Connecticut News

[TheDon102]

ConnDOT made this chart in 2018 to illustrate usable ROW along I-95 in Fairfield County. I don't understand what's so hard about adding an extra lane in each direction, in fact given the area in blue, it looks like they could fit 12 lanes. Is it the interchanges that are the problem?

I don't know if I necessarily believe that chart, and just because they have the ROW doesn't mean they can just pave over it without some kind of backlash, not many people wanna live that close to the freeway. Extreme example is I-95 in Chester PA, where the houses might as well be apart of the highway.

[kernals12]

ConnDOT made this chart in 2018 to illustrate usable ROW along I-95 in Fairfield County. I don't understand what's so hard about adding an extra lane in each direction, in fact given the area in blue, it looks like they could fit 12 lanes. Is it the interchanges that are the problem?

I don't know if I necessarily believe that chart, and just because they have the ROW doesn't mean they can just pave over it without some kind of backlash, not many people wanna live that close to the freeway. Extreme example is I-95 in Chester PA, where the houses might as well be apart of the highway.

Why can't they make a quiet asphalt??? 

[Alps]

ConnDOT made this chart in 2018 to illustrate usable ROW along I-95 in Fairfield County. I don't understand what's so hard about adding an extra lane in each direction, in fact given the area in blue, it looks like they could fit 12 lanes. Is it the interchanges that are the problem?

I don't know if I necessarily believe that chart, and just because they have the ROW doesn't mean they can just pave over it without some kind of backlash, not many people wanna live that close to the freeway. Extreme example is I-95 in Chester PA, where the houses might as well be apart of the highway.

ROW includes a lot more than just the road. It includes signs, structures, grading down to the highway, possible easements that require being kept in a natural state, sound walls, environmental remediation... This chart is meaningless without doing a thorough engineering study.

[Mergingtraffic]

2 updates:

CT-8 signing project:
The SB Exit 7 "exit now" sign that was replaced a couple years ago as part of a spot replacement is being replaced today as we speak.  The new sign has the addition of "E. Main St" on it. 
Lots of new poles and the only new sign I saw was this:



CT-15/US-7 project:

A poster child for what's wrong with transportation and NIMBYism, the DOT is actually beginning work on making the deceleration lane longer for Exit 40B SB.

http://7-15norwalk.com/documents/Exit-40B-Improvements.pdf

[yakra]

A poster child for what's wrong with transportation and NIMBYism, the DOT is actually beginning work on making the deceleration lane longer for Exit 40B SB.

http://7-15norwalk.com/documents/Exit-40B-Improvements.pdf

What's wrong with this? It looks like for once people said yes to something, however small, in their backyard.

Is it that ConnDOT is focusing on small potatoes like this when

it is important to note that a future project, the Route 7/15 interchange, will likely reconfigure this area

[Alps]

A poster child for what's wrong with transportation and NIMBYism, the DOT is actually beginning work on making the deceleration lane longer for Exit 40B SB.

http://7-15norwalk.com/documents/Exit-40B-Improvements.pdf

What's wrong with this? It looks like for once people said yes to something, however small, in their backyard.

Is it that ConnDOT is focusing on small potatoes like this when

it is important to note that a future project, the Route 7/15 interchange, will likely reconfigure this area

it's that that will never happen, that is what that is

[abqtraveler]

ConnDOT made this chart in 2018 to illustrate usable ROW along I-95 in Fairfield County. I don't understand what's so hard about adding an extra lane in each direction, in fact given the area in blue, it looks like they could fit 12 lanes. Is it the interchanges that are the problem?

I don't know if I necessarily believe that chart, and just because they have the ROW doesn't mean they can just pave over it without some kind of backlash, not many people wanna live that close to the freeway. Extreme example is I-95 in Chester PA, where the houses might as well be apart of the highway.

ROW includes a lot more than just the road. It includes signs, structures, grading down to the highway, possible easements that require being kept in a natural state, sound walls, environmental remediation... This chart is meaningless without doing a thorough engineering study.

To that point, interstate highway standards require there be enough right-of-way to maintain appropriate clear zones adjacent to the highway. In other words, you can't build the highway right up to the ROW boundary and still meet interstate standards for that reason and the reasons mentioned above. 

I realize that most of the Connecticut Turnpike portion of I-95 falls well below interstate standards, but...those substandard sections have to be brought up to interstate standards when they are reconstructed.

Think of it like an old house. A lot of things may not be up to code, but your local building inspector will normally let you leave things the way they are until you do a big remodel (unless an item out of code is an immediate life/health/safety concern, then the inspector can issue an emergency order for you to address that item). That's how the FHWA treats the Connecticut Turnpike. They know it's not up to interstate standards, but they're okay with ConnDOT leaving it be until it's time to replace bridges or major pavement work needs to be done, at which point the FHWA will tell ConnDOT to bring that stretch of highway up to interstate standards.

[RobbieL2415]

Noticed an odd-looking device hanging over the I-84 E on-ramp from Buckland St. in Manchester. It looked like some kind of traffic counting device, but there was a sign that said "Clearence 16' Emissions Testing Device".

Is CT DOT experimenting with on-road emissions testing?

[shadyjay]

Wasn't expecting this so soon, but.... the CT 2/3/11/17 Resigning & Conversion to Mileage-based exits contract is out and available for viewing on the CT Bid Board!

Some changes of note: 
*   "East Haddam" becomes the primary control city on CT 16.  I wonder if they meant "East Hampton"
*   "Business Route" gets removed from the signs in Marlborough and Colchester
*   CT 11 mile based exits count up from the probably-never-gonna-happen I-95/I-395 interchange
*   CT 3 & 17 get mile based exits counting up from their southern terminus. 
*   No mention of signage for the "Governor St" ramps.  They don't even get an exit number.  Wonder why?
*   There are dual signs eastbound on CT 2 at the CT 17/94 exits... methinks a future project is in the works, since the plans say "future sign" and have an exit only tab for that
     future sign on the CT 94 exit.  That whole area needs a complete reworking, but knowing ConnDOT, it'll just be an operational lane-type addition, rather than solving the root
     of the problem:  the left exit.

Contract plans continue to "cheap out", only showing overheads.  To see the ground signage, you have to hunt through the contract "special provisions".  Didn't see any mention of any blue logo attractions signs.  There really isn't too much to do off that part of CT 2 anyway. 

[jp the roadgeek]

Yay for them using Worcester instead of Providence for 395 North, seeing 395 goes nowhere near Providence. 

I would've used Middletown as a second control for the CT 16 exit westbound.  No one in their right mind would take 2 all the way up to Marlborough and double back on 66.  Plus, most Colchester Center traffic would have exited on 85. 

Why do they use continue to insist on using CT 11 for New London, especially westbound, when 395 to 32 (via SR 693) is the most viable option?

At the westbound 84 split, you have Hartford as a control for 84/91 and "Downtown Hartford" as the control for 2 West.  I probably would have used Waterbury and Springfield to avoid confusion. 

On Route 3, shouldn't 13B be for 2 East and 13C for 2 West, seeing the eastbound lanes come before the westbound lanes? 

Another item: these look like different exit numbers than in the original plans.  The I-395 exits in the original plans were 37 A-B, but are 36 and 37 here.  Also some fudging EB for CT 17 and CT 94, with 94 being fudged up to 6 where the original plans had them as 5A and 5B EB and 94 as 5 WB. 

[kernals12]

ConnDOT made this chart in 2018 to illustrate usable ROW along I-95 in Fairfield County. I don't understand what's so hard about adding an extra lane in each direction, in fact given the area in blue, it looks like they could fit 12 lanes. Is it the interchanges that are the problem?

I don't know if I necessarily believe that chart, and just because they have the ROW doesn't mean they can just pave over it without some kind of backlash, not many people wanna live that close to the freeway. Extreme example is I-95 in Chester PA, where the houses might as well be apart of the highway.

ROW includes a lot more than just the road. It includes signs, structures, grading down to the highway, possible easements that require being kept in a natural state, sound walls, environmental remediation... This chart is meaningless without doing a thorough engineering study.

To that point, interstate highway standards require there be enough right-of-way to maintain appropriate clear zones adjacent to the highway. In other words, you can't build the highway right up to the ROW boundary and still meet interstate standards for that reason and the reasons mentioned above. 

I realize that most of the Connecticut Turnpike portion of I-95 falls well below interstate standards, but...those substandard sections have to be brought up to interstate standards when they are reconstructed.

Think of it like an old house. A lot of things may not be up to code, but your local building inspector will normally let you leave things the way they are until you do a big remodel (unless an item out of code is an immediate life/health/safety concern, then the inspector can issue an emergency order for you to address that item). That's how the FHWA treats the Connecticut Turnpike. They know it's not up to interstate standards, but they're okay with ConnDOT leaving it be until it's time to replace bridges or major pavement work needs to be done, at which point the FHWA will tell ConnDOT to bring that stretch of highway up to interstate standards.

What is the reasoning behind that rule?

[shadyjay]

Also, button copy enthusiasts, get your photos now (or within the next year or so)....

This project will essentially remove button copy from the last of the state routes (not counting an isolated exit here or there on CT 15).  That means surviving button copy not yet targeted for replacement is I-91 north of Hartford to Enfield (late 1980s/early 90s), I-291 (1994), and I-95 in Branford & Guilford (1993, replaced 1958 original). 

[Alps]

To that point, interstate highway standards require there be enough right-of-way to maintain appropriate clear zones adjacent to the highway. In other words, you can't build the highway right up to the ROW boundary and still meet interstate standards for that reason and the reasons mentioned above. 

I realize that most of the Connecticut Turnpike portion of I-95 falls well below interstate standards, but...those substandard sections have to be brought up to interstate standards when they are reconstructed.

Think of it like an old house. A lot of things may not be up to code, but your local building inspector will normally let you leave things the way they are until you do a big remodel (unless an item out of code is an immediate life/health/safety concern, then the inspector can issue an emergency order for you to address that item). That's how the FHWA treats the Connecticut Turnpike. They know it's not up to interstate standards, but they're okay with ConnDOT leaving it be until it's time to replace bridges or major pavement work needs to be done, at which point the FHWA will tell ConnDOT to bring that stretch of highway up to interstate standards.

What is the reasoning behind that rule?

Which rule specifically? That existing roads can be left as is? Money.

[kurumi]

On Route 3, shouldn't 13B be for 2 East and 13C for 2 West, seeing the eastbound lanes come before the westbound lanes? 

Another item: these look like different exit numbers than in the original plans.  The I-395 exits in the original plans were 37 A-B, but are 36 and 37 here.  Also some fudging EB for CT 17 and CT 94, with 94 being fudged up to 6 where the original plans had them as 5A and 5B EB and 94 as 5 WB. 

I'm surprised to see exit 36 and 37 for I-395 SB and NB, since they're ramps of the same interchange -- an A/B would make more sense.

Same for CT 17 SB for the two ramps to New London Turnpike -- even though they've been signed as separate interchanges for a long time.

[kernals12]

To that point, interstate highway standards require there be enough right-of-way to maintain appropriate clear zones adjacent to the highway. In other words, you can't build the highway right up to the ROW boundary and still meet interstate standards for that reason and the reasons mentioned above. 

I realize that most of the Connecticut Turnpike portion of I-95 falls well below interstate standards, but...those substandard sections have to be brought up to interstate standards when they are reconstructed.

Think of it like an old house. A lot of things may not be up to code, but your local building inspector will normally let you leave things the way they are until you do a big remodel (unless an item out of code is an immediate life/health/safety concern, then the inspector can issue an emergency order for you to address that item). That's how the FHWA treats the Connecticut Turnpike. They know it's not up to interstate standards, but they're okay with ConnDOT leaving it be until it's time to replace bridges or major pavement work needs to be done, at which point the FHWA will tell ConnDOT to bring that stretch of highway up to interstate standards.

What is the reasoning behind that rule?

Which rule specifically? That existing roads can be left as is? Money.

The one that says you need clear zones.

[abqtraveler]

To that point, interstate highway standards require there be enough right-of-way to maintain appropriate clear zones adjacent to the highway. In other words, you can't build the highway right up to the ROW boundary and still meet interstate standards for that reason and the reasons mentioned above. 

I realize that most of the Connecticut Turnpike portion of I-95 falls well below interstate standards, but...those substandard sections have to be brought up to interstate standards when they are reconstructed.

Think of it like an old house. A lot of things may not be up to code, but your local building inspector will normally let you leave things the way they are until you do a big remodel (unless an item out of code is an immediate life/health/safety concern, then the inspector can issue an emergency order for you to address that item). That's how the FHWA treats the Connecticut Turnpike. They know it's not up to interstate standards, but they're okay with ConnDOT leaving it be until it's time to replace bridges or major pavement work needs to be done, at which point the FHWA will tell ConnDOT to bring that stretch of highway up to interstate standards.

What is the reasoning behind that rule?

Which rule specifically? That existing roads can be left as is? Money.

Concerning the amount of ROW required, that comes from AASHTO's "A Policy on Design Standards - Interstate Highways." It states, "The width of right-of-way shall be sufficient to accommodate the roadway cross section elements and requisite appurtenances necessary for an adequate facility in the design year and for known future improvements."

http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2014/ph240/suresh2/docs/AASHTO-InterstateDesignStandards.pdf

[DJ Particle]

Yay for them using Worcester instead of Providence for 395 North, seeing 395 goes nowhere near Providence. 

I assume the control city of Providence on older signs was a holdout from its days as the CT Pike?

[abqtraveler]

Yay for them using Worcester instead of Providence for 395 North, seeing 395 goes nowhere near Providence. 

I assume the control city of Providence on older signs was a holdout from its days as the CT Pike?

It could have been, as the northeast leg of the Connecticut Turnpike past Killingly was supposed to connect to an extended I-84 (that was never built) that would run to Providence.

[shadyjay]

Original turnpike entrance signage carried the destinations "NEW YORK AND WEST" and "RHODE ISLAND AND EAST".  Some of this signage existed in Branford and Guilford on the I-95 portion until 1993.  What is odd about this particular exit on CT 2 is that all other signage for I-395 North in this area has the "Worcester" destination.  So as to why the Providence destination has appeared for CT 2 East motorists, it may have been simple geographic logic... someone on CT 2 East heading for Worcester probably would've taken another route, vs Providence which is more of a straight shot from CT 2 East. 

There's also the mystery of how "Plainfield" became a control city on I-95 North at the turnpike split in East Lyme.  It appeared on the old I-95 signage for what is now Exit 76 at some point in the 1970s... I-395 was still CT 52 at that point.  But that's the only exit to ever see Plainfield as a control city.  In 2000 when signs were replaced, they really should have replaced it with Worcester, as at the same time they removed the Mass Pike/Worcester secondary sign. 

[sharkyfour]

There's also the mystery of how "Plainfield" became a control city on I-95 North at the turnpike split in East Lyme.  It appeared on the old I-95 signage for what is now Exit 76 at some point in the 1970s... I-395 was still CT 52 at that point.  But that's the only exit to ever see Plainfield as a control city.  In 2000 when signs were replaced, they really should have replaced it with Worcester, as at the same time they removed the Mass Pike/Worcester secondary sign.

In the mid-late 1970's, the Plainfield Greyhound Park was a vary large draw for people well beyond the local area, and remained that way until the casinos opened.  The site is about to become a large traffic generator again, but now as an Amazon distribution hub.

[Mergingtraffic]

I noticed on I-95 the casino extruded aluminum signs weren't replaced w the signing contract at exit 92. I guess they aren't maintained by the state?

CT-9 now has signs saying min speed is up to 45mph from 40mph by exit 3.

The CT-372 connector off CT-9 has more warning extruded aluminum signs for the stoplight at the end than CT-9 does. Was the connector included in the CT-9 contract?

The BYSs look older than the exit 1 signs. Also noticed a new white no thru trucks extruded BWS.  On CT-9 NB only one signal ahead warning sign in the median. That's it.

[shadyjay]

SSR 571 (the Exit 24 connector to 71/372) is part of the "middle contract" (CT 9 Exits 18-24), as is the Berlin Tpke in Berlin.  That one lone traffic signal ahead sign on CT 9 North I don't believe is being replaced as part of the resigning.  Neither is any of the aluminum signs from Exits 13-16.  I'm guessing the hope is that the lights will be removed in the next few years, though I'm still waiting to see the final plans and the go-ahead for construction. 

The casino signs on I-395 weren't replaced either, either at Exit 9 (CT 2A) or the other ones up in Griswold SB.  In fact, the Griswold SB one has a new sheet aluminum attractions two panel sign right next to the extruded brown sign.  The ones at Exit 9 NB early on in the resigning just removed the "7" and the "A", keeping the "9", until they realized the scarring left behind, so they patched the space instead.

Just before Exit 9 NB is a billboard which hasn't been used in quite some time.  It is stripped down to its original advertisement, which I believe is a hotel, located off one of the Norwich exits, with the old exit number visible.  Now billboards have some sort of canvas covering with the advertisement on them.  (Note all "OLD EXIT ##) indications along I-395 have all been removed.

[Mergingtraffic]

SSR 571 (the Exit 24 connector to 71/372) is part of the "middle contract" (CT 9 Exits 18-24), as is the Berlin Tpke in Berlin.  That one lone traffic signal ahead sign on CT 9 North I don't believe is being replaced as part of the resigning.  Neither is any of the aluminum signs from Exits 13-16.  I'm guessing the hope is that the lights will be removed in the next few years, though I'm still waiting to see the final plans and the go-ahead for construction. 

The casino signs on I-395 weren't replaced either, either at Exit 9 (CT 2A) or the other ones up in Griswold SB.  In fact, the Griswold SB one has a new sheet aluminum attractions two panel sign right next to the extruded brown sign.  The ones at Exit 9 NB early on in the resigning just removed the "7" and the "A", keeping the "9", until they realized the scarring left behind, so they patched the space instead.

Just before Exit 9 NB is a billboard which hasn't been used in quite some time.  It is stripped down to its original advertisement, which I believe is a hotel, located off one of the Norwich exits, with the old exit number visible.  Now billboards have some sort of canvas covering with the advertisement on them.  (Note all "OLD EXIT ##) indications along I-395 have all been removed.

I see they are removing the extruded "Speed Limit 45mph" and "Speed Limit 35 mph" and "Signal Ahead 500 Feet" signs on Ct-571.  What a shame.  I think extruded aluminum signs are needed with such a drastic change in road landscape.  Going from an expressway to a stoplight.  I wish they wouldn't cheap out on the extruded signs.  MA has a lot of extruded warning signs and it gets your attention.  CT seems to be stuck in their ways and just do exit signing as extruded.  Even CT-82 will get rid of it's extruded signs mostly.  I don't see how much money they will save in the long run. 

[kurumi]

Wasn't expecting this so soon, but.... the CT 2/3/11/17 Resigning & Conversion to Mileage-based exits contract is out and available for viewing on the CT Bid Board!

Two more cents:
* CT 3 exit to Main St, Glastonbury will be just "Glastonbury" itself. I'd keep the street name, but I'm not a highway engineer.
* CT 2 EB exit to CT 149 is moving from ground-mounted to overhead. That's surprising, given the recent trend to the opposite.

[shadyjay]

* CT 2 EB exit to CT 149 is moving from ground-mounted to overhead. That's surprising, given the recent trend to the opposite.

I thought that too, then I remembered that in that particular section, there is a slow vehicle lane. 

What I was surprised at was the I-91 signage being replaced, North Haven to Meriden, much of that signage could go ground-level, especially Exits 14-15, but they're keeping it overhead.  Is there more traffic there than on I-84 from Southington to Farmington, which got a lot of ground signage?  I doubt it.  What will become extinct is the large "FOG AREA" sign, at least southbound (the northbound one is a couple miles south of the I-91 project limits).