Connecticut News

[Mergingtraffic]

Here's a button/demountable copy combo.  Enjoy the outline shield while you can...



I don't get if the DOT can do the I-395 renumbering contract perfectly why can't the CT-9 one be done the same way!?  Do they say how the signage should be installed procedurally?

CT DOT should also do a project to properly use up available pavement for turn lanes on state routes to improve the flow of traffic.  There's many places where there is enough pavement to add in a turn lane or turn lanes. 

I also notice when new stores go in like a dunkin or gas station, which are major traffic generators, they don't require them to add turn lanes either.  Sometimes they do but most of the times they don't

[bob7374]

CT 9, they are now working north with new exit gore signs, with "OLD EXIT #" posted below the new number, which is tarped.  Exit 2 did not get the "OLD EXIT #" placard, which kinda leads me to believe it will stay Exit 2... but we shall see.  The SB mile markers are still up... MP 2 is still posted in the vicinity of former MP 1. 

If Exit 2 is to remain the same, that would be the third proposed number for that exit. Was originally going to be 1 since the I-95 exits were not to be renumbered. Then they changed their minds, I-95 would be Exits 1A and B and CT 154 Exit 1C. The milepost for the exit, according to Wikipedia, is 1.54 so rounding it up to 2 would work.

As you and others have noted, why the way exits are being renumbered here so different from those on I-395? Changes were made exit by exit, instead of changing gore signs first, then other signs later. Not to mention the 'new exit #' signs, etc. Hope they go back to their original method moving forward.

[abqtraveler]

CT 9, they are now working north with new exit gore signs, with "OLD EXIT #" posted below the new number, which is tarped.  Exit 2 did not get the "OLD EXIT #" placard, which kinda leads me to believe it will stay Exit 2... but we shall see.  The SB mile markers are still up... MP 2 is still posted in the vicinity of former MP 1. 

If Exit 2 is to remain the same, that would be the third proposed number for that exit. Was originally going to be 1 since the I-95 exits were not to be renumbered. Then they changed their minds, I-95 would be Exits 1A and B and CT 154 Exit 1C. The milepost for the exit, according to Wikipedia, is 1.54 so rounding it up to 2 would work.

As you and others have noted, why the way exits are being renumbered here so different from those on I-395? Changes were made exit by exit, instead of changing gore signs first, then other signs later. Not to mention the 'new exit #' signs, etc. Hope they go back to their original method moving forward.

Just speculation on my part...but my theory as to why the renumbering of I-395 went relatively smoothly is that the entire length of I-395 falls within a single CTDOT district---District 2.  In contrast, Route 9 traverses two districts: District 2 from Old Saybrook to the Haddam/Middletown line and District 1 from the Haddam/Middletown line to I-84. It appears there was a lack of coordination between the two CTDOT districts regarding the sequencing of work on the contracts to replace signs and renumber exits on Route 9.

Further west, Route 8 also traverses two districts: 3 and 4, but from what I'm seeing, it appears those two districts are talking to each other and are taking the approach of replacing all of the signs on Route 8 first, then change the exit numbers afterward. From that, I would expect Route 8's transition to go more smoothly that what you're seeing on Route 9.

[shadyjay]

The sign replacement on Route 9 is also 3 separate contracts.  The northern contract also involves CT 72, the middle also involves the Berlin Tpke in Berlin, and the southern also involves CT 17 and 82 freeway sections.  There's also a lot more overheads on CT 9 than on I-395 and that was also back when sign contracts weren't necessarily replacing all overhead supports.  All of the supports on CT 9 are being replaced (except in Middletown proper due to "upcoming" work to remove the lights). 

As the contract plans stated, the northern and middle contracts were to have new signs posted with the existing numbers.  The southern contract was to replace the exit tabs (yes, the tabs) with ones with the new numbers on the other two contracts, in addition to replacing signs on the southern contract.  I don't know if its different contractors doing each contract, nor do I know of any addendums, but I'm guessing there would have had to be something that changed since there was never a mention of "NEW EXIT #" signs to be posted.  At least they are not replacing exit tabs on brand new signs, but instead are overlaying the existing number over the old # on the signs replaced in the middle and northern contracts.

There are still no new sheet aluminums on the northern and middle contracts (outside of gore signs) and no new primary guide signs on the southern contract as of last week. 

I also have yet to see any new guide signs in the staging area off Exit 11 in Middletown, and no supports have gone up yet for the southern contract.  Honestly, I'm not positive if all of the foundations for the new signs are even in place yet.

As for the I-84 sign replacement project, there's new sheets up but no guide signs yet.  Its tough to spot new overhead supports on that section, and all from Exit 46 to 52 are just having signs replaced on existing support structures.

[kurumi]

Diagrammatic BGSes on surface streets are not common in CT -- yet there are two nearly mirror image signs, on US 6 and CT 14:

[RobbieL2415]

The sign replacement on Route 9 is also 3 separate contracts.  The northern contract also involves CT 72, the middle also involves the Berlin Tpke in Berlin, and the southern also involves CT 17 and 82 freeway sections.  There's also a lot more overheads on CT 9 than on I-395 and that was also back when sign contracts weren't necessarily replacing all overhead supports.  All of the supports on CT 9 are being replaced (except in Middletown proper due to "upcoming" work to remove the lights). 

As the contract plans stated, the northern and middle contracts were to have new signs posted with the existing numbers.  The southern contract was to replace the exit tabs (yes, the tabs) with ones with the new numbers on the other two contracts, in addition to replacing signs on the southern contract.  I don't know if its different contractors doing each contract, nor do I know of any addendums, but I'm guessing there would have had to be something that changed since there was never a mention of "NEW EXIT #" signs to be posted.  At least they are not replacing exit tabs on brand new signs, but instead are overlaying the existing number over the old # on the signs replaced in the middle and northern contracts.

There are still no new sheet aluminums on the northern and middle contracts (outside of gore signs) and no new primary guide signs on the southern contract as of last week. 

I also have yet to see any new guide signs in the staging area off Exit 11 in Middletown, and no supports have gone up yet for the southern contract.  Honestly, I'm not positive if all of the foundations for the new signs are even in place yet.

As for the I-84 sign replacement project, there's new sheets up but no guide signs yet.  Its tough to spot new overhead supports on that section, and all from Exit 46 to 52 are just having signs replaced on existing support structures.

There's still on-ramp gores in Manchester and Vernon that are missing merge warning signs.
And that incorrect merge sign on I-91 S just past Exit 27 is still there.

[shadyjay]

For those curious....

I just got a copy of the Rand McNally 2023 road atlas.  Only major change in the 6 New England states I've discovered so far is the renumbering of CT 9 exits (1A is shown at I-95, 1B at current Exit 2, and so on, up to I-84).  Only one CT 11 exit is shown and that has the new number, so does one CT 72 exit in the Hartford inset.  CT 2 exits are not renumbered despite being replaced in the same contract as CT 11.  Perhaps ConnDOT didn't think CT 2 exits won't have new numbers by the spring of 2023.  Heck, at this rate, neither will CT 9!

[kurumi]

A new exit ramp opens today: Exit 33 SB on I-95 in Stratford. This has been a partial interchange since 1958, originally to hinder people wanting to shunpike the Stratford toll booths. The NB entrance ramp opened last November.

https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/CTDOT-Press-Releases/2022/Interchange-33-on-Interstate-95-in-Stratford-Fully-Opens-Today

[abqtraveler]

For those curious....

I just got a copy of the Rand McNally 2023 road atlas.  Only major change in the 6 New England states I've discovered so far is the renumbering of CT 9 exits (1A is shown at I-95, 1B at current Exit 2, and so on, up to I-84).  Only one CT 11 exit is shown and that has the new number, so does one CT 72 exit in the Hartford inset.  CT 2 exits are not renumbered despite being replaced in the same contract as CT 11.  Perhaps ConnDOT didn't think CT 2 exits won't have new numbers by the spring of 2023.  Heck, at this rate, neither will CT 9!

That wouldn't be the first time that Rand McNally jumped the gun on publishing highway changes that haven't yet occurred.  In the 2022 Road Atlas, Rand McNally decided to mark all of the freeway exits in Vermont with mile-based numbering. While Vermont did in fact add "Milepoint Exit" placards to each interchange, the exit numbers remain sequential, and the milepoint exit placards are posted only on the guide sign immediately before the exit ramp. That hardly qualifies as Vermont making the switch from sequential to mile-based exit numbering.

Another example of where Rand McNally jumped the gun and later had to correct itself, was with marking the southernmost portion of the Pennyrile Parkway in Kentucky as I-169 in (I think it was either the 2020 or 2021 Road Atlas) and reverted to marking the route as the Pennyrile Parkway in the 2022 Road Atlas. It may be true that Congress designated the southern portion of the Pennyrile Parkway as I-169 in 2019, but it's currently signed as "Future I-169" until it's brought up to interstate standards.

[shadyjay]

VT still has mile-based exits in the 2023 atlas.

Its interesting that back in the pre-internet days, they would've held out for a year until the numbers had been posted in the field.  The "OLD EXIT #" signs were meant to not only help those who knew the old #s by heart, but also by those using paper maps.  Now, since the year comes out in the 2nd quarter of the previous year, there's some "wiggle room" for things to be right, such as pre-renumbering exits. 

Either that, or RMcN knows that the only ones who buy their atlas nowadays isn't the same market it was 20 years ago.  Road "enthusiasts" like ourselves, and maybe some old timers... that's probably it... and those who want to plan out their route.  But that's pretty simple to do on Google or other applicable mapping app on your phone nowadays. 

[Alps]

A new exit ramp opens today: Exit 33 SB on I-95 in Stratford. This has been a partial interchange since 1958, originally to hinder people wanting to shunpike the Stratford toll booths. The NB entrance ramp opened last November.

https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/CTDOT-Press-Releases/2022/Interchange-33-on-Interstate-95-in-Stratford-Fully-Opens-Today

It's not in any mapping software yet, but I see it comes off past the big chokepoint and hits 1 SB at Veterans Blvd.

[abqtraveler]

VT still has mile-based exits in the 2023 atlas.

Its interesting that back in the pre-internet days, they would've held out for a year until the numbers had been posted in the field.  The "OLD EXIT #" signs were meant to not only help those who knew the old #s by heart, but also by those using paper maps.  Now, since the year comes out in the 2nd quarter of the previous year, there's some "wiggle room" for things to be right, such as pre-renumbering exits. 

Either that, or RMcN knows that the only ones who buy their atlas nowadays isn't the same market it was 20 years ago.  Road "enthusiasts" like ourselves, and maybe some old timers... that's probably it... and those who want to plan out their route.  But that's pretty simple to do on Google or other applicable mapping app on your phone nowadays.

I still buy the Road Atlas every year. I find it easier to open the road atlas to figure out where I'm going over trying to do the same on my phone. Google Maps is good for local navigation, but when it comes to long-distance travel, I use the road atlas.

[Mergingtraffic]

Diagrammatic BGSes on surface streets are not common in CT -- yet there are two nearly mirror image signs, on US 6 and CT 14:

Makes me wonder, if those were contracted out today, would they just be sheet metal??  Since CT cheaping out the extruded aluminum signage lately.  Those signs were part of the I-395 signing contracts.

[RobbieL2415]

Can someone explain to me the intent behind leaving such a wide gore over this bridge on CT 15? I've never understood it. Why not give people more space to use the aux lane?
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7590149,-72.6433438,297m/data=!3m1!1e3

[Alps]

Can someone explain to me the intent behind leaving such a wide gore over this bridge on CT 15? I've never understood it. Why not give people more space to use the aux lane?
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7590149,-72.6433438,297m/data=!3m1!1e3

Well the gore needs to be wide for the given ramp alignment and the bridge is built for a future 3rd through lane I think. I guess at that point they decided easier to build one wide bridge than a second one for the ramp.

[RobbieL2415]

Can someone explain to me the intent behind leaving such a wide gore over this bridge on CT 15? I've never understood it. Why not give people more space to use the aux lane?
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7590149,-72.6433438,297m/data=!3m1!1e3

Well the gore needs to be wide for the given ramp alignment and the bridge is built for a future 3rd through lane I think. I guess at that point they decided easier to build one wide bridge than a second one for the ramp.

But then why not change the striping to something like what was on the NB side for Exit 90?
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7549377,-72.6511113,297m/data=!3m1!1e3
Like, they could have just striped the aux lane to follow the through lanes for a longer distance, then split it off later.

[Mergingtraffic]

Can someone explain to me the intent behind leaving such a wide gore over this bridge on CT 15? I've never understood it. Why not give people more space to use the aux lane?
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7590149,-72.6433438,297m/data=!3m1!1e3

Well the gore needs to be wide for the given ramp alignment and the bridge is built for a future 3rd through lane I think. I guess at that point they decided easier to build one wide bridge than a second one for the ramp.

But then why not change the striping to something like what was on the NB side for Exit 90?
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7549377,-72.6511113,297m/data=!3m1!1e3
Like, they could have just striped the aux lane to follow the through lanes for a longer distance, then split it off later.

Because it's CT DOT, who doesn't seem to like to add any extra lanes or capacity even though there is pavement to do so.  So many examples of stuff like this in the state.
The Merritt at the NY the state line, why isn't there an AUX lane?! Def pavement for it and it was designed for an AUX lane.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0394604,-73.6732091,308m/data=!3m1!1e3

Why isn't the middle lane an option lane for I-95 North or South on I-91 SB at the split?! No reason why it can't be an option lane.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3051903,-72.9140663,122m/data=!3m1!1e3

Why isn't there a left turn lane onto CT-8 North from CT-67?! Def pavement for it by just restriping the opposite shoulder not as wide.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3981046,-73.0689771,99m/data=!3m1!1e3

There's a billion of those things in this state that are easily fixable with just restriping of paint but they don't However, if it involved taking out a lane they do it.  Such as I-84 Exit 26 was reduced to 2-lanes instead of 3.  So somebody took the time to study it and dedicate a crew to reduce it.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.540562,-72.9516894,3a,75y,69.18h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbn-eGamJSR9uJ7EDVML23A!2e0!7i3328!8i1664

[RobbieL2415]

Can someone explain to me the intent behind leaving such a wide gore over this bridge on CT 15? I've never understood it. Why not give people more space to use the aux lane?
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7590149,-72.6433438,297m/data=!3m1!1e3

Well the gore needs to be wide for the given ramp alignment and the bridge is built for a future 3rd through lane I think. I guess at that point they decided easier to build one wide bridge than a second one for the ramp.

But then why not change the striping to something like what was on the NB side for Exit 90?
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7549377,-72.6511113,297m/data=!3m1!1e3
Like, they could have just striped the aux lane to follow the through lanes for a longer distance, then split it off later.

Because it's CT DOT, who doesn't seem to like to add any extra lanes or capacity even though there is pavement to do so.  So many examples of stuff like this in the state.
The Merritt at the NY the state line, why isn't there an AUX lane?! Def pavement for it and it was designed for an AUX lane.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0394604,-73.6732091,308m/data=!3m1!1e3

Why isn't the middle lane an option lane for I-95 North or South on I-91 SB at the split?! No reason why it can't be an option lane.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3051903,-72.9140663,122m/data=!3m1!1e3

Why isn't there a left turn lane onto CT-8 North from CT-67?! Def pavement for it by just restriping the opposite shoulder not as wide.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3981046,-73.0689771,99m/data=!3m1!1e3

There's a billion of those things in this state that are easily fixable with just restriping of paint but they don't However, if it involved taking out a lane they do it.  Such as I-84 Exit 26 was reduced to 2-lanes instead of 3.  So somebody took the time to study it and dedicate a crew to reduce it.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.540562,-72.9516894,3a,75y,69.18h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbn-eGamJSR9uJ7EDVML23A!2e0!7i3328!8i1664

1. I'm guessing that an aux lane here would be too short to allow for a safe crossover. The merge allows for a safe taper.

2. This is probably done to try and keep the center lane clear for through traffic after the split, trying to queue traffic up early to keep passing traffic from being held up.

3. ConnDOT would want to keep the shoulder, so that would require a widening. Same reason why CT 194 won't ever be widened -- in order to preserve the shoulder they would need to eat into the rest of the ROW.

4. Dual right turn lanes probably weren't necessary there, which IMO are useless in general since state law prohibits RTOR from anywhere but the extreme right lane.

Then you have US 5/CT 15 SB Exit 86, which you think they would also add a lane to, since I-91 NB Exit 29 is getting one. Why are ConnDOT only solving one half of the Charter Oak Bridge's congestion problem?

[MATraveler128]

Then you have US 5/CT 15 SB Exit 86, which you think they would also add a lane to, since I-91 NB Exit 29 is getting one. Why are ConnDOT only solving one half of the Charter Oak Bridge's congestion problem?

Yeah that bugs me too. I feel like they should have addressed that ramp. Traffic in the exit lane for Exit 86 is always stopped when I'm driving through there, especially on holiday weekends. I don't believe Exit 86 was ever included in the flyover project, which is why it wasn't widened also. Although I do agree that this should be a priority.

[RobbieL2415]

Then you have US 5/CT 15 SB Exit 86, which you think they would also add a lane to, since I-91 NB Exit 29 is getting one. Why are ConnDOT only solving one half of the Charter Oak Bridge's congestion problem?

Yeah that bugs me too. I feel like they should have addressed that ramp. Traffic in the exit lane for Exit 86 is always stopped when I'm driving through there, especially on holiday weekends. I don't believe Exit 86 was ever included in the flyover project, which is why it wasn't widened also. Although I do agree that this should be a priority.

I wonder if their logic is "Well, there's also Exit 85 that goes to I-91 SB, so there's technically a second lane."
IMO that alternate route needs more prominent signage. Something like,

[shadyjay]

...And they could've solved the Exit 86 issue relatively easy, without any flyovers.  Personally, I would close Exit 86 and widen Exit 85 to 2 lanes with improved the geometry of the "second chance" ramp from 15SB to 91SB (make the curve more gradual).  This would have enabled vehicles to enter I-91 on the right, vs the left.  You could have then created an "operational lane" from the merge point down to Exit 26 (or Exit 25).  You would have to widen the bridge carrying I-91 over CT 15 to accommodate the extra lane (and the 2nd lane could have continued for a bit before ending).  Having the ramp enter on the right vs the left eliminates the slow moving trucks having to cross over a lane of high speed traffic.  And with some lane shifting, you could maintain I-91 South having 3 thru lanes in the Exit 27 vicinity. 

Such an idea would have a potential effect on the existing ramp from Airport Rd to 91/15SB and potentially the 15NB to 91SB ramp, the latter not too terribly heavily trafficked.

[RobbieL2415]

...And they could've solved the Exit 86 issue relatively easy, without any flyovers.  Personally, I would close Exit 86 and widen Exit 85 to 2 lanes with improved the geometry of the "second chance" ramp from 15SB to 91SB (make the curve more gradual).  This would have enabled vehicles to enter I-91 on the right, vs the left.  You could have then created an "operational lane" from the merge point down to Exit 26 (or Exit 25).  You would have to widen the bridge carrying I-91 over CT 15 to accommodate the extra lane (and the 2nd lane could have continued for a bit before ending).  Having the ramp enter on the right vs the left eliminates the slow moving trucks having to cross over a lane of high speed traffic.  And with some lane shifting, you could maintain I-91 South having 3 thru lanes in the Exit 27 vicinity. 

Such an idea would have a potential effect on the existing ramp from Airport Rd to 91/15SB and potentially the 15NB to 91SB ramp, the latter not too terribly heavily trafficked.

I'm wondering if they didn't want to widen Exit 86 because doing so would require slightly shifting I-91 SB to the right and into the ROW for the CSOR tracks. Perhaps the federal funding they received only covered Exit 29.
My guess is that they will conduct a study for Exit 86 shortly after Exit 29 is finished.

Also consider that doing Exit 86 at the exact same time as Exit 29 would have prolonged the ongoing night work and lane closures.

[DrSmith]

...And they could've solved the Exit 86 issue relatively easy, without any flyovers.  Personally, I would close Exit 86 and widen Exit 85 to 2 lanes with improved the geometry of the "second chance" ramp from 15SB to 91SB (make the curve more gradual).  This would have enabled vehicles to enter I-91 on the right, vs the left.  You could have then created an "operational lane" from the merge point down to Exit 26 (or Exit 25).  You would have to widen the bridge carrying I-91 over CT 15 to accommodate the extra lane (and the 2nd lane could have continued for a bit before ending).  Having the ramp enter on the right vs the left eliminates the slow moving trucks having to cross over a lane of high speed traffic.  And with some lane shifting, you could maintain I-91 South having 3 thru lanes in the Exit 27 vicinity. 

Such an idea would have a potential effect on the existing ramp from Airport Rd to 91/15SB and potentially the 15NB to 91SB ramp, the latter not too terribly heavily trafficked.

I'm wondering if they didn't want to widen Exit 86 because doing so would require slightly shifting I-91 SB to the right and into the ROW for the CSOR tracks. Perhaps the federal funding they received only covered Exit 29.
My guess is that they will conduct a study for Exit 86 shortly after Exit 29 is finished.

Also consider that doing Exit 86 at the exact same time as Exit 29 would have prolonged the ongoing night work and lane closures.

I thought at least part of the logic of Exit 29 was in preparation for the 84 reconstruction through Hartford (whenever that occurs) and that a suggested through route detour from Waterbury would 691 East onto 91 North to the Charter Oak Bridge back to I-84. With the old Exit 29 having problems already and frequently having delays, adding extra traffic would only make it worse.

On the opposite side, Exit 86 doesn't back up as easily although with heavy traffic it does have issues such as busy weekends. Now if long term you are trying to detour extra traffic around Hartford to the south, that ramp may also have a lot more delays. Maybe it was considered and decided to be not as necessary compared to the Exit 29 improvements.

However, there is still plenty of time for that it seems. I remember probably 8 years back there was thinking some of the initial utility relocation work would be starting around now (2022-23 or so). There's still the underground cloverleaf interchange option to consider (https://www.courant.com/business/hc-pol-haar-larson-tunnel-project-bocce-shuster-20170915-story.html)

[74/171FAN]

I just found this recent public meeting on the CT 229 corridor while browsing through the "Tubes of You".

[jp the roadgeek]

I just found this recent public meeting on the CT 229 corridor while browsing through the "Tubes of You".

Well, they're talking about putting a 250 unit complex on CT 229 in Southington at the corner of Curtiss St, which is about 1/2 mile north of the 84 interchange, and about 500 feet north of where the southbound side widens to 2 lanes.  Plus, there is no dedicated left turn lane onto Curtiss St, so West St often backs up in the afternoon while cars attempt to turn left.  Sometimes, the backup can stretch as far as ESPN (I've actually had to backtrack into Bristol and use Lake Ave/Mount Vernon Rd to get around the nightmare).