News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

Connecticut News

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

Previous topic - Next topic

abqtraveler

Quote from: kurumi on November 19, 2022, 12:12:57 AM
Click on "Learn More" and the map for Concept 14 (C/D road between exit 7 (US 7/202) and exit 8 (US 6)).

There's a partial diverging diamond shown for the exit 8 ramps to and from the west.
Interesting how they included a detailed description of the bypass/tunnel concept that for obvious reasons, didn't advance beyond the initial screening process. When preparing the EIS, you need some kind of "throw away" alternative just so you can say you did your due diligence in analyzing a range of alternatives under NEPA.

IMHO, it would have been pretty cool if they had moved the bypass/tunnel option forward to construction, but in Connecticut, something like that would never happen in this day and age.
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


DJStephens


seicer

Quote from: connroadgeek on November 30, 2022, 07:47:43 AM
ConnDOT and their bargain basement signs. Guess Connecticut can't afford the nicer ones like they have in New York and Florida. Connecticut's cheapness in electronic signs extends to those at the train stations as well. The message on that sign though is all too common :-(

I mean, things break, but this electronic sign is still commonplace. I find more of an issue with its size - it barely fits the message it needs to convey inside an already small frame that's been diluted further with horizontal black bars.

West Virginia installed multi-LED signs in the medians (and some over the highway) some years back. They were smaller than what I would have expected but the clarity in the display made up for that. Replacements for those median-mounted signs are much larger and often over the highway.

DJStephens

Quote from: shadyjay on November 24, 2022, 09:50:50 PM
CT 9 resigning update:

Happy Thanksgiving!  Sometime in the past couple days, these went up:

20221124_144415

... and this came down...

20221124_144354 by Jay Hogan, on Flickr

...revealing this...

20221124_144458 by Jay Hogan, on Flickr

Have to wonder, why is replacement of the entire gantry structure necessary?  Can understand signs themselves fade and lose legibility over time, but the gantry itself?    Salt spray on concrete bases and the attaching bolts?  That I could understand, in that climate, but if they are in good condition, why replace?   

abqtraveler

Quote from: DJStephens on December 03, 2022, 10:18:20 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on November 24, 2022, 09:50:50 PM
CT 9 resigning update:

Happy Thanksgiving!  Sometime in the past couple days, these went up:

20221124_144415

... and this came down...

20221124_144354 by Jay Hogan, on Flickr

...revealing this...

20221124_144458 by Jay Hogan, on Flickr

Have to wonder, why is replacement of the entire gantry structure necessary?  Can understand signs themselves fade and lose legibility over time, but the gantry itself?    Salt spray on concrete bases and the attaching bolts?  That I could understand, in that climate, but if they are in good condition, why replace?
The gantries date back to when the Route 9 freeway was originally built, back in the late '60s/early '70s timeframe, meaning they're 50 years old. They've seen a lot of wear-and-tear and have reached the end of their service life, which is why they're being replaced.
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

connroadgeek

#5205
Why is ConnDOT getting rid of the second city? No more New London/Providence and New Haven/NYC. Is there some change to MUTCD that allows only one control city now?

jp the roadgeek

I did find some information on page 21 of the document (page 22 of the PDF).  The only error is that Hartford, and not East Hartford is used for I-384, and Newington is omitted from CT 9

https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOT/documents/dtrafficdesign/SigningGuidelinespdf.pdf
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

Took a drive on CT 9 yesterday (and part of CT 72) to observe any sign replacement progress.  As far as the northern and central contracts go... little progress, if any, observed since my last travels a month ago.  No sheet aluminums yet, still missing the same half dozen overheads in each direction, etc etc.  (Same goes for Rt 72).  However, it looks like progress is being made on the fiber project for expanding traffic cameras and such. 

Most of the progress was in the southern contract.  Heading north, I observed a crew replacing a [former]Exit 6 1 mile advance and on the truck they had the replacement for [former]Exit 8.  Also, between raindrops, caught the new [former]Exit 7 overhead finally installed, southbound:

20221206_160457 by Jay Hogan, on Flickr

We're still waiting on delivery of the "ATTRACTIONS" sign, and most likely the new [former]Exit 11 overhead SB, then this project will essentially be done south of Middletown proper (though there are still some panels to be replaced through Acheson Drive). 

And we're still waiting for the big reveal as far as exit numbers go.  If they're waiting until the central and northern projects are complete, then we may be waiting awhile. 

kernals12

The Danbury I-84 Project Advisory Committee is whittling down ideas.

At their August 24 meeting, they announced they skipped over the proposal to split 84/7 into local and express lanes in favor of a simple lane addition (which would also eliminate the left hand ramps at Interchange 3 and 7), which was the least expensive option and provided the most congestion relief.

At their October 10 meeting, they had this update on the planned interchange improvements.

For Interchanges 3 and 4, they have yet to decide how to fix the weave on 84 EB, one idea would be to add a new ramp to Seger street, the other is to add a new C-D road for Exit 4 access.

In the center segment around Interchanges 5 and 6, they eliminated the idea of an interchange with new C-D roads between Tamarack and North Street due to the large amount of property acquisition needed. They have 3 options, the main objective in this segment is better access to Danbury Hospital:
1. Eliminating the half interchange at North Street and building a new full interchange at Tamarack
2. Supplementing the half interchange at North Street, which currently has an EB on-ramp and WB off-ramp with another half interchange with an EB off-ramp and WB on-ramp at Great Plain Road
3. Building an EB C-D road between Interchanges 5 and 6 and converting Interchange 6 to full access with a WB on-ramp

Finally, for the eastern segment around Interchanges 7 and 8, they are undecided between C-D roads in both directions or just going WB.

abqtraveler

Quote from: kernals12 on December 15, 2022, 09:28:37 PM
The Danbury I-84 Project Advisory Committee is whittling down ideas.

At their August 24 meeting, they announced they skipped over the proposal to split 84/7 into local and express lanes in favor of a simple lane addition (which would also eliminate the left hand ramps at Interchange 3 and 7), which was the least expensive option and provided the most congestion relief.

At their October 10 meeting, they had this update on the planned interchange improvements.

For Interchanges 3 and 4, they have yet to decide how to fix the weave on 84 EB, one idea would be to add a new ramp to Seger street, the other is to add a new C-D road for Exit 4 access.

In the center segment around Interchanges 5 and 6, they eliminated the idea of an interchange with new C-D roads between Tamarack and North Street due to the large amount of property acquisition needed. They have 3 options, the main objective in this segment is better access to Danbury Hospital:
1. Eliminating the half interchange at North Street and building a new full interchange at Tamarack
2. Supplementing the half interchange at North Street, which currently has an EB on-ramp and WB off-ramp with another half interchange with an EB off-ramp and WB on-ramp at Great Plain Road
3. Building an EB C-D road between Interchanges 5 and 6 and converting Interchange 6 to full access with a WB on-ramp

Finally, for the eastern segment around Interchanges 7 and 8, they are undecided between C-D roads in both directions or just going WB.
I would think braided ramps at Exits 3/4 and 7/8 in both directions would be the best solution to eliminate the weaving conditions that cause a lot of crashes in those areas.
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

kernals12

Quote from: abqtraveler on December 18, 2022, 02:03:02 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on December 15, 2022, 09:28:37 PM
The Danbury I-84 Project Advisory Committee is whittling down ideas.

At their August 24 meeting, they announced they skipped over the proposal to split 84/7 into local and express lanes in favor of a simple lane addition (which would also eliminate the left hand ramps at Interchange 3 and 7), which was the least expensive option and provided the most congestion relief.

At their October 10 meeting, they had this update on the planned interchange improvements.

For Interchanges 3 and 4, they have yet to decide how to fix the weave on 84 EB, one idea would be to add a new ramp to Seger street, the other is to add a new C-D road for Exit 4 access.

In the center segment around Interchanges 5 and 6, they eliminated the idea of an interchange with new C-D roads between Tamarack and North Street due to the large amount of property acquisition needed. They have 3 options, the main objective in this segment is better access to Danbury Hospital:
1. Eliminating the half interchange at North Street and building a new full interchange at Tamarack
2. Supplementing the half interchange at North Street, which currently has an EB on-ramp and WB off-ramp with another half interchange with an EB off-ramp and WB on-ramp at Great Plain Road
3. Building an EB C-D road between Interchanges 5 and 6 and converting Interchange 6 to full access with a WB on-ramp

Finally, for the eastern segment around Interchanges 7 and 8, they are undecided between C-D roads in both directions or just going WB.
I would think braided ramps at Exits 3/4 and 7/8 in both directions would be the best solution to eliminate the weaving conditions that cause a lot of crashes in those areas.
Braided ramps are expensive.

abqtraveler

Quote from: kernals12 on December 19, 2022, 01:28:09 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on December 18, 2022, 02:03:02 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on December 15, 2022, 09:28:37 PM
The Danbury I-84 Project Advisory Committee is whittling down ideas.

At their August 24 meeting, they announced they skipped over the proposal to split 84/7 into local and express lanes in favor of a simple lane addition (which would also eliminate the left hand ramps at Interchange 3 and 7), which was the least expensive option and provided the most congestion relief.

At their October 10 meeting, they had this update on the planned interchange improvements.

For Interchanges 3 and 4, they have yet to decide how to fix the weave on 84 EB, one idea would be to add a new ramp to Seger street, the other is to add a new C-D road for Exit 4 access.

In the center segment around Interchanges 5 and 6, they eliminated the idea of an interchange with new C-D roads between Tamarack and North Street due to the large amount of property acquisition needed. They have 3 options, the main objective in this segment is better access to Danbury Hospital:
1. Eliminating the half interchange at North Street and building a new full interchange at Tamarack
2. Supplementing the half interchange at North Street, which currently has an EB on-ramp and WB off-ramp with another half interchange with an EB off-ramp and WB on-ramp at Great Plain Road
3. Building an EB C-D road between Interchanges 5 and 6 and converting Interchange 6 to full access with a WB on-ramp

Finally, for the eastern segment around Interchanges 7 and 8, they are undecided between C-D roads in both directions or just going WB.
I would think braided ramps at Exits 3/4 and 7/8 in both directions would be the best solution to eliminate the weaving conditions that cause a lot of crashes in those areas.
Braided ramps are expensive.
All the options for fixing I-84 through Danbury are going to be expensive. There are no cheap solutions to untangling that mess.
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

kernals12

Quote from: abqtraveler on December 19, 2022, 02:52:18 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on December 19, 2022, 01:28:09 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on December 18, 2022, 02:03:02 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on December 15, 2022, 09:28:37 PM
The Danbury I-84 Project Advisory Committee is whittling down ideas.

At their August 24 meeting, they announced they skipped over the proposal to split 84/7 into local and express lanes in favor of a simple lane addition (which would also eliminate the left hand ramps at Interchange 3 and 7), which was the least expensive option and provided the most congestion relief.

At their October 10 meeting, they had this update on the planned interchange improvements.

For Interchanges 3 and 4, they have yet to decide how to fix the weave on 84 EB, one idea would be to add a new ramp to Seger street, the other is to add a new C-D road for Exit 4 access.

In the center segment around Interchanges 5 and 6, they eliminated the idea of an interchange with new C-D roads between Tamarack and North Street due to the large amount of property acquisition needed. They have 3 options, the main objective in this segment is better access to Danbury Hospital:
1. Eliminating the half interchange at North Street and building a new full interchange at Tamarack
2. Supplementing the half interchange at North Street, which currently has an EB on-ramp and WB off-ramp with another half interchange with an EB off-ramp and WB on-ramp at Great Plain Road
3. Building an EB C-D road between Interchanges 5 and 6 and converting Interchange 6 to full access with a WB on-ramp

Finally, for the eastern segment around Interchanges 7 and 8, they are undecided between C-D roads in both directions or just going WB.
I would think braided ramps at Exits 3/4 and 7/8 in both directions would be the best solution to eliminate the weaving conditions that cause a lot of crashes in those areas.
Braided ramps are expensive.
All the options for fixing I-84 through Danbury are going to be expensive. There are no cheap solutions to untangling that mess.

ConnDOT has identified cheaper solutions for the problems at Exits ¾ and ⅞.

abqtraveler

Quote from: kernals12 on December 19, 2022, 03:10:35 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on December 19, 2022, 02:52:18 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on December 19, 2022, 01:28:09 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on December 18, 2022, 02:03:02 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on December 15, 2022, 09:28:37 PM
The Danbury I-84 Project Advisory Committee is whittling down ideas.

At their August 24 meeting, they announced they skipped over the proposal to split 84/7 into local and express lanes in favor of a simple lane addition (which would also eliminate the left hand ramps at Interchange 3 and 7), which was the least expensive option and provided the most congestion relief.

At their October 10 meeting, they had this update on the planned interchange improvements.

For Interchanges 3 and 4, they have yet to decide how to fix the weave on 84 EB, one idea would be to add a new ramp to Seger street, the other is to add a new C-D road for Exit 4 access.

In the center segment around Interchanges 5 and 6, they eliminated the idea of an interchange with new C-D roads between Tamarack and North Street due to the large amount of property acquisition needed. They have 3 options, the main objective in this segment is better access to Danbury Hospital:
1. Eliminating the half interchange at North Street and building a new full interchange at Tamarack
2. Supplementing the half interchange at North Street, which currently has an EB on-ramp and WB off-ramp with another half interchange with an EB off-ramp and WB on-ramp at Great Plain Road
3. Building an EB C-D road between Interchanges 5 and 6 and converting Interchange 6 to full access with a WB on-ramp

Finally, for the eastern segment around Interchanges 7 and 8, they are undecided between C-D roads in both directions or just going WB.
I would think braided ramps at Exits 3/4 and 7/8 in both directions would be the best solution to eliminate the weaving conditions that cause a lot of crashes in those areas.
Braided ramps are expensive.
All the options for fixing I-84 through Danbury are going to be expensive. There are no cheap solutions to untangling that mess.

ConnDOT has identified cheaper solutions for the problems at Exits ¾ and ⅞.
That I have a hard time buying. CTDOT has presented a range of alternatives, yet I haven't seen any cost figures for any of the options presented. Knowing how things work in Connecticut, it'll probably be another 30 years before they put a shovel in the ground on whatever the decide to do, if anything.
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

RobbieL2415

They did it. They put up a ground-mounted diagrammatic BGS for Exit 59 on I-84 E.

RyanB06

Quote from: RobbieL2415 on December 21, 2022, 05:00:58 PM
They did it. They put up a ground-mounted diagrammatic BGS for Exit 59 on I-84 E.
Hmmm. I thought for sure they'd have put up an APL like they did for the I-91/CT-15 interchange. I'll have to check it out this weekend when I head up to my cousin's place in Manchester for Christmas Day.

mariethefoxy

Quote from: RobbieL2415 on December 21, 2022, 05:00:58 PM
They did it. They put up a ground-mounted diagrammatic BGS for Exit 59 on I-84 E.

Whyyy does conndot do this, it's wide enough there to warrant an overhead sign.

RobbieL2415

Quote from: mariethefoxy on December 22, 2022, 01:19:45 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on December 21, 2022, 05:00:58 PM
They did it. They put up a ground-mounted diagrammatic BGS for Exit 59 on I-84 E.

Whyyy does conndot do this, it's wide enough there to warrant an overhead sign.
1. ConnDOT doesn't like mounting signs on bridges anymore.
2. Because of the multi-use path next to the shoulder, there's not room for a mast arm post. The sign is abnormally tall to allow people to pass underneath it.

roadman65

https://goo.gl/maps/KeptFmopb6ViicVo9
I see Caltrans Freeway Entrance signs have made it to East Lyme.
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

abqtraveler

Quote from: roadman65 on December 31, 2022, 11:39:25 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/KeptFmopb6ViicVo9
I see Caltrans Freeway Entrance signs have made it to East Lyme.
They are going to be reconstructing that interchange soon. Let's see if the "Freeway Entrance" sign survives the reconstruction.
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

sharkyfour

It's a really strange intersection since they moved the onramp a couple years ago.  Without the extra signage, in the moment you come up on that intersection with your GPS telling you to "turn now", it's not totally clear what path is the side road up to the DOT garage and what's the highway onramp.

shadyjay

Has anyone noticed a lack of "merging traffic" signs in CT lately?  Seems like they have been removed and not replaced on CT 9, and I spotted several missing on I-95. 

Also, caught another new blue attractions sign recenty installed (within the past week) on CT 9...

CT9NB-MM2.2 by Jay Hogan, on Flickr

roadman65

Quote from: abqtraveler on December 31, 2022, 12:24:16 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on December 31, 2022, 11:39:25 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/KeptFmopb6ViicVo9
I see Caltrans Freeway Entrance signs have made it to East Lyme.
They are going to be reconstructing that interchange soon. Let's see if the "Freeway Entrance" sign survives the reconstruction.

With US 1 nearby having a ramp, I'm surprised they allow the sharp turn here.
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

roadman65

Why does I-95 have no Exits 77,78,and 79?

It's Exit 76 for I-395 and Exit 80 for Old Mill Road in Waterford.
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

MATraveler128

Quote from: roadman65 on January 02, 2023, 11:13:42 AM
Why does I-95 have no Exits 77,78,and 79?

It's Exit 76 for I-395 and Exit 80 for Old Mill Road in Waterford.

That's because they didn't want to have duplicate exit numbers on I-95 past the I-395 split since exit numbers on I-395 used to continue I-95's exit numbers.
Decommission 128 south of Peabody!

Lowest untraveled number: 56



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.