Connecticut News

[Ted$8roadFan]

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.

[abqtraveler]

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.

[kernals12]

Maybe one day they'll revive the old I-284 plan as a relocation of 91.

[shadyjay]

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

The 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).

[The Ghostbuster]

Anything about the renumbering of CT 15's exits along the Exit 85-91 segment?

[kurumi]

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

The 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:

Road	Direction	Old exit #	Proposed Exit #	My choice
US 7 freeway	SB	39A	16	16A
US 7 freeway	NB	39B	17A	16B
Main Ave SR 719	SB	40A	17B	17A
Main Ave SR 719	NB	40B	17C	17B

Whereas southbound Merritt Parkway (no access to 7 freeway), they do the right thing with grouping:

Road	Direction	Old exit #	Proposed Exit #	but on NB Parkway...
Main Ave SR 719	NB	40B	17B	17C
Main Ave SR 719	SB	40A	17A	17B

In the same way, CT 25 should be an A/B pair northbound. Grumble grumble.

[vdeane]

^ 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?

[Alps]

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

The 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:

Road	Direction	Old exit #	Proposed Exit #	My choice
US 7 freeway	SB	39A	16	16A
US 7 freeway	NB	39B	17A	16B
Main Ave SR 719	SB	40A	17B	17A
Main Ave SR 719	NB	40B	17C	17B

Whereas southbound Merritt Parkway (no access to 7 freeway), they do the right thing with grouping:

Road	Direction	Old exit #	Proposed Exit #	but on NB Parkway...
Main Ave SR 719	NB	40B	17B	17C
Main Ave SR 719	SB	40A	17A	17B

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.

[jp the roadgeek]

^ 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

[shadyjay]

To the above 5 posters, I present the end of the press release....

It'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.   

[shadyjay]

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.

[Mergingtraffic]

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"

[shadyjay]

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.

[Mergingtraffic]

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. 

This gantry now gone.  I-91 now has seperate signs for the Exit 1-A-B-C

[The Ghostbuster]

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.

[kurumi]

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.

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

[shadyjay]

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:

CT40SB-06 by Jay Hogan, 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...

91NB-Exit09-1-new by Jay Hogan, on Flickr

91NB-Exit09-3 by Jay Hogan, 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....

91SB-Exit42-1 by Jay Hogan, on Flickr

91SB-Exit42-2 by Jay Hogan, 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/

[shadyjay]

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.

[dgolub]

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.

[jp the roadgeek]

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. 

[kurumi]

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 )

[shadyjay]

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.

[Alps]

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 )

I'm getting a Server Error when I click on your link. Try this:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/7uKK7gTzyKAKhMDa8

[shadyjay]

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:
91NB-Exit09-3 by Jay Hogan, on Flickr

Exit 11:
91NB-Exit11-new by Jay Hogan, on Flickr

Exit 14:
91NB-Exit14 by Jay Hogan, 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. 

[The Ghostbuster]

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).