be for the Arrigoni Bridge... for Middletown's waterfront... for thru traffic on Route 9... for those traveling between Portland and Hartford... etc.
I used to take Route 9 to the Hartford area each morning and would see the huge lines of cars coming off the Arrigoni onto Route 9, and then see the reverse in the evening, sometimes backing up to Cromwell/Rt 372.  It still backs up that far, definitely on summer weekends. 

As I was on Route 9 North tonight heading to Portland, I wondered about how much longer the drive would take if I had to get off either on Alt 1 or 11 and sit through more traffic lights just to get to the bridge.


Not sure where Portland would stand on this. On the one hand the waterfront in the immediate area is industrial (mostly tankers), so there wouldn't be much public access to be lost. Plus, it could relieve traffic on the Arrigoni Bridge itself, which can be dangerous (a good friend once had a head-on accident there) On the other hand, it would create a ton of traffic in the area while arguably impacting its small-town character (which of course will become an issue, if nothing else).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on January 06, 2024, 05:06:45 PM
Quote from: cockroachking on January 05, 2024, 08:58:16 PM
This map (https://www.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html?url=https://services1.arcgis.com/FCaUeJ5SOVtImake/ArcGIS/rest/services/CTDOT_State_Routes_and_Local_Roads/FeatureServer&source=sd) is my personal favorite from CTDOT, mostly because of the color coding for the different types of state routes.
zoomed in on some pink and found State Institution Routes 314-315. most interesting.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on January 06, 2024, 05:10:45 PM
Quote from: dgolub on January 06, 2024, 09:05:44 AM
With Alternative 11, it looks like there would be no way for traffic from CT 17 to reach the Arrigoni Bridge without making a U-turn somewhere.

Alt 1 isn't much better for traffic continuing on CT 17 NB, either.  The proposed acceleration lane from Rt 17 North and the proposed decelleraton lane to Washington St overlap each other.   I would hope ConnDOT decides to route 17 via Main St and sign that as the way to Portland.  This would have to be a requirement for Alt 11, and should be STRONGLY suggested for Alt 1. 

Southbound, there's no impact as both plans retain the present CT 17 South to CT 9 South onramp.  Just wish they'd extend that 3rd lane on Route 9 South another 1/4 mile to end at the Rt 17 South exit, instead of just a hundred or so feet shy of the deKoven drive exit.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on January 10, 2024, 12:46:54 PM
I think in regards to CT-9, there shouldn't be any left exits or entrances at all.  Currently, we will say it's so great b/c the stoplights will be gone.  Traffic will improve hopefully.

But eventually as the memory of the stoplights fade into history, people will forget about them, this section will blend in with the other freeway sections of Route 9 and it'll be a nuisance left exit or entrance. 

I still don't know why they can't swap the NB mainline with the ramps, it would make the curve of the ramps wider rather than that tight hook they are proposed to have. But the NB mainline next to the SB lanes and have the ramps enter on the right.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on January 10, 2024, 12:47:38 PM
This sign still hangs on in Shelton, but not for long.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53455575696_56b691fffc_k.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on January 14, 2024, 01:10:44 PM
And since we were talking 'bout Middletown, I found this:
https://middletownct.gov/DocumentCenter/View/750/Riverfront-Presentation-2012-PDF

Yes, over 10 years old, but its got some interesting proposals in there.  Not sure what proposal the black & white image of a sprawling ramp structure where Rt 17 meets Rt 9 at (former Exit 13) and where the road disappearing at bottom right goes... perhaps it was an I-691 expressway proposal with new bridge across the CT River?  That would explain why a full interchange is shown here. 

Two images down shows a much more scaled down approach, converting the exit to a SPUI and converting the short Rt 17 expressway into a boulevard. 

The next image down is more likely to happen, once the sites get cleaned up enviornmentally.  That whole area of River Rd is ripe for redevelopment. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on January 14, 2024, 03:23:43 PM
The 4-way freeway interchange is part of the (IIRC) 1965 POCD for Middletown, and it was a priority to bring US 6A (now CT 66) as close as possible to the CBD.

The small CT 17 interchange with Main St Extension would have been part of the Ring Road.

Here's a planning map with more context, click for larger pic:
(https://thumbs2.imgbox.com/3a/37/k2nTngss_t.png) (https://imgbox.com/k2nTngss)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: The Ghostbuster on January 14, 2024, 03:36:31 PM
Why do I have the feeling that the traffic signals in Middletown will never be eliminated? Connecticut seems like a do-nothing, keep-everything-the-same-as-it-currently-is state. At least from a transportation perspective.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on January 14, 2024, 06:41:24 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 14, 2024, 03:36:31 PM
Why do I have the feeling that the traffic signals in Middletown will never be eliminated? Connecticut seems like a do-nothing, keep-everything-the-same-as-it-currently-is state. At least from a transportation perspective.

It's not called the land of steady habits for nothing.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on January 15, 2024, 10:10:13 AM
Quote from: connroadgeek on January 14, 2024, 06:41:24 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 14, 2024, 03:36:31 PM
Why do I have the feeling that the traffic signals in Middletown will never be eliminated? Connecticut seems like a do-nothing, keep-everything-the-same-as-it-currently-is state. At least from a transportation perspective.

It's not called the land of steady habits for nothing.

Land of steady habits indeed. There was a time in the 80s and 90s when the state did big things re transportation, following the Mianus River bridge collapse in 1983. More recently, however, they've fallen back to average. Lots of big plans but little action.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: abqtraveler on January 15, 2024, 12:29:04 PM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on January 15, 2024, 10:10:13 AM
Quote from: connroadgeek on January 14, 2024, 06:41:24 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 14, 2024, 03:36:31 PM
Why do I have the feeling that the traffic signals in Middletown will never be eliminated? Connecticut seems like a do-nothing, keep-everything-the-same-as-it-currently-is state. At least from a transportation perspective.

It's not called the land of steady habits for nothing.

Land of steady habits indeed. There was a time in the 80s and 90s when the state did big things re transportation, following the Mianus River bridge collapse in 1983. More recently, however, they've fallen back to average. Lots of big plans but little action.
The reason CT was able to complete a lot of major projects in the late '80s and '90s was that the state cancelled a lot of yet-to-be built freeway projects for which funds had been earmarked by Congress, and Congress allowed CT to redirect the funds for those cancelled projects to a whole slate of rehabilitation and widening projects throughout the state. That's why you saw the complete reconstruction and widening of I-84 from East Hartford to the MA line; I-91 from Hartford to MA, completing the Route 9 extension from I-91 to I-84 and a lot of bridge and pavement preservation and rehabilitation projects throughout that timeframe.  It's noteworthy that I-84 through Danbury was also widened to three lanes in each direction, but that was funded by Union Carbide when they located their headquarters on the west side of Danbury in the 1980s.

And when that money dried up in the mid to late '90s, several remaining projects that CTDOT hoped to finish were killed off:  Super 7, completing the Route 25 freeway to I-84, the Route 6 freeway between I-384 and Willimantic, to name a few.

But it's not just a lack of funding nowadays that stalls major highway investments in Connecticut, but there's also been a major paradigm shift among major stakeholders and officials that places a greater emphasis on investing in mass transit over increasing capacity on the state's highway network. Aside from a handful of major projects to address a few key bottlenecks around the state, you're not going to see a major push for significant capacity upgrades for Connecticut's highway system anytime soon.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kernals12 on January 15, 2024, 08:47:47 PM
Maybe one day they'll revive the old I-284 plan as a relocation of 91.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on January 17, 2024, 07:45:09 PM
Looks like, as part of the WCP resigning starting later this year, the Merritt will be getting new exit numbers (finally!).

https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/CTDOT-Press-Releases/2024/Replacement-of-Highway-Sign-and-Sign-Supports-Along-CT-15-Wilbur-Cross-Parkway-Merritt-Parkway

QuoteThe Connecticut Department of Transportation (CTDOT) is developing plans to replace signs and sign supports along CT-15 (Wilbur Cross Parkway – Signs and Supports) & (Merritt Parkway – Exit Renumbering Only).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: The Ghostbuster on January 17, 2024, 08:28:25 PM
Anything about the renumbering of CT 15's exits along the Exit 85-91 segment?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on January 17, 2024, 08:30:46 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on January 17, 2024, 07:45:09 PM
Looks like, as part of the WCP resigning starting later this year, the Merritt will be getting new exit numbers (finally!).

https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/CTDOT-Press-Releases/2024/Replacement-of-Highway-Sign-and-Sign-Supports-Along-CT-15-Wilbur-Cross-Parkway-Merritt-Parkway

QuoteThe Connecticut Department of Transportation (CTDOT) is developing plans to replace signs and sign supports along CT-15 (Wilbur Cross Parkway – Signs and Supports) & (Merritt Parkway – Exit Renumbering Only).

Old man yelling at cloud, but I wish they would do the following, even if it involves fudging the mile-based numbers:
* group suffixed exit numbers for the same crossing roadway
* use the same suffix for the same road/destination in both freeway directions

Here's Merritt Parkway northbound:







RoadDirectionOld exit #Proposed Exit #My choice
US 7 freewaySB39A1616A
US 7 freewayNB39B17A16B
Main Ave SR 719SB40A17B17A
Main Ave SR 719NB40B17C17B

Whereas southbound Merritt Parkway (no access to 7 freeway), they do the right thing with grouping:





RoadDirectionOld exit #Proposed Exit #but on NB Parkway...
Main Ave SR 719NB40B17B17C
Main Ave SR 719SB40A17A17B

In the same way, CT 25 should be an A/B pair northbound. Grumble grumble.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on January 17, 2024, 08:56:09 PM
^ They did the same thing for CT 9 at I-91.  I don't get it.  Don't they know that multiple ramps within the same interchange should always have suffixes even if the adjacent whole numbers are not in use?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on January 17, 2024, 10:59:55 PM
Quote from: kurumi on January 17, 2024, 08:30:46 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on January 17, 2024, 07:45:09 PM
Looks like, as part of the WCP resigning starting later this year, the Merritt will be getting new exit numbers (finally!).

https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/CTDOT-Press-Releases/2024/Replacement-of-Highway-Sign-and-Sign-Supports-Along-CT-15-Wilbur-Cross-Parkway-Merritt-Parkway

QuoteThe Connecticut Department of Transportation (CTDOT) is developing plans to replace signs and sign supports along CT-15 (Wilbur Cross Parkway – Signs and Supports) & (Merritt Parkway – Exit Renumbering Only).

Old man yelling at cloud, but I wish they would do the following, even if it involves fudging the mile-based numbers:
* group suffixed exit numbers for the same crossing roadway
* use the same suffix for the same road/destination in both freeway directions

Here's Merritt Parkway northbound:







RoadDirectionOld exit #Proposed Exit #My choice
US 7 freewaySB39A1616A
US 7 freewayNB39B17A16B
Main Ave SR 719SB40A17B17A
Main Ave SR 719NB40B17C17B

Whereas southbound Merritt Parkway (no access to 7 freeway), they do the right thing with grouping:





RoadDirectionOld exit #Proposed Exit #but on NB Parkway...
Main Ave SR 719NB40B17B17C
Main Ave SR 719SB40A17A17B

In the same way, CT 25 should be an A/B pair northbound. Grumble grumble.
Yeah I hate the new MUTCD practice that it simply has to go A-B-C C-B-A even if two different letters are assigned to the same exit. Good luck in Kansas City, Feds. I 100% agree with you - one interchange gets one number, period.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on January 17, 2024, 11:57:33 PM
Quote from: vdeane on January 17, 2024, 08:56:09 PM
^ They did the same thing for CT 9 at I-91.  I don't get it.  Don't they know that multiple ramps within the same interchange should always have suffixes even if the adjacent whole numbers are not in use?

Once again, CTDOT is being inconsistent.  Why not make old 64 58 and old 65 59 since there are no other numbers being used between 53 and 61?  Could also fudge the 91 south exit down to 63 and make East Main St plain 64.  Would've rather seen old 68 NE be 65A and 691 West 65B
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on January 18, 2024, 06:46:20 PM
To the above 5 posters, I present the end of the press release....

QuoteIt's important to CTDOT to ensure the public's feedback and thoughts are heard and included. Anyone interested in requesting information on this project may do so by contacting Barry Schilling, Supervising Engineer, Barry.Schilling@ct.gov . Please refer to Project Number 0083-0271.

I have emailed ConnDOT several times about errors in contract plans, on-road signage, etc, and they have either corrected the issue or responded within a timely manner, often with a detailed explanation.  Now is the time, while the plans are still being developed, to voice concerns.  And if we've learned anything from recent projects, don't believe anything until the signs go up.  CT 9's numbers changed a few times between the contract plans and what actually went up in the field.   
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on January 21, 2024, 04:38:11 PM
Drove the length of CT 8 today, Winsted to Bridgeport.  No sign of progress whatsoever in the spot sign replacement and conversion to mile-based exits project.  No new foundations or anything of note.  Thought there'd be something as the project went out to bid almost 2 years ago I think.

Hmmm..... maybe in the spring we'll see something.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on January 22, 2024, 10:10:16 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on January 21, 2024, 04:38:11 PM
Drove the length of CT 8 today, Winsted to Bridgeport.  No sign of progress whatsoever in the spot sign replacement and conversion to mile-based exits project.  No new foundations or anything of note.  Thought there'd be something as the project went out to bid almost 2 years ago I think.

Hmmm..... maybe in the spring we'll see something.
Did you notice the CT-8 mile markers on the mixmaster portion of CT-8? There's an overlay above the 8 on all of them. I think it said "CONN"
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on January 23, 2024, 06:32:27 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on January 22, 2024, 10:10:16 PM
Did you notice the CT-8 mile markers on the mixmaster portion of CT-8? There's an overlay above the 8 on all of them. I think it said "CONN"

I did not... come to think of it, didn't notice any mile markers through that area.  I did notice the Exit 22 sign on I-84 East appears to be positioned properly now over its "exit only" lane.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on January 29, 2024, 08:54:32 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on January 23, 2024, 06:32:27 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on January 22, 2024, 10:10:16 PM
Did you notice the CT-8 mile markers on the mixmaster portion of CT-8? There's an overlay above the 8 on all of them. I think it said "CONN"

I did not... come to think of it, didn't notice any mile markers through that area.  I did notice the Exit 22 sign on I-84 East appears to be positioned properly now over its "exit only" lane.

hahahahha I wrote them about it and never heard back, so I'd like to think my e-mail made a difference.  lol

New signs on CT-40. 
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51252275538_db36e5282d_k.jpg)
This gantry now gone.  I-91 now has seperate signs for the Exit 1-A-B-C
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: The Ghostbuster on January 30, 2024, 11:30:46 AM
CT 40 crosses over CT 15 (Wilbur Cross Parkway) without having an interchange. I believe this is the only such occurrence of two such roads in the entire state. Why wasn't a connection built? With all the existing homes in the vicinity, building such a connection today would be impossible.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on January 31, 2024, 12:31:23 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 30, 2024, 11:30:46 AM
CT 40 crosses over CT 15 (Wilbur Cross Parkway) without having an interchange. I believe this is the only such occurrence of two such roads in the entire state. Why wasn't a connection built? With all the existing homes in the vicinity, building such a connection today would be impossible.

From some docs I have (I need to update my 40 page): the DOT did consider this, and originally had a partial interchange there. However, it would have been very close to the CT 22 interchange, even by 1970s standards, and engineers determined that, if there was room for only one, the existing 15/22 connection would provide more utility to the area than a 15/40 connection.

Quote from: https://www.kurumi.com/roads/ct/ct40.html
A partial interchange was planned at the Wilbur Cross Parkway. There is no interchange at all today: the only place in Connecticut where two freeways cross with no access between them. The original plan would have provided three ramps:

    40 NB to 15 NB
    40 NB to 15 SB
    15 SB to 40 NB
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on February 17, 2024, 07:05:49 PM
So I did a nice little drive today to check out sign replacement projects on I-91, CT 40, and CT 2.  As mergingtraffic hinted to, the signs on CT 40 have all been replaced.  Here is the replacement shot of his previous Phase I/III iteration above:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53535633630_46901c2f6a_4k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2pyL7J3)CT40SB-06 (https://flic.kr/p/2pyL7J3) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

And... guess what?  They finally started installing new extruded overheads on I-91!  Granted, just one exit and only in one direction, but its a start.  And with most of the other foundations already in the ground, more is probably on the way...

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53535634315_c5115c39b8_5k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2pyL7VR)91NB-Exit09-1-new (https://flic.kr/p/2pyL7VR) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53535528674_4b0403505e_4k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2pyKzws)91NB-Exit09-3 (https://flic.kr/p/2pyKzws) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

... and here's a few southbound further up in East Windsor and Windsor Locks from last week, spot replacements from the Dexter Coffin Bridge rehabiliation....

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53525625721_a4f1db2166_4k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2pxSPHT)91SB-Exit42-1 (https://flic.kr/p/2pxSPHT) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53524730237_a3c73dee0f_5k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2pxNewv)91SB-Exit42-2 (https://flic.kr/p/2pxNewv) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

My recent trips up that far have been under the cover of darkness, northbound.  I'll eventually "see the light" and get 'em, along with the overlay one at Exit 44.

Rest of my recent photos are here:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on February 22, 2024, 05:54:07 PM
I-291 and CT 187/189 sign plans are out.  Nothing out of the usual on I-291.  And the only signs in the plans for CT 187/189 is the removal of 2 overheads.  Further search in the "contract special provisions" shows that CT 187/189 will essentially get all sheet aluminum signs in the "surface road" format (build-it-yourself route shields/directions/town signs/etc), vs the extruded format (all information on a single panel). 

Mile-based exits are part of the I-291 resigning.  And looks like they're switching to a black-on-yellow format for "old exit number", a la Mass & RI. 

https://portal.ct.gov/DAS/CTSource/BidBoard
Search "I-291 signing"... when you do that, you'll get links to not just I-291's plans, but I-84, I-91, CT 2/3/111/7, CT 8, and I-384's plans as well.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: dgolub on February 24, 2024, 08:57:35 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on February 17, 2024, 07:05:49 PM
So I did a nice little drive today to check out sign replacement projects on I-91, CT 40, and CT 2.  As mergingtraffic hinted to, the signs on CT 40 have all been replaced.

This must be really recent.  I was through there a month ago, and the old signs were still in place.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on February 24, 2024, 09:23:11 PM
The I-291 plans should really consider eliminating the alphabet city at Exit 1 by making CT 159 Exit 2 and fudging the US 5 exit up to 3.  MP 3 is just beyond the US 5 overpass.  Guess 187/189 isn't worthy of exit numbers, although CT 184 and SR 571 are. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on March 08, 2024, 11:54:16 PM
Google Street View has photos along part of the CTFastrak busway, where normally only buses are allowed.

You can get some uncommon vantage points along the route, such as the stub ramp from I-84 EB to CT 504 SB, here: https://maps.app.goo.gl/35m2wUgipCotyYTRA

(I don't know why Google inserts a place marker/ad for an oil change business nearby :-/ )
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on March 09, 2024, 09:58:07 PM
I-91s got more new signs up in North Haven and Wallingford....   I will post some when I get back to home base tomorrow night.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on March 09, 2024, 10:21:56 PM
Quote from: kurumi on March 08, 2024, 11:54:16 PM
Google Street View has photos along part of the CTFastrak busway, where normally only buses are allowed.

You can get some uncommon vantage points along the route, such as the stub ramp from I-84 EB to CT 504 SB, here: https://maps.app.goo.gl/35m2wUgipCotyYTRA (https://maps.app.goo.gl/35m2wUgipCotyYTRA)

(I don't know why Google inserts a place marker/ad for an oil change business nearby :/ )
I'm getting a Server Error when I click on your link. Try this:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/7uKK7gTzyKAKhMDa8
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on March 10, 2024, 09:22:12 PM
Wow... that is cool.  Never knew that stub ramp was there.  Always assumed the "Flatbush Freeway" connection to I-84 would have been only Flatbush->84EB and 84WB->Flatbush, as evident by the current ramp setup.   Wonder if a Flatbush->84WB ramp was planned... can't tell if there's a stub due to vegitation.

Here's some new I-91 signage, NB in North Haven and Wallingford:

Exit 9, now with the old supports removed:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53580142920_62e7acc6c0_4k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2pCGeMA)91NB-Exit09-3 (https://flic.kr/p/2pCGeMA) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

Exit 11:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53578834482_d01d9cea8e_3k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2pCzwQj)91NB-Exit11-new (https://flic.kr/p/2pCzwQj) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

Exit 14:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53580019159_0e8e10adb5_5k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2pCFAZM)91NB-Exit14 (https://flic.kr/p/2pCFAZM) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

These were the only new signs NB put in as part of this contract (along with Exit 9-NB 1 and 1/2 mile advances photgraphed earlier).  SB, there was a new "exit now" sign for Exit 13, and one new sign for Exit 10-SB, plus all signs for Exit 9 are up southbound.  Nice to see progress being made, though while the project limits go up to the area of the Middletown Rest Stop, I wonder how many of those will be superseeded by the "Meriden Mix" projects. 


Over on I-84 from Vernon to Union, still way too early for any substantial progress on that project, but did see some Dig Safe (err.... Call Before You Dig) markings in areas where the new overheads will go.  While it will be weird to see overheads through the rural landscape, I can see it logical because of the heavy traffic, hills, trucks, etc. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: The Ghostbuster on March 10, 2024, 10:09:18 PM
The exit tabs should have been given the mileage-based numbers when the signs were replaced (the actual conversion is said to occur in 2027). I assume the new numbers will be patched over the existing numbers when the conversion happens (similar to the Massachusetts Turnpike's sign replacements having the old sequential numbers before the mileage-based conversion happened).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on March 10, 2024, 11:56:19 PM
ConnDOT doesn't seem to believe in overlays.  The CT 2 project has recycled the button copy exit tabs onto the top of the new signs with the new numbers tarped.  The CT 8 exit renumbering project will put in all new exit tabs.  The I-384 and I-291 projects will probably do some method of what's happening on CT 2. 

If they did do overlays, then they could just renumber all exits at once and worry about sign replacement when they get around to it.  But then they couldn't stretch it out to 2030 (at the earliest).

Then there's the case of the Merritt, which doesn't have exit tabs to replace.  So overlays will have to suffice on that project.  We'll find out later this spring when the plans come out.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on March 11, 2024, 02:23:47 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on March 10, 2024, 11:56:19 PM
ConnDOT doesn't seem to believe in overlays.  The CT 2 project has recycled the button copy exit tabs onto the top of the new signs with the new numbers tarped.  The CT 8 exit renumbering project will put in all new exit tabs.  The I-384 and I-291 projects will probably do some method of what's happening on CT 2. 

If they did do overlays, then they could just renumber all exits at once and worry about sign replacement when they get around to it.  But then they couldn't stretch it out to 2030 (at the earliest).

Then there's the case of the Merritt, which doesn't have exit tabs to replace.  So overlays will have to suffice on that project.  We'll find out later this spring when the plans come out.
It's curious to me that they are replacing signage on the eastern most portions of I-84, when the signs on the East Hartford to Vernon stretch are objectively older and in worse shape.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on March 11, 2024, 03:04:36 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 11, 2024, 02:23:47 PM
It's curious to me that they are replacing signage on the eastern most portions of I-84, when the signs on the East Hartford to Vernon stretch are objectively older and in worse shape.

Yeah, that doesn't make much sense to me, either.  Those from Vernon out to the state line date back to the late 90s and were probably the first generation of Phase IV signs to be put up, as they predate the "service bar".  Still, the ones from East Hartford to Vernon (Rt 15 to 30/83) have to be from the 1980s and don't have a target for replacement yet.  Maybe, its possible it has to do with the fact that there's highway lighting in the area so the signs are visible that way, while east of Tunnel Rd, its pretty dark and you need good reflective signs.  I don't know, just a thought.

What's also interesting is the current project on I-91 from North Haven to Meriden is replacing the same generation of signs being replaced in the I-84 project, while those north of Hartford to the state line date to the 1988-1992 time frame. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on March 12, 2024, 03:26:46 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on March 11, 2024, 03:04:36 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 11, 2024, 02:23:47 PM
It's curious to me that they are replacing signage on the eastern most portions of I-84, when the signs on the East Hartford to Vernon stretch are objectively older and in worse shape.

Yeah, that doesn't make much sense to me, either.  Those from Vernon out to the state line date back to the late 90s and were probably the first generation of Phase IV signs to be put up, as they predate the "service bar".  Still, the ones from East Hartford to Vernon (Rt 15 to 30/83) have to be from the 1980s and don't have a target for replacement yet.  Maybe, its possible it has to do with the fact that there's highway lighting in the area so the signs are visible that way, while east of Tunnel Rd, its pretty dark and you need good reflective signs.  I don't know, just a thought.

What's also interesting is the current project on I-91 from North Haven to Meriden is replacing the same generation of signs being replaced in the I-84 project, while those north of Hartford to the state line date to the 1988-1992 time frame. 

You'd think they'd do the I-91 north of Hartford bc they're still button copy.

The i-91 signage by North Haven, I saw the new rest area signs that are sheet metal. They're warping already.  That just amazes me on the cheapness.

Btw, CTDOT will regret not adding the third lane on I-91 SB.  Traffic will still backup there.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on March 15, 2024, 02:35:18 AM
Some interesting alternatives in the Hartford Mobility Study:

https://hartfordmobility.com/ghms/PEL/Appendix%20I%20-%20Universe%20of%20Alternatives.pdf
- how long a project might take, and whether or not to withdraw from consideration

https://hartfordmobility.com/ghms/PEL/Appendix%20J%20-%20Alternatives%20Screening.pdf
- cost estimates, and whether benefits exceed costs (or vice versa; or is it a tie)

https://hartfordmobility.com/ghms/PEL/Appendix%20L%20-%20Implementation%20Plan.pdf

Fun stuff like:
* New East-West Connection, Newington
* Regional Freeway System Interchange Completion: Route 5/Route 99 Interchange
* Regional Freeway System Interchange Completion: Day Hill Road/I-91 Interchange

Also rail and bus alternatives; and for the metro area, not just Hartford/East Hartford

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on March 15, 2024, 09:25:30 AM
It's like throwing darts at at wall and seeing what sticks.

This one is might be the most ridiculous:

QuoteMetacomet Ridge Crossing
• Description – Construct a new
road across or tunneled beneath
the Metacomet Ridge in
Farmington, West Hartford,
and/or Avon.

This is why I don't like these studies. They're transit researchers with engineering or political backgrounds that don't understand that many of their solutions would take decades of planning and encounter fierce community opposition.

Unless a study is published directly from ConnDOT, I take it with a grain of salt.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: SectorZ on March 15, 2024, 03:35:47 PM
Adding a new lane to I-91 S/B from exit 29 to exit 25 in that mobility study seems interesting. I don't know if there is room in the footprint of the bridge over the Wethersfield Cove channel and next to the noise barrier that exists south after it.

I really feel there are no easy ways out in fixing the traffic in the area. Almost anything that needs to be done involves taking private land and that concept is pretty radioactive these days, especially with the cost involved.

The solar canopies in the parking lots for the various mass transit stations seems like a no-brainer. I wish Massachusetts would get off their ass and get that done themselves.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: mariethefoxy on March 15, 2024, 09:38:39 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on March 15, 2024, 03:35:47 PM
Adding a new lane to I-91 S/B from exit 29 to exit 25 in that mobility study seems interesting. I don't know if there is room in the footprint of the bridge over the Wethersfield Cove channel and next to the noise barrier that exists south after it.

I really feel there are no easy ways out in fixing the traffic in the area. Almost anything that needs to be done involves taking private land and that concept is pretty radioactive these days, especially with the cost involved.

The solar canopies in the parking lots for the various mass transit stations seems like a no-brainer. I wish Massachusetts would get off their ass and get that done themselves.

For that it looks like there's more room on the northbound side since its not right up against a neighborhood, one of the other big bottlenecks is getting onto 91 from the Charter Oak Bridge approach (Route 15), that exit needs to be 2 lanes and get rid of the duplicate exit for 91 thats like a short while down the road. Another thing I would suggest is, like one of those Average Time to signs that says Average Time to I-691/Wilbur Cross Pkwy via 91 or via 15 Berlin Tpke.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on March 15, 2024, 09:43:15 PM
Quote from: mariethefoxy on March 15, 2024, 09:38:39 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on March 15, 2024, 03:35:47 PM
Adding a new lane to I-91 S/B from exit 29 to exit 25 in that mobility study seems interesting. I don't know if there is room in the footprint of the bridge over the Wethersfield Cove channel and next to the noise barrier that exists south after it.

I really feel there are no easy ways out in fixing the traffic in the area. Almost anything that needs to be done involves taking private land and that concept is pretty radioactive these days, especially with the cost involved.

The solar canopies in the parking lots for the various mass transit stations seems like a no-brainer. I wish Massachusetts would get off their ass and get that done themselves.

For that it looks like there's more room on the northbound side since its not right up against a neighborhood, one of the other big bottlenecks is getting onto 91 from the Charter Oak Bridge approach (Route 15), that exit needs to be 2 lanes and get rid of the duplicate exit for 91 thats like a short while down the road. Another thing I would suggest is, like one of those Average Time to signs that says Average Time to I-691/Wilbur Cross Pkwy via 91 or via 15 Berlin Tpke.

The exit for traffic from the Charter Oak Bridge South to I-91 South should enter I-91 on the left.  There's just way too many slow moving trucks that come off the bridge and are stuck in the far left lane then try to get over to the right.  The better solution would be to close that ramp and improve the "second chance" ramp.  That ramp already enters on the right... improve the geometry, make it 2 lanes, then it would enter I-91 South on the right, instead of the left, and would form the basis for that 4th lane through Wethersfield Cove, extending to Route 3.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: roadman65 on March 25, 2024, 03:17:19 PM
 I was noticing that for I-395 that Norwich is used as a control city at many interchanges. Of course that is understandable to be used as well as Worcester for all NB ramps north of Norwich. 

However I think that New Haven being used for SB I-395 south of Norwich should be New London instead being that I-395 does not go there but ends near New London, which is a decent size community. 

I know this is probably a holdover from the old Turnpike days when both I-395 and I-95 ( though the former was originally CT 52) were continuous as one named tolled freeway. However with the numbers now more prominent, it should be altered.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/egGGRJbJma83VBfj9
Worse yet, Providence is still signed on CT 2/32 at Norwich.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on March 26, 2024, 05:08:00 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on March 25, 2024, 03:17:19 PMHowever I think that New Haven being used for SB I-395 south of Norwich should be New London instead being that I-395 does not go there but ends near New London, which is a decent size community. 

https://maps.app.goo.gl/egGGRJbJma83VBfj9
Worse yet, Providence is still signed on CT 2/32 at Norwich.

- I-395 ends in East Lyme. As a compromise, I would suggest New London be used up until the split for CT 32, after which point it should be New Haven | N.Y. City.

- CT 2 -> CT/RI 165 -> I-95 is a popular alternate route to Providence. I would, however, add New London as a second control city for CT 2 SB in Hartford.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on March 26, 2024, 05:45:49 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 26, 2024, 05:08:00 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on March 25, 2024, 03:17:19 PMHowever I think that New Haven being used for SB I-395 south of Norwich should be New London instead being that I-395 does not go there but ends near New London, which is a decent size community. 

https://maps.app.goo.gl/egGGRJbJma83VBfj9
Worse yet, Providence is still signed on CT 2/32 at Norwich.

- I-395 ends in East Lyme. As a compromise, I would suggest New London be used up until the split for CT 32, after which point it should be New Haven | N.Y. City.

- CT 2 -> CT/RI 165 -> I-95 is a popular alternate route to Providence. I would, however, add New London as a second control city for CT 2 SB in Hartford.

I would also remove New London as a control for CT 11, as it will never go there.  Although it's longer distance wise, CT 2 to I-395 to CT 32 is quicker time wise.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on March 26, 2024, 06:20:09 PM
Providence isn't long for this world from CT 2 East in Norwich... it will become Worcester with the current sign replacement underway. 

It is strange that "New London" is still CT 11's control city.  Even stranger still is ConnDOT's decision to continue counting the miles from the non-existant southern end with I-95/I-395.   Perhaps they're still holding out hope for completion to I-95/I-395 someday.   Otherwise, wouldn't they have just changed "New London" to "Salem"?

As for I-395, I never liked Norwich as a control city, but New London does make some sense south of CT 2.  The Mass Pike added "New London CT" when they replaced their signage, but kept "Norwich CT" on I-290.   

With CT phasing out so many pull-thrus, on-highway control cities aren't what they were, but I think it would be nice to see a pull-thru listed where the control cities change, as well as the start of a highway.  Like a pull-thru on I-91 North in New Haven, just after I-95, that says "91 NORTH/Hartford/Springfield".  Then one could be on I-395 South at CT 2 in Norwich that says "395 SOUTH/New London/New Haven" (but onramps would keep a single control city posted). 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: RobbieL2415 on March 26, 2024, 07:55:23 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on March 26, 2024, 06:20:09 PMIt is strange that "New London" is still CT 11's control city.  Even stranger still is ConnDOT's decision to continue counting the miles from the non-existant southern end with I-95/I-395.   Perhaps they're still holding out hope for completion to I-95/I-395 someday.   Otherwise, wouldn't they have just changed "New London" to "Salem"? 
Could be that Salem isn't a destination for most drivers on CT 11. My family would always use it to reach friends in Waterford. It might be better to drop CT 11 and change it to CT 85, signed as Salem | New London.