Connecticut News

[RobbieL2415]

New diagrammatic 1mi BGS for CT 15 N, Exit 89 is up, replacing the pull-through signs.  Drove it a few hours ago.

[KEVIN_224]

Which road were you on? The only Exit 89 instances in the state are on CT Route 15 or I-95.

[odditude]

Which road were you on?

CT 15 N, Exit 89

[Mergingtraffic]

New diagrammatic 1mi BGS for CT 15 N, Exit 89 is up, replacing the pull-through signs.  Drove it a few hours ago.

Is that from a spot improvement signing contract?  I guess I missed that one.

[shadyjay]

Is this at the site of the one with the temporary signs?  Perhaps its installation was part of the Airport Rd bridge rehab?  That's more like a 1/2 mile advance.  Otherwise, I did not see it on any of the recent (past couple years) of spot-sign replacement projects.

[jp the roadgeek]

And this is why nothing ever gets built in CT.  Here come the NIMBY's.
https://www.middletownpress.com/middletown/article/DOT-scraps-latest-plan-for-traffic-light-removal-12792064.php

[Beeper1]

This result was a matter of when, not if.   

I love how the complaints include "it will make it harder for people to get to Main Street" and also "it will put too much traffic onto Main Street".

This is another CT project will have these little designs pop up every decade or so, only to crumble under any public resistance to change a status quo (even though those same people always complain about the status quo, too).  Those lights will continue to be there until at least a decade after Route 11 is completed.   

[RobbieL2415]

And this is why nothing ever gets built in CT.  Here come the NIMBY's.
https://www.middletownpress.com/middletown/article/DOT-scraps-latest-plan-for-traffic-light-removal-12792064.php

Here's what I say, and its far-fetched, I know, but...

...re-route CT 9.  Build two new river crossings and have it loop around the center of Portland.  Old CT 9 is boulevarded and becomes an extended CT 99.  It also bypasses what is arguably an unsafe stretch of roadway.  New bypass could be build to Interstate standards or close to it.  This would cost more but it would send through traffic away from the city.  State could use eminent domain to acquire ROW form private land owners.  Only other roadblock would be federal EIS.

[Alps]

And this is why nothing ever gets built in CT.  Here come the NIMBY's.
https://www.middletownpress.com/middletown/article/DOT-scraps-latest-plan-for-traffic-light-removal-12792064.php

Here's what I say, and its far-fetched, I know, but...

...re-route CT 9.  Build two new river crossings and have it loop around the center of Portland.  Old CT 9 is boulevarded and becomes an extended CT 99.  It also bypasses what is arguably an unsafe stretch of roadway.  New bypass could be build to Interstate standards or close to it.  This would cost more but it would send through traffic away from the city.  State could use eminent domain to acquire ROW form private land owners.  Only other roadblock would be federal EIS.

They'd complain that you're taking traffic away from their town. Middletown is just always going to complain until the state stops listening and does what they need to.

[yakra]

Have Paul LePage build a wicked big viaduct, guy.

[AMLNet49]

And this is why nothing ever gets built in CT.  Here come the NIMBY's.
https://www.middletownpress.com/middletown/article/DOT-scraps-latest-plan-for-traffic-light-removal-12792064.php

Here's what I say, and its far-fetched, I know, but...

...re-route CT 9.  Build two new river crossings and have it loop around the center of Portland.  Old CT 9 is boulevarded and becomes an extended CT 99.  It also bypasses what is arguably an unsafe stretch of roadway.  New bypass could be build to Interstate standards or close to it.  This would cost more but it would send through traffic away from the city.  State could use eminent domain to acquire ROW form private land owners.  Only other roadblock would be federal EIS.

They'd complain that you're taking traffic away from their town. Middletown is just always going to complain until the state stops listening and does what they need to.

And like anyone who doesn't want to lose an inborn advantage they have a right to complain. However the government also has the ability to pick winners and losers

[RobbieL2415]

And this is why nothing ever gets built in CT.  Here come the NIMBY's.
https://www.middletownpress.com/middletown/article/DOT-scraps-latest-plan-for-traffic-light-removal-12792064.php

Here's what I say, and its far-fetched, I know, but...

...re-route CT 9.  Build two new river crossings and have it loop around the center of Portland.  Old CT 9 is boulevarded and becomes an extended CT 99.  It also bypasses what is arguably an unsafe stretch of roadway.  New bypass could be build to Interstate standards or close to it.  This would cost more but it would send through traffic away from the city.  State could use eminent domain to acquire ROW form private land owners.  Only other roadblock would be federal EIS.

They'd complain that you're taking traffic away from their town. Middletown is just always going to complain until the state stops listening and does what they need to.

Traffic would still have the option to get downtown.  Arguably the best traffic-calming measure would be to bypass the freeway and boulevard the existing.  This gives you actual access to the riverfront and eliminates the grade separation from neighborhoods.

[Duke87]

This is another CT project will have these little designs pop up every decade or so, only to crumble under any public resistance to change a status quo (even though those same people always complain about the status quo, too).

A moment from a Simpsons episode comes to mind where an old lady complains that she wants all of her groceries in one bag but doesn't want that bag to be heavy.

That's basically what's going on here. "Get rid of those traffic lights!" "No wait don't do it that way it blocks the river" "No wait not that way either it negatively impacts this historic district" "No not like that it places disproportionate burden on a minority community" and on and on it goes because while no one likes the lights, every feasible means of eliminating them will inconvenience someone in some way.

Ultimately though, this problem is begotten as well by funding issues. If the money were actually there to put shovels in the ground, there would be more urgency on the state's part to make it work even if they needed to tell a few complainers "sorry, you drew the short straw here". But since the state doesn't have the money to actually build anything anyway, they're more than happy to let the cycle of paralysis by analysis continue so it can look like they're at least trying to do something. Making a decision about what to build would require figuring out how to pay to build it, or having to admit that the money to do so isn't there.

[RobbieL2415]

This is another CT project will have these little designs pop up every decade or so, only to crumble under any public resistance to change a status quo (even though those same people always complain about the status quo, too).

A moment from a Simpsons episode comes to mind where an old lady complains that she wants all of her groceries in one bag but doesn't want that bag to be heavy.

That's basically what's going on here. "Get rid of those traffic lights!" "No wait don't do it that way it blocks the river" "No wait not that way either it negatively impacts this historic district" "No not like that it places disproportionate burden on a minority community" and on and on it goes because while no one likes the lights, every feasible means of eliminating them will inconvenience someone in some way.

Ultimately though, this problem is begotten as well by funding issues. If the money were actually there to put shovels in the ground, there would be more urgency on the state's part to make it work even if they needed to tell a few complainers "sorry, you drew the short straw here". But since the state doesn't have the money to actually build anything anyway, they're more than happy to let the cycle of paralysis by analysis continue so it can look like they're at least trying to do something. Making a decision about what to build would require figuring out how to pay to build it, or having to admit that the money to do so isn't there.

My understanding is that they don't like the stoplights but don't like the options provided to remove them.  In other words, they'll just put up with shitty congestion to save a few trees.  Even though less congestion means less pollution.

[mroad860]

Yup, those lights in Middletown are going to stay there until the already rusty poles come down. The recently shot down proposal was reasonable. People in CT just love to complain no matter what, it's partly why its slowly sinking. I would have just let the complainers throw a fit for a few years and just fix the road already!

[Mergingtraffic]

And this is why nothing ever gets built in CT.  Here come the NIMBY's.
https://www.middletownpress.com/middletown/article/DOT-scraps-latest-plan-for-traffic-light-removal-12792064.php

The DOT needs to say what the NYDOT said to a NIMBY group in the Bronx about the teardown of the Sheridan.  "We have gone above and beyond"....to satisfy these people and have had a lot of public hearings etc....(I paraphrase at the end) but it was great how the DOT actually put them in their place.  NOT CT, they want to satisfy the PC and the minority of the people.

The second reason nothing ever gets done...let's just say everybody agrees on a design, THEN the state says we have no money and can't do it.  Then it's back to square one and the vicious cycle starts all over again.

PS:
Although I don't see why the NB ramps couldn't have been from the right (out) side and put the carriage way in the middle.  It'll take the same amount of land. Just reverse.  the ramp curves wouldn't be as sharp and you wouldn't have left exits/entrances that CT still can't let go of. 

[KEVIN_224]

Other things I wonder about here:

1- The Connecticut River
2- The proximity of the Arrigoni Bridge over the river into Portland, carrying CT Routes 17 and 66
3- You'd still have the unsigned Miller Street intersection southbound before the bridge

[RobbieL2415]

Other things I wonder about here:

1- The Connecticut River
2- The proximity of the Arrigoni Bridge over the river into Portland, carrying CT Routes 17 and 66
3- You'd still have the unsigned Miller Street intersection southbound before the bridge

These would be non-issues if you just built a bypass east of downtown.

[jp the roadgeek]

New diagrammatic 1mi BGS for CT 15 N, Exit 89 is up, replacing the pull-through signs.  Drove it a few hours ago.

Is that from a spot improvement signing contract?  I guess I missed that one.

As Bill Engvall would say, here's your sign:

[shadyjay]

Shady Jake got a shot of the sign, and I'll compare it with the pic I got of the older sign:

Take April 2018, by Shady Jake:
New Route 15 North diagram sign by Shady Jake, on Flickr

Taken 2016, by myself:
15NB-Exit89-1 by Jay Hogan, on Flickr

It's quite obvious the signs have been simplified greatly.  No longer any mention of US 5 or CT 2.  US 5 has had an on-again-off-again relationship with CT 15 signs in this area of Hartford, ever since the 1980s.  No longer any mention to stay on CT 15 to reach East Hartford.  The "Hartford" destination was kind of redundant on the Exit 89 sign, since you're already in Hartford, but you do take I-91 North to get to downtown.  Usually when signs get replaced as part of spot projects, the "status-quo" is kept, as far as destinations, routes, control points, etc.  This one simplified the signage greatly, even eliminating the "TO"s. 

[Beeper1]

Honestly, at this point on the route, it would have made more sense to sign US-5 then it does to sign CT-15.  CT-15 just peters out into 84 less than a mile after the bridge, while US-5 is a legitimate route up to towns on the east side of the river.

[RobbieL2415]

Honestly, at this point on the route, it would have made more sense to sign US-5 then it does to sign CT-15.  CT-15 just peters out into 84 less than a mile after the bridge, while US-5 is a legitimate route up to towns on the east side of the river.

Maybe we get a ground-mounted sign later that says "US 5 Downtown East Hartford Keep Left"? Also have to consider that this isn't pre-Interstate anymore. Most traffic occurs on the Wilbur Cross Highway is during peak rush hour.  They don't need to know what they already know.  Personally I wish they would better sign alternative routes from I-91 across the CT River because everyone seems to want to just use Exit 29 when they could also use Exit 25N.

[jp the roadgeek]

Honestly, at this point on the route, it would have made more sense to sign US-5 then it does to sign CT-15.  CT-15 just peters out into 84 less than a mile after the bridge, while US-5 is a legitimate route up to towns on the east side of the river.

Maybe we get a ground-mounted sign later that says "US 5 Downtown East Hartford Keep Left"? Also have to consider that this isn't pre-Interstate anymore. Most traffic occurs on the Wilbur Cross Highway is during peak rush hour.  They don't need to know what they already know.  Personally I wish they would better sign alternative routes from I-91 across the CT River because everyone seems to want to just use Exit 29 when they could also use Exit 25N.

1. CT 15 to I-84 makes sense because most traffic is going to continue on to I-84, plus most people (including ConnDOT) refer to the highway as Route 15 anyway.  To get to the other towns US 5 serves east of the river (South/East Windsor), most will take I-91 and either cross the river on I-291 or the Dexter Coffin on I-91 to get to US 5.  I like that Hartford was eliminated as a control city for 91 North, seeing you've already crossed the city line.  You could push to add Waterbury as a second control city with the I-84 mention.   Seems that MUTCD is pushing larger, longer distance cities at major junctions. 


2. There used to be those Route A signs for the Putnam Bridge.  Also mentions of it on an LGS just past the entrance from CT 99.  What is really needed are those Alternate 84 and 91 signs you see on and near I-691 and CT 9.

[Mergingtraffic]

Just saw later this year new signing contracts will be advertised for I-84 Exits 40-56 and CT-9 Exits 25-31 and CT-72 Exits 1-9.

PS, I also noticed some new signage on CT-72 for Exit 1 with the current I-84 signing contract.  There's an Exit 2 sign, attractions sign for Exit 2 and a "Robertson Airport Exit 1" aux sign.

Any idea when CT will replace their rest area signage?

[PHLBOS]

Any idea when CT will replace their rest area signage?

As long as the buildings of their rest areas/welcome centers are on banker's hours; probably never.