Connecticut News

[shadyjay]

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.

[RobbieL2415]

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.

[shadyjay]

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. 

[Mergingtraffic]

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.

[kurumi]

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

[RobbieL2415]

It's like throwing darts at at wall and seeing what sticks.

This one is might be the most ridiculous:

Metacomet 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.

[SectorZ]

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.

[mariethefoxy]

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.

[shadyjay]

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.

[roadman65]

 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.

[RobbieL2415]

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. 

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.

[jp the roadgeek]

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. 

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.

[shadyjay]

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). 

[RobbieL2415]

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"? 

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.

[MikeCL]

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.

Wow.. so I was right.. the first time I had to go to Wethersfield since I wanted something done without having to waste time my first thought was why does it look gloomy like a prison.. now it makes sense.

[MikeCL]

As you all know we felt a 4.8 earthquake which was centered in NJ anything down? For the most part it seems pretty good still.

[The Ghostbuster]

I didn't know the northeast could have earthquakes. You learn something new every day.

[jp the roadgeek]

I didn't know the northeast could have earthquakes. You learn something new every day.

You hear of the rumblings near Moodus every now and then, and I remember my dad telling me 35 years ago that he felt one in CT that was centered up near Quebec City.  Felt like a truck passing by but when the floor was shaking along with the wall and it lasted more than 10 seconds, I assumed it was an earthquake.

[MikeCL]

Yeah I was born in California so I felt the Northridge earthquake in '94 within 5 seconds I knew it was an earthquake.

[Rothman]

I didn't know the northeast could have earthquakes. You learn something new every day.

O.o

Experienced at least three in the Northeast over my lifetime.

Experienced one in San Francisco over the year-and-a-half I lived there.

[Mergingtraffic]

Signage under the mixmaster I-84 in Waterbury.

[shadyjay]

Maybe they should've done something different... like putting the exit tab to the left of the mileage, so it would've said "EXIT 18  1/2 MILE", like the old Conn Turnpike signage.  Or, better yet, just put the pull-thru back up!

[zzyzx]

This is where CA style inline exit tabs would make sense

[shadyjay]

So... for some reason, ConnDOT seems to think that "Merging Traffic (symbol)" signs are no longer necessary and has omitted them from recent sign replacement projects and replacement of "sheet aluminum" signs.  We now have large sections of I-91 and most of CT 2 and CT 9 without any merging traffic signs.  The only ones that were kept were those where there's a short acceleration lane. 

This afternoon, I spotted where some of them may have gone to... the "merging traffic" graveyard      where there's not 1, not 2, but 3, yup 3 merging traffic signs, of varying sizes, on I-95 NB in West Haven:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.2827128,-72.9528576,3a,31.3y,75.26h,85.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sMLoh_i2EVXMJEea8jev3IQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

So, does the MUTCD require a sign where a ramp merges onto the mainline, or is it mearly a suggestion?  Relying solely on pavement markings seems short-sighted (no pun intended).