Connecticut News

[Duke87]

From June 22:




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.

[jp the roadgeek]

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.

[Duke87]

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.

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.

[kurumi]

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

[KEVIN_224]

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.

[wytout]

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.

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.

[Mergingtraffic]

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.

[shadyjay]

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......

[KEVIN_224]

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!

[jp the roadgeek]

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.

[Duke87]

Each 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.

[KEVIN_224]

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!

[vdeane]

Each 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.

[Mergingtraffic]

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. 

[shadyjay]

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. 

[Duke87]

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.

[Mergingtraffic]

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?

[relaxok]

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

[Pete from Boston]

If 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.

Is 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. 

[connroadgeek]

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.

[Mergingtraffic]

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.

[shadyjay]

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. 

[shadyjay]

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. 

[Pete from Boston]

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.

[Alps]

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).