Connecticut News

[RobbieL2415]

Whatever. If the state had the money, I think Super 7 would get extended from Brookfield to New Milford, CT 11 would be finished, and 384 would be a freeway to the Rhode Island border. How about that?

Uhh...nope.

That sounds reasonable to me. What's your nope? I'd add the NW loop of I-291.

The only way you could finish 291 is if you put heating coils into the part that goes near the Hartford reservoirs to eliminate the use of road salt.

Or just use sand instead.
My modern vision to complete the beltway has always been closer to a parkway than a freeway but with 12' lanes and full shoulders.
It would have a 55mph speed limit, a wooded landscape and a drainage system designed to lead runoff away from the reservoirs.

[kernals12]

Whatever. If the state had the money, I think Super 7 would get extended from Brookfield to New Milford, CT 11 would be finished, and 384 would be a freeway to the Rhode Island border. How about that?

Uhh...nope.

That sounds reasonable to me. What's your nope? I'd add the NW loop of I-291.

The only way you could finish 291 is if you put heating coils into the part that goes near the Hartford reservoirs to eliminate the use of road salt.

Or just use sand instead.
My modern vision to complete the beltway has always been closer to a parkway than a freeway but with 12' lanes and full shoulders.
It would have a 55mph speed limit, a wooded landscape and a drainage system designed to lead runoff away from the reservoirs.

Would trucks be allowed?

[RobbieL2415]

Whatever. If the state had the money, I think Super 7 would get extended from Brookfield to New Milford, CT 11 would be finished, and 384 would be a freeway to the Rhode Island border. How about that?

Uhh...nope.

That sounds reasonable to me. What's your nope? I'd add the NW loop of I-291.

The only way you could finish 291 is if you put heating coils into the part that goes near the Hartford reservoirs to eliminate the use of road salt.

Or just use sand instead.
My modern vision to complete the beltway has always been closer to a parkway than a freeway but with 12' lanes and full shoulders.
It would have a 55mph speed limit, a wooded landscape and a drainage system designed to lead runoff away from the reservoirs.

Would trucks be allowed?

Yes, as the bridges would be built to Interstate standards.

[connroadgeek]

Where would the 291 NW loop terminate? 84/9 interchange? And then why not build the SE portion and terminate it at 91/9 then you can renumber the 9 segment on the SW side and just have a full 291 beltway around Hartford.

[The Ghostbuster]

Forget about your fantasies about constructing the long-canceled Interstate 291 western loop of Hartford. I highly doubt even one inch of new roadway will ever be constructed in Connecticut.

[Alps]

Where would the 291 NW loop terminate? 84/9 interchange? And then why not build the SE portion and terminate it at 91/9 then you can renumber the 9 segment on the SW side and just have a full 291 beltway around Hartford.

I don't know that much about CT politics, but while both pieces could have been built with limitless money and political will, I feel like the NW loop was closer to reality.

[MikeTheActuary]

I don't know that much about CT politics, but while both pieces could have been built with limitless money and political will, I feel like the NW loop was closer to reality.

I think that politically the SE side would actually be closer to reality....but we're talking about "a snowball's chance in hell" versus "a snowflake's chance in hell" -- both politically impossible, but one slightly more impossible than the other.

The Hartford metro area lacks decent infrastructure to go between the northern suburbs and the western suburbs, but there are a lot of affluent residents in that area who like their park or pastoral settings to the extent that the legal battles would be prohibitive.

I don't disagree -- the natural element is one of the nice things about living in the area -- but before I started WFH (years before the pandemic), I was being asked to commute from near BDL to Route 6 in Farmington near the Bristol line.  That commute required going through Hartford, or spending about an hour mostly on 2-lane roads.

[Old Dominionite]

The I-91 Charter Oak Bridge Project got me thinking. Why does ConnDOT continue to sign CT 15 all the way to East Hartford? The concurrency with US 5 along the Berlin Turnpike is no longer necessary (it hasn't been necessary in fact for 50+ years). It makes more sense if CT 15 terminated at US 5 in Meriden and a new Interstate designation (e.g. a revived I-491) was approved to connect I-91 and I-84 via the Charter Oak Bridge. I've always been struck that this connection, which is part of a primary route between New York and Boston, lacks an Interstate designation, especially after the "new" toll-free Charter Oak Bridge opened in the early 1990s.

[SectorZ]

The I-91 Charter Oak Bridge Project got me thinking. Why does ConnDOT continue to sign CT 15 all the way to East Hartford? The concurrency with US 5 along the Berlin Turnpike is no longer necessary (it hasn't been necessary in fact for 50+ years). It makes more sense if CT 15 terminated at US 5 in Meriden and a new Interstate designation (e.g. a revived I-491) was approved to connect I-91 and I-84 via the Charter Oak Bridge. I've always been struck that this connection, which is part of a primary route between New York and Boston, lacks an Interstate designation, especially after the "new" toll-free Charter Oak Bridge opened in the early 1990s.

I don't think anyone in Connecticut's decision-making lineage would have an answer to that why. When they cut 15 from the state border to E. Hartford they should have just gone all the way to Meriden. What's left un-numbered between where US 5 breaks off east of the Charter Oak and I-84 could just be an unsigned 4XX route with "To I-84 East/91 South" on the appropriate sides.

I think it's the nostalgia boner that states (like mine with 128) have with "important" state routes and not killing them off where appropriate.

[RobbieL2415]

The I-91 Charter Oak Bridge Project got me thinking. Why does ConnDOT continue to sign CT 15 all the way to East Hartford? The concurrency with US 5 along the Berlin Turnpike is no longer necessary (it hasn't been necessary in fact for 50+ years). It makes more sense if CT 15 terminated at US 5 in Meriden and a new Interstate designation (e.g. a revived I-491) was approved to connect I-91 and I-84 via the Charter Oak Bridge. I've always been struck that this connection, which is part of a primary route between New York and Boston, lacks an Interstate designation, especially after the "new" toll-free Charter Oak Bridge opened in the early 1990s.

CT 15 between the Berlin Tpke and the COB is not build to Interstate standards, and so you would be signing less than a mile of freeway as I-491.

So if they did truncate CT 15 back to I-91/I-691 they would probably sign it as CT 314 or not at all.

If anything, CT 3 should be signed I-491, considering that's what it was supposed to be originally.

[jp the roadgeek]

The I-91 Charter Oak Bridge Project got me thinking. Why does ConnDOT continue to sign CT 15 all the way to East Hartford? The concurrency with US 5 along the Berlin Turnpike is no longer necessary (it hasn't been necessary in fact for 50+ years). It makes more sense if CT 15 terminated at US 5 in Meriden and a new Interstate designation (e.g. a revived I-491) was approved to connect I-91 and I-84 via the Charter Oak Bridge. I've always been struck that this connection, which is part of a primary route between New York and Boston, lacks an Interstate designation, especially after the "new" toll-free Charter Oak Bridge opened in the early 1990s.

CT 15 between the Berlin Tpke and the COB is not build to Interstate standards, and so you would be signing less than a mile of freeway as I-491.

So if they did truncate CT 15 back to I-91/I-691 they would probably sign it as CT 314 or not at all.

If anything, CT 3 should be signed I-491, considering that's what it was supposed to be originally.

CT 15 should end at US 5 in Meriden at the end of the parkway portion.  You'd only have a very short stretch (about a half mile) between where US 5 leaves on Main St after the COB and I-84 that you could leave unsigned as an SR. 

[MikeTheActuary]

CT 15 should end at US 5 in Meriden at the end of the parkway portion.  You'd only have a very short stretch (about a half mile) between where US 5 leaves on Main St after the COB and I-84 that you could leave unsigned as an SR. 

Of course, one could take the view that US 5 is a redundant highway and the designation ought to be retired, and therefore CT15 should be retained.  (Although...is 84 east of East Hartford still secretly also CT 15?)

[abqtraveler]

CT 15 should end at US 5 in Meriden at the end of the parkway portion.  You'd only have a very short stretch (about a half mile) between where US 5 leaves on Main St after the COB and I-84 that you could leave unsigned as an SR. 

Of course, one could take the view that US 5 is a redundant highway and the designation ought to be retired, and therefore CT15 should be retained.  (Although...is 84 east of East Hartford still secretly also CT 15?)

No, the CT-15 designation was removed from I-84 between E. Hartford and Massachusetts when that section's designation was reverted from I-86 to I-84 back in the 1980s.

[The Ghostbuster]

CT 15 is fine the way it presently is. Also, if CT 15 eventually gets mileage-based exits, the interchange at CT 175 should get a number too.

[jp the roadgeek]

CT 15 is fine the way it presently is. Also, if CT 15 eventually gets mileage-based exits, the interchange at CT 175 should get a number too.

In that case, the interchange at CT 9/CT 372 should get one as well.  Wish they'd do it at the same time NYSDOT redoes the Hutch

[shadyjay]

I believe the Hutch is currently getting new signs/exit #s, so that ship has sailed.  It would've been nice to see the new #s when the signs were just replaced recently on the Merritt (from sheet alumnium to extruded aluminum, so they won't come apart at the seams so easily), but that didn't happen. 

I don't see the problem with the 5/15 multiplex.  It does seem that ConnDOT doesn't like to post US 5 along with CT 15 on the signs in Hartford, probably since the exit #s/ mileage is all CT 15's... not US 5.  To separate them more, you could have US 5 go straight at the north end of the Berlin Tpke, thru Hartford, replacing CT 159 and so on and giving present US 5 on the east side of the river another #... 17 or my 99.  Or just keep it the way it is for now.  The Berlin Tpke is 5/15 and will always be that.

RE:  CT 9 resigning, drove the northern half of the resigning project over the weekend.  The only sign to report is the previously-reported spot sign replacement (and the gantry for the 2nd spot replacement is half-installed, half-on site.  There are a lot more new foundations in, some will support overheads, some ground mounts.  These were visible down to Exit 19.  And yes, there are 1 or 2 new foundations for ground mounts in Middletown on the southernmost resigning.  But within the 3 projects, no new sheet signs up yet.. I used to remember the sheets went up first, then the foundations and such, but that doesn't seem to be the case here.  We're just in the very beginning of the construction season so there's plenty of time for progress yet to come.

[abqtraveler]

CT 15 is fine the way it presently is. Also, if CT 15 eventually gets mileage-based exits, the interchange at CT 175 should get a number too.

In that case, the interchange at CT 9/CT 372 should get one as well.  Wish they'd do it at the same time NYSDOT redoes the Hutch

Since the Berlin Turnpike is co-signed as US-5 and CT-15, which route's mileage would the Rt 9/372 interchange get? I would argue the exit number should be based on US-5's mileage since a US route takes precedence over a state route.

[shadyjay]

Given CT 15's numbers appear further north, starting with #85 in Wethersfield, and those numbers continue CT 15's sequence, I'd say any exit on the Berlin Turnpike should get CT 15's mileage/numbers.  After all, US 5 joins the CT 15 mainline and separates from it via exits at both ends. 

[Old Dominionite]

I don't think the 9/372 and 175 interchanges along the Berlin Turnpike require exit numbers. The Turnpike is a four-lane divided highway with lots of signalized intersections and driveways. It's not a high-speed arterial. I don't think exit numbers here provide any additional navigational benefit to the motorist.

I do think it makes a little more sense to number the exits from the Berlin Turnpike/Maple Ave split up to I-84. These exits are numbered now, but there was a period of time through the 1980s/early 1990s when they weren't.

So, I suggested earlier that CT 15 terminate at US 5 in Meriden. I still maintain this. I don't think the long concurrency with US 5 is necessary anymore, and I think the I-91/I-84 connection via the Charter Oak Bridge should receive an Interstate designation (signed or unsigned). Because I have nothing better to do at the moment, I offer an exit list below based on all of these thoughts. 

US 5 (sans CT 15) - Wethersfield to Hartford (mileage-based exits)

Exit 30: CT 314 (northbound only)
Exit 32: CT 99 (northbound/southbound)
Exit 33A: I-91 South (northbound/southbound)
Exit 33B: Brainard Rd (northbound/southbound)
Exit 34: I-91 North (northbound only)

"I-491" begins at the I-91 interchange in Hartford and runs east/west over the Charter Oak Bridge concurrent with US 5   (sequential-based exits given the length of the road segment)

Exit 1: I-91 South (southbound only)
Exit 2: US 5 North (northbound/southbound) - northbound exit also includes access to CT 2
Exit 3: Silver Lane (northbound only)

[Rothman]

Fictional...

[jp the roadgeek]

The 9/372 and 175 exits won't get numbers, otherwise you'd have to give interchanges such as CT 10/ CT 322 in Milldale and US 6/CT 10 numbers as well.  The future numbers using CT 15 mileage would be:

79: CT 99 SOUTH
80A: I-91 SOUTH
80B: Brainard Rd/Airport Rd
81: I-91 NORTH (NB ONLY)
82 (A/B/C NB): US 5 NORTH/CT 2/East River Dr
83 (NB ONLY): Silver Lane

[Alps]

Some states do number interchanges that appear along divided arterials. Iowa comes to mind. This is a rare occurrence in CT and my guess is that they're not going to add numbers to interchanges that aren't already numbered.

[RobbieL2415]

The 9/372 and 175 exits won't get numbers, otherwise you'd have to give interchanges such as CT 10/ CT 322 in Milldale and US 6/CT 10 numbers as well.  The future numbers using CT 15 mileage would be:

Neither of those two examples are full interchanges the way CT 15 @ 175 is.
I wouldn't number the connection to CT 9 unless its modified to be free-flowing without stoplights. It's also not a direct interchange, thanks to CT 372.
At the very least they should put up mileposts along the Berlin Tpke.

[abqtraveler]

Some states do number interchanges that appear along divided arterials. Iowa comes to mind. This is a rare occurrence in CT and my guess is that they're not going to add numbers to interchanges that aren't already numbered.

New York assigns exit numbers to both at-grade intersections and interchanges along some of its parkways.

[Mergingtraffic]

CT can't even build the full interchange of US-7 and CT-15 because of community issues.  People sued and stopped construction around 2007...2007! It's 2021 and not a shovel in the ground yet.  And to top it off, a stoplight option on the US-7 Expressway actually made it to the top 2 options....stoplights!!  Can you imagine!?!? 

So the talk about the beltway happening is laughable. Even, the tunnel is laughable. 

Even if the community is for it, I don't think the DOT can actually handle it.  Look at I-84 between Danbury and Waterbury.  The state dropped the ball.  Again, a study was done in 2000 recommending widening and nothing.  Then 9 years later an EIS was started and then stopped.  It's been 21 years since that study. 

The state is cheap.  I-91 through Middletown and CT-15 and I-691 won't even be 3-thru lanes.  It'll still narrow down to two.  The state just can't do things.