AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules to ensure post quality. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: Connecticut News  (Read 1033468 times)

RobbieL2415

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1750
  • Location: Hartford County, CT
  • Last Login: May 13, 2022, 10:24:12 AM
Re: Connecticut News
« Reply #4600 on: August 16, 2021, 02:29:15 PM »

* 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).
I-91 from Hartford to New Haven is a cornocopia of highway design language. There's no uniformity to it at all. You've got original bridges in between modern replacements, yellow mast arms mixed with modern monotobe gantries, new directional tabs tacked on top of old ones, and there's still that original VMS sign near Exit 5 or whatever.
Logged

Mergingtraffic

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1956
  • Location: NYC-CT
  • Last Login: May 08, 2022, 09:38:07 PM
    • My Flickr alias: MergingTraffic
Re: Connecticut News
« Reply #4601 on: August 16, 2021, 03:23:25 PM »

So looking at the CT-9 project to remove the stoplights, one thing bugs me is the left exit and entrance on the NB side.  Looking at the plans why can't they just reverse it and have the NB lanes on the inside and the ramps go under the NB lanes to exit and enter on the right hand side?  It takes up the same amount of space, you're just reversing it.  Plus it makes the ramp curvatures not as tight by having them enter and exit from the right. 

In a few years, it will become a problem with CT-17 entering on the right and the usual slower traffic getting into the left lane.

https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOT/documents/dprojects/Project0082-0318/0082-0318-Alt-3-Plan.jpg?sc_lang=en&hash=AC2DC06A827761153AF64FE6DE72673E

Logged
I only take pics of good looking signs. Long live non-reflective button copy!
MergingTraffic https://www.flickr.com/photos/98731835@N05/

shadyjay

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1586
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Lwr CT River Valley
  • Last Login: May 16, 2022, 09:21:11 PM
Re: Connecticut News
« Reply #4602 on: August 16, 2021, 11:18:38 PM »

I-91 from Hartford to New Haven is a cornocopia of highway design language. There's no uniformity to it at all. You've got original bridges in between modern replacements, yellow mast arms mixed with modern monotobe gantries, new directional tabs tacked on top of old ones, and there's still that original VMS sign near Exit 5 or whatever.

There's a method to the madness, really.  CT has a pretty rigourous bridge inspection program (most likely triggered from 1983's events).  If a bridge isn't up to snuff, its replaced within a certain time frame.  The Route 68 bridge over I-91 at Exit 15 was replaced and it needed it bad... the old one was 2 lanes, with the new one being 4 or 5 lanes.  The spot sign replacements you're seeing mixed in with the "cruciforms" stem back to more inspections.  And when an overhead support is replaced, the sign gets replaced.  Obviously the new standard in signs is aligned exit tabs, and for supports, 4-chord truss or cantilever, and monotube bridge.  The I-91 North Haven to Meriden project will bring some uniform to the mix, and those recently-replaced gantries will remain.  I'm sure it also means that large truss gantry that spans all lanes of I-91 South near Exit 9 will go away... it only holds a VMS.  Previous sign replacements utilized a lot of the same gantries, but now its pretty standard to replace all of them, since they pretty much all date to the 1980s. 


So looking at the CT-9 project to remove the stoplights, one thing bugs me is the left exit and entrance on the NB side.  Looking at the plans why can't they just reverse it and have the NB lanes on the inside and the ramps go under the NB lanes to exit and enter on the right hand side?  It takes up the same amount of space, you're just reversing it.  Plus it makes the ramp curvatures not as tight by having them enter and exit from the right. 

In a few years, it will become a problem with CT-17 entering on the right and the usual slower traffic getting into the left lane.

https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOT/documents/dprojects/Project0082-0318/0082-0318-Alt-3-Plan.jpg?sc_lang=en&hash=AC2DC06A827761153AF64FE6DE72673E

When you look at that plan, the flaw I notice right off the bat is the short distance between the new Exit 13 merge and the new Exit 16 offramp.  If CT 17 is to remain cosigned with CT 9 for its short distance, that's, 1/2 mile or less that traffic will have to get over left to continue on CT 17 to head to Portland.  You are correct... if the ramp was on the right, it would be safer for all.  Then CT 17 could stay where it is and you could connect the Exit 13 merge and Exit 16 offramp with an "operational lane".  But they probably won't do it.  Why?  Then they'd have to change the welcome signs entering the state... "Welcome To Connecticut... Enjoy Our Left Exits"

Nothing in the Middletown project is set in stone yet... there's still going to be another round of public hearings/meetings.  Thank god the first one shot down the rotary plan and the southbound roller coaster. 
Logged

RobbieL2415

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1750
  • Location: Hartford County, CT
  • Last Login: May 13, 2022, 10:24:12 AM
Re: Connecticut News
« Reply #4603 on: August 17, 2021, 02:40:14 PM »

So looking at the CT-9 project to remove the stoplights, one thing bugs me is the left exit and entrance on the NB side.  Looking at the plans why can't they just reverse it and have the NB lanes on the inside and the ramps go under the NB lanes to exit and enter on the right hand side?  It takes up the same amount of space, you're just reversing it.  Plus it makes the ramp curvatures not as tight by having them enter and exit from the right. 

In a few years, it will become a problem with CT-17 entering on the right and the usual slower traffic getting into the left lane.

https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOT/documents/dprojects/Project0082-0318/0082-0318-Alt-3-Plan.jpg?sc_lang=en&hash=AC2DC06A827761153AF64FE6DE72673E

Hot takes:
- St. John's St. shouldn't empty out onto the offramp.

- Dekoven Dr. should be re-aligned and made one-way southbound, and Harbor Dr. should be extended and made one-way northbound, with the two coming together where the new Main St. off-ramp is depicted. Both streets will act as frontage roads. A separated off-ramp for the Arrigoni Bridge should parallel where the frontage roads come together. This would require a modification of the bridge approach for a taper merge. Thus, eliminating those left exit ramps.

- Convert the CT 17 exit onto Main St. into a SPUI.
Logged

shadyjay

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1586
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Lwr CT River Valley
  • Last Login: May 16, 2022, 09:21:11 PM
Re: Connecticut News
« Reply #4604 on: August 17, 2021, 06:03:39 PM »

One of the Middletown plans years ago was a new interchange on the north side of the Arrigoni Bridge, with a connector road looping to the bridge.  The area to the north of the bridge is largely an industrial area and you could have had the connector to/from Rt 9 be a viaduct from the bridge down to Route 9.  Part of the backup on Rt 9 is the one lane Hartford Ave "offramp" heading up to Main Street.  While it does appear the diverge point will be shifted to the north of the bridge, you're still looking at one lane Hartford Ave up to Main St.  There really is no room here to expand the "trench" due to the railroad overpass and a cemetery.  Outbound from Main St to Rt 9 is already 2 lanes and while the ramp to Rt 9 Northbound will be reduced to 1 lane instead of 2, it will be free-flowing, unlike now with the light.

The Rt 9/southern Rt 17 interchange should also be a SPUI, so that traffic on Rt 9 North has a chance to get to downtown Middletown and not just utilize the new ramp to Rapallo Ave.  This should connect directly with River Rd as well, so that traffic could turn left to go towards Main St/Main st Ext, or right to River Rd and the Harbor Area.
Logged

RobbieL2415

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1750
  • Location: Hartford County, CT
  • Last Login: May 13, 2022, 10:24:12 AM
Re: Connecticut News
« Reply #4605 on: August 18, 2021, 08:26:21 AM »

One of the Middletown plans years ago was a new interchange on the north side of the Arrigoni Bridge, with a connector road looping to the bridge.  The area to the north of the bridge is largely an industrial area and you could have had the connector to/from Rt 9 be a viaduct from the bridge down to Route 9.  Part of the backup on Rt 9 is the one lane Hartford Ave "offramp" heading up to Main Street.  While it does appear the diverge point will be shifted to the north of the bridge, you're still looking at one lane Hartford Ave up to Main St.  There really is no room here to expand the "trench" due to the railroad overpass and a cemetery.  Outbound from Main St to Rt 9 is already 2 lanes and while the ramp to Rt 9 Northbound will be reduced to 1 lane instead of 2, it will be free-flowing, unlike now with the light.

The Rt 9/southern Rt 17 interchange should also be a SPUI, so that traffic on Rt 9 North has a chance to get to downtown Middletown and not just utilize the new ramp to Rapallo Ave.  This should connect directly with River Rd as well, so that traffic could turn left to go towards Main St/Main st Ext, or right to River Rd and the Harbor Area.
The problem with this plan is that it still creates a choke point on Main St. If you use frontage roads, like how I-95 and US1 is set up in East Haven, then traffic is distributed evenly across the side streets.
Logged

RobbieL2415

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1750
  • Location: Hartford County, CT
  • Last Login: May 13, 2022, 10:24:12 AM
Re: Connecticut News
« Reply #4606 on: August 18, 2021, 09:40:11 AM »

The Berlin Tpke. is about go undergo a massive signal replacement project, installing a CTSS for several miles of intersections beginning at the end of the Wilbur Cross Highway.
https://webprocure.perfect.com/MainBidBoard?ac=4&docid=814875&owner_id=149300&bid=88528
Logged

shadyjay

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1586
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Lwr CT River Valley
  • Last Login: May 16, 2022, 09:21:11 PM
Re: Connecticut News
« Reply #4607 on: August 25, 2021, 07:23:33 PM »

New MUTCD-compliant mile markers are going up on Route 9, and something seems odd about them.  As of right now, only the whole mile markers are up.  There is no Mile 0 posted, but Mile 1 appears northbound just before Exit 2, which is less than a mile from the logical start of the route (where the ramps to I-95 North and South separate).  The location of Mile 1 makes me think Mile 0 on Route 9 is actually where Exit 69 on I-95 Northbound diverges.  Southbound, the mile markers appear to be off by 1, meaning Mile 3 is in Old Saybrook just before present Exit 2.  And still no arrows on the off-ramp destination signs.   Haven't been north of Exit 7 in a couple weeks, but hopefully soon.

Logged

Alps

  • y u m
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14910
  • Elimitante the truck trarffic,

  • Age: 39
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: May 16, 2022, 10:09:42 PM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: Connecticut News
« Reply #4608 on: August 25, 2021, 09:33:59 PM »

New MUTCD-compliant mile markers are going up on Route 9, and something seems odd about them.  As of right now, only the whole mile markers are up.  There is no Mile 0 posted, but Mile 1 appears northbound just before Exit 2, which is less than a mile from the logical start of the route (where the ramps to I-95 North and South separate).  The location of Mile 1 makes me think Mile 0 on Route 9 is actually where Exit 69 on I-95 Northbound diverges.  Southbound, the mile markers appear to be off by 1, meaning Mile 3 is in Old Saybrook just before present Exit 2.  And still no arrows on the off-ramp destination signs.   Haven't been north of Exit 7 in a couple weeks, but hopefully soon.


Routes typically are mileposted from the beginning of a ramp, not the merge thereof.

jp the roadgeek

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 4129
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Outside the I-291 beltway
  • Last Login: Today at 12:50:08 PM
Re: Connecticut News
« Reply #4609 on: August 26, 2021, 12:43:59 PM »

Just drove CT 9 in New Britain and Berlin.  Still no mileposts other than the ancient faded ones.
Logged
Interstates I've clinched: 97, 290 (MA), 291 (CT), 291 (MA), 293, 295 (DE-NJ-PA), 295 (RI-MA), 384, 391, 395 (CT-MA), 395 (MD), 495 (DE), 610 (LA), 684, 691, 695 (MD), 695 (NY), 795 (MD)

shadyjay

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1586
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Lwr CT River Valley
  • Last Login: May 16, 2022, 09:21:11 PM
Re: Connecticut News
« Reply #4610 on: August 26, 2021, 04:29:08 PM »

The new southbound mile markers are definitely a mile off.  Saw a new MP 6 directly across from old faded MP 5 at Exit 4/future Exit 5 in Essex.
Logged

connroadgeek

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 228
  • Last Login: Today at 09:16:42 AM
Re: Connecticut News
« Reply #4611 on: August 27, 2021, 09:51:22 AM »

The new southbound mile markers are definitely a mile off.  Saw a new MP 6 directly across from old faded MP 5 at Exit 4/future Exit 5 in Essex.
Did you email DOT? Better to tell them now and they have to fix a small section than to end up having to redo the whole highway.
Logged

RobbieL2415

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1750
  • Location: Hartford County, CT
  • Last Login: May 13, 2022, 10:24:12 AM
Re: Connecticut News
« Reply #4612 on: August 27, 2021, 11:34:41 AM »

New MUTCD-compliant mile markers are going up on Route 9, and something seems odd about them.  As of right now, only the whole mile markers are up.  There is no Mile 0 posted, but Mile 1 appears northbound just before Exit 2, which is less than a mile from the logical start of the route (where the ramps to I-95 North and South separate).  The location of Mile 1 makes me think Mile 0 on Route 9 is actually where Exit 69 on I-95 Northbound diverges.  Southbound, the mile markers appear to be off by 1, meaning Mile 3 is in Old Saybrook just before present Exit 2.  And still no arrows on the off-ramp destination signs.   Haven't been north of Exit 7 in a couple weeks, but hopefully soon.
Also:

-New speed limit signs are up, with Wrong Way signs on the reverse. I guess they're having problems with wrong-way drivers on CT 9?
-There is a speed limit sign with a posted minimum of 45mph. I don't remember reading through any of the Public Acts and seeing any change in the minimum speed.
-The new speed limit signs use a smaller font for the digits than the old ones.
-Town line signs are being replaced with the standard aluminum ones used on surface streets.
-None of the new aluminum signs are branded OSTA at the bottom.
Logged

shadyjay

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1586
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Lwr CT River Valley
  • Last Login: May 16, 2022, 09:21:11 PM
Re: Connecticut News
« Reply #4613 on: August 27, 2021, 05:53:59 PM »

-New speed limit signs are up, with Wrong Way signs on the reverse. I guess they're having problems with wrong-way drivers on CT 9?
That's the new state standard.

Quote
-There is a speed limit sign with a posted minimum of 45mph. I don't remember reading through any of the Public Acts and seeing any change in the minimum speed.
-The new speed limit signs use a smaller font for the digits than the old ones.
There's a pair of new minimum signs in Middletown which display 40 mph as well.  That's what the contract plans say.  So they're going "according to the plans".  Hopefully they catch something like that in the final inspection.

Back in the early 80s, the larger font numerals was standard on speed limit signs.  In the late 80s, they switched to the smaller font.  In 1998, when the speed limit changed from 55 to 65 mph, all speed limit signs got replaced and the larger numerals came back (CT doesn't believe in overlays apparently, except on a sign or two here or there).  New installations since the mid 2000s/2010s have featured the smaller numerals again. 

I don't understand why ConnDOT feels the need to post a speed limit 65 sign every mile.  Most other states post them only after onramps or where the speed limit drops.  If CT was still 55 MPH throughout, then maybe the extra reassurance, but now?  It just seems like a waste of money.  On some sections of Rt 9 right now, there are 4 speed limit signs within the span of a mile (old and new).  Really??!!??

Quote
-Town line signs are being replaced with the standard aluminum ones used on surface streets.
Again, also the new state standard.  Do they need to be extruded aluminum?  No.  CT is pretty much the only state in New England that has used extruded aluminum for town line signs.  The aluminum ones aren't bad, but I feel the middle line "INCORPORATED XXXX" is unnecessary, especially on an expressway, as it makes the rest of the text harder to read.


I'm holding out hope that as we go further in time, they will add the arrows to the offramp signs (or replace them), that the old speed limit signs will be removed, and the minimum speed differences corrected.  I've seen some odd things go up in the middle of sign replacement contracts in the past.  We still have plenty of time for the errors to be corrected. 
Logged

shadyjay

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1586
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Lwr CT River Valley
  • Last Login: May 16, 2022, 09:21:11 PM
Re: Connecticut News
« Reply #4614 on: August 31, 2021, 07:55:42 PM »

CT 9 Resigning Update:

Headed up to New Britain and back today (well, actually to Poughkeepsie, NY), and noticed some additional sheet signs for the southern contract up to Exit 15 in Middletown.  This includes the diamond "speed limit ahead 45 mph" signs.  They also finally changed out the "no merge-lane addition" diamond at the dangerous Exit 13 onramp with a traditional "merging traffic" sign.  Also hit up the short CT 82 connector and found new town line sheet signs, and new sheet "CT 9 North/Right Lane / CT 9 South/Left Lane" signs, which will replace the extruded advance signs for the CT 9 jct.  Some new offramp blue attractions signs up as well. 

On CT 66 East approaching Main St in Middletown, new "TO CT 9 NORTH/SOUTH" sheet signs were observed.  These have the same font as the new reassurance signs on CT 9 itself.  Given these signs were not on the contract plans, I have hopes that these were an addition, and that other approach signs to CT 9 onramps will also be replaced.  According to the contract plans, the only "approach road" signage replaced is the extruded signs at the ramps, plus all signs on the ramps themselves. 

Moving on to the center contract, not much visible progress to report.  New ground supports for the Exit 22 "exit now" sign are up, but no sign yet.  The rest of the extruded signage in this contract to go up is all overhead, so we're just waiting on foundations to cure/supports to go up.  No sheet signs put up yet in this contract.

Northern contract... about the same.  Waiting on support structures at this point, though I didn't go north of New Britain this time.
Logged

kernals12

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2082
  • Love highways and cars. Hate public transit.

  • Location: Suburban Boston
  • Last Login: Today at 11:42:56 AM
Re: Connecticut News
« Reply #4615 on: August 31, 2021, 08:18:27 PM »

Riddle me this: Why does adding 2 lanes to 5 miles of I-84 in Danbury cost $700 million while building a whole new 2.9 mile 4 lane freeway bypassing Brookfield costs barely $100 million?
Logged

Alps

  • y u m
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14910
  • Elimitante the truck trarffic,

  • Age: 39
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: May 16, 2022, 10:09:42 PM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: Connecticut News
« Reply #4616 on: August 31, 2021, 09:01:54 PM »

Riddle me this: Why does adding 2 lanes to 5 miles of I-84 in Danbury cost $700 million while building a whole new 2.9 mile 4 lane freeway bypassing Brookfield costs barely $100 million?

Reconstruction is always much more expensive. You have to go a lane at a time, rebuilding from the bottom up, maintaining traffic the whole time.

kernals12

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2082
  • Love highways and cars. Hate public transit.

  • Location: Suburban Boston
  • Last Login: Today at 11:42:56 AM
Re: Connecticut News
« Reply #4617 on: August 31, 2021, 09:18:06 PM »

Riddle me this: Why does adding 2 lanes to 5 miles of I-84 in Danbury cost $700 million while building a whole new 2.9 mile 4 lane freeway bypassing Brookfield costs barely $100 million?

Reconstruction is always much more expensive. You have to go a lane at a time, rebuilding from the bottom up, maintaining traffic the whole time.
They widened it one lane at a time and it didn't cost them a dime (rather 10 billion dimes)
You'll know it's them when you drive through the town

Seriously though, Arizona is spending the same amount of money on a section of I-10 and is getting 6 additional lanes and C/D roads over a distance of 11 miles for that.
Logged

abqtraveler

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 814
  • US-85 runs thru Albuquerque, but only on paper

  • Location: Albuquerque, NM
  • Last Login: May 16, 2022, 06:39:36 PM
Re: Connecticut News
« Reply #4618 on: September 01, 2021, 09:57:13 AM »

Riddle me this: Why does adding 2 lanes to 5 miles of I-84 in Danbury cost $700 million while building a whole new 2.9 mile 4 lane freeway bypassing Brookfield costs barely $100 million?

Reconstruction is always much more expensive. You have to go a lane at a time, rebuilding from the bottom up, maintaining traffic the whole time.
They widened it one lane at a time and it didn't cost them a dime (rather 10 billion dimes)
You'll know it's them when you drive through the town

Seriously though, Arizona is spending the same amount of money on a section of I-10 and is getting 6 additional lanes and C/D roads over a distance of 11 miles for that.
There are additional reasons for the $700M price tag to widen I-84 through Danbury:  nearly every bridge and overpass along the stretch will be completely torn down and rebuilt, and as I understand things, the two interchanges with US-7 will be reconfigured to eliminate the left-hand exits that cause the weave conditions  (and numerous crashes) between adjacent interchanges.

As for why it costs more to widen about 5 miles of I-84 through Danbury versus 11 miles of I-10 through Arizona?  It's because land is a lot cheaper in Arizona than in Connecticut. Moreover, when the interstates were built, most of the Western states acquired 300-400 feet of right-of-way on either side of the freeway to accommodate future expansion. Connecticut did not acquire any excess ROW, so they have to go through the very costly process of eminent domain whereas Arizona doesn't.
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: 2082
  • Love highways and cars. Hate public transit.

  • Location: Suburban Boston
  • Last Login: Today at 11:42:56 AM
Re: Connecticut News
« Reply #4619 on: September 01, 2021, 01:10:15 PM »

Riddle me this: Why does adding 2 lanes to 5 miles of I-84 in Danbury cost $700 million while building a whole new 2.9 mile 4 lane freeway bypassing Brookfield costs barely $100 million?

Reconstruction is always much more expensive. You have to go a lane at a time, rebuilding from the bottom up, maintaining traffic the whole time.
They widened it one lane at a time and it didn't cost them a dime (rather 10 billion dimes)
You'll know it's them when you drive through the town

Seriously though, Arizona is spending the same amount of money on a section of I-10 and is getting 6 additional lanes and C/D roads over a distance of 11 miles for that.
There are additional reasons for the $700M price tag to widen I-84 through Danbury:  nearly every bridge and overpass along the stretch will be completely torn down and rebuilt, and as I understand things, the two interchanges with US-7 will be reconfigured to eliminate the left-hand exits that cause the weave conditions  (and numerous crashes) between adjacent interchanges.

As for why it costs more to widen about 5 miles of I-84 through Danbury versus 11 miles of I-10 through Arizona?  It's because land is a lot cheaper in Arizona than in Connecticut. Moreover, when the interstates were built, most of the Western states acquired 300-400 feet of right-of-way on either side of the freeway to accommodate future expansion. Connecticut did not acquire any excess ROW, so they have to go through the very costly process of eminent domain whereas Arizona doesn't.

I don't know if anyone's notices, but Connecticut seems to be very pennywise and poundfoolish when building highways.
Logged

RobbieL2415

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1750
  • Location: Hartford County, CT
  • Last Login: May 13, 2022, 10:24:12 AM
Re: Connecticut News
« Reply #4620 on: September 02, 2021, 12:16:24 PM »

Riddle me this: Why does adding 2 lanes to 5 miles of I-84 in Danbury cost $700 million while building a whole new 2.9 mile 4 lane freeway bypassing Brookfield costs barely $100 million?

Reconstruction is always much more expensive. You have to go a lane at a time, rebuilding from the bottom up, maintaining traffic the whole time.
They widened it one lane at a time and it didn't cost them a dime (rather 10 billion dimes)
You'll know it's them when you drive through the town

Seriously though, Arizona is spending the same amount of money on a section of I-10 and is getting 6 additional lanes and C/D roads over a distance of 11 miles for that.
There are additional reasons for the $700M price tag to widen I-84 through Danbury:  nearly every bridge and overpass along the stretch will be completely torn down and rebuilt, and as I understand things, the two interchanges with US-7 will be reconfigured to eliminate the left-hand exits that cause the weave conditions  (and numerous crashes) between adjacent interchanges.

As for why it costs more to widen about 5 miles of I-84 through Danbury versus 11 miles of I-10 through Arizona?  It's because land is a lot cheaper in Arizona than in Connecticut. Moreover, when the interstates were built, most of the Western states acquired 300-400 feet of right-of-way on either side of the freeway to accommodate future expansion. Connecticut did not acquire any excess ROW, so they have to go through the very costly process of eminent domain whereas Arizona doesn't.
Yet they hang on to ROW for highways they never built.

Here's looking at you, CT 11, I-291, and original I-84.
Logged

RobbieL2415

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1750
  • Location: Hartford County, CT
  • Last Login: May 13, 2022, 10:24:12 AM
Re: Connecticut News
« Reply #4621 on: September 02, 2021, 12:22:56 PM »

Can someone explain to my why this state refuses to time walk signals to signal phases?

If no one is going to push the button and just cross when they have a "hand", what's the point in having them?
Logged

kernals12

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2082
  • Love highways and cars. Hate public transit.

  • Location: Suburban Boston
  • Last Login: Today at 11:42:56 AM
Re: Connecticut News
« Reply #4622 on: September 02, 2021, 12:44:04 PM »

Riddle me this: Why does adding 2 lanes to 5 miles of I-84 in Danbury cost $700 million while building a whole new 2.9 mile 4 lane freeway bypassing Brookfield costs barely $100 million?

Reconstruction is always much more expensive. You have to go a lane at a time, rebuilding from the bottom up, maintaining traffic the whole time.
They widened it one lane at a time and it didn't cost them a dime (rather 10 billion dimes)
You'll know it's them when you drive through the town

Seriously though, Arizona is spending the same amount of money on a section of I-10 and is getting 6 additional lanes and C/D roads over a distance of 11 miles for that.
There are additional reasons for the $700M price tag to widen I-84 through Danbury:  nearly every bridge and overpass along the stretch will be completely torn down and rebuilt, and as I understand things, the two interchanges with US-7 will be reconfigured to eliminate the left-hand exits that cause the weave conditions  (and numerous crashes) between adjacent interchanges.

As for why it costs more to widen about 5 miles of I-84 through Danbury versus 11 miles of I-10 through Arizona?  It's because land is a lot cheaper in Arizona than in Connecticut. Moreover, when the interstates were built, most of the Western states acquired 300-400 feet of right-of-way on either side of the freeway to accommodate future expansion. Connecticut did not acquire any excess ROW, so they have to go through the very costly process of eminent domain whereas Arizona doesn't.
Yet they hang on to ROW for highways they never built.

Here's looking at you, CT 11, I-291, and original I-84.

And Super 7
Logged

abqtraveler

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 814
  • US-85 runs thru Albuquerque, but only on paper

  • Location: Albuquerque, NM
  • Last Login: May 16, 2022, 06:39:36 PM
Re: Connecticut News
« Reply #4623 on: September 02, 2021, 02:30:02 PM »

Riddle me this: Why does adding 2 lanes to 5 miles of I-84 in Danbury cost $700 million while building a whole new 2.9 mile 4 lane freeway bypassing Brookfield costs barely $100 million?

Reconstruction is always much more expensive. You have to go a lane at a time, rebuilding from the bottom up, maintaining traffic the whole time.
They widened it one lane at a time and it didn't cost them a dime (rather 10 billion dimes)
You'll know it's them when you drive through the town

Seriously though, Arizona is spending the same amount of money on a section of I-10 and is getting 6 additional lanes and C/D roads over a distance of 11 miles for that.
There are additional reasons for the $700M price tag to widen I-84 through Danbury:  nearly every bridge and overpass along the stretch will be completely torn down and rebuilt, and as I understand things, the two interchanges with US-7 will be reconfigured to eliminate the left-hand exits that cause the weave conditions  (and numerous crashes) between adjacent interchanges.

As for why it costs more to widen about 5 miles of I-84 through Danbury versus 11 miles of I-10 through Arizona?  It's because land is a lot cheaper in Arizona than in Connecticut. Moreover, when the interstates were built, most of the Western states acquired 300-400 feet of right-of-way on either side of the freeway to accommodate future expansion. Connecticut did not acquire any excess ROW, so they have to go through the very costly process of eminent domain whereas Arizona doesn't.
Yet they hang on to ROW for highways they never built.

Here's looking at you, CT 11, I-291, and original I-84.

And Super 7

They sold off a lot of the ROW originally acquired for Super 7 and I-291 during the budget crises in the 2000s. Not sure how much is left, but I recall that some of the Super 7 ROW that wasn't sold was transferred to the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection for preservation as a linear park of sorts.
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

bluecountry

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 412
  • Last Login: May 03, 2022, 12:04:47 AM
Re: Connecticut News
« Reply #4624 on: September 09, 2021, 10:07:36 AM »

Has there been a lot of accidents at the new 91/84 via 15 exit?
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.