Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[DJStephens]

The CT2030 site is now live with a comprehensive list of state highway and mass transit projects:

https://www.ct2030.com/

Written for a sixth grader.  The lack of engineering details is glaring.   "No parent should be late to pick up their child due to a traffic light in the middle of a busy highway"  Arent' they planning on doing just that - on US 7 near state route 15?  Yeesh.   

[zzyzx]

Yeah I don't like the way it's written at all.  The future tense writing is annoying.  Just give us the details with a realistic timeframe without talking about how much less congestion the improvements will bring.  No one has even lifted a shovel yet--do you really think realigning an exit ramp or widening a bridge will make that much of a difference in traffic?

I would really be surprised if all of these major projects got completed by 2030.

Also, buried somewhere in the site is the updated "user fee" list (aka the bridges Lamont is thinking of tolling)

The CT2030 site is now live with a comprehensive list of state highway and mass transit projects:

https://www.ct2030.com/

Written for a sixth grader.  The lack of engineering details is glaring.   "No parent should be late to pick up their child due to a traffic light in the middle of a busy highway"  Arent' they planning on doing just that - on US 7 near state route 15?  Yeesh.

[kurumi]

I'd like to see diagrams, even if not yet to scale, of what they plan to do. New ramps, widened roadways, and so on.

For example, untangling the 2/3/17 mess in Glastonbury -- would they revise the 2/17 interchange so that 17 exits and enters from the right? (this could have easily been done in 1964 when CT 2 opened but that's water under the crumbling narrow bridge)

[vdeane]

Too bad they don't say when specific projects will get done.  Especially the user fee ones - I'd like to structure my clinching activities in CT to be done before those tolls go live.  I don't like how CT is basically tolling most of the freeways in the state - including one owned/maintained by NYSDOT!

[PHLBOS]

I don't like how CT is basically tolling most of the freeways in the state - including one owned/maintained by NYSDOT!

According to the CT2030 website (is such incorrect?), the I-684 bridge over the Byram River in Greenwich, CT is maintained by CTDOT.  I'm assuming that's what you're referring to.

However & FWIW: Wiki account of I-684

The short section of I-684 in Connecticut is owned by the Connecticut Department of Transportation, but maintenance and repairs to the stretch are performed by the New York State Department of Transportation, with the cost of maintenance being reimbursed to New York by Connecticut.

Given the comments on this thread regarding the sloppiness of CT2030's write-up; this is one where the Wiki account might be more accurate regarding CT's I-684.

That said, I have not heard anything about CT attempting to place tolls on I-684.  I don't think they can do such given its lack of connection to any other road in CT.  The so-called toll revenue for such work will likely come from tolls along longer stretches of CT Interstates if implemented.

[vdeane]

I don't like how CT is basically tolling most of the freeways in the state - including one owned/maintained by NYSDOT!

According to the CT2030 website (is such incorrect?), the I-684 bridge over the Byram River in Greenwich, CT is maintained by CTDOT.  I'm assuming that's what you're referring to.

However & FWIW: Wiki account of I-684

The short section of I-684 in Connecticut is owned by the Connecticut Department of Transportation, but maintenance and repairs to the stretch are performed by the New York State Department of Transportation, with the cost of maintenance being reimbursed to New York by Connecticut.

Given the comments on this thread regarding the sloppiness of CT2030's write-up; this is one where the Wiki account might be more accurate regarding CT's I-684.

That said, I have not heard anything about CT attempting to place tolls on I-684.  I don't think they can do such given its lack of connection to any other road in CT.  The so-called toll revenue for such work will likely come from tolls along longer stretches of CT Interstates if implemented.

I think RIS had the road under NYSDOT last I looked, but I didn't check the bridge inventory.  The $0.50 toll is listed on the user fees PDF.  IMO CT charging people for what is otherwise a NY interstate is really a dick move.

[Mergingtraffic]

The website mentioned this:

Farmington: I-84, Route 9, Route 4, Traffic Circulation Enhancements
Total Estimated Cost: $110-140 Million

Commuter Benefits: Use existing road that is unfinished to connect to Route 4. This eases congestion by providing another option for drivers.

There is a partially built, but unused section of highway which could connect Farmington all the way to Route 4 from Route 9 and I-84. This will lead to the opening of a pressure valve for some of the local traffic in Farmington by utilizing the unused roadway, and providing access to another thoroughfare.

Does that mean utilize the stack?

[kurumi]

The website mentioned this:

Farmington: I-84, Route 9, Route 4, Traffic Circulation Enhancements
Total Estimated Cost: $110-140 Million

Commuter Benefits: Use existing road that is unfinished to connect to Route 4. This eases congestion by providing another option for drivers.

There is a partially built, but unused section of highway which could connect Farmington all the way to Route 4 from Route 9 and I-84. This will lead to the opening of a pressure valve for some of the local traffic in Farmington by utilizing the unused roadway, and providing access to another thoroughfare.

Does that mean utilize the stack?

That's how I understand it. Satellite view implies there's a clear ROW (no buildings, no reservoirs) from the stack stub to CT 4. They're probably planning a signalized intersection at the terminus; doing a terminal interchange would probably require some property acquisition.

[Alps]

The website mentioned this:

Farmington: I-84, Route 9, Route 4, Traffic Circulation Enhancements
Total Estimated Cost: $110-140 Million

Commuter Benefits: Use existing road that is unfinished to connect to Route 4. This eases congestion by providing another option for drivers.

There is a partially built, but unused section of highway which could connect Farmington all the way to Route 4 from Route 9 and I-84. This will lead to the opening of a pressure valve for some of the local traffic in Farmington by utilizing the unused roadway, and providing access to another thoroughfare.

Does that mean utilize the stack?

Finish 11 first! But wow.

[Duke87]

I'd like to see diagrams, even if not yet to scale, of what they plan to do. New ramps, widened roadways, and so on.

You don't see this because these details have not been decided. All of these projects still need to go through alternatives analysis and design before any less vague info is available.


As for the idea of tying a short connector roadway into the unused half of the 84/9 stack... yeeeaaah I'm filing that under "I'll believe it when I see it"

[Mergingtraffic]

I'd like to see diagrams, even if not yet to scale, of what they plan to do. New ramps, widened roadways, and so on.

You don't see this because these details have not been decided. All of these projects still need to go through alternatives analysis and design before any less vague info is available.


As for the idea of tying a short connector roadway into the unused half of the 84/9 stack... yeeeaaah I'm filing that under "I'll believe it when I see it"

Exactly, this is the same state that is the poster child for NIMBY.  The poster child project is the Merritt/US-7 interchange.  They want to remove stoplights on CT-9 and potentially put them on US-7.  Makes no sense and no consistency.

Here's an update on the US-7/Merritt interchange.  How 28 alternatives were originally on the table and the stoplight one made the final 2 is beyond me.  Look at the PAC Composition.  It's all these bike/ped, historical, groups. 

http://7-15norwalk.com/documents/2019_10_23-Route7-15-PIM2.pdf

[jp the roadgeek]

As for the CT 9 extension from The Stack to Route 4: my guess is that with the residential areas nearby, we would probably see something like the 72 extension in Bristol: a 4 lane divided boulevard with hopefully a grade separation at Middle Rd. 

[PHLBOS]

I don't like how CT is basically tolling most of the freeways in the state - including one owned/maintained by NYSDOT!

According to the CT2030 website (is such incorrect?), the I-684 bridge over the Byram River in Greenwich, CT is maintained by CTDOT.  I'm assuming that's what you're referring to.

However & FWIW: Wiki account of I-684

The short section of I-684 in Connecticut is owned by the Connecticut Department of Transportation, but maintenance and repairs to the stretch are performed by the New York State Department of Transportation, with the cost of maintenance being reimbursed to New York by Connecticut.

Given the comments on this thread regarding the sloppiness of CT2030's write-up; this is one where the Wiki account might be more accurate regarding CT's I-684.

That said, I have not heard anything about CT attempting to place tolls on I-684.  I don't think they can do such given its lack of connection to any other road in CT.  The so-called toll revenue for such work will likely come from tolls along longer stretches of CT Interstates if implemented.

I think RIS had the road under NYSDOT last I looked, but I didn't check the bridge inventory.  The $0.50 toll is listed on the user fees PDF.  IMO CT charging people for what is otherwise a NY interstate is really a dick move.

Apparently NY State drivers have since gotten wind of such and are understandably not too happy about it.
New York drivers outraged over Connecticut toll proposal

It could be argued that placing a toll along that segment of I-684 would be considered a border toll; which is presently prohibited by federal law (placing tolls at the borders of existing free Interstates) even under the current allowable circumstances.  Gov. Lamont may very well be jumping the shark at least with this particular part of the plan.

I must've missed something along the way... has Gov. Lamont's tolling plan for existing free Interstates in CT actually been approved by the feds... yet?  Or are they (CT) still deciding on where to place such?  It's almost as if the Governor's trying to throw tolls on every highway to see what sticks/gets approved.

[cl94]

I don't see 684 actually getting tolled. Why do I say this? Well, such a toll would be VERY easy to shunpike via NY 22 and NY 120, which would make that area a traffic nightmare. It would probably cost NYSDOT less to pay for the damn bridge replacement themselves than to deal with the consequences of shunpiking.

It could be argued that placing a toll along that segment of I-684 would be considered a border toll; which is presently prohibited by federal law (placing tolls at the borders of existing free Interstates) even under the current allowable circumstances.  Gov. Lamont may very well be jumping the shark at least with this particular part of the plan.

I was thinking this. The new RI tolls are placed such that there is a free exit beforehand. New border tolls are only allowed under very specific circumstances, which this is VERY iffy about. 684 would also be a pass-through toll, which in itself is horrible optics.

[PHLBOS]

It could be argued that placing a toll along that segment of I-684 would be considered a border toll; which is presently prohibited by federal law (placing tolls at the borders of existing free Interstates) even under the current allowable circumstances.  Gov. Lamont may very well be jumping the shark at least with this particular part of the plan.

I was thinking this. The new RI tolls are placed such that there is a free exit beforehand. New border tolls are only allowed under very specific circumstances, which this is VERY iffy about. 684 would also be a pass-through toll, which in itself is horrible optics.

IIRC, the RI truck-only tolls are placed throughout the length of the highways; so, in theory, the entire road's being tolled (for trucks) not just at/inside the state line.

As far as I know the only case(s) where new border tolls are allowed are for either new water crossings (although RI residents actually forced RIDOT to drop the planned-toll along RI 24's new Sakonnet River Bridge a few years ago) or brand new toll roads (US 301 Expressway in DE).  Given that this short I-684 bridge in CT is more of an overpass/viaduct variety (we're not talking something of Tappan Zee or even Scudder Falls caliber here); using the new water crossing argument to justify placing tolls is stretching things a bit IMHO.

[Mergingtraffic]

Shadyjay and a few others would appreciate (or not) this:

Update on the CT-8 signing project, looks like all the BGSs for the on-ramps are being replaced with LGSs.  UGH! 

These new LGSs are only held up by two flimsy poles and no z-bars in the back.  Some signs are already curving.  CT DOT did something similar with the "HOSPITAL Exit 35" sign on I-84 West.  It used to be a BBS and was replaced with a LBS. Are they being cheap?  Will all new projects be like this?  I noticed in the past few years when there was a sign such as "I-84 East Waterbury NEXT LEFT" or "NEXT RIGHT" BGS on a side road and a new signing project came through those signs were just replaced by shield trailblazers.

[KEVIN_224]

@PHLBOS:  I played that tolling story from FOX 5 New York. Although they're talking about I-684 in Greenwich, we both know what area is being shown from about :46 to :48 in...

I-90/Massachusetts Turnpike West, between the Prudential Tunnel and by Boston University (Agganis Arena?). Perhaps some of the video was taken from WTIC-TV (FOX) channel 61 of Hartford? They and others here nearly always show the Turnpike at some point.

[shadyjay]

Shadyjay and a few others would appreciate (or not) this:

Update on the CT-8 signing project, looks like all the BGSs for the on-ramps are being replaced with LGSs.  UGH! 

Good god!  That is awful... it looks temporary.  I hope it is, considering I see the CBYD markings in front of the old sign, on the pavement, so there is hope.  But why? 

I went back and checked the plans.  The plans indeed show the onramp signage as shown above to be sheet aluminum signs, mounted on the two posts.  So then I checked other projects since this one... CT 8 Bridgeport-Shelton, CT 9, and they all show the "extruded aluminum" logo in the plans for onramp signs.  So perhaps this was just a plan oversight.  Or perhaps there was a change in the contract for Derby-Waterbury that restored the "extruded aluminum" to guide signs, hence why the fresh CBYD "new sign" paint in front of the old sign. 

I've been busy with work lately, and with the time change, its harder to get out and do a quick trip to check progress.  I've been doing more long-distance work trips lately, with another tomorrow (to western PA). 

[jp the roadgeek]

And once again, CTDOT is using the black borders on signage for state route shields.  Still have yet to figure out why some don’t and why some do.

[Alps]

And once again, CTDOT is using the black borders on signage for state route shields.  Still have yet to figure out why some don’t and why some do.

None should. Black should only be the outermost color on a light background.

[PHLBOS]

@PHLBOS:  I played that tolling story from FOX 5 New York. Although they're talking about I-684 in Greenwich, we both know what area is being shown from about :46 to :48 in...

I-90/Massachusetts Turnpike West, between the Prudential Tunnel and by Boston University (Agganis Arena?). Perhaps some of the video was taken from WTIC-TV (FOX) channel 61 of Hartford? They and others here nearly always show the Turnpike at some point.

Sadly, such faux pas isn't just a CT thing.  I can not tell you the number of times I've seen articles/videos regarding the PA Turnpike but the pics/video footage is that of the NJ Turnpike... and vice-versa.

More classic video faux pas in news stories are more prevalent in aviation/airport-related subjects.  They'll either show stock footage of a long-discontinued airliner (example: Boeing 727) and/or a discontinued airline (Northwest, Continental and/or USAir/US Airways).

[roadman]

Shadyjay and a few others would appreciate (or not) this:

Update on the CT-8 signing project, looks like all the BGSs for the on-ramps are being replaced with LGSs.  UGH! 

These new LGSs are only held up by two flimsy poles and no z-bars in the back.  Some signs are already curving.  CT DOT did something similar with the "HOSPITAL Exit 35" sign on I-84 West.  It used to be a BBS and was replaced with a LBS. Are they being cheap?  Will all new projects be like this?  I noticed in the past few years when there was a sign such as "I-84 East Waterbury NEXT LEFT" or "NEXT RIGHT" BGS on a side road and a new signing project came through those signs were just replaced by shield trailblazers.

Twin U-channel posts are good for a maximum load of 20 sf.  That new Waterbury sign is obviously larger than that, which means it will eventually fail.

[RobbieL2415]

El cheapo signage is nothing new for ConnDOT.  Alternate route signage and some attraction signage is just sheet metal.

[cl94]

More classic video faux pas in news stories are more prevalent in aviation/airport-related subjects.  They'll either show stock footage of a long-discontinued airliner (example: Boeing 727) and/or a discontinued airline (Northwest, Continental and/or USAir/US Airways).

My favorite is when they show a 737 or 747 for everything. I see 747 footage/pictures all the time for airlines that no longer fly them.

[US 89]

And once again, CTDOT is using the black borders on signage for state route shields.  Still have yet to figure out why some don’t and why some do.

None should. Black should only be the outermost color on a light background.

So you're saying stuff like this isn't allowed? How long has that been the case?