News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered at https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=33904.0
Corrected several already and appreciate your patience as we work through the rest.

Main Menu

Connecticut News

Started by Mergingtraffic, October 28, 2009, 08:39:49 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Duke87

The simplest solution would be to run two-way traffic in one tunnel while the other is being worked on. Problem is, the traffic volumes through there are too high for that to really work.

The idea of boring a third tunnel instead seems like an awful lot of expense for something that isn't going to be kept in use... but then, having a third tunnel doesn't do anything to increase capacity if the road approaching it from either side is still only four lanes.


It is kind of odd that this tunnel even exists to begin with, a relic of the fact that it was built in 1949 when tunneling through West Rock Ridge was seen as the best method of traversing it. If the road had been built 10-20 years later they would likely have simply blasted a cut through the ridge. 30+ years later, section 4(f) would have prevented the road from being built through there at all.
If you always take the same road, you will never see anything new.


jon daly

Quote from: jp the roadgeek on July 27, 2018, 04:33:24 PM
Quote from: jon daly on July 27, 2018, 12:58:56 PM
I mentioned this in the R.I. thread, but it's more appropriate here:

I saw an ad for Ned Lamont in which it sounded like he was proposing a system like theirs; tolling tractor trailers.




Yup.  You can count on tolls as a foregone conclusion if Malloy 2.0 Lamont, or Ganim is elected.  And the cost of those tolls won't be absorbed by the shippers or wholesalers.  It will be absorbed by the consumer in higher retail prices.   

An apolitical aside with regards to the gubernatorial race:

Are  any of these folks NOT from Fairfield  County or other parts of the state that hijacked the 203 area code from the real New England part of Connecticut?

The last governor I recall from east of the Connecticut River was Bill O'Neill. Since then, it's been Weicker, Rowland, Rell, and Malloy and I don't see an end to this streak.

jp the roadgeek

From what I see, the two independent candidates are from Hartford, and Coventry.  Many of the lieutenant governor candidates are.  Joe Markley is from Southington, but a portion of his state senate district is in the 203.  Erin Stewart is the mayor of New Britain, and I believe Susan Bysiewicz is from Middletown. 
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)

roadman

Quote from: Mergingtraffic on July 27, 2018, 09:47:33 PM
anybody have the signage plans for I-95 from Exits 83-93? I had them but deleted them somehow.

Available at  https://biznet.ct.gov/SCP_Search/BidDetail.aspx?CID=40931
"And ninety-five is the route you were on.  It was not the speed limit sign."  - Jim Croce (from Speedball Tucker)

"My life has been a tapestry
Of years of roads and highway signs" (with apologies to Carole King and Tom Rush)

jon daly

Thanks, jp. I haven't figured out if I'll be in Conn. or R.I. come November, so I haven't been diligently following the race.

zzyzx

I was at the doctors office in my hometown this past week, and found these historical images in a book in the waiting room:

One shows the construction progress on I-95 between what looks to be exits 81-82, the other is the tollbooth heading southbound on the Gold Star Bridge.

The book is from The Day newspaper: "Looking Back: New London County vol.2"  but appears to be sold out. 






iPhone

jon daly

That span of the Gold Star over the Thames looks quite similar today. The main difference are that the tolls are long gone and that a second span was added.

I had no idea that Saint Bernard's was in New London before it was in Montville.

abqtraveler

Quote from: jon daly on July 30, 2018, 01:38:21 PM
That span of the Gold Star over the Thames looks quite similar today. The main difference are that the tolls are long gone and that a second span was added.

I had no idea that Saint Bernard's was in New London before it was in Montville.

In what year did they stop collecting tolls on the Gold Star Bridge?
2-d Interstates traveled:  4, 5, 8, 10, 15, 20, 24, 25, 27, 29, 35, 39, 40, 41, 43, 45, 49, 55, 57, 64, 65, 66, 69, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, 76(E), 77, 78, 81, 83, 84(W), 85, 87(N), 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95

2-d Interstates Clinched:  12, 22, 30, 37, 44, 59, 80, 84(E), 86(E), 238, H1, H2, H3, H201

Mergingtraffic

I had preliminary plans for the upcoming I-84 signage in Hartford but deleted them somehow, someway. I believe there were some APL signs in there. 
I only take pics of good looking signs. Long live non-reflective button copy!
MergingTraffic https://www.flickr.com/photos/98731835@N05/

Duke87

Quote from: abqtraveler on July 30, 2018, 05:44:39 PM
In what year did they stop collecting tolls on the Gold Star Bridge?

1963, according to this article.
If you always take the same road, you will never see anything new.

MikeCL

Quote from: KEVIN_224 on July 27, 2018, 01:04:09 PM
https://wsayshregister.com/local/article/Surveying-to-close-West-Rock-tunnel-on-Route-15-13110110.php

Survey says? Close! That looks likely with sections of the CT Route 15 tunnel shortly. Look how long this project could take!
I know not in the same area but in Fairfield Co as well from at least CT border to Norwalk I've been seeing a lot of surverying going on anyone know why? Also Now by exit 9 NB they put up Jersey barriers now.

connroadgeek

Quote from: MikeCL on August 05, 2018, 06:46:35 PMI know not in the same area but in Fairfield Co as well from at least CT border to Norwalk I've been seeing a lot of surverying going on anyone know why? Also Now by exit 9 NB they put up Jersey barriers now.
Also what's up with the massive tree clearing effort between the highway and the railroad tracks between exits 3 and 4? They've removed every tree.

MikeCL

Quote from: connroadgeek on August 05, 2018, 11:33:39 PM
Quote from: MikeCL on August 05, 2018, 06:46:35 PMI know not in the same area but in Fairfield Co as well from at least CT border to Norwalk I've been seeing a lot of surverying going on anyone know why? Also Now by exit 9 NB they put up Jersey barriers now.
Also what's up with the massive tree clearing effort between the highway and the railroad tracks between exits 3 and 4? They've removed every tree.
I agree what is up with that? I know they laid down some pipe.

MikeTheActuary

Quote from: connroadgeek on August 05, 2018, 11:33:39 PM
Quote from: MikeCL on August 05, 2018, 06:46:35 PMI know not in the same area but in Fairfield Co as well from at least CT border to Norwalk I've been seeing a lot of surverying going on anyone know why? Also Now by exit 9 NB they put up Jersey barriers now.
Also what's up with the massive tree clearing effort between the highway and the railroad tracks between exits 3 and 4? They've removed every tree.

They're replacing a sewer.


MikeCL

Quote from: MikeTheActuary on August 06, 2018, 12:04:41 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on August 05, 2018, 11:33:39 PM
Quote from: MikeCL on August 05, 2018, 06:46:35 PMI know not in the same area but in Fairfield Co as well from at least CT border to Norwalk I've been seeing a lot of surverying going on anyone know why? Also Now by exit 9 NB they put up Jersey barriers now.
Also what's up with the massive tree clearing effort between the highway and the railroad tracks between exits 3 and 4? They've removed every tree.

They're replacing a sewer.
Really they needed to remove that many trees?

Rothman

I am very much reminded of Farrah Fawcett in The Cannonball Run right now. :D
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

MikeTheActuary

Quote from: MikeCL on August 06, 2018, 12:36:37 PM
Really they needed to remove that many trees?

I haven't seen that stretch of 95 in a long time -- I prefer to take the Parkway if I must drive into/around the City -- but the article mentions that there isn't much space to work in given the locations of the highway, the railway, and the power infrastructure.

ConnDOT cites the lack of space as a reason why they don't want to replace the trees when done.  Bridgeport appears to have different ideas (I assume they've forgotten the lessons of a few years ago about the issues with having lots of trees in close proximity to infrastructure).

MikeCL

Quote from: MikeTheActuary on August 06, 2018, 12:55:24 PM
Quote from: MikeCL on August 06, 2018, 12:36:37 PM
Really they needed to remove that many trees?

I haven't seen that stretch of 95 in a long time -- I prefer to take the Parkway if I must drive into/around the City -- but the article mentions that there isn't much space to work in given the locations of the highway, the railway, and the power infrastructure.

ConnDOT cites the lack of space as a reason why they don't want to replace the trees when done.  Bridgeport appears to have different ideas (I assume they've forgotten the lessons of a few years ago about the issues with having lots of trees in close proximity to infrastructure).
I understand the parkway but I did not think these trees would have caused much of any issues

zzyzx

I stumbled upon another study of I-95, this one from the South Central Regional Council of Governments on Exit 53 (the Branford Connector).

It looks like they're trying to complete the interchange by adding a NB entrance ramp and a SB exit, but the nearby service plaza and ROW needed is posing a challenge.

This being CT, the preferred alternate is Option 2 from the presentation document, which will eliminate the trumpet interchange and replace it with a modified diamond interchange with 2 traffic signals.  It would combine traffic exiting to the Branford Connector as well as the service plaza.  Traffic exiting both service plazas would then merge back with the connector traffic and have to sit at one of the lights before re-entering I-95.

Confused? So am I. I'm hoping that more modifications are made if and when they decide to re-build this.  I'm sure one of us here can come up with some better ideas. ConnDOT could learn some things from TxDOT how to design efficient ramps without major environmental impacts. IMO, I prefer Option 1 without the traffic signals.

Here's a screenshot of Option 2:


Beeper1

Those NB service area connections make no sense.  Why not leave the existing merge from the service area back to the highway as-is?

MikeTheActuary

Quote from: Beeper1 on August 06, 2018, 06:52:02 PM
Those NB service area connections make no sense.  Why not leave the existing merge from the service area back to the highway as-is?

The study document notes the short weave between the on ramp from the service area and the off ramp for Exit 54.  That's an oversimplification of the situation, as Exit 54 is where the Turnpike drops from 3 lanes to 2 lanes northbound; if you enter from the service area, you have to merge left two lanes, while through traffic is also trying to merge left, and exiting traffic is trying to keep right.

You arguably could simplify matters by having the lane drop occur at a combined Service Area / Exit 53 exit, and get rid of the Exit 54 ramp northbound.

kurumi

TIL of the "Pretzel" channelized intersection of US 1, SR 794, CT 146, replaced in 1997. (see Zzyzx's link)

I also prefer option 1 - fewer traffic signals.
My first SF/horror short story collection is available: "Young Man, Open Your Winter Eye"

Duke87

Quote from: kurumi on August 06, 2018, 11:34:31 PM
I also prefer option 1 - fewer traffic signals.

According to the comparison matrix that is the least preferred alternative because it has the greatest ROW requirements and the greatest environmental impact. It also doesn't do as good a job to "promote local growth and development goals", though they don't specify what those goals are.

I imagine something like option 2 is what we're going to get if we get anything since it's consistent with the "build it smaller" mentality that pervades CT along with much of the northeast these days.
If you always take the same road, you will never see anything new.

Mergingtraffic

I still can't believe when CT redid the service plazas on the Merritt and Wilbur Cross they didn't fix the on-off-ramps to them.  I heard the Pkwy Conservancy had a role in that as they didn't allow any changes to the footprints.

It seems to me if this were any other state the on-off-ramps would've been included and updated.
I only take pics of good looking signs. Long live non-reflective button copy!
MergingTraffic https://www.flickr.com/photos/98731835@N05/

MikeCL

Quote from: Mergingtraffic on August 09, 2018, 02:32:45 PM
I still can't believe when CT redid the service plazas on the Merritt and Wilbur Cross they didn't fix the on-off-ramps to them.  I heard the Pkwy Conservancy had a role in that as they didn't allow any changes to the footprints.

It seems to me if this were any other state the on-off-ramps would've been included and updated.
Some of the on ramps are so short it's crazy



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.