Connecticut News

[Duke87]

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.

[Pete from Boston]

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/

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.   

[connroadgeek]

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/

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?

[Pete from Boston]

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/

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.

[NE2]

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.

[jp the roadgeek]

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)

[yakra]

Source?

[Duke87]

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.

[Pete from Boston]

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. 

[PHLBOS]

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).

[vdeane]

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?

[NE2]

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.

[Duke87]

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.

[Mergingtraffic]

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

[JakeFromNewEngland]

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.

[Alps]

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.

[connroadgeek]

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.

[Duke87]

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.

[Alps]

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.

[connroadgeek]

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.

[Duke87]

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.

[Mergingtraffic]

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??

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. 

[Duke87]

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.

[shadyjay]

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!

[MikeTheActuary]

Not news per sé, but making the rounds this news cycle:

ov. 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.