Connecticut News

[zzyzx]

Looks like the few remaining JUNCTION signs will be gone too, like this one on CT-82:



There's also another one on 9SB for I-95.

Are there any more standalone JUNCTION signs left in the state??

EDIT: I see they are adding a JUNCTION I-91 2 MILES sign on 9SB after New Exit 31/21 (pg. 12 in the TRAFFIC pdf). So it seems CT DOT isn't abandoning them after all.

[kurumi]

There's a Junction I-91 sign on CT 3 southbound: https://goo.gl/maps/4erQpZStnRYrKppE7. Looks to be the original from 1987-1989.

There's also a "2 JCT" sign in the other direction: https://goo.gl/maps/z8VB1D6quJVQSC5EA

[jp the roadgeek]

Still also a JCT I-84 2 1/2 MI sign on I-91 South just after crossing over Main St.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8042774,-72.6587495,3a,75y,145.32h,89.76t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sK15nH4d2l3kVVFg-MaeHhg!2e0

[shadyjay]

There's a Junction I-91 sign on CT 3 southbound: https://goo.gl/maps/4erQpZStnRYrKppE7. Looks to be the original from 1987-1989.

That one actually came down recently and not replaced, as part of the state's spot overhead project.  Guess ConnDOT saw no need for it, as it was replaced with nothing.  It actually dated to the mid 90s, when the CT 3/I-91 interchange was modified and the direct CT 3 South to I-91 South ramp was added. 

That "2 JCT" sign on CT 3 North has always struck me as odd. 

[jp the roadgeek]

Some thoughts on the Route 9 exit renumbering: 

Using 37 for CT 175 is driving me CRAZY.  The CT 175 overpass is between MP 37.95-37.98, and the SB exit/NB entrance are well into mile 38.

The whole New Britain area is a CF.  Why not just use 34 for the Willow Brook Connector, 35A (35) for Ellis St (Ellis St is at MP 35.13), 35B for Columbus Blvd (MP 35.56), and 36 as the number for the whole 72 interchange, including Chestnut St and East Main St?  Chestnut St is at MP 35.74, and East Main is at MP 36.08.  It would be a lot simpler if NB you had plain 36 for 72 West, and SB you had 36A for Chestnut, 36B for 72 West and 36C for Downtown.  AND WHY IS 34B USED FOR ELLIS ST SB WHEN THERE IS NO 34A?!?  Should be just plain 34.

I see Springfield and N.Y. City were removed as secondary controls for I-91

Still no love for CT 3 on the West St exit in Cromwell

I would've fudged Silver St down to 22 to keep it consistent with Bow Lane (as both are Exit 12 now; hey, they did it for Ellis St despite being at MP 35.13).  And I would have fudged up CT 66 West to 24A and made the Arrigoni 24B to keep a single number for the 66 exits (it's at MP 23.94).  WIth both of these, you'd have much less of an Alphabet City at 23; CT 17 South would be 23A and deKoven Dr would be 23B.

Why do they insist on still mentioning TO 17 on SB CT 155 exit signage when you just had a concurrency with CT 17 that left via an exit 2 miles ago?  And if you really want to nitpick, I would add SOUTH to the 17 on NB signage since you have a junction with CT 17 in 2 miles.

I see Higganum is now on supplemental signage for the Aircraft Rd exit

No mention of the Essex 11 Old Saybrook 15 mileage sign between current Exits 9 and 8?

I see they're consistent now for the controls for CT 82 and use Haddam and East Haddam in both directions.  NB signage currently uses East Haddam/Colchester and SB signage uses East Haddam/Moodus.

I would've used Exit 9 for CT 148 as the 9 MP is within the interchange, but that's just me.

COME ON CTDOT. The CT 80 overpass is between MP 6.98 and 6.99.  Just round to 7 dammit.  And no love for Killingworth NB.

WHY 154 BEFORE 153?!? (see also:25 before 8 on I-95 Exit 27A).   I would've rounded up to 4 (overpasses at 3.87 and 3.94), but that's just me.

No more exit number for Ferry Point northbound so that the 2 CT 154 exits can both be 1 instead of a 1A and 1B NB.

No more N.Y. City and Providence as secondary controls for I-95/US 1.  Interesting that US 1 gets love here at the southern terminus but US 6 gets no love on I-84 at the northern terminus.  And of course, CTDOT maintains its practice here of not giving exit numbers to termini. 

Huh, ha, whaaat?  CT 9 North gets an exit number on CT 82?!?   But no exit number for Main St Extension (21) or for CT 9 South (22; NB only) on CT 17.

[kurumi]

Some thoughts on the Route 9 exit renumbering: 

Using 37 for CT 175 is driving me CRAZY.  The CT 175 overpass is between MP 37.95-37.98, and the SB exit/NB entrance are well into mile 38.
...

Huh, ha, whaaat?  CT 9 North gets an exit number on CT 82?!?   But no exit number for Main St Extension (21) or for CT 9 South (22; NB only) on CT 17.

Agreed. I think MP 0.00 to 1.50 should be exit 1, MP 1.50 to 2.50 exit 2, and so on. (CT tends to use Exit 1A, B, C... for the first 2 miles, where there tend to be a lot of interchanges anyway.)

For an interchange "on the line", choose whichever number doesn't conflict with nearby exits. I think the fewer letter-suffixed exits you need, the better.

It's not only strange that Route 82 has a numbered "exit" for Route 9 north, but the Route 9 south sign (no exit number) on page 542 has two down-facing arrows yet is apparently ground-mounted. Target fixation is a thing.

[jp the roadgeek]

Couple of others I noticed; one that irks me, one that is interesting.

The one that irks me: for 66 West: Why use Middletown as a control for 66 West when you are already in Middletown?!?  Would've preferred they used "Washington St" or even "Downtown Middletown" (at least northbound).  Of course, I would have used Meriden, but I get it; CTDOT wants you to use 9 North to 91 South to get to Meriden (BTW, I don't see that sign in the plans).

The interesting one: The CT 17 South exit has eschewed the longer distance control (New Haven) for a local street (South Main St).  Guess they figured New Haven bound traffic would have exited at I-91 (or do they really want you to complete the giant triangle and take 9 all the way to Old Saybrook and pick up 95 South? )

[shadyjay]

The CT 9 South/CT 9 North signs at the western end of CT 82 are indeed to be mounted overhead.  The contract plans show it, while the "special provisions" 500+ page book does indeed show it as "ground". 

It makes sense to change "New Haven" to "South Main St" for Exit 13, southbound.  I would've changed Exit 11 to read "155/Randolph Rd" and installed a secondary sign northbound that reads "To 17 South/Durham".  If you just past Exit 13 southbound, for CT 17, why do you need another route to get to CT 17 again via Exit 11, and one that's out of the way no less.

Exit 15 should've been changed to "Washington St", at least southbound, as there are 2 more Middletown exits in that direction.  Northbound signs for this "exit" used to also read Meriden until the first sign replacement project in the mid 80s. 

Not a fan of two lines for such points that are currently one line.  Such as, "Middlesex/Tpke" and "Old/Saybrook". 

Maybe we'll see an "Addendum" issued to address some issues, but most likely not.  Such as the 1/2 mile advance northbound for Exit 2 just saying "Old Saybrook", while "154" makes an appearance on the exit now sign.

[The Ghostbuster]

Why are the exits at Interstate 84 being denumbered? They should be 40A and 40B. Also, since CT 9 will never go any further north than Interstate 84, the unused ramps and road pavement should be obliterated.

[Ben114]

Why are the exits at Interstate 84 being denumbered? They should be 40A and 40B. Also, since CT 9 will never go any further north than Interstate 84, the unused ramps and road pavement should be obliterated.

Most likely because ConnDOT doesn't sign the exits at the end of highways. (See the southern end of CT 9 and I-91 for example)

[Duke87]

Using 37 for CT 175 is driving me CRAZY.  The CT 175 overpass is between MP 37.95-37.98, and the SB exit/NB entrance are well into mile 38.

Agreed. I think MP 0.00 to 1.50 should be exit 1, MP 1.50 to 2.50 exit 2, and so on. (CT tends to use Exit 1A, B, C... for the first 2 miles, where there tend to be a lot of interchanges anyway.)

This theoretically purist approach is not actually common practice in the greater scheme of things. Most states either always round up or always round down. CT has decided to always round down, so MP 37.98 = exit 37. NY is also in the always round down club.

It is certainly clunky though to always round down AND refuse to use exit 0 (CT is not using exit 0). This can get you a bunch of exit 1s.

[jp the roadgeek]

Why are the exits at Interstate 84 being denumbered? They should be 40A and 40B. Also, since CT 9 will never go any further north than Interstate 84, the unused ramps and road pavement should be obliterated.

Not necessarily so.  If you looked at one of Lamont's long range transportation plan, it included an extension to CT 4.  But yes,  CTDOT usually doesn't number termini ramps, which most likely means that the I-84 exits at the west end of I-691 will no longer be numbered when I-691 is renumbered (and probably east to west, as previously discussed).  I'm just curious how the exits at the west end of I-291 will be renumbered.  Will the 91 ramps no longer be numbered and only the 218 ramp be numbered, or will all ramps be unnumbered?

[DJStephens]

Why are the exits at Interstate 84 being denumbered? They should be 40A and 40B. Also, since CT 9 will never go any further north than Interstate 84, the unused ramps and road pavement should be obliterated.

The existing late sixties stack is being partially used.  Since Route 9 was connected to it in the  early? nineties.   Demolishing it  would require a full "reroute" of traffic that is using the facility.  While a directional T, of either Box Beam or segmental design, would be more aesthetically pleasing, it would be a major expense in an expensive state.   The stack was not used for twenty plus years, at all, so it was not exposed to de-icing chemicals and salt during that time.  Would imagine that there was far more liberal use of pure rock salt in the seventies, than there is now.  Do remember hunks of rock salt being thrown down in the seventies, growing up in New England.  So that stack should have plenty of life yet.   

[RobbieL2415]

Why are the exits at Interstate 84 being denumbered? They should be 40A and 40B. Also, since CT 9 will never go any further north than Interstate 84, the unused ramps and road pavement should be obliterated.

The existing late sixties stack is being partially used.  Since Route 9 was connected to it in the  early? nineties.   Demolishing it  would require a full "reroute" of traffic that is using the facility.  While a directional T, of either Box Beam or segmental design, would be more aesthetically pleasing, it would be a major expense in an expensive state.   The stack was not used for twenty plus years, at all, so it was not exposed to de-icing chemicals and salt during that time.  Would imagine that there was far more liberal use of pure rock salt in the seventies, than there is now.  Do remember hunks of rock salt being thrown down in the seventies, growing up in New England.  So that stack should have plenty of life yet.

ConnDOT used sand with occasional rock salt before switching to a calcium chloride spray. More sand than anything else.

[abqtraveler]

Why are the exits at Interstate 84 being denumbered? They should be 40A and 40B. Also, since CT 9 will never go any further north than Interstate 84, the unused ramps and road pavement should be obliterated.

The existing late sixties stack is being partially used.  Since Route 9 was connected to it in the  early? nineties.   Demolishing it  would require a full "reroute" of traffic that is using the facility.  While a directional T, of either Box Beam or segmental design, would be more aesthetically pleasing, it would be a major expense in an expensive state.   The stack was not used for twenty plus years, at all, so it was not exposed to de-icing chemicals and salt during that time.  Would imagine that there was far more liberal use of pure rock salt in the seventies, than there is now.  Do remember hunks of rock salt being thrown down in the seventies, growing up in New England.  So that stack should have plenty of life yet.

ConnDOT used sand with occasional rock salt before switching to a calcium chloride spray. More sand than anything else.

The sand/rock salt mix did a number on Connecticut's roads and bridges. Apparently Connecticut has switched to a more eco-friendly de-icing solution made up of molasses and beet juice, as outlined in the article below.

https://www.ctinsider.com/news/nhregister/article/Molasses-and-beet-juice-help-keep-Connecticut-14905921.php

[shadyjay]

Some progress is being made on the sign replacement on CT 9 from Cromwell to Farmington.  Observed a few new sign foundations in sporadic locations throughout, including in Cromwell and Berlin.  Still no progress to report on the 2 spot sign replacement projects SB in New Britain... this is from the 2017 project. 

Finally got a chance to drive the all-too-short CT 189 (original CT 9) expressway up in Bloomfield, with the sign photos at my FLICKR page.  Also got shots of the new north end of the Bradley Airport connector.  Not a fan of the rotary, but oh well.  Still a lot of construction going on in that area.

[shadyjay]

CT 2 is next for exit number conversion, along with CT 3 (Wethersfield-Glastonbury), CT 17 (Glastonbury), and CT 11.  Press release here announces the project, along with the new numbers, with plans available next summer:

https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/Construction-News-from-the-Connecticut-Department-of-Transportation/2020/Replacement-of-Highway-Signs-and-Sign-Supports-on-Routes-2-3-11and-17-Mileage-Based-Exit-Numbering

Looks like ConnDOT is holding out hope for CT 11, given the mile-based exits retain existing mile markers, which count up from the non-existent connection with I-95/I-395. 
Also, for some reason, CT 3's northern terminus gives numbers to the CT 2 exits.  This is against what is presently being done statewide on CT 8, CT 9, etc. 


With CT 8, CT 9, and now CT 2/3/11/17 projects announced, there won't be any Phase III on any major state route, and the last large stretch on any route will be I-91 north of Hartford and I-95 in Branford-Guilford. 

[kurumi]

CT 17 southbound experience will be interesting. Exit 36A/36B; then exit 35; then end of freeway.

[Alps]

CT 17 southbound experience will be interesting. Exit 36A/36B; then exit 35; then end of freeway.

That's a borderline case for engineering judgment to say "forget it, exit numbers won't do anything useful." 3 or more exits, I'd say yes.

[Ben114]

Looks like ConnDOT is holding out hope for CT 11, given the mile-based exits retain existing mile markers, which count up from the non-existent connection with I-95/I-395. 

Yep, it's even in their route log.

[jp the roadgeek]

My thoughts...

CT 2: Seems CTDOT has abandoned the round down mentality it had with CT 9's numbers and has shifted to rounding to the nearest mileposts.  Willow St EB is bumped up to 2 (and rightfully so) despite the intersection being at MP 1.98.  High St EB and Main St WB are round up to 3 despite the intersections being at MP 2.80 and 2.94, respectively (and I could see High St becoming plain Exit 3 in the future when Sutton Ave closes).  Other examples of rounding up: Maple St (EB only) to 4 (MP 3.67), CT 83 to 10 (MP 9.94), Thompson St to 11 (MP 10.76), South Main St (WB only) to 18 (MP 17.66), CT 16 to 24 (MP 23.70), Chestnut Hill Rd to 26 (MP 25.97), the Lebanon exit to 31 (MP 30.91), Fitchville (WB only) to 35 (MP 34.53[!]), CT 32 North to 36 (MP 35.69), and New London Turnpike to 38 (MP 37.70).  I nailed the westbound Exit 1 alphabet city, and we now will have an Exit 1E that has nothing to do with leading to the eastbound direction of a highway .  In the Colchester area, I would've left the CT 16 exit at 23 to avoid the alphabet city eastbound, and would've rounded the 354 exit westbound down to 24 in that it is a de facto exit for CT 11 and it intersects another route it leads to (CT 85) at MP 24.84.  In the Norwich area, I would've made Fitchville 34 and CT 32 North 35 to avoid the alphabet city westbound at 36, but I like the rounding up of Norwichtown to avoid a 37C after the 395 exits  and that the 395 South exit westbound can be plain Exit 37.  But why no EB exit number for the Governor St ramp (will we just continue to see DOWNTOWN as the Exit #?)  As for a couple of other things: I hope CTDOT updates some of the controls and does not use New London as a control for CT 11 (should be just Salem) and uses Norwich/New London as dual controls for CT 2 East at the CT 11 split.  As such, I would hope to see New London replace New Haven as the control on the EB ramp to 395 South (or at least dual controls; but leave WB as is).  And pretty please, can we use Worcester as the control for 395 North?  I-395 doesn't come within 30 miles of Providence, and who really takes CT 2 to I-395 to SR 695 to get from Hartford to the RI border when going there?

CT 3: Wasn't sure if it would get numbers for such a short freeway (and with the first 11 miles being non-limited access), but it will.  This indicates to me that the Willimantic Bypass portion of US 6 will as well when it is re-signed.  The only thing: the EB termini ramps at CT 2 are numbered, which goes against everything CTDOT has been doing in eliminating numbers for termini ramps (see CT 9 at I-84).  And the CT 2 intersection is at MP 13.68, but rounding up makes sense to avoid an alphabet city.

CT 11: <in my best Lloyd Christmas voice>  So you're saying there's a chance?  So, we're leaving the mileposts as if the road exists all the way to I-95, we'll number the exits as such, but we've officially cancelled it and we won't number the terminus southbound.  Got it

CT 17: Sooooo.....why does this section of CT 17 get exit numbers, while a section of similar length in Middletown does not? 

[connroadgeek]

What's with the logs? They could make a nicer one in Excel which can make nice tables.

[kurumi]

Given the numerous freeway to freeway interchanges with missing movements, which convention do you prefer? Example is CT 3 at I-91, which has one exit NB, but two exits (11A and 11B) SB:

• make CT 3 NB to I-91 NB exit 11B, to match CT 3 SB to I-91 NB
• make CT 3 NB to I-91 NB plain exit 11, since there's only one exit in that direction

ConnDOT chooses #2, but there are consistency arguments favoring #1.

[abqtraveler]

CT 17 southbound experience will be interesting. Exit 36A/36B; then exit 35; then end of freeway.

What's interesting to note about that is that ConnDOT will number the exits on the Glastonbury stub of Route 17, but recent plans show no exit numbers for the Route 17 stub off Route 9 south of Middletown.

[jp the roadgeek]

Given the numerous freeway to freeway interchanges with missing movements, which convention do you prefer? Example is CT 3 at I-91, which has one exit NB, but two exits (11A and 11B) SB:

• make CT 3 NB to I-91 NB exit 11B, to match CT 3 SB to I-91 NB
• make CT 3 NB to I-91 NB plain exit 11, since there's only one exit in that direction

ConnDOT chooses #2, but there are consistency arguments favoring #1.

Definitely prefer #2.  You'll see the same thing on I-84 in Farmington when its renumbered.  US 6 (WB only) will be 54A, but CT 4 will be 54 eastbound and 54B westbound.  Having a 54B eastbound (when the numbers are increasing) looks silly when there is no 54A (and the exit tabs and gore sign on the new signage for the eastbound exit did not leave room for a suffix).  The fun one, though will be the Hartford tunnel exits.  Eastbound should be 62A (High St/Ann Uccello St), and 62B (Main St).  The question is will CTDOT go with 62C for 91 North and 62D for 91 South, or vice versa?  I say the latter, because the destination point of the flyover (current 51) is farther east than the one for the short ramp (current 52).  So, if things are correct, exits eastbound should go 62A, 62B, 62D, 62C.  Westbound, you should have 62D (I-91 North, current 51) and 62B (US 44/Main St, current 50), but no 62C or 62A. It wouldn't make sense to make them 62B and 62A as they wouldn't be consistent with their eastbound counterparts. 

There is a scenario of #1 if you look at the CT 9 plans.  Ellis St (actually, TO CT 71) southbound is labeled as 34B, despite there not being a 34A (SR 571/Willow Brook Connector) exit.