AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Connecticut News  (Read 935304 times)

abqtraveler

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 696
  • US-85 runs thru Albuquerque, but only on paper

  • Location: Albuquerque, NM
  • Last Login: Today at 04:46:37 PM
Re: Connecticut News
« Reply #4375 on: April 23, 2021, 09:56:08 AM »

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.

Yet they add new taxes and raise existing ones year after year, but no one can give you an honest answer on where the money's going. Definitely not in Connecticut's roads, so where does the money go?
Logged
2-d Interstates traveled:  4, 5, 8, 10, 15, 20, 24, 25, 27, 29, 35, 37, 39, 40, 41, 43, 45, 49, 55, 57, 64, 65, 66, 69, 70, 71, 74, 75, 76(E), 77, 78, 81, 83, 85, 87(N), 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95

2-d Interstates Clinched:  12, 22, 30, 44, 59, 80, 84(E), 86(E), 238, H1, H2, H3, H201

kernals12

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1810
  • Love highways and cars. Hate public transit.

  • Location: Suburban Boston
  • Last Login: Today at 09:13:06 PM
Re: Connecticut News
« Reply #4376 on: April 23, 2021, 10:56:37 AM »

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.

Yet they add new taxes and raise existing ones year after year, but no one can give you an honest answer on where the money's going. Definitely not in Connecticut's roads, so where does the money go?

The great mountain of pension liabilities
Logged

shadyjay

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 1527
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Lwr CT River Valley
  • Last Login: Today at 10:22:26 PM
Re: Connecticut News
« Reply #4377 on: April 23, 2021, 08:49:36 PM »

Another of the 2017 spot sign replacement sites went up within the past week, I-95 South at Exit 75 in East Lyme.  The installation of this one leaves just 3 sites from the 2017 project to go:  another on Route 9 South in New Britain and two on Route 8 in Bridgeport. 

95SB-Exit75 by Jay Hogan, on Flickr
Logged

kernals12

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1810
  • Love highways and cars. Hate public transit.

  • Location: Suburban Boston
  • Last Login: Today at 09:13:06 PM
Re: Connecticut News
« Reply #4378 on: April 23, 2021, 09:07:20 PM »

Another of the 2017 spot sign replacement sites went up within the past week, I-95 South at Exit 75 in East Lyme.  The installation of this one leaves just 3 sites from the 2017 project to go:  another on Route 9 South in New Britain and two on Route 8 in Bridgeport. 

95SB-Exit75 by Jay Hogan, on Flickr
Stupid Flanders
Logged

abqtraveler

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 696
  • US-85 runs thru Albuquerque, but only on paper

  • Location: Albuquerque, NM
  • Last Login: Today at 04:46:37 PM
Re: Connecticut News
« Reply #4379 on: April 24, 2021, 07:35:38 PM »

Another of the 2017 spot sign replacement sites went up within the past week, I-95 South at Exit 75 in East Lyme.  The installation of this one leaves just 3 sites from the 2017 project to go:  another on Route 9 South in New Britain and two on Route 8 in Bridgeport. 

95SB-Exit75 by Jay Hogan, on Flickr
Stupid Flanders

Looks like they left enough space in the exit tab for the eventual conversion to mile-based exit number. I'm guessing the new exit number would be 88A, since Exit 75 is at MP 88.05, and the I-395 split (Exit 76) is at MP 88.48 and would presumptively be Exit 88B after the conversion.
Logged
2-d Interstates traveled:  4, 5, 8, 10, 15, 20, 24, 25, 27, 29, 35, 37, 39, 40, 41, 43, 45, 49, 55, 57, 64, 65, 66, 69, 70, 71, 74, 75, 76(E), 77, 78, 81, 83, 85, 87(N), 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95

2-d Interstates Clinched:  12, 22, 30, 44, 59, 80, 84(E), 86(E), 238, H1, H2, H3, H201

Old Dominionite

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 42
  • Location: Fairfax County, VA
  • Last Login: October 18, 2021, 09:21:01 AM
Re: Connecticut News
« Reply #4380 on: April 25, 2021, 06:30:11 PM »

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.

Unfortunately, your cynicism is spot on. Having grown up in central Connecticut, I share it. It’s why I have very little faith that the recent plans to relocate I-84 and I-91 through Hartford will ever come to fruition.
Logged

bluecountry

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 385
  • Last Login: November 28, 2021, 07:13:37 PM
Re: Connecticut News
« Reply #4381 on: April 26, 2021, 08:52:23 AM »

Whats going on with I-91 construction now just south of Hartford?

Are there any plans to finally take care of that awful merge with 15 in Hartford?

Yup. https://i-91charteroakbridge.com/en

When will it be done?

And CT did remove a couple down in New Haven when they were doing the work for the Q Bridge project (which means there's now a massively overpowered flyover sending traffic to the boulevard where the CT 34 freeway was), so it's interesting that they're adding one here.

Yea WHY did they make it a left hand exit?
I do not understand?
Logged

bluecountry

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 385
  • Last Login: November 28, 2021, 07:13:37 PM
Re: Connecticut News
« Reply #4382 on: April 26, 2021, 08:53:08 AM »

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.

1.  What is the proposed 7/15 interchange?
2.  I always wondered why the 7/15 exit is the most exposed, least scenic part of the Merrit.
Logged

abqtraveler

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 696
  • US-85 runs thru Albuquerque, but only on paper

  • Location: Albuquerque, NM
  • Last Login: Today at 04:46:37 PM
Re: Connecticut News
« Reply #4383 on: April 26, 2021, 10:46:57 AM »

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.

Having lived in Connecticut for 15 years, I can tell you that despite being a blue-blood Democratic stronghold that claims to espouse the "progressive" agenda, Connecticut is a place where there is incredible resistance to any kind of change whatsoever. In fact you'll see in some articles Connecticut is referred to "The Land of Steady Habits," as there are a lot of people (with a lot of money to afford big-time lawyers) in the state that fight to keep things just the way they are. Connecticut has always been like that, and I don't see that culture changing any time soon. 
Logged
2-d Interstates traveled:  4, 5, 8, 10, 15, 20, 24, 25, 27, 29, 35, 37, 39, 40, 41, 43, 45, 49, 55, 57, 64, 65, 66, 69, 70, 71, 74, 75, 76(E), 77, 78, 81, 83, 85, 87(N), 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95

2-d Interstates Clinched:  12, 22, 30, 44, 59, 80, 84(E), 86(E), 238, H1, H2, H3, H201

Mergingtraffic

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1938
  • Location: NYC-CT
  • Last Login: November 28, 2021, 07:24:59 PM
    • My Flickr alias: MergingTraffic
Re: Connecticut News
« Reply #4384 on: April 26, 2021, 04:00:42 PM »

CT DOT RANT ALERT: many things that have bugged me over the years

Personally, I think they should've moved the Exit 29 ramp to where the Exit 27 ramp is currently.  And the fact that the CT 15 South to I-91 South ramp isn't being altered one bit as part of this project seems ridiculous to me... it should be a 2-lane ramp as well, and enter I-91 South on the right, not left.  The existing CT 15 South ramp to Brainard Rd, which has an I-91 South "second option" ramp should've been made 2 lanes.  But I digress........

That's CT for you.  They don't do it 100%.  They are inconsistent in their projects.  Eliminate left exits here but add them there.  It's that way with a lot of things, not just left exits.
Actually I think the Q-Bridge project was even partly half-assed.  Exit 46 SB should leave the highway before the I-91 SB on-ramp.  It should be similar the way Exit 25 on I-84 EB leaves before the Exit 23 on-ramp enters to prevent weaving.

Also note: CT doesn't like option lanes either.  I-91 SB for I-95 NB there's def room for the option lane it's just not striped that way.  They make drivers for I-95 NB get into the far left lane when they don't really have to.  WHY!?!?! Who the F knows.

With I-91 NB at US-5/15, I do believe it will be a repeat of what happens on I-84 EB at US-7 (Exit 7) in Danbury.  The left exit will create a slow down with people changing lanes. 

Why is I-91 SB through the I-691/CT-15 interchange only 2-lanes still with left exits left in tact in spots?  Have you seen the plans?! Redic. 

CT-9 NB Middletown: Why are they proposing NB LEFT on-ramps and off-ramps.  Since it uses the same ROW, can't they switch it?  Have the exits and entrances be on the right and go under the NB lanes?? I think it'll take the same amount of space and make the curvature of the ramps not as sharp.

CT DOT also screwed up the CT-34/CT-8 inerchange.  It used to be 2-thru lanes for CT-34 EB.  Now the left lane turns into a left-turn only lane for CT-115, forcing people to change lanes for CT-34.  Lots of near misses and sidewipes b/c the guidedots through the intersection go from the center to the left lane. 

CT-34 @ CT-15, there will still be stop signs at some entrance ramps b/c they don't want to spend the money to widen the bridges.

And what's the trend of taking away channelizing right turns and free flow movments!?!  I've noticed at least 4 taken away over the past few years.

All these questions b/c everything is half assed to keep costs down pls we are "the land of steady habits."  Lefts exits and no turn lanes are ok still.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2021, 04:09:18 PM by Mergingtraffic »
Logged
I only take pics of good looking signs. Long live non-reflective button copy!
MergingTraffic https://www.flickr.com/photos/98731835@N05/

RobbieL2415

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1710
  • Location: Hartford County, CT
  • Last Login: November 05, 2021, 11:04:14 AM
Re: Connecticut News
« Reply #4385 on: April 26, 2021, 07:48:34 PM »

CT DOT RANT ALERT: many things that have bugged me over the years

Personally, I think they should've moved the Exit 29 ramp to where the Exit 27 ramp is currently.  And the fact that the CT 15 South to I-91 South ramp isn't being altered one bit as part of this project seems ridiculous to me... it should be a 2-lane ramp as well, and enter I-91 South on the right, not left.  The existing CT 15 South ramp to Brainard Rd, which has an I-91 South "second option" ramp should've been made 2 lanes.  But I digress........

That's CT for you.  They don't do it 100%.  They are inconsistent in their projects.  Eliminate left exits here but add them there.  It's that way with a lot of things, not just left exits.
Actually I think the Q-Bridge project was even partly half-assed.  Exit 46 SB should leave the highway before the I-91 SB on-ramp.  It should be similar the way Exit 25 on I-84 EB leaves before the Exit 23 on-ramp enters to prevent weaving.

Also note: CT doesn't like option lanes either.  I-91 SB for I-95 NB there's def room for the option lane it's just not striped that way.  They make drivers for I-95 NB get into the far left lane when they don't really have to.  WHY!?!?! Who the F knows.

With I-91 NB at US-5/15, I do believe it will be a repeat of what happens on I-84 EB at US-7 (Exit 7) in Danbury.  The left exit will create a slow down with people changing lanes. 

Why is I-91 SB through the I-691/CT-15 interchange only 2-lanes still with left exits left in tact in spots?  Have you seen the plans?! Redic. 

CT-9 NB Middletown: Why are they proposing NB LEFT on-ramps and off-ramps.  Since it uses the same ROW, can't they switch it?  Have the exits and entrances be on the right and go under the NB lanes?? I think it'll take the same amount of space and make the curvature of the ramps not as sharp.

CT DOT also screwed up the CT-34/CT-8 inerchange.  It used to be 2-thru lanes for CT-34 EB.  Now the left lane turns into a left-turn only lane for CT-115, forcing people to change lanes for CT-34.  Lots of near misses and sidewipes b/c the guidedots through the intersection go from the center to the left lane. 

CT-34 @ CT-15, there will still be stop signs at some entrance ramps b/c they don't want to spend the money to widen the bridges.

And what's the trend of taking away channelizing right turns and free flow movments!?!  I've noticed at least 4 taken away over the past few years.

All these questions b/c everything is half assed to keep costs down pls we are "the land of steady habits."  Lefts exits and no turn lanes are ok still.
There is an option lane for I-84 W @ Exit 54.

I think the intent with the left ramps for CT 9 in Middletown is to limit the encroachment into the park along the river. They are trying to modify the freeway without increasing its footprint. I would rather them re-route CT 9 through Portland and then back across the river south of downtown, then strip out the CT 17 freeway and boulevard the old CT 9 freeway. That would give better access to the riverfront and divert through traffic out of downtown.

As long as CT 15 is signed for the left lanes very early before the split, I think it will be fine. What I don't understand is how they neglected to fix Exit 86 on CT 15 S.  That is a far more dangerous ramp because of stopped traffic in the center lane cutting over late. They should make the center lane an option lane and then having it zipper merge before it joins I-91.
Logged

shadyjay

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 1527
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Lwr CT River Valley
  • Last Login: Today at 10:22:26 PM
Re: Connecticut News
« Reply #4386 on: April 26, 2021, 10:01:10 PM »

There will be signs almost back to Exit 26 for the 2-lane (1 dedicated/1 option) APL for Exit 29.  So there will be adequate signage it seems for the new left exit. 

Regarding Route 9, there's been so many alternatives thrown around over the past 20-30 years, I think they're just trying to get the thing built with the least increase in footprint, as RobbieL stated.  At least keeping "Exit" 15 northbound and adding a roundabout was thrown out... that would've sent Route 9 South on a roller coaster ride... up over Hartford Ave, down to get under the railroad, then back up to cross over the Washington st ramp.  The city wasn't a fan of that, as it would've blocked the view of the riverfront, which is the same reason why they weren't a fan of P&W parking freight cars along deKoven Drive, which blocked the view of the river as well.  And me also being a railroad guy I understand why P&W did it, but also why the city was ticked off.

Yes, getting Route 9 into Portland would be the ideal way to go, but you'd be looking at decades of studies, planning, design, and not to mention objection from Portland, plus major land acquisition and the cost of having to build not just one, but two bridges.  It would relieve Arrigoni Bridge traffic significantly and make Portland more accessible, but by the time shovels would be in the ground for such a project, our children's children's children would be driving.  I would gladly pay a toll in Middletown on Route 9 ** IF I KNEW THE FUNDS WERE GOING INTO A SECURE FUND TO SOLVE THE ROUTE 9 PROBLEM **. Same thing with I-95... with Route 11... etc...  But CT has a past history of transportation money going into the general state fund, and that's a problem.
Logged

shadyjay

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 1527
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Lwr CT River Valley
  • Last Login: Today at 10:22:26 PM
Re: Connecticut News
« Reply #4387 on: April 26, 2021, 10:08:32 PM »

Here's another ConnDOT/state of CT WTF moment:

In 1998, the speed limit was finally increased to 65 MPH.  A couple weeks prior to the change, the state went around and replaced almost every single speed limit sign with new "Speed Limit 65" signs, then tacked on a "5" overlay until the day when it went to 65.  Then the "5" came off.  Now most other states when they have changed speed limits have kept their existing Speed Limit signs and put a "6" over the first "5".  But why did CT go through and install all new speed limit signs and waste money on "5" overlays that were only up for a couple weeks?  There was nothing wrong with the old speed limit signs (they had the smaller numerals).  The new ones installed larger "65" numerals.  Now they've gone back to the smaller numerals for new "65" and "55" signs.

And why do we need a sign every mile saying "Speed Limit 65"?  In most other states, you get a reassurance speed limit sign when there's an onramp.  Even on rural sections of CT highways, there's a speed limit sign every mile.  And on rural Route 9 in Haddam, I counted 3 within a mile.  I mean, really?  Is that necessary?  I think of Vermont which only has speed limit signs after every exit, and their exits are 5 to 15 miles apart.  Also, MA & VT used overlays on their speed limit signs when they went from 55 to 65. 


And a history question:  There has been photographic proof that the Connecticut Turnpike (I-95) had a speed limit of 60 (west of New Haven), prior to the NSL55 act.  Did any other highway in CT ever have a 60 or 65 MPH limit prior to 1974?  Did Route 9 have a speed limit of 65 ever prior to 1974? 
Logged

Roadgeekteen

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11940
  • Interstates everywhere to everything

  • Age: 18
  • Location: Needham/Amherst
  • Last Login: Today at 08:17:47 PM
    • old interstate plans
Re: Connecticut News
« Reply #4388 on: April 26, 2021, 10:11:43 PM »

Here's another ConnDOT/state of CT WTF moment:

In 1998, the speed limit was finally increased to 65 MPH.  A couple weeks prior to the change, the state went around and replaced almost every single speed limit sign with new "Speed Limit 65" signs, then tacked on a "5" overlay until the day when it went to 65.  Then the "5" came off.  Now most other states when they have changed speed limits have kept their existing Speed Limit signs and put a "6" over the first "5".  But why did CT go through and install all new speed limit signs and waste money on "5" overlays that were only up for a couple weeks?  There was nothing wrong with the old speed limit signs (they had the smaller numerals).  The new ones installed larger "65" numerals.  Now they've gone back to the smaller numerals for new "65" and "55" signs.

And why do we need a sign every mile saying "Speed Limit 65"?  In most other states, you get a reassurance speed limit sign when there's an onramp.  Even on rural sections of CT highways, there's a speed limit sign every mile.  And on rural Route 9 in Haddam, I counted 3 within a mile.  I mean, really?  Is that necessary?  I think of Vermont which only has speed limit signs after every exit, and their exits are 5 to 15 miles apart.  Also, MA & VT used overlays on their speed limit signs when they went from 55 to 65. 


And a history question:  There has been photographic proof that the Connecticut Turnpike (I-95) had a speed limit of 60 (west of New Haven), prior to the NSL55 act.  Did any other highway in CT ever have a 60 or 65 MPH limit prior to 1974?  Did Route 9 have a speed limit of 65 ever prior to 1974?
Maybe they are worried that people will forget the speed limit?
Logged
Get the covid vaccine to protect yourself and others

Current Interstate map I am making:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?mid=1SRJ5PPfTJp9aHxzFUw4IZdk5Racc8bhp&ll=41.78177440649835%2C-74.47910573821878&z=7

Mergingtraffic

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1938
  • Location: NYC-CT
  • Last Login: November 28, 2021, 07:24:59 PM
    • My Flickr alias: MergingTraffic
Re: Connecticut News
« Reply #4389 on: April 26, 2021, 10:16:38 PM »

Here's another ConnDOT/state of CT WTF moment:

In 1998, the speed limit was finally increased to 65 MPH.  A couple weeks prior to the change, the state went around and replaced almost every single speed limit sign with new "Speed Limit 65" signs, then tacked on a "5" overlay until the day when it went to 65.  Then the "5" came off.  Now most other states when they have changed speed limits have kept their existing Speed Limit signs and put a "6" over the first "5".  But why did CT go through and install all new speed limit signs and waste money on "5" overlays that were only up for a couple weeks?  There was nothing wrong with the old speed limit signs (they had the smaller numerals).  The new ones installed larger "65" numerals.  Now they've gone back to the smaller numerals for new "65" and "55" signs.

And why do we need a sign every mile saying "Speed Limit 65"?  In most other states, you get a reassurance speed limit sign when there's an onramp.  Even on rural sections of CT highways, there's a speed limit sign every mile.  And on rural Route 9 in Haddam, I counted 3 within a mile.  I mean, really?  Is that necessary?  I think of Vermont which only has speed limit signs after every exit, and their exits are 5 to 15 miles apart.  Also, MA & VT used overlays on their speed limit signs when they went from 55 to 65. 


And a history question:  There has been photographic proof that the Connecticut Turnpike (I-95) had a speed limit of 60 (west of New Haven), prior to the NSL55 act.  Did any other highway in CT ever have a 60 or 65 MPH limit prior to 1974?  Did Route 9 have a speed limit of 65 ever prior to 1974? 

They oversign certain things but yet not one BGS or BYS extruded aluminum sign on CT-9 saying there’s traffic lights ahead. Just regular diamond signs. You’d think since CT-9 is a full freeway they’d add them?! MASS would they have a lot of extruded aluminum warning signs.
Logged
I only take pics of good looking signs. Long live non-reflective button copy!
MergingTraffic https://www.flickr.com/photos/98731835@N05/

shadyjay

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 1527
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Lwr CT River Valley
  • Last Login: Today at 10:22:26 PM
Re: Connecticut News
« Reply #4390 on: April 26, 2021, 10:24:19 PM »

I wrote to ConnDOT years ago about that, and they thought what they had was adequate.  HA!   I love the still-remaining and still-functioning "STOP AHEAD" lighted sign about 500' away from the first light southbound, beneath the Arrigoni Bridge.  That's vintage!

And another thing I love about Route 9 right now... they replaced the MERGING TRAFFIC  symbol diamond with the NO MERGE/ADD LANE diamond at the onramp from Rt 17 in Middletown, northbound.  Its a Merritt Parkway-style onramp with a stop sign!  Someone really goofed there.  There's always accidents at that location, even before that sign was put up.  Further north at Exit 22, instead of a MERGING TRAFFIC sign, they have a 'LANE ENDS' sign.  Not sure what that's about!
Logged

Mergingtraffic

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1938
  • Location: NYC-CT
  • Last Login: November 28, 2021, 07:24:59 PM
    • My Flickr alias: MergingTraffic
Re: Connecticut News
« Reply #4391 on: April 27, 2021, 12:04:35 AM »

I wrote to ConnDOT years ago about that, and they thought what they had was adequate.  HA!   I love the still-remaining and still-functioning "STOP AHEAD" lighted sign about 500' away from the first light southbound, beneath the Arrigoni Bridge.  That's vintage!

And another thing I love about Route 9 right now... they replaced the MERGING TRAFFIC  symbol diamond with the NO MERGE/ADD LANE diamond at the onramp from Rt 17 in Middletown, northbound.  Its a Merritt Parkway-style onramp with a stop sign!  Someone really goofed there.  There's always accidents at that location, even before that sign was put up.  Further north at Exit 22, instead of a MERGING TRAFFIC sign, they have a 'LANE ENDS' sign.  Not sure what that's about!

Oh excellent with the CT-17 on-ramp.
The signage must be political. Speed Limit and Ped Xing signs are in abundance bc that’s the thing people always complain about. If there’s an accident it’s always about speed. Politicians and media work together it seems. One can’t live w/o the other.

And the curve signage project is done. Not one curve sign on the loop ramp from I-95 to CT-8/25. On that loop you go up then down and then up again in a tight radius. Not one sign.

Btw. New Exit 4 Exit Only and Exit 5 1Mile sign up on CT-8 NB
Logged
I only take pics of good looking signs. Long live non-reflective button copy!
MergingTraffic https://www.flickr.com/photos/98731835@N05/

sharkyfour

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 31
  • Location: Connecticut
  • Last Login: November 20, 2021, 10:36:57 PM
Re: Connecticut News
« Reply #4392 on: April 27, 2021, 12:09:29 AM »

Here's another ConnDOT/state of CT WTF moment:

In 1998, the speed limit was finally increased to 65 MPH.  A couple weeks prior to the change, the state went around and replaced almost every single speed limit sign with new "Speed Limit 65" signs, then tacked on a "5" overlay until the day when it went to 65.  Then the "5" came off.  Now most other states when they have changed speed limits have kept their existing Speed Limit signs and put a "6" over the first "5".  But why did CT go through and install all new speed limit signs and waste money on "5" overlays that were only up for a couple weeks?  There was nothing wrong with the old speed limit signs (they had the smaller numerals).  The new ones installed larger "65" numerals.  Now they've gone back to the smaller numerals for new "65" and "55" signs.

And why do we need a sign every mile saying "Speed Limit 65"?  In most other states, you get a reassurance speed limit sign when there's an onramp.  Even on rural sections of CT highways, there's a speed limit sign every mile.  And on rural Route 9 in Haddam, I counted 3 within a mile.  I mean, really?  Is that necessary?  I think of Vermont which only has speed limit signs after every exit, and their exits are 5 to 15 miles apart.  Also, MA & VT used overlays on their speed limit signs when they went from 55 to 65. 


And a history question:  There has been photographic proof that the Connecticut Turnpike (I-95) had a speed limit of 60 (west of New Haven), prior to the NSL55 act.  Did any other highway in CT ever have a 60 or 65 MPH limit prior to 1974?  Did Route 9 have a speed limit of 65 ever prior to 1974?

I'm wondering if where they replaced the entire sign (which was most signs in the state), if it was out of necessity/end of useful life of the signs.  I have seen come 55 signs that got overlaid with a "6", such as these on I-95 in Old Lyme/Old Saybrook.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.31952,-72.3441222,3a,15y,229.56h,89.74t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGNhffNS-r3mVhB_FHKSB8w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Logged

abqtraveler

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 696
  • US-85 runs thru Albuquerque, but only on paper

  • Location: Albuquerque, NM
  • Last Login: Today at 04:46:37 PM
Re: Connecticut News
« Reply #4393 on: April 27, 2021, 11:27:24 AM »

Here's another ConnDOT/state of CT WTF moment:

In 1998, the speed limit was finally increased to 65 MPH.  A couple weeks prior to the change, the state went around and replaced almost every single speed limit sign with new "Speed Limit 65" signs, then tacked on a "5" overlay until the day when it went to 65.  Then the "5" came off.  Now most other states when they have changed speed limits have kept their existing Speed Limit signs and put a "6" over the first "5".  But why did CT go through and install all new speed limit signs and waste money on "5" overlays that were only up for a couple weeks?  There was nothing wrong with the old speed limit signs (they had the smaller numerals).  The new ones installed larger "65" numerals.  Now they've gone back to the smaller numerals for new "65" and "55" signs.

And why do we need a sign every mile saying "Speed Limit 65"?  In most other states, you get a reassurance speed limit sign when there's an onramp.  Even on rural sections of CT highways, there's a speed limit sign every mile.  And on rural Route 9 in Haddam, I counted 3 within a mile.  I mean, really?  Is that necessary?  I think of Vermont which only has speed limit signs after every exit, and their exits are 5 to 15 miles apart.  Also, MA & VT used overlays on their speed limit signs when they went from 55 to 65. 


And a history question:  There has been photographic proof that the Connecticut Turnpike (I-95) had a speed limit of 60 (west of New Haven), prior to the NSL55 act.  Did any other highway in CT ever have a 60 or 65 MPH limit prior to 1974?  Did Route 9 have a speed limit of 65 ever prior to 1974?

Having lived in Connecticut his entire life, my dad told me there were stretches of I-84 and Route 8 that had a 70 MPH speed limit prior to the NSL55 act in 1974.
Logged
2-d Interstates traveled:  4, 5, 8, 10, 15, 20, 24, 25, 27, 29, 35, 37, 39, 40, 41, 43, 45, 49, 55, 57, 64, 65, 66, 69, 70, 71, 74, 75, 76(E), 77, 78, 81, 83, 85, 87(N), 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95

2-d Interstates Clinched:  12, 22, 30, 44, 59, 80, 84(E), 86(E), 238, H1, H2, H3, H201

kurumi

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2073
  • Location: Cupertino, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 08:24:50 PM
    • kurumi.com
Re: Connecticut News
« Reply #4394 on: April 27, 2021, 01:03:14 PM »

Having lived in Connecticut his entire life, my dad told me there were stretches of I-84 and Route 8 that had a 70 MPH speed limit prior to the NSL55 act in 1974.

Logged

Avalanchez71

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1858
  • Location: Middle Tennessee
  • Last Login: November 23, 2021, 12:24:42 PM
Re: Connecticut News
« Reply #4395 on: April 27, 2021, 02:16:35 PM »

The traffic wasn't that bad in Connecticut.  Even the many sections of two-lane US 1 seemed very adequate.  Did the Coronavirus contribute to this?
Logged

abqtraveler

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 696
  • US-85 runs thru Albuquerque, but only on paper

  • Location: Albuquerque, NM
  • Last Login: Today at 04:46:37 PM
Re: Connecticut News
« Reply #4396 on: April 27, 2021, 02:36:41 PM »

The traffic wasn't that bad in Connecticut.  Even the many sections of two-lane US 1 seemed very adequate.  Did the Coronavirus contribute to this?
No, I think it was just all the New Yorkers that started flooding into Connecticut following the opening of the Connecticut Turnpike.
Logged
2-d Interstates traveled:  4, 5, 8, 10, 15, 20, 24, 25, 27, 29, 35, 37, 39, 40, 41, 43, 45, 49, 55, 57, 64, 65, 66, 69, 70, 71, 74, 75, 76(E), 77, 78, 81, 83, 85, 87(N), 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95

2-d Interstates Clinched:  12, 22, 30, 44, 59, 80, 84(E), 86(E), 238, H1, H2, H3, H201

Mergingtraffic

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1938
  • Location: NYC-CT
  • Last Login: November 28, 2021, 07:24:59 PM
    • My Flickr alias: MergingTraffic
Re: Connecticut News
« Reply #4397 on: April 27, 2021, 03:17:23 PM »

I think out of all the states CT has the most UNexpanded road network in relation to population.  One lane roads, lack of divided boulevards, 2-lane roads that drop down to one lane, lack of turn lanes, lack of channelized right turn lanes, lack of free flow movements, lack of expressways and freeways, lack of lanes in general.  Other roads in other states may have more congestion but as a state as a whole CT I think has the most unexpanded road network.

And don't forget CT was the LAST state to go to 65mph.  That right there speaks volumes.  The land of steady habits strikes again.

On another note:
Virtual public meetings are now on the CT DOT website.
One that got me was the public hearing on statewide road diets.  Ummmm based on these last few posts in this thread that is the last thing we need.
https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/General/CTDOT-VPIM-Library

I watched the Exit 27A I-95 one in Bridgeport.  They are adding a second lane for the off-ramp which is great.  However, NO new extruded aluminum warning signs saying how sharp the curve is.  None!  That's a big issue as the geometry is horrible on that loop ramp.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2021, 04:22:24 PM by Mergingtraffic »
Logged
I only take pics of good looking signs. Long live non-reflective button copy!
MergingTraffic https://www.flickr.com/photos/98731835@N05/

Roadgeekteen

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11940
  • Interstates everywhere to everything

  • Age: 18
  • Location: Needham/Amherst
  • Last Login: Today at 08:17:47 PM
    • old interstate plans
Re: Connecticut News
« Reply #4398 on: April 27, 2021, 03:53:39 PM »

I think out of all the states CT has the most UNexpanded road network in relation to population.  One lane roads, lack of divided boulevards, 2-lane roads that drop down to one lane, lack of turn lanes, lack of channelized right turn lanes, lack of free flow movements, lack of expressways and freeways, lack of lanes in general.  Other roads in other states may have more congestion but as a state as a whole CT I think has the most unexpanded road network.

And don't forget CT was the LAST state to go to 65mph.  That right there speaks volumes.  The land of steady habits strikes again.
Case in point CT 11, which is now on year 50 of being incomplete.
Logged
Get the covid vaccine to protect yourself and others

Current Interstate map I am making:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?mid=1SRJ5PPfTJp9aHxzFUw4IZdk5Racc8bhp&ll=41.78177440649835%2C-74.47910573821878&z=7

shadyjay

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 1527
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Lwr CT River Valley
  • Last Login: Today at 10:22:26 PM
Re: Connecticut News
« Reply #4399 on: April 27, 2021, 04:34:01 PM »

I'm wondering if where they replaced the entire sign (which was most signs in the state), if it was out of necessity/end of useful life of the signs.  I have seen come 55 signs that got overlaid with a "6", such as these on I-95 in Old Lyme/Old Saybrook.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.31952,-72.3441222,3a,15y,229.56h,89.74t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGNhffNS-r3mVhB_FHKSB8w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192


That is one of only a few examples where they retained the existing sign and overlayed the "6".  But most everywhere else, the larger numerals came into being again, after having been phased out in the late 80s. 

An example of the 1998-replacement speed limit signs:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3285598,-72.3869402,3a,36.5y,349.16h,83.36t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEtBRYqe2hew5eZHTpqvSjQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

An example of the late 80s-1997 speed limit signs, which are now the standard once again for sign replacement projects, and have been for the past 10+ years:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5380165,-72.9696631,3a,40.1y,90.83h,87.48t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sW4Mb-3hMAKLpVMAFPe0uUQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

It is possible speed limit signs are on a more regimented replacement schedule than the rest of the signs.  If that's the case, they all were to go bad at the same time, hence the large scale replacement in 1998 just weeks before the speed limit change?  And that warranted the overlaying of "55" over the "65" if only for a couple weeks?

I checked my archives to find the photo I took in VT on I-91 way up in the Northeast Kingdom years ago, which had a typical VT Speed Limit 65/Minimum 40 post-exit sign, and the only part of the sign that was white was the "65".  Alas, I couldn't find it, but it and the signs of that era were back when button copy was still status quo north of White River Jct, mileage signs post-exit had Mile/KM, and onramp signs featured extruded aluminum signs, vs the present makeup of sheet aluminum markers & town blades.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2021, 04:46:42 PM by shadyjay »
Logged

 


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.