Connecticut News

[MultiMillionMiler]

I'm actually in the Darien Rest Area at the moment, I notice they have traffic map displays on the TVs, is this a standard for CT, I haven't seen this at rest areas in other states?

[shadyjay]

IMO the left lane on ramp from CT-17 to CT-9 north (Figure 6 in the CDOT plan) could be more problematic due to the high speed merge, even without the traffic signals. I have less of an issue with the left-lane off-ramp to Rapallo Avenue, although I can easily see traffic backing up on to CT-9 during busy times. This is probably the best of a not ideal situation. I think any alternative would involve impact to the river, and even more $$ than the current plan will cost.

Unfortunately I believe the ramp to Rapallo is off the table and that they're planning on advancing the latest first plan announced, which is sending all traffic via a new roundabout at Washington St & deKoven Drive, site of today's Exit 23/23C/15.  So then everyone trying to reach Portland is going to have to go through a roundabout, go up Washington St for a block, then head up Main St for several blocks to get to the bridge? 

And then there's the issue of the to-be-extended ramp from 17N to 9N.... If CT 17 is still signed this way when all the work is done, traffic will have about 1/8 mile to get over 2 lanes of traffic to just exit again to continue on CT 17.  If it was a "right hand exit", then the merge lane could then just transition to an exit only lane, but still you're not looking at a lot of room to make the transition.  Personally I'd like to see the CT 9/17 South interchange become a SPUI, replacing Exit 23B/14 in the process and providing new access from the south to downtown.  Then you'd extend the pointless 3rd lane SB right to that interchange. 

[connroadgeek]

I'm actually in the Darien Rest Area at the moment, I notice they have traffic map displays on the TVs, is this a standard for CT, I haven't seen this at rest areas in other states?

They put those in when they revamped all of the rest areas about 5-10 years ago. The McDonalds at the Darien rest area is supposedly one of the ten busiest in the world or was before they added more food options as part of the renovations.

[shadyjay]

Yup... here's the clip, which has some interior shots of the service plaza before it was replaced...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-ABWlGn5h8

McDonalds held the contract for the I-95 plazas back then, so the plaza was basically a large McDonalds restaurant, with offshoot vendors (such LaVazza coffee) in place.  The larger plazas also had a gift shop, something that is lacking in the new plazas (though Statement I believe was supposed to be this, but then they were replaced with It's Sugar, and then closed). 

[RobbieL2415]

So, I don't know if it's poor road geometry or just heavy volume in general, but there's always a slowdown on I-84 EB from after Exit 62 to Exit 64-65. Traffic always has difficulty maintaining a consistent speed through that stretch.

and that's a well designed road (especially for CT Standards lol)

It is, but I'm wondering if the volume of traffic, combined with the slight upgrade and banked overpass over Buckland are causing the slowdowns.
The other problem is that traffic will move left to accommodate the heavy merges, but then some drivers will cut across two lanes to get to Exit 63.

The onramp from Buckland St. needs a ramp meter. That would definitely help keep traffic moving. I could have sworn I saw a vehicle counter deployed there in summer 2020.

[Mergingtraffic]

Looks like the DOT wants to remove the I-84 EB Exit 21 off-ramp.  I think it's a good idea as it would allow traffic merging on from CT-8 NB more time to merge.  Currently, the Rehab project made an AUX lane from the CT-8 on-ramp to Exit 22. I think it will stay permanent.  However, that means two original non-reflective button copy signs from the 1960s will be gone.
https://www.newmixwaterbury.com/media/ppidncn5/12930_01_hntb_exit21_v4_english_fact_sheet.pdf


and


The Rehab project also added on an AUX lane for I-84 WB, from the Exit 22 on-ramp to the Exit 21 off-ramp.

[abqtraveler]

Looks like the DOT wants to remove the I-84 EB Exit 21 off-ramp.  I think it's a good idea as it would allow traffic merging on from CT-8 NB more time to merge.  Currently, the Rehab project made an AUX lane from the CT-8 on-ramp to Exit 22. I think it will stay permanent.  However, that means two original non-reflective button copy signs from the 1960s will be gone.
https://www.newmixwaterbury.com/media/ppidncn5/12930_01_hntb_exit21_v4_english_fact_sheet.pdf


and


The Rehab project also added on an AUX lane for I-84 WB, from the Exit 22 on-ramp to the Exit 21 off-ramp.

The auxiliary lane you see in the last picture was supposed to be a separate project from the Mixmaster rehab. In a rare instance where CTDOT actually does something intelligent, they negotiated a price and scope change to the Mixmaster contract to include the WB auxiliary lane project. Doing so, CTDOT avoids having to let another contract and go through a source selection process, and bring a return of construction to this area after the Mixmaster rehab would have been finished.

[kernals12]

ConnDOT is holding a meeting tonight regarding the I-84 Danbury project and meeting materials have already been uploaded.

They've further narrowed their options.

To correct the weave at Exits 3 and 4, they've chosen a new ramp to Segar Street over an extra C/D lane. And for 7 and 8, they've settled on C/D lanes in both directions instead of just EB. They're still undecided on what to do for Exits 5 and 6.

And while they wait for funding for the project some time in the 2030s, they have some other ideas that could be built much sooner, most notably converting the inside shoulder into a part time travel lane and a rebuild of Exit 8.

[abqtraveler]

ConnDOT is holding a meeting tonight regarding the I-84 Danbury project and meeting materials have already been uploaded.

They've further narrowed their options.

To correct the weave at Exits 3 and 4, they've chosen a new ramp to Segar Street over an extra C/D lane. And for 7 and 8, they've settled on C/D lanes in both directions instead of just EB. They're still undecided on what to do for Exits 5 and 6.

And while they wait for funding for the project some time in the 2030s, they have some other ideas that could be built much sooner, most notably converting the inside shoulder into a part time travel lane and a rebuild of Exit 8.

It blows my mind about how log it takes for CTDOT to get a project from initial concept to construction, and they always cite lack of funding. But what I further don't understand is why CTDOT doesn't apply for federal grants, like BUILD or INFRA to at least get the ball rolling on major capital improvements to the highway system. I think CTDOT would get a lot done a lot quicker if they took advantage of the federal programs that are out there, instead of relying on the State Bond Commission borrowing more money and putting Connecticut further into debt. Yes, the BUILD and INFRA grant programs are competitive, but you have no chance of winning if you don't apply. (Kind of reminds me of the Connecticut Lottery's slogan back in the '90s: "You can't win if you don't play").

[Ted$8roadFan]

The City of Middletown has its own ideas for CT-9 within its borders.

https://www.middletownpress.com/news/article/middletown-propose-dot-adding-downtown-exit-route-17824672.php

[Mergingtraffic]

ConnDOT is holding a meeting tonight regarding the I-84 Danbury project and meeting materials have already been uploaded.

They've further narrowed their options.

To correct the weave at Exits 3 and 4, they've chosen a new ramp to Segar Street over an extra C/D lane. And for 7 and 8, they've settled on C/D lanes in both directions instead of just EB. They're still undecided on what to do for Exits 5 and 6.

And while they wait for funding for the project some time in the 2030s, they have some other ideas that could be built much sooner, most notably converting the inside shoulder into a part time travel lane and a rebuild of Exit 8.

It blows my mind about how log it takes for CTDOT to get a project from initial concept to construction, and they always cite lack of funding. But what I further don't understand is why CTDOT doesn't apply for federal grants, like BUILD or INFRA to at least get the ball rolling on major capital improvements to the highway system. I think CTDOT would get a lot done a lot quicker if they took advantage of the federal programs that are out there, instead of relying on the State Bond Commission borrowing more money and putting Connecticut further into debt. Yes, the BUILD and INFRA grant programs are competitive, but you have no chance of winning if you don't apply. (Kind of reminds me of the Connecticut Lottery's slogan back in the '90s: "You can't win if you don't play").

The , in the 2030s they'll have to study it again bc too many years have gone by. Just like with the Waterbury Mixmaster, it was studied in 2007 and here we are again doing the same thing.

[Ted$8roadFan]

ConnDOT is holding a meeting tonight regarding the I-84 Danbury project and meeting materials have already been uploaded.

They've further narrowed their options.

To correct the weave at Exits 3 and 4, they've chosen a new ramp to Segar Street over an extra C/D lane. And for 7 and 8, they've settled on C/D lanes in both directions instead of just EB. They're still undecided on what to do for Exits 5 and 6.

And while they wait for funding for the project some time in the 2030s, they have some other ideas that could be built much sooner, most notably converting the inside shoulder into a part time travel lane and a rebuild of Exit 8.

It blows my mind about how log it takes for CTDOT to get a project from initial concept to construction, and they always cite lack of funding. But what I further don't understand is why CTDOT doesn't apply for federal grants, like BUILD or INFRA to at least get the ball rolling on major capital improvements to the highway system. I think CTDOT would get a lot done a lot quicker if they took advantage of the federal programs that are out there, instead of relying on the State Bond Commission borrowing more money and putting Connecticut further into debt. Yes, the BUILD and INFRA grant programs are competitive, but you have no chance of winning if you don't apply. (Kind of reminds me of the Connecticut Lottery's slogan back in the '90s: "You can't win if you don't play").

The funny thing is, in the 1980s and 1990s, Connecticut was at the forefront of highway construction and improvements following the Mianus River Bridge collapse. Now they've done a complete 180.

[abqtraveler]

ConnDOT is holding a meeting tonight regarding the I-84 Danbury project and meeting materials have already been uploaded.

They've further narrowed their options.

To correct the weave at Exits 3 and 4, they've chosen a new ramp to Segar Street over an extra C/D lane. And for 7 and 8, they've settled on C/D lanes in both directions instead of just EB. They're still undecided on what to do for Exits 5 and 6.

And while they wait for funding for the project some time in the 2030s, they have some other ideas that could be built much sooner, most notably converting the inside shoulder into a part time travel lane and a rebuild of Exit 8.

It blows my mind about how log it takes for CTDOT to get a project from initial concept to construction, and they always cite lack of funding. But what I further don't understand is why CTDOT doesn't apply for federal grants, like BUILD or INFRA to at least get the ball rolling on major capital improvements to the highway system. I think CTDOT would get a lot done a lot quicker if they took advantage of the federal programs that are out there, instead of relying on the State Bond Commission borrowing more money and putting Connecticut further into debt. Yes, the BUILD and INFRA grant programs are competitive, but you have no chance of winning if you don't apply. (Kind of reminds me of the Connecticut Lottery's slogan back in the '90s: "You can't win if you don't play").

The funny thing is, in the 1980s and 1990s, Connecticut was at the forefront of highway construction and improvements following the Mianus River Bridge collapse. Now they've done a complete 180.

How Connecticut ended up being flush with cash for highway repair/modernization projects in the '80s and '90s was thanks to the state cancelling a number of freeway projects for which federal funds had been earmarked, and Congress authorized Connecticut to redirect those funds to perform an overhaul to its existing highway network.

[bob7374]

Possible bad news for those looking forward to exit renumbering along CT 15. The 3/3/23 version of the schedule of advertised projects no longer includes a project for that route. The sign replacement project for I-291 is to be advertised on December 20. Projects for sign replacements on I-84 and I-384/US 6 are still listed.
https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOT/documents/dfiscalprojects/advschedule11-2021.pdf

[abqtraveler]

Possible bad news for those looking forward to exit renumbering along CT 15. The 3/3/23 version of the schedule of advertised projects no longer includes a project for that route. The sign replacement project for I-291 is to be advertised on December 20. Projects for sign replacements on I-84 and I-384/US 6 are still listed.
https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOT/documents/dfiscalprojects/advschedule11-2021.pdf

Interested to see if they add exit numbers to the Windham Bypass, and what those numbers would be.

[RobbieL2415]

Possible bad news for those looking forward to exit renumbering along CT 15. The 3/3/23 version of the schedule of advertised projects no longer includes a project for that route. The sign replacement project for I-291 is to be advertised on December 20. Projects for sign replacements on I-84 and I-384/US 6 are still listed.
https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOT/documents/dfiscalprojects/advschedule11-2021.pdf

Except for some extruded aluminum signs, everything on I-291 is original to the 1994 opening.

[MATraveler128]

Possible bad news for those looking forward to exit renumbering along CT 15. The 3/3/23 version of the schedule of advertised projects no longer includes a project for that route. The sign replacement project for I-291 is to be advertised on December 20. Projects for sign replacements on I-84 and I-384/US 6 are still listed.
https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOT/documents/dfiscalprojects/advschedule11-2021.pdf

Interested to see if they add exit numbers to the Windham Bypass, and what those numbers would be.

I'd say that the Willimantic Bypass is so short that they probably wouldn't even bother adding numbers to it, but if they did, I'd assume they'd be numbered 90, 92, and 93. Either way, looks like CT 15 is stuck with that goofy exit sequence for quite some time.

[abqtraveler]

Possible bad news for those looking forward to exit renumbering along CT 15. The 3/3/23 version of the schedule of advertised projects no longer includes a project for that route. The sign replacement project for I-291 is to be advertised on December 20. Projects for sign replacements on I-84 and I-384/US 6 are still listed.
https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOT/documents/dfiscalprojects/advschedule11-2021.pdf

Interested to see if they add exit numbers to the Windham Bypass, and what those numbers would be.

I'd say that the Willimantic Bypass is so short that they probably wouldn't even bother adding numbers to it, but if they did, I'd assume they'd be numbered 90, 92, and 93. Either way, looks like CT 15 is stuck with that goofy exit sequence for quite some time.

If I were to wager a guess, I would bet the Merritt Parkway Conservancy is fighting any sort of exit renumbering of the Merritt Parkway, for the same reasons they've fought against completing the interchange with Route 7 and other proposed improvements. "It's historic! We have to leave it the way it is!"

[connroadgeek]

If I were to wager a guess, I would bet the Merritt Parkway Conservancy is fighting any sort of exit renumbering of the Merritt Parkway, for the same reasons they've fought against completing the interchange with Route 7 and other proposed improvements. "It's historic! We have to leave it the way it is!"

That'll work about as well as Cape Cod's fight on the route 6 renumbering. Connecticut has dragged its feet seemingly more than any other state on renumbering. Maybe they were hoping to wait it out such that the standard would get repealed, become optional, or the feds would simply just forget about Connecticut after almost all others switched over.

[RobbieL2415]

Possible bad news for those looking forward to exit renumbering along CT 15. The 3/3/23 version of the schedule of advertised projects no longer includes a project for that route. The sign replacement project for I-291 is to be advertised on December 20. Projects for sign replacements on I-84 and I-384/US 6 are still listed.
https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOT/documents/dfiscalprojects/advschedule11-2021.pdf

Interested to see if they add exit numbers to the Windham Bypass, and what those numbers would be.

I'd say that the Willimantic Bypass is so short that they probably wouldn't even bother adding numbers to it, but if they did, I'd assume they'd be numbered 90, 92, and 93. Either way, looks like CT 15 is stuck with that goofy exit sequence for quite some time.

If I were to wager a guess, I would bet the Merritt Parkway Conservancy is fighting any sort of exit renumbering of the Merritt Parkway, for the same reasons they've fought against completing the interchange with Route 7 and other proposed improvements. "It's historic! We have to leave it the way it is!"

The Conservancy doesn't control the Wilbur Cross Highway portion of 5/15. Those exits could very well end up renumbered without their input.

[SectorZ]

Possible bad news for those looking forward to exit renumbering along CT 15. The 3/3/23 version of the schedule of advertised projects no longer includes a project for that route. The sign replacement project for I-291 is to be advertised on December 20. Projects for sign replacements on I-84 and I-384/US 6 are still listed.
https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOT/documents/dfiscalprojects/advschedule11-2021.pdf

Interested to see if they add exit numbers to the Windham Bypass, and what those numbers would be.

I'd say that the Willimantic Bypass is so short that they probably wouldn't even bother adding numbers to it, but if they did, I'd assume they'd be numbered 90, 92, and 93. Either way, looks like CT 15 is stuck with that goofy exit sequence for quite some time.

If I were to wager a guess, I would bet the Merritt Parkway Conservancy is fighting any sort of exit renumbering of the Merritt Parkway, for the same reasons they've fought against completing the interchange with Route 7 and other proposed improvements. "It's historic! We have to leave it the way it is!"

The Conservancy doesn't control the Wilbur Cross Highway portion of 5/15. Those exits could very well end up renumbered without their input.

That would be a totally New England way to handle it, jumping from exit 53 to 61 in one mile.

[Rothman]

If I were to wager a guess, I would bet the Merritt Parkway Conservancy is fighting any sort of exit renumbering of the Merritt Parkway, for the same reasons they've fought against completing the interchange with Route 7 and other proposed improvements. "It's historic! We have to leave it the way it is!"

That'll work about as well as Cape Cod's fight on the route 6 renumbering. Connecticut has dragged its feet seemingly more than any other state on renumbering. Maybe they were hoping to wait it out such that the standard would get repealed, become optional, or the feds would simply just forget about Connecticut after almost all others switched over.

*NY waves hello*

[Ted$8roadFan]

If I were to wager a guess, I would bet the Merritt Parkway Conservancy is fighting any sort of exit renumbering of the Merritt Parkway, for the same reasons they've fought against completing the interchange with Route 7 and other proposed improvements. "It's historic! We have to leave it the way it is!"

That'll work about as well as Cape Cod's fight on the route 6 renumbering. Connecticut has dragged its feet seemingly more than any other state on renumbering. Maybe they were hoping to wait it out such that the standard would get repealed, become optional, or the feds would simply just forget about Connecticut after almost all others switched over.

*NY waves hello*

I think VT and NH would also wave hello.

[MATraveler128]

If I were to wager a guess, I would bet the Merritt Parkway Conservancy is fighting any sort of exit renumbering of the Merritt Parkway, for the same reasons they've fought against completing the interchange with Route 7 and other proposed improvements. "It's historic! We have to leave it the way it is!"

That'll work about as well as Cape Cod's fight on the route 6 renumbering. Connecticut has dragged its feet seemingly more than any other state on renumbering. Maybe they were hoping to wait it out such that the standard would get repealed, become optional, or the feds would simply just forget about Connecticut after almost all others switched over.

*NY waves hello*

I think VT and NH would also wave hello.

New Hampshire wants to convert, but they’ll have to wait until Sununu is out of office to do so, whenever that may be. Vermont just half assed the conversion and I couldn’t help but think of the confusion for travelers as I went to Vermont recently.

[jp the roadgeek]

Possible bad news for those looking forward to exit renumbering along CT 15. The 3/3/23 version of the schedule of advertised projects no longer includes a project for that route. The sign replacement project for I-291 is to be advertised on December 20. Projects for sign replacements on I-84 and I-384/US 6 are still listed.
https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOT/documents/dfiscalprojects/advschedule11-2021.pdf

Interested to see if they add exit numbers to the Windham Bypass, and what those numbers would be.

I'd say that the Willimantic Bypass is so short that they probably wouldn't even bother adding numbers to it, but if they did, I'd assume they'd be numbered 90, 92, and 93. Either way, looks like CT 15 is stuck with that goofy exit sequence for quite some time.

If I were to wager a guess, I would bet the Merritt Parkway Conservancy is fighting any sort of exit renumbering of the Merritt Parkway, for the same reasons they've fought against completing the interchange with Route 7 and other proposed improvements. "It's historic! We have to leave it the way it is!"

The Conservancy doesn't control the Wilbur Cross Highway portion of 5/15. Those exits could very well end up renumbered without their input.

That would be a totally New England way to handle it, jumping from exit 53 to 61 in one mile.

Would actually go back from 53 to 37 after the Sikorsky heading NB