News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

Connecticut News

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

Previous topic - Next topic

shadyjay

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....


kurumi

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.
My first SF/horror short story collection is available: "Young Man, Open Your Winter Eye"

jp the roadgeek

Saw ConnDOT put a LEFT tab on the I-84 west sign on CT 72 West in New Britain (still no exit number though)
Interstates I've clinched: 97, 290 (MA), 291 (CT), 291 (MA), 293, 295 (DE-NJ-PA), 295 (RI-MA), 384, 391, 395 (CT-MA), 395 (MD), 495 (DE), 610 (LA), 684, 691, 695 (MD), 695 (NY), 795 (MD)

Mergingtraffic

I only take pics of good looking signs. Long live non-reflective button copy!
MergingTraffic https://www.flickr.com/photos/98731835@N05/

Mergingtraffic

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.
I only take pics of good looking signs. Long live non-reflective button copy!
MergingTraffic https://www.flickr.com/photos/98731835@N05/

kurumi

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.
My first SF/horror short story collection is available: "Young Man, Open Your Winter Eye"

Mergingtraffic

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.
I only take pics of good looking signs. Long live non-reflective button copy!
MergingTraffic https://www.flickr.com/photos/98731835@N05/

shadyjay

... 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....

wytout

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.
-Chris

shadyjay

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. 

Duke87

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

vdeane

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

Mergingtraffic

#762
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.
I only take pics of good looking signs. Long live non-reflective button copy!
MergingTraffic https://www.flickr.com/photos/98731835@N05/

vdeane

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

Duke87

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

KEVIN_224

#765



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.

kurumi

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 :-)
My first SF/horror short story collection is available: "Young Man, Open Your Winter Eye"

KEVIN_224

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

bob7374

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?

shadyjay

#769
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. 

Beeper1

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.

shadyjay

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.

roadman65

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.
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

PHLBOS

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.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

Mergingtraffic

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.
I only take pics of good looking signs. Long live non-reflective button copy!
MergingTraffic https://www.flickr.com/photos/98731835@N05/



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