AARoads Forum

Regional Boards => Northeast => Topic started by: Alex on January 29, 2009, 04:48:50 PM

Title: Vermont
Post by: Alex on January 29, 2009, 04:48:50 PM
The 2009 Geonova atlas base shows construction of the Bennington bypass between U.S. 7 and Vermont 9. Is this underway now? When we traveled Vermont 9 in 2007, there was no sign of work extending the bypass outside of stubs north of town. The bypass is needed, considering that we sat through three signal cycles in downtown Bennington on a Saturday afternoon.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Dougtone on January 29, 2009, 05:47:56 PM
Quote from: aaroads on January 29, 2009, 04:48:50 PM
The 2009 Geonova atlas base shows construction of the Bennington bypass between U.S. 7 and Vermont 9. Is this underway now? When we traveled Vermont 9 in 2007, there was no sign of work extending the bypass outside of stubs north of town. The bypass is needed, considering that we sat through three signal cycles in downtown Bennington on a Saturday afternoon.

There is current construction on what's called the Northern Segment of the Bennington Bypass.  The construction is slowly progressing from US 7 southeast to VT 9.  At last check, nothing was going on yet at VT 9, and the construction was going on closer to US 7.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Snappyjack on February 17, 2009, 12:39:52 PM
So, Vermont has new sheilds? Or are they recycling old ones, prior to the green shields?
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Alex on February 17, 2009, 01:27:36 PM
I was wondering myself, since the changever occurred in 1995. That's a long time for old shields to remain in stock!
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: FLRoads on February 17, 2009, 03:14:44 PM
Quote from: froggie on February 17, 2009, 02:32:12 PM
No, Vermont still has the two main styles of route shield...the newer green shields, and the plain black-and-white "circle shields".  The VA 153/VA 315 intersection received a new set of the latter.


Did you mean VT??   :nod: :eyebrow:
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Duke87 on February 22, 2009, 04:59:06 PM
So... the other half of that goofy interchange is finally going to be used, then.

Any idea if they're actually building a full four lane freeway or will it just be more super 2?
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Snappyjack on February 23, 2009, 08:06:23 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on February 22, 2009, 04:59:06 PM
So... the other half of that goofy interchange is finally going to be used, then.

Any idea if they're actually building a full four lane freeway or will it just be more super 2?

Well the sole reason it is goofy is due to the fact that for now, it is only half utilized. That whole stretch of the current Bennington Bypass from U.S. 7 and into New York was built on original alignment for the Interstate 88 extension from Albany to Portsmouth, NH. Part of the new stretch of the bypass will also utilize this original alignment as well.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Dougtone on February 24, 2009, 07:42:41 AM
Quote from: froggie on February 22, 2009, 07:20:14 PM
More super-2.


I think that traffic really only warrants that a super-two be constructed for the remaining bits of the bypass.  It certainly looked that way when I passed on through a few weeks ago.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Dougtone on February 24, 2009, 05:46:54 PM
QuotePerhaps...but if traffic volumes are that low, I'd have to question why VTrans chose to go with a SPUI at the VT 9 interchange.


I can think of two possibilities for that SPUI at the future interchange for VT 279 with VT 9.  On the east side of Bennington, VTrans doesn't have much wiggle room between the residential neighborhoods of Bennington and the Green Mountains and figured a SPUI may make sense for that.  Another may be that VTrans wants a seamless transition between VT 279 traffic to VT 9 eastbound, but does not want to invest in a flyover ramp.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Snappyjack on February 25, 2009, 03:37:06 PM
Quote from: froggie on February 24, 2009, 09:04:23 AM
QuoteWell the sole reason it is goofy is due to the fact that for now, it is only half utilized. That whole stretch of the current Bennington Bypass from U.S. 7 and into New York was built on original alignment for the Interstate 88 extension from Albany to Portsmouth, NH. Part of the new stretch of the bypass will also utilize this original alignment as well.

One fly in your ointment.  The arrangement of that northern Bennington Bypass interchange is such that the northeast leg of the Bennington bypass (the one currently under construction) ties seamlessly into US 7 to the north, not into VA 279.

As a side note, an "I-88 extension" was only one possibility for this east-west route.  It was also considered as "I-92".


QuoteI think that traffic really only warrants that a super-two be constructed for the remaining bits of the bypass.  It certainly looked that way when I passed on through a few weeks ago.

Perhaps...but if traffic volumes are that low, I'd have to question why VTrans chose to go with a SPUI at the VT 9 interchange.


Actually, the I-88 extension and I-92 were two seperate plans for an east-west route that were both cancelled.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on August 25, 2009, 07:44:54 PM
A few recent Vermont notes:

- My other half has been making a few trips over to Burlington lately.  The other day, she mentioned that the new roundabout at US 2/US 302 in Montpelier is almost complete.  I'll be up that way Labor Day weekend and will be taking a look...

- At the VT 11/VT 121 junction east of Londonderry, the previous oval VT 121 shields have been replaced with the standard Vermont route marker.  With a twist:  instead of the normal green color, they're black.  Missed a photo opportunity coming through, but I'll be up there again Labor Day weekend (it's on my direct route north to my other half).

- Not sure if this got mentioned in the past, but over the winter, the old square VT 153/VT 315 shields in Rupert were replaced by new oval shields.  The old green "Vermont 153" square shield at the NY line was still there as of 7/30.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on September 02, 2010, 05:23:57 PM
Back in July, VTrans completed the Final EIS (http://www.circeis.org/final_eis.html) for the Williston segment (between I-89 just east of VT 2A and VT 117) of the Circumferential Highway.  The preferred alternative is for the new alignment road...upgrading VT 2A and a "hybrid" alternative were also considered, but both faced opposition from Essex Junction, which has de-facto approval over any ROW takings within the village.  Since any improvements to VT 2A would require new right-of-way, this effectively gave the village veto power over that alternative.

In a nutshell, the preferred alternative is for a 4-lane divided boulevard with a 40 MPH speed limit and traffic signals at both US 2 and Mountain View Rd.  The trumpet interchange previously proposed at I-89 is retained (with auxiliary lanes on I-89 between the trumpet and the ramps at VT 2A), but the traffic signals replace previously proposed interchanges in order to reduce the roadway footprint and the ensuing wetland impacts, which were a major concern of the EPA with the new alignment alternative.  The lower design speed, plus going with a narrow median (overall roadway width, including median, ranges from 70 to 78ft) is meant to further reduce the roadway footprint and wetland impacts.

No word as far as I can tell as to when construction would begin.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Crazy Volvo Guy on September 03, 2010, 04:35:30 AM
Quote from: froggie on September 02, 2010, 05:23:57 PMIn a nutshell, the preferred alternative is for a 4-lane divided boulevard with a 40 MPH speed limit and traffic signals at both US 2 and Mountain View Rd.

Having lived in the south for 3 years, I can say with certain authority that there's no reason a divided boulevard should carry anything less than a 45, if not a 50.  It's time for New England to get over its fetish for 35s and 40s everywhere, departing the 1950s to come into 2010.  Cars are safer, handle better and have much shorter stopping distances.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: vdeane on September 03, 2010, 09:49:31 AM
For that matter, how about getting over their 50 fetish?
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: agentsteel53 on September 03, 2010, 10:14:54 AM
seriously, any fetish under about 80 is sexually deviant. 
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Crazy Volvo Guy on September 03, 2010, 02:15:04 PM
Quote from: deanej on September 03, 2010, 09:49:31 AM
For that matter, how about getting over their 50 fetish?

I could go with that.  There's absolutely no reason for rural Interstates to be any less than, frankly, 75...but that seems to be a lot to ask of people out here in the east.  70 at least on Interstates, 55 on major thoroughfares, 45-50 everywhere else except residential streets, dangerous backroads that actually warrant a lower limit and downtown streets.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Grzrd on September 03, 2010, 02:43:38 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 03, 2010, 10:14:54 AM
seriously, any fetish under about 80 is sexually deviant. 
Who do you call if you observe a 10 or 15 fetish in a downtown area?
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Ian on September 04, 2010, 07:48:40 AM
I could see roads like US 4 in rural Vermont between Rutland and Woodstock be raised to around 60 or 65. Nobody obeys the 55 posted limit.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on September 04, 2010, 08:19:13 AM
50 speed limit, not 55.  And the only place you could reasonably go better than 60 through there would be near Killington...in which case you're still dealing with ski traffic 5 months out of the year...

Also, in my experience, Vermonters tend to stick to the speed limit.  It's the out-of-staters that go faster.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: vdeane on September 04, 2010, 11:33:28 AM
That would explain why every Vermonter I've seen on US 11 drives 5 mph below the speed limit without fail.

Speed limits in Vermont are 50 unless otherwise posted.  Some US highway segments are 55, and interstates can be up to 65, but most rural roads are 50.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: shadyjay on September 04, 2010, 06:28:44 PM
Between towns, you can move pretty good.  I usually go 55 in a 50.  Its the small towns where the speed limit drops from 50 to 30 that you have to watch out for, cause the cops will get you, no matter what color your plate is.  I have been busted on US 4 EB just east of Rutland going 55 in a 40 or 45, which was about 1/4 mile away from the start of the 50mph zone.  From there, climbing up and over Sherburne Pass and down to West Bridgewater, I can see a higher speed limit of 55.  East of there into Woodstock, the road isn't that straight or wide. 

The new "speed limit ahead" signs are great - the yellow diamonds with an up arrow and the new speed limit have replaced the vague "Reduced Speed Ahead" black on white signs.  When you see the yellow diamonds, you know to slow down. 
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on September 05, 2010, 08:13:40 AM
Quote from: deanejSome US highway segments are 55,

Only those segments that are limited-access (i.e. no private access).  That's basically limited to 6 sections that I know of:  two on US 2 (west of I-89/Colchester to near the lake and west of I-91 halfway to Danville), two on US 7 (the "Super-7" north of Bennington and the 4-lane south of Rutland), VT 63, and VT 279.

Both VT 62 and VT 289 are 50 MPH.  I believe VT 191 is also 50 MPH.

Quoteand interstates can be up to 65,

As is the US 4 freeway west of Rutland.

Quote from: shadyjayFrom there, climbing up and over Sherburne Pass and down to West Bridgewater, I can see a higher speed limit of 55.

This is the same section I was thinking earlier.  However, it'd require a change in state law to implement.

QuoteThe new "speed limit ahead" signs are great - the yellow diamonds with an up arrow and the new speed limit have replaced the vague "Reduced Speed Ahead" black on white signs.  When you see the yellow diamonds, you know to slow down.

Agreed.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Stephane Dumas on September 06, 2010, 02:30:05 PM
Quote from: froggie on September 02, 2010, 05:23:57 PM

In a nutshell, the preferred alternative is for a 4-lane divided boulevard with a 40 MPH speed limit and traffic signals at both US 2 and Mountain View Rd.  The trumpet interchange previously proposed at I-89 is retained (with auxiliary lanes on I-89 between the trumpet and the ramps at VT 2A), but the traffic signals replace previously proposed interchanges in order to reduce the roadway footprint and the ensuing wetland impacts, which were a major concern of the EPA with the new alignment alternative.  The lower design speed, plus going with a narrow median (overall roadway width, including median, ranges from 70 to 78ft) is meant to further reduce the roadway footprint and wetland impacts.

No word as far as I can tell as to when construction would begin.

Did they studied other possibilities instead of traffic lights like roundabouts? And keep the ROW for upgrade to interchange just in case. I have a felling then the traffic lights will cause more harm in the long-range.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on September 06, 2010, 08:49:47 PM
Yes, they looked at roundabouts.  They went with traffic signals because of the smaller footprint, which reduced wetlands impacts to a level that was acceptable to the EPA.  This is also the reason why they went with signals instead of interchanges.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on September 10, 2010, 12:41:14 PM
The on-again, off-again plan for a roundabout at "Malfunction Junction" (http://www.manchester-vt.gov/content/functionjunction-roundabout-project) (where VT 11/30 meets VT 7A in Manchester) is apparently back on again.  The town voted Tuesday (http://www.manchesterjournal.com/headlines/ci_16021197) to begin property acquisition, with the plan of beginning utility relocation later this fall and actual construction on the project next year.  As long as adjacent property owners don't appeal (one indicated in the Journal article that he might, though he "declined comment" when specifically asked), construction is expected to take place next year and the following, with completion expected in late 2012.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Alps on September 10, 2010, 06:43:50 PM
Quote from: froggie on September 10, 2010, 12:41:14 PM
The on-again, off-again plan for a roundabout at "Malfunction Junction" (http://www.manchester-vt.gov/content/functionjunction-roundabout-project) (where VT 11/30 meets VT 7A in Manchester) is apparently back on again.  The town voted Tuesday (http://www.manchesterjournal.com/headlines/ci_16021197) to begin property acquisition, with the plan of beginning utility relocation later this fall and actual construction on the project next year.  As long as adjacent property owners don't appeal (one indicated in the Journal article that he might, though he "declined comment" when specifically asked), construction is expected to take place next year and the following, with completion expected in late 2012.

That's a very tight downtown area.  The only way I can see this working is to resurrect what looks like a former bridge where 30 would be able to tie straight into 30 again.  Of course, if you do that, you could just have a straight 4-way intersection with a traffic signal.  Having seen the volumes downtown and the constrained conditions, and considering the number of people who cross, a roundabout really won't help because people will back up at the yield sign.  At the very least, a signal allows crossing during the red phase.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on September 11, 2010, 07:41:31 AM
To my knowledge, there is no former bridge where you think there might have been one...going back at least to 1859.  The current street alignments have existed at least that long (and likely longer).

The town did not want a signal.  Frankly, I don't blame them because even though a signal "allows crossing during the red phase", you'd basically have to interconnect two signals with long phases just to get it to work, which would cause lengthy queues for EVERYONE.

A roundabout may cause drivers to "back up at the yield sign", but that's not much different than what exists today...and when there is a gap, they can utilize it better than the existing configuration.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Alps on September 11, 2010, 09:49:14 AM
Quote from: froggie on September 11, 2010, 07:41:31 AM
To my knowledge, there is no former bridge where you think there might have been one...going back at least to 1859.  The current street alignments have existed at least that long (and likely longer).
The abutment of whatever it is dates to 1909.  Check my VT 11 page (http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/vt/vt_11) and see if you have any theories.  And I mean, this thing is perfectly, 90 degrees perpendicular to straight ahead from VT 30.  That's what gets me.
Quote
The town did not want a signal.  Frankly, I don't blame them because even though a signal "allows crossing during the red phase", you'd basically have to interconnect two signals with long phases just to get it to work, which would cause lengthy queues for EVERYONE.

A roundabout may cause drivers to "back up at the yield sign", but that's not much different than what exists today...and when there is a gap, they can utilize it better than the existing configuration.

It was idle wondering on my part.  I know the signal in Bennington doesn't work very well, although there you have US 7 and VT 9 with no bypass, and here at least you have US 7 on a freeway.  Still not sure a roundabout is the answer though, at least during tourist season.  Time will tell.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on September 11, 2010, 08:56:40 PM
According to NBI, the current bridge was completed in 1912, so I doubt that abutment was meant for a separate bridge.  Probably was when the stream was channelized.  Or perhaps a temporary bridge while the current bridge was being built.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Alps on September 12, 2010, 12:37:40 AM
Quote from: froggie on September 11, 2010, 08:56:40 PM
According to NBI, the current bridge was completed in 1912, so I doubt that abutment was meant for a separate bridge.  Probably was when the stream was channelized.  Or perhaps a temporary bridge while the current bridge was being built.
I doubt they'd go through that much trouble for a temporary bridge, especially back then.  So I imagine you're right that it had to do with the channelization so that the 1912 bridge could be built.  Thanks, I'll edit my page and my understanding accordingly.
Title: Bennington (VT) Bypass Phase 2 may open early
Post by: froggie on August 01, 2011, 08:42:10 AM
The Bennington Banner (http://www.benningtonbanner.com/ci_18555311?IADID=Search-www.benningtonbanner.com-www.benningtonbanner.com) is reporting that Phase 2 of the Bennington Bypass may be finished by November.  This is the segment from the US 7/VT 279 interchange east and south to VT 9 on the east side of town.  The proposed Welcome Center (to be located within the 7/279 interchange), however, won't be completed by July as previously scheduled.

The article also notes that Phase 3 of the bypass, tying back into US 7 to the south, won't begin construction until 2016 at the earliest, and that's only if the Legislature appropriates money for the project next year.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Stephane Dumas on August 09, 2011, 01:26:47 PM
The municipal council of Burlington will plan to put bilingual signs French-English to attract tourists coming from the province of Quebec.
http://www.cjad.com/CJADLocalNews/entry.aspx?BlogEntryID=10270933
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on October 28, 2012, 11:49:21 PM
Resurrecting this thread (since there isn't a separate Manchester, VT thread).  Meaghan sent me a photo showing the new "Malfunction Junction" roundabout in Manchester open to traffic, albeit still under construction.  Her note is that it "doesn't look quite as malfunctiony", but that the mini-roundabout just to the north where VT 30 splits off towards Dorset is "so small the big trucks can't get around it."
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on December 18, 2012, 08:23:54 AM
Rode through the new Manchester roundabouts on Friday.  It appears that the traffic problem has now shifted from VT 11/30 to northbound VT 7A.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on January 10, 2013, 09:19:08 AM
http://www.stowetoday.com/stowe_reporter/news/local_news/article_3ef001dc-50a7-11e0-a0d3-001cc4c03286.html

http://www.wcax.com/story/19009527/work-set-to-begin-on-bypass-around-vt-town

http://www.vpr.net/news_detail/95483/regional-report-morrisville-bypass-begins-construc/

http://www.wcax.com/story/19548911/morrisville-debates-the-benefits-of-a-new-bypass

While in Morrisville a few times over the past week, noticed some road construction off VT 100 on the south side of town, and did some digging.  The above articles highlight that construction of a Morrisville bypass for VT 100 through (and especially truck) traffic has begun.  The bypass will basically go along the west edge of the core part of town, about a block west of existing VT 100 through northern Morrisville, and is intended to remove truck traffic from downtown.  Following VT 100 through Morrisville today basically involves four 90-degree turns (not counting the turn at VT 15).  One of these turns, where VT 100 meets VT 15A, is a 4-way stop sign at a skewed intersection that is IMO the #1 bottleneck in town.  The bypass will completely eliminate these turns for through traffic.

This document (http://www.lcpcvt.org/vertical/sites/%7B3C01460C-7F49-40F5-B243-0CA7924F23AF%7D/uploads/RSG_Morristown_Northend_Circulation_Study_FINAL_REPORT_09302011_small.pdf) from the Lamoille County Planning Commission is a traffic study for northern Morrisville and has a few maps of the planned bypass.  It notes that a roundabout will be built where the bypass meets VT 15.  Another roundabout already exists at the western VT 15/VT 100 junction.  I can't find it now, but I recall reading something last week that mentioned there would also be a traffic signal on the bypass where it met one of the access roads within Morrisville.

The planning document suggests the 3 existing signals on existing VT 100 (one of them at VT 15) would remain, and two more roundabouts would be added to existing VT 100, at Harrel St and a skewed "oval" at Stafford Ave/Northgate Ave.

I sent an E-mail to VTrans asking for a detailed layout and what route number changes would be implemented, but have not heard back yet.  It's possible (given language in the news articles) that existing VT 100 would remain and the bypass would be signed as an Alternate or Truck route.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on January 10, 2013, 09:45:56 AM
Did some related digging and found a few items of interest.  The Draft 2013-16 STIP (http://www.ccrpcvt.org/TIP_docs/ccrpc_fy2013_2016_tip_publichearing_draft.pdf) for Chittenden County and Burlington includes a 2014-15 project that would convert I-89 Exit 16 (US 2/7 in Colchester) into a diverging diamond (they call it a "double crossover diamond" in the STIP).

Meanwhile, the last page of the VTrans FY 2013 Roadway Program (http://www.aot.state.vt.us/capprog/documents/FY13/06DROADWAY.pdf) includes a couple of interesting future candidate projects:  expansion of I-89 Exit 13 (the I-89/I-189 interchange), and a new interchange on I-89 at VT 116 (just over a mile east of I-189).
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on January 15, 2013, 07:57:19 PM
Got an E-mail back from VTrans.  The bypass will become a rerouted VT 100, and the existing routing will be signed as "Historic VT 100".
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: NE2 on January 15, 2013, 08:47:39 PM
Quote from: froggie on January 15, 2013, 07:57:19 PM
Got an E-mail back from VTrans.  The bypass will become a rerouted VT 100, and the existing routing will be signed as "Historic VT 100".


Bleh. Vermont elsewhere uses Historic as a 'pass-through' banner that doesn't affect the designation, e.g. VT 7A.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dougtone/4148643258/
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Alps on January 15, 2013, 11:28:06 PM
I see no reason why "Historic" VT 100 couldn't be either a) 100 Business (see Bennington) or b) dropped altogether.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: yakra on January 24, 2013, 07:51:03 PM
Wait, Bennington? Business?
Do y'mean 100A, as compared to the VT7A that NE2 mentioned?
The only business route I know of in VT is US4Bus.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: shadyjay on January 25, 2013, 09:27:35 AM
There's Business US 2 in Montpelier too. 

Also there may be one in Burlington for US 7.  Haven't been that way in a while - winter I don't stray too far out of Washington County. 
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: vdeane on January 25, 2013, 11:40:26 AM
Burlington has Alt US 7, which exists southbound only.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Alps on January 25, 2013, 06:25:08 PM
Quote from: yakra on January 24, 2013, 07:51:03 PM
Wait, Bennington? Business?
Do y'mean 100A, as compared to the VT7A that NE2 mentioned?
The only business route I know of in VT is US4Bus.
Yeah, RUTLAND. It's like Bennington but my head is screwed up./
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Alps on January 28, 2013, 08:12:31 PM
Hey, so, I recall seeing final plans for the VT 279/US 7 interchange months if not years ago, and now I can't find anything. This would be with the visitor center inside. Where should I have been looking? Thanks.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on November 24, 2013, 08:45:37 AM
A couple recent articles out of the Burlington area:

http://www.miltonindependent.com/state-officials-support-exit-17/

A Milton article (though technically the location is just inside the Colchester town line) on proposed improvements to I-89/Exit 17 (where US 2 splits off US 7 to head towards Grand Isle).  Short term improvements ("Phase 1") basically consist of additional turn lanes, mostly on the east side of 89.  Longer-term improvements ("Phase 2") involve replacing the bridge over I-89 with a wider structure.  There's a project website I've seen on the Chittenden County MPO website, but can't find it at present.


http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20131119/NEWS02/311190019/Champlain-Parkway-Southern-Connector-inches-forward-in-Burlington

The Burlington Free Press version (WPTZ and WCAX also had articles as did an area blog) of a story from the other day where a prominent opponent of the Champlain Parkway project (a landowner near downtown in this case) drops his opposition to the project in return for concessions.  The concessions involved are a bit unclear, but what I was able to glean is that VTrans and the city will *NOT* explicitly sign the road as a route into downtown.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: jcroyer80 on November 26, 2013, 01:27:00 PM
Some additional news out of the Burlington area.  Governor Shumlin and Vtrans announced 34 new projects in Colchester, Essex, Essex Jct, and Williston that will take the place of the long planned/long faught/since cancelled Circ Highway.

http://www.vermontbiz.com/news/november/governor-shumlin-secretary-searles-applaud-circ-highway-alternative-plan

These projects do not include seperate regional/town projects already in the works (such as the Champlain Parkway).
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on December 01, 2013, 10:09:32 AM
I've posted my rendition of what I-89 in/around Burlington might become in the future in a Fictional Highways thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11020.msg262348#msg262348).  While most of it is based on official plans/proposals, there's enough of my own ideas to where I posted it under Fictional Highways instead of here.  That said, here's the graphic:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.staticflickr.com%2F3732%2F11151834576_14e9e8b9df_c_d.jpg&hash=ffb6ecfe125ccdb4c5930c974e097611bd1a1090) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ajfroggie/11151834576/)
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: vdeane on January 13, 2014, 09:30:50 PM
I was wondering, what's with the closed area with the blue sign on VT 279?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nysroads.com%2Fimages%2Fgallery%2FVT%2Fvt279%2F100_8456-s.JPG&hash=7cc4b78763726ddb8a26bc9b91cfad29b7c289e6)
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: NE2 on January 13, 2014, 09:39:22 PM
If you zoom in on the Goog it shows a "Bennington Welcome Center" there. Looks like it opened in October: http://www.benningtonbanner.com/localnews/ci_24519187/welcome-center-unveiled
Interesting way to use the redundant areas of the interchange. As far as I can tell, it's essentially a circle around the building with four approaches.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Dougtone on January 13, 2014, 09:48:21 PM
There is a welcome center that was being constructed within the interchange between US 7 and VT 279 in Bennington, hence the covered up blue sign.  My understanding is that the welcome center was opened sometime this past fall.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: vdeane on January 13, 2014, 11:55:11 PM
Guess I just missed the opening when I went to the Lebanon meet.  I was wondering if it was closed down or something; actually, the way the signs are covered, they look kinda like variable message panels.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on January 14, 2014, 11:02:06 AM
It opened just before I went on my post-deployment leave in November.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on February 23, 2014, 07:23:37 AM
Those who were at the Burlington meet last November may remember that the park-and-ride we used was under an expansion project.  That project is now completed, but now there is additional construction right across US 2 from the lot...I can't tell if it's a storm retention pond or ANOTHER new park-and-ride they're building.  VTrans is also adding a traffic signal on US 2 at the SB 89 off-ramp and main park-and-ride entrance.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: vdeane on February 23, 2014, 02:43:30 PM
Looks like the park and ride was an unintentional tour stop in addition to the meet-up location.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on February 23, 2014, 10:14:47 PM
Meanwhile, down in White River Junction, crews have finally started to remove the old US 4 bridge over the Connecticut River between WRJ and West Lebanon, NH.  Traffic has been using a "temporary bridge" for at least a few years now while the project has languished.  Driving through today, noticed that the easternmost bridge span (the old bridge was a through truss) is now gone.  It was still there in December.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on February 28, 2014, 02:35:09 PM
There's a project in the works to replace the US 2/VT 100 North (http://vtrans.vermont.gov/sites/aot/files/Roundabout%20Hearing%20Plans.pdf) junction in Waterbury with a roundabout.  According to VTrans, it's expected to begin this summer (http://vtrans.vermont.gov/projects/wap).

I think this old sign (http://www.flickr.com/photos/adamontheroad/7265006846/) is safe, though I'd expect this sign (http://www.flickr.com/photos/adamontheroad/7265007986/) to be replaced with the roundabout project.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 28, 2014, 04:39:06 PM
Quote from: froggie on February 23, 2014, 10:14:47 PM
Meanwhile, down in White River Junction, crews have finally started to remove the old US 4 bridge over the Connecticut River between WRJ and West Lebanon, NH.  Traffic has been using a "temporary bridge" for at least a few years now while the project has languished.  Driving through today, noticed that the easternmost bridge span (the old bridge was a through truss) is now gone.  It was still there in December.

Do you know the institutional arrangements between Vtrans and NHDOT for the bridges over the Connecticut River?  From Google Maps, it appears that the river belongs to New Hampshire up to the Vermont shoreline. 
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: shadyjay on February 28, 2014, 07:11:57 PM
Quote from: froggie on February 28, 2014, 02:35:09 PM
There's a project in the works to replace the US 2/VT 100 North (http://vtrans.vermont.gov/sites/aot/files/Roundabout%20Hearing%20Plans.pdf) junction in Waterbury with a roundabout.  According to VTrans, it's expected to begin this summer (http://vtrans.vermont.gov/projects/wap).

I think this old sign (http://www.flickr.com/photos/adamontheroad/7265006846/) is safe, though I'd expect this sign (http://www.flickr.com/photos/adamontheroad/7265007986/) to be replaced with the roundabout project.

What's funny is that the reverse of this sign http://www.flickr.com/photos/adamontheroad/7265008360/  was never corrected when US 2 East was reopened a few years ago to Middlesex.  Behind the "Bolton" sign, you can see the green of the "Middlesex" side which is still reversed, and AOT never put back up the EAST US 2 signage below the VT 100 SOUTH signage. 

Personally, I don't see how a rotary is going to fit in here, unless the white house at the intersection is demolished. 
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: KEVIN_224 on February 28, 2014, 08:14:33 PM
@ cpzilliacus: Most likely. I know the Seabees Memorial Bridge, which carries VT/NH Route 9, between Brattleboro, VT and Chesterfield, NH is like that. The state line there was clearly on the west shore, Vermont side.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on March 01, 2014, 09:49:52 AM
QuoteDo you know the institutional arrangements between Vtrans and NHDOT for the bridges over the Connecticut River?  From Google Maps, it appears that the river belongs to New Hampshire up to the Vermont shoreline.

I'm not sure the institutional arrangements.  But stemming from a 1935 Supreme Court case, the border is the mean-low-water mark (http://bigstory.ap.org/content/no-border-dispute-here-vt-nh-reaffirm-boundary) on the Vermont side.

QuotePersonally, I don't see how a rotary is going to fit in here, unless the white house at the intersection is demolished.

Per the first link in my roundabout comment, the schematic shows construction angling towards I-89, with the house being retained.

Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on April 10, 2014, 07:26:26 PM
Was in White River Jct today...crews have finished taking down all of the bridge deck and superstructure on the old US 4 bridge over the Connecticut River.  The bridge piers are still there.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: vdeane on April 27, 2014, 05:19:01 PM
Looks like there's a bill in Vermont to convert the interstates to mileage based exit numbers: http://openstates.org/vt/bills/2013-2014/S244/
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Duke87 on April 27, 2014, 07:53:11 PM
Introduced nearly four months ago, no movement since. Yeah, that's probably dead where it stands.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on April 28, 2014, 12:12:00 PM
Last time I corresponded with VTrans about it, they were hoping to delay as long as possible and ask for a variance if they could.  In short, VTrans has zero interest in converting to milepost-based.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: vdeane on April 28, 2014, 06:48:36 PM
Quote from: froggie on April 28, 2014, 12:12:00 PM
Last time I corresponded with VTrans about it, they were hoping to delay as long as possible and ask for a variance if they could.  In short, VTrans has zero interest in converting to milepost-based.
I think it's ironic that they're so opposed given that the rural nature of Vermont is ideal for distance-based numbers (and since VT 289 is mileage based; ironic, given that the only road in the state less optimized for it is I-189).  The best time to do it would have been when all the signs were replaced with clearview.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: hotdogPi on April 28, 2014, 06:55:50 PM
Quote from: vdeane on April 28, 2014, 06:48:36 PM
The best time to do it would have been when all the signs were replaced with clearview.

Do you really think they would switch?
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on April 28, 2014, 09:33:02 PM
QuoteThe best time to do it would have been when all the signs were replaced with clearview.

Some of these Clearview sign contracts (I-91 north of Lyndonville, for example) were made before the MUTCD was adopted and mandated the exit number change.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Duke87 on April 28, 2014, 11:06:03 PM
Quote from: vdeane on April 28, 2014, 06:48:36 PM
I think it's ironic that they're so opposed given that the rural nature of Vermont is ideal for distance-based numbers (and since VT 289 is mileage based; ironic, given that the only road in the state less optimized for it is I-189).

You underestimate the ability of New England to resist change because "we've always done it this way and it seems to work fine".

Vermont may be ideal for distance-based numbers, but they aren't going to willingly change just because the feds said so. The locals are quite familiar and comfortable with the existing exit numbers and changing them for any reason is not going to be a popular idea.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: shadyjay on June 17, 2014, 09:32:16 PM
Couple observations from a trip down south this past weekend:

I-91 NB:
Former welcome center at the Mass state line is under construction.  They're building a full size truck inspection (weigh) station.  All former buildings are gone (the vending machine shelter has been there since they tore down the main building) and a large parking lot has taken shape.  No work done to the small parking area about a mile or so to the north. 

Also, a project is in the works to replace signage from the Mass State Line to Rockingham, though it appears no work has started yet.  I'm not sure if the contract has been awarded yet.


I-89:
Observed the SB parking area just past Exit 4 in Randolph was all torn up.  Is it going to be removed?  Really no point to it, as its 3/4 mile past Exit 4, and about 3 miles south of the on-highway rest area.  Also I read that they're going to get rid of that rest area too.  It'd be a shame if they do, but I hear they're planning on building some large complex right off Exit 4, complete with welcome center.  Somehow, these just don't have the allure of on-highway facilities.  I'd rather not get off the highway to go to a rest area. 
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on June 18, 2014, 09:14:07 AM
Jay, have you popped through Brookfield and the VT 65 bridge over Sunset Lake lately?  They're in the process of a full replacement.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: shadyjay on June 18, 2014, 04:27:25 PM
Quote from: froggie on June 18, 2014, 09:14:07 AM
Jay, have you popped through Brookfield and the VT 65 bridge over Sunset Lake lately?  They're in the process of a full replacement.

I have not, though I heard they were replacing the bridge.  About time.... VT 65 has been in two segments for too long.  Guess it doesn't really matter... it's not even a paved road, yet its state-maintained.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on June 18, 2014, 05:06:23 PM
The only such road, as best as I can tell, though it is paved east of Brookfield down to VT 14.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on July 13, 2014, 10:50:26 PM
Quote from: froggie
There's a project in the works to replace the US 2/VT 100 North (http://vtrans.vermont.gov/sites/aot/files/Roundabout%20Hearing%20Plans.pdf) junction in Waterbury with a roundabout.  According to VTrans, it's expected to begin this summer (http://vtrans.vermont.gov/projects/wap).

The Waterbury roundabout project officially began this past week, though I didn't see any discernible construction as of yesterday.  VTrans expects to finish it by next summer.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on July 24, 2014, 07:11:45 PM
Last week, VTrans posted this vintage video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UM06kzj_gKQ&feature=youtu.be) on YouTube, of the opening of I-91 between White River Junction and Windsor.  The first part shows scenes near the I-89/I-91 interchange.  Most of the video shows various shots during a caravan drive on northbound I-91 between Windsor and White River Jct.  Check out the guide signage at 2:16-2:19, 3:10, and 3:16.

The video title lists it as 1961, though Vermont official state maps suggest it opened in 1966.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: agentsteel53 on July 24, 2014, 07:21:52 PM
1966 for sure, going by the cars.

I bet some of those button copy guide signs were still up as of a few years ago.

shield spec appears to be 1961, except for the interstate shields, which are '57 spec shields with 5/12ths number height (15" on a 36" sign), that is very close to '61 spec, except '61 spec also made the red crown shorter.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on July 24, 2014, 08:10:41 PM
QuoteI bet some of those button copy guide signs were still up as of a few years ago.

All of the signage you see in this video was gone no later than 2008.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: The Nature Boy on July 24, 2014, 08:57:29 PM
Quote from: froggie on July 24, 2014, 08:10:41 PM
QuoteI bet some of those button copy guide signs were still up as of a few years ago.

All of the signage you see in this video was gone no later than 2008.

It was interesting for me to see that West Lebanon, NH was the control city at the I-89/91 interchange then. If I recall correctly, the control cities there now are "New Hampshire" and "Airport."

I would personally go with "West Lebanon, NH" and "Concord, NH."
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: shadyjay on July 24, 2014, 09:36:39 PM
Quote from: froggie on July 24, 2014, 08:10:41 PM
QuoteI bet some of those button copy guide signs were still up as of a few years ago.

All of the signage you see in this video was gone no later than 2008.

I've been traveling to Vermont since 1990 (and living here since '05).  The signs for Exits 9 & 10 have not been button copy as long as I've been traveling I-91.  Those for Exit 9 are now on their third generation (if you count the version shown in the video, then the former signage which had the 12 in a circle shield and had two control points (Windsor and Hartland), then the present with the green VT oval shield).  Exit 9 signs were replaced as part of a spot project.  It didn't make it to Exit 10, and Exit 9 only got new green shields on the existing older sign. 

Now signage from Exit 11 (WRJ), northward, that was button copy up until around 2008. 

Exit 10 signage on both I-89 and I-91 is old but not ancient.  It's not button copy but was probably installed sometime in the 1980s.  The northbound "Junction 89/2 Miles" sign was missing during my June trip down south, and when I came through on my way back from down south last weekend, the sign was replaced with a new carbon copy version. 

Given there's a project to replace signs on I-91 from the Mass border up to Rockingham, I'm guessing we're going to have to wait a little while longer to get the project to replace the last oldest interstate signage in the state, from Springfield up to White River Jct.  Hopefully, they'll throw on a sidebar for the only section of I-89 to not get resigned/Clearviewed, from NH to the Exit 3 area (though Exit 2's NB signs are fairly recent and all of Exit 3 has new signage, except the mileage sign SB after Exit 3).

Finally....

I noticed the parking area on I-89 SB after Exit 4 in Randolph is open once again.  It appeared they were just using it is a staging area for a paving project.  Really not sure why they kept that parking area open, while much larger former rest areas could be parking areas (Hartford-NB, Randolph-NB, Sharon-SB). 
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: agentsteel53 on July 24, 2014, 10:19:45 PM
Quote from: froggie on July 24, 2014, 08:10:41 PM
QuoteI bet some of those button copy guide signs were still up as of a few years ago.

All of the signage you see in this video was gone no later than 2008.

that's what I meant.  a lot of my extensive travel in VT was 2006-07.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Alps on July 24, 2014, 11:05:21 PM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on July 24, 2014, 08:57:29 PM
Quote from: froggie on July 24, 2014, 08:10:41 PM
QuoteI bet some of those button copy guide signs were still up as of a few years ago.

All of the signage you see in this video was gone no later than 2008.

It was interesting for me to see that West Lebanon, NH was the control city at the I-89/91 interchange then. If I recall correctly, the control cities there now are "New Hampshire" and "Airport."

I would personally go with "West Lebanon, NH" and "Concord, NH."
West Lebanon strikes me as "the road is only completed across the river." The lack of second destination suggests there was no travel to the northwest at this time. There should be one direction each way - Concord and Montpelier.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: The Nature Boy on July 24, 2014, 11:20:38 PM
Quote from: Alps on July 24, 2014, 11:05:21 PM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on July 24, 2014, 08:57:29 PM
Quote from: froggie on July 24, 2014, 08:10:41 PM
QuoteI bet some of those button copy guide signs were still up as of a few years ago.

All of the signage you see in this video was gone no later than 2008.

It was interesting for me to see that West Lebanon, NH was the control city at the I-89/91 interchange then. If I recall correctly, the control cities there now are "New Hampshire" and "Airport."

I would personally go with "West Lebanon, NH" and "Concord, NH."
West Lebanon strikes me as "the road is only completed across the river." The lack of second destination suggests there was no travel to the northwest at this time. There should be one direction each way - Concord and Montpelier.

I was referring to the current signage. Though I do wonder now when I-89 opened in Vermont.

The control cities for I-89 West (now) are Barre and Montpelier (another mistake IMO, I would personally do Montpelier and Burlington). I-89 East could be West Lebanon and Concord or possibly Concord and Manchester. West Lebanon is where all of the local big box stores are so it may be worthy of being a control city since it could be seen as a destination. Lebanon and WRJ are the control cities for I-89 at its beginning down in Bow, NH.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Alps on July 25, 2014, 01:03:57 AM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on July 24, 2014, 11:20:38 PM
Quote from: Alps on July 24, 2014, 11:05:21 PM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on July 24, 2014, 08:57:29 PM
Quote from: froggie on July 24, 2014, 08:10:41 PM
QuoteI bet some of those button copy guide signs were still up as of a few years ago.

All of the signage you see in this video was gone no later than 2008.

It was interesting for me to see that West Lebanon, NH was the control city at the I-89/91 interchange then. If I recall correctly, the control cities there now are "New Hampshire" and "Airport."

I would personally go with "West Lebanon, NH" and "Concord, NH."
West Lebanon strikes me as "the road is only completed across the river." The lack of second destination suggests there was no travel to the northwest at this time. There should be one direction each way - Concord and Montpelier.

I was referring to the current signage. Though I do wonder now when I-89 opened in Vermont.

The control cities for I-89 West (now) are Barre and Montpelier (another mistake IMO, I would personally do Montpelier and Burlington). I-89 East could be West Lebanon and Concord or possibly Concord and Manchester. West Lebanon is where all of the local big box stores are so it may be worthy of being a control city since it could be seen as a destination. Lebanon and WRJ are the control cities for I-89 at its beginning down in Bow, NH.
If you're signing two destinations, I agree with you on Montpelier/Burlington and West Lebanon/Concord. However, you're only really supposed to sign one destination each way on advance signs. Here's what I would do: I-89 North Montpelier, I-89 South Concord, for the 2-mile, 1-mile, and 1/2 mile advance signs (major Interstate junction warrants those). Supplemental sign at 1.5 miles in advance says "Exit ___A for West Lebanon" and "Exit ___B for Burlington" (interchange still isn't numbered, but it will be under mile-based). When you get to the exit itself, the overhead signs can have two destinations each, because you've signed them in advance on the other signs.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on July 25, 2014, 07:07:29 AM
Steve is correct in that, when the stretch of I-91 in the video opened, I-89 to the north did not (it opened a couple years later).  But, oddly enough, when I-89 opened across the river, it connected to a previously open stretch that extended down to Grantham.

Also of note, the I-89/I-91 interchange remains unnumbered along I-89, but is Exit 10 on I-91.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: shadyjay on July 30, 2014, 05:43:01 PM
Quote from: froggie on July 13, 2014, 10:50:26 PM
The Waterbury roundabout project officially began this past week, though I didn't see any discernible construction as of yesterday.  VTrans expects to finish it by next summer.

Came through the intersection this past Saturday.  Full scale construction now taking place.  US 2 is all torn up in the area of the VT 100 North intersection and by the community pool/post office, there's widening work taking place.  Looks like the rotary will be "open" later this fall, and completed fully next spring/summer.

Further north, a new traffic light is going in on the Exit 10-NB offramp at VT 100.  There's also a plan to close (at least temporarily) the direct VT 100 North to I-89 South ramp, utilizing the VT 100 South ramp.  This is part of a project to replace the I-89 bridges over Stowe Street, just east of Exit 10.

All the details here, and then some:
http://watp.vtransprojects.vermont.gov/
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: shadyjay on August 23, 2014, 09:27:08 PM
Update as of yesterday:

Full scale construction at the new rotary site.  Temporary traffic lights are up, but each direction (2W/100N, 2E, 100S, and Maxi's/P.O. access, all operate on separate phases.  I think this is because of the narrow roadway on 2E prohibiting a "left turn lane", so if 2W/100N and 2E were on the same phase, 2E traffic would back up with cars trying to turn onto 100N to 89.  The former 100NB roadway from this intersection, NB to just before the SB I-89 Exit 10 ramp is closed and all traffic is using the former 100S roadway (1 lane NB/2 lanes SB).  Traffic is backing up pretty good through here daily.  SB I-89 motorists exiting at Exit 10 should be prepared for stopped traffic on the ramp.  Meanwhile, the I-89 NB Exit 10 offramp traffic light at 100 is now up and running.  The direct ramp from 100N to 89S remains open.  This ramp is scheduled for a "trial" closure next year.

Work on 100S from 2 down to Waitsfield is set to (finally) start this Monday.  It'll entail some 13 miles of paving.  Some of the road in Waitsfield is really bad.  I know - I drive it every day to/from work.

And the resurfacing of US 2 from Waterbury west to Bolton continues.  Counted 3 "flagger-controlled" work zones on Friday while passing by on I-89.

Heading up to Williston way, I saw a green US 2A shield posted in the new complex recently built across from Maple Tree Place off VT 2A near Tafts Corner (just north of I-89 Exit 12).  Saw the backs of some other shields in there - not sure if there's any other surprises.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Mergingtraffic on August 23, 2014, 10:37:54 PM
Any 57 or 61 state-named I-91 or I-89 shields left in the wild?
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: shadyjay on August 24, 2014, 12:27:16 AM
Hmmmm... not sure, but a couple weeks ago, I noticed a quite old "To Vermont I-91" shield on US 302 West at a point west of Littleton NH, some 20 miles away from I-91. 
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Urban Prairie Schooner on August 24, 2014, 01:01:56 AM
Quote from: doofy103 on August 23, 2014, 10:37:54 PM
Any 57 or 61 state-named I-91 or I-89 shields left in the wild?

Look in White River Junction at the intersection of Connecticut River Road and Sykes Mountain Avenue - you will find one of each.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on August 25, 2014, 08:51:03 AM
Here and there, mostly off-system.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Alps on August 26, 2014, 08:30:48 PM
I've now been to the new Bennington Welcome Center inside VT 279/US 7. Something that hasn't really made its way out there yet is how that's all configured. (Google and OSM show no Welcome Center ramps, and the aerial is outdated.) Well, wonder no more: all four freeway ends terminate in a loop road that encircles the Center. The longest trip is the one I did: from US 7 SB to VT 279 WB requires two nearly full circuits of the loop road.

Take this (http://goo.gl/maps/foP3y), draw a circle around the inside of the two loops, and then connect it to the NSEW.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Alps on August 26, 2014, 08:36:30 PM
Quote from: doofy103 on August 23, 2014, 10:37:54 PM
Any 57 or 61 state-named I-91 or I-89 shields left in the wild?
Yes, I ran across one yesterday, and I'm sure it's not the only one. I think it was an 89. I'll tell you in 3-5 years.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Mergingtraffic on August 27, 2014, 03:00:19 PM
Quote from: Urban Prairie Schooner on August 24, 2014, 01:01:56 AM
Quote from: doofy103 on August 23, 2014, 10:37:54 PM
Any 57 or 61 state-named I-91 or I-89 shields left in the wild?

Look in White River Junction at the intersection of Connecticut River Road and Sykes Mountain Avenue - you will find one of each.

Those look to be new with old specs.  The 2009 GSV didnt' have it but the 2012 does.  Interesting.

Quote from: Alps on August 26, 2014, 08:36:30 PM
Quote from: doofy103 on August 23, 2014, 10:37:54 PM
Any 57 or 61 state-named I-91 or I-89 shields left in the wild?
Yes, I ran across one yesterday, and I'm sure it's not the only one. I think it was an 89. I'll tell you in 3-5 years.

Ok Steve spill it.  lol
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 27, 2014, 03:08:59 PM
Quote from: doofy103 on August 27, 2014, 03:00:19 PM
Those look to be new with old specs.  The 2009 GSV didnt' have it but the 2012 does.  Interesting.

those shields look to be fairly old and faded.  I bet they were moved from another location.  Vermont does that.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Alps on August 27, 2014, 10:15:49 PM
Quote from: doofy103 on August 27, 2014, 03:00:19 PM
Quote from: Alps on August 26, 2014, 08:36:30 PM
Quote from: doofy103 on August 23, 2014, 10:37:54 PM
Any 57 or 61 state-named I-91 or I-89 shields left in the wild?
Yes, I ran across one yesterday, and I'm sure it's not the only one. I think it was an 89. I'll tell you in 3-5 years.

Ok Steve spill it.  lol
It's buried somewhere deep in my photos. I remember that I had to take it over my shoulder. It might have been 207 southbound at its short multiplex.


EDIT: Yes. 207 south, where it turns right onto 78, says SOUTH 207 (right) TO 89 (right). Strangely can't see it in Google SV.


EDIT2: Very crappy in GSV. (http://goo.gl/maps/jwkbD)
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: vdeane on September 03, 2014, 02:10:07 PM
I've decided that I'm going to include rest area names for my exit lists on NYS Roads; I've gotten them for NY from NYSDOT's website and internal documentation (the NYC service areas I can get from NYCroads.com) but I'm not sure about Vermont.  Does anyone know if Vermont's rest areas have names, and if so, what they are?
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on September 03, 2014, 02:57:35 PM
http://bgs.vermont.gov/information_centers/map
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: jcroyer80 on September 03, 2014, 04:34:26 PM
Quote from: vdeane on September 03, 2014, 02:10:07 PM
I've decided that I'm going to include rest area names for my exit lists on NYS Roads; I've gotten them for NY from NYSDOT's website and internal documentation (the NYC service areas I can get from NYCroads.com) but I'm not sure about Vermont.  Does anyone know if Vermont's rest areas have names, and if so, what they are?

No names other than the town/city they are located in or near.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: shadyjay on September 03, 2014, 05:19:11 PM
Quote from: jcroyer80 on September 03, 2014, 04:34:26 PM
No names other than the town/city they are located in or near.

Correct... the names adjacent to each info center on the map are the names which are posted on the actual buildings.  Signs on the interstate depict them solely as "Rest Area", "Rest Area/Vermont Welcome Center", and "Rest Area/Tourist Info Center". 

Come to think of it, I've only seen named rest areas on the Northway... High Peaks Rest Area comes to mind.  And outside of names of the service plazas on the Thruway and the Mass Pike (which are just the name of the town they are located in), I've seen nothing else specialized.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: vdeane on September 03, 2014, 06:19:09 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on September 03, 2014, 05:19:11 PM
Quote from: jcroyer80 on September 03, 2014, 04:34:26 PM
No names other than the town/city they are located in or near.

Correct... the names adjacent to each info center on the map are the names which are posted on the actual buildings.  Signs on the interstate depict them solely as "Rest Area", "Rest Area/Vermont Welcome Center", and "Rest Area/Tourist Info Center". 

It's similar in NY... the names are posted online and on the buildings, but not on signs from the road.

Quote from: froggie on September 03, 2014, 02:57:35 PM
http://bgs.vermont.gov/information_centers/map

Awesome!  If anyone's wondering, NY has a map too: https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/page/portal/regional-offices/statewide-rest-areas?nd=nysdot

Fun fact: most of the "temporarily closed" rest areas were ones NYSDOT was already considering closing before the mass closure a few years ago.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: shadyjay on September 05, 2014, 05:26:10 PM
After a hike up Camel's Hump, I descended into Waterbury for a creamee, right into the heart of "rotary construction madness".  Definitely looks like progress is being made. 

First, a shot of the old diagramattic for the intersection.  I'm guessing this will get replaced eventually:
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-u1cWGSUzo_o/VAopNwCmC2I/AAAAAAAATrk/q1yv9a3IgIA/s512/IMG_2085.JPG)
There used to be an ancient black-on-white version of this sign on US 2 East west of the intersection, but I believe it's gone.


(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-KPUP3BTgbAU/VAopNHgIxWI/AAAAAAAATrg/i2nPKOZH12k/s640/IMG_2086.JPG)
Rotary construction is moving right along.  All that curbing to the right of the "Stop Here On Red" sign is new.  Interesting to see how a rotary is built while traffic is maintained through a busy 3-way intersection.

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-LefftdrQUuQ/VAopNVRvMMI/AAAAAAAATrg/xVnGddHfHpE/s640/IMG_2087.JPG)
Hard to tell, but that's a state-name I-89 shield on the assembly to the right of the temporary traffic light.  I'm pretty sure there was a newer shield here until work began.


Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Pete from Boston on September 05, 2014, 11:56:00 PM
Waterbury?  How could you even drive anymore when at the home of Heady Topper?   Some things are worth giving up the road for.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Alps on September 06, 2014, 02:02:51 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 05, 2014, 11:56:00 PM
Waterbury?  How could you even drive anymore when at the home of Heady Topper?   Some things are worth giving up the road for.
I don't like fruit in my beer. I passed right by without stopping. Now Cold Hollow Cider Mill, if it's cider season (and it just about is)...
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on September 06, 2014, 07:36:49 AM
QuoteWaterbury?  How could you even drive anymore when at the home of Heady Topper?   Some things are worth giving up the road for.

Forget the Alchemist.  The food is where it's at...
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Rainking75 on September 06, 2014, 08:59:25 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 05, 2014, 11:56:00 PM
Waterbury?  How could you even drive anymore when at the home of Heady Topper?   Some things are worth giving up the road for.


Heady Topper!!! That stuff is like unobtainium! If any locals are willing the ship their weekly allocation to NC, I'd make it worth your while...
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on September 06, 2014, 09:18:57 AM
Hill's better...just sayin'.
Title: Vermont
Post by: Pete from Boston on September 06, 2014, 11:22:11 AM
Quote from: froggie on September 06, 2014, 09:18:57 AM
Hill's better...just sayin'.

I'm content to disagree.  More for me.

The only eating I've done in Waterbury was at Prohibition Pig.  Maybe our expectations were too high, but it was, well, not all we were led to expect. 

Quote from: Alps on September 06, 2014, 02:02:51 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 05, 2014, 11:56:00 PM
Waterbury?  How could you even drive anymore when at the home of Heady Topper?   Some things are worth giving up the road for.
I don't like fruit in my beer. I passed right by without stopping. Now Cold Hollow Cider Mill, if it's cider season (and it just about is)...

Despite the nonsensical verbal diarrhea on beeradvocate.com, Heady Topper isn't fruity.  It tastes much more like a neatly balanced yet still very strong IPA.  The extent of the fruitiness (I had never considered that there was any until now) is a citrusiness that is not unlike the same flavor derived from hops. 

I too dislike fruity beers (Magic Hat could close down tomorrow and I wouldn't notice), but this is much more an IPA-lover's beer.  Trust taste, not words.   

In any case, I see you can't visit them since Irene anyway.

Now if I can just close my eyes for three months and forget that some crackpot ruined beer with pumpkins... wouldn't bother me if do many otherwise great rotating taps weren't blocked up with pumpkin everything. 
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: shadyjay on September 06, 2014, 12:28:41 PM
Heady Toppers are good, but super-expensive.  I think I've only had one a handful of times.  You should see the stores around my town when it gets delivered.  It's usually gone that same day.

The Alchemist brewery up in Waterbury center is no longer open to the public since it got out of hand with traffic/parking.  Their original "restaurant" on So Main St (2/100) got destroyed by Irene and is now the Prohibition Pig. 
Title: Vermont
Post by: Pete from Boston on September 06, 2014, 01:39:39 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on September 06, 2014, 12:28:41 PM
Heady Toppers are good, but super-expensive.  I think I've only had one a handful of times.  You should see the stores around my town when it gets delivered.  It's usually gone that same day.

The Alchemist brewery up in Waterbury center is no longer open to the public since it got out of hand with traffic/parking.  Their original "restaurant" on So Main St (2/100) got destroyed by Irene and is now the Prohibition Pig.

$75/case, at my last check.  Not sure about the 4-packs, but the 16-oz cans run about $8 in bars.  I do wonder about how much of what's going on is prestige/scarcity pricing, but it's not much of an issue from where I live. 

This is all making me feel like I need to go visit my Heady Topper, er, family in the area again soon.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Alps on September 08, 2014, 12:01:22 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 06, 2014, 11:22:11 AM

Quote from: Alps on September 06, 2014, 02:02:51 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 05, 2014, 11:56:00 PM
Waterbury?  How could you even drive anymore when at the home of Heady Topper?   Some things are worth giving up the road for.
I don't like fruit in my beer. I passed right by without stopping. Now Cold Hollow Cider Mill, if it's cider season (and it just about is)...

Despite the nonsensical verbal diarrhea on beeradvocate.com, Heady Topper isn't fruity.  It tastes much more like a neatly balanced yet still very strong IPA.  The extent of the fruitiness (I had never considered that there was any until now) is a citrusiness that is not unlike the same flavor derived from hops. 
I don't read BA or any other beer reviews. I tasted Heady Topper. My opinion remains as stated, and I disagree with yours. But hey, that's what opinions are for.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Pete from Boston on September 08, 2014, 08:52:20 AM
Ok. I took "I don't like fruit in my beer. I passed right by without stopping" to imply "Fruit beer not worth the stop to try."
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Rainking75 on September 08, 2014, 09:09:03 PM
I'm with you Pete. Fruit was the furthest thing from my mind when I sampled a Heady Topper.

However, for something a hops lover will go crazy for, try La Cumbre out of Albuquerque. I love a hoppy IPA as much as the next guy, but this one borders on overwhelming!

And now, back to discussions of Vermont roads...  :bigass:
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Pete from Boston on September 08, 2014, 10:54:50 PM
Roads: Is exit 2 or exit 3 the better way to get to the Worthy Burger (which is rumored to have a terrific beer selection)?

Sorry, these days beer exploration (in moderation, of course) is half of what gets me out poking around the roads these days.  Vermont is lush with opportunities in this regard.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: yakra on September 08, 2014, 11:24:21 PM
*rimshot*
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on September 09, 2014, 06:17:53 AM
Coming from the south (as I presume you would be), Exit 2 is better to get to Worthy Burger.  A bit of warning, though:  they only accept cash.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on September 22, 2014, 09:11:20 PM
This article (http://www.newsandcitizen.com/news-and-citizen/lamoille-news/morrisvillebypassupdate) from a week-and-a-half ago suggests the Morrisville bypass is still on tap to open in 2 weeks (the 3rd being the cited date).  Potential delays due to a traffic signal change (and our wonderful Vermont weather) are possible, though, but VTrans seems confident that it will open in October.

I also found this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTCJXLDMn18) which is a flyover of the bypass construction from last November.  It appears to have been filmed from a small drone.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Duke87 on September 22, 2014, 10:15:00 PM
So why is this "bypass" cutting through the northern part of town as opposed to bypassing it completely? Wetland issues?
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: shadyjay on September 22, 2014, 10:25:09 PM
It's been several years since I've been through Morrisville.  We used to take a route that bypassed the center of town, departing from Rt 100 north of Stowe and rejoining I think where the new rotary is.  It definitely wasn't a truck route, though. 

In other news....

Effective 1-October, it will be illegal to be using a handheld electronic device while driving a vehicle (ie... no cell phones).  It's already illegal to do so in a work zone, but on Oct 1, it'll be illegal everywhere in the state.  Just a heads up for those planning on coming up during the foliage, winter, or "road geeking" seasons. 
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Duke87 on September 22, 2014, 11:34:33 PM
The question that always comes up in my mind in these cases is "does this apply to using a camera?"

According to definitions in VT law, 23 V.S.A. § 4(82):
Quote"Portable electronic device" means a portable electronic or computing device, including a cellular telephone, personal digital assistant (PDA), or laptop computer.

It seems that the answer is (implicitly) yes. So if you got a ticket it would likely hold up in court. The question which is difficult to answer then, is what is the likelihood a cop will give you a ticket if he sees you doing it.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: The Nature Boy on September 22, 2014, 11:49:17 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on September 22, 2014, 11:34:33 PM
The question that always comes up in my mind in these cases is "does this apply to using a camera?"

According to definitions in VT law, 23 V.S.A. § 4(82):
Quote"Portable electronic device" means a portable electronic or computing device, including a cellular telephone, personal digital assistant (PDA), or laptop computer.

It seems that the answer is (implicitly) yes. So if you got a ticket it would likely hold up in court. The question which is difficult to answer then, is what is the likelihood a cop will give you a ticket if he sees you doing it.

Couldn't you fight that by arguing legislative intent? There are plenty of legal portable electronic devices in a car. If you stretch it too far, you've just banned GPSes and things as minor as FM transmitters.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: yakra on September 23, 2014, 01:56:19 AM
Wow. This bypass seemed to go thru pretty quickly. I don't see the alignment on Google or Bing satellite view, or Mapnik. Have links to any maps?

The August 7 2012 VTRANS shapefiles don't show it,  even as under construction or proposed (compare VT289)...
I'll have to download a newer revision and see if it shows up.

Edit: No luck on the newest shapefiles. :(
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on September 23, 2014, 08:26:27 AM
QuoteSo why is this "bypass" cutting through the northern part of town as opposed to bypassing it completely? Wetland issues?

Not really "wetland issues".  It's a combination of topography, the river, Lake Lamoille (which the river expands into just west of downtown), and the closeness of Hyde Park and Cadys Falls northwest of the lake.  The selected route really was the best route to use, nor was there really a need to "bypass it completely".  The main intention is to get trucks out of the multiple turns that 100 takes downtown, and the routing accomplishes that quite adequately.

The bypass will be limited access, with a handful of at-grade intersections, a traffic signal at Bridge St, and a roundabout where it ties into VT 15.  The Lamoille Valley Rail Trail crosses over it just north of Bridge St (should be a pretty good vantage point).  IIRC, the speed limit will be 40.

(EDIT)  Eric:  this document (http://www.lcpcvt.org/vertical/sites/%7B3C01460C-7F49-40F5-B243-0CA7924F23AF%7D/uploads/RSG_Morristown_Northend_Circulation_Study_FINAL_REPORT_09302011_small.pdf) includes a map of most of the bypass on page 10.  It also goes into some of the details behind the need for the bypass.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Pete from Boston on September 23, 2014, 12:14:32 PM

Quote from: The Nature Boy on September 22, 2014, 11:49:17 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on September 22, 2014, 11:34:33 PM
The question that always comes up in my mind in these cases is "does this apply to using a camera?"

According to definitions in VT law, 23 V.S.A. § 4(82):
Quote"Portable electronic device" means a portable electronic or computing device, including a cellular telephone, personal digital assistant (PDA), or laptop computer.

It seems that the answer is (implicitly) yes. So if you got a ticket it would likely hold up in court. The question which is difficult to answer then, is what is the likelihood a cop will give you a ticket if he sees you doing it.

Couldn't you fight that by arguing legislative intent? There are plenty of legal portable electronic devices in a car. If you stretch it too far, you've just banned GPSes and things as minor as FM transmitters.

I met someone recently who said he got ticketed under the similar Mass. law for using a tobacco vaporizer pen.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: yakra on September 24, 2014, 01:11:08 AM
Guess I'll have to switch back to the old analog camera for roadgeeking purposes then. :P
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Duke87 on September 24, 2014, 01:17:56 AM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on September 22, 2014, 11:49:17 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on September 22, 2014, 11:34:33 PM
The question that always comes up in my mind in these cases is "does this apply to using a camera?"

According to definitions in VT law, 23 V.S.A. § 4(82):
Quote"Portable electronic device" means a portable electronic or computing device, including a cellular telephone, personal digital assistant (PDA), or laptop computer.

It seems that the answer is (implicitly) yes. So if you got a ticket it would likely hold up in court. The question which is difficult to answer then, is what is the likelihood a cop will give you a ticket if he sees you doing it.

Couldn't you fight that by arguing legislative intent? There are plenty of legal portable electronic devices in a car. If you stretch it too far, you've just banned GPSes and things as minor as FM transmitters.

The car's radio isn't "portable" since it's permanently affixed to the vehicle. And you're not supposed to manually punch any requests into a GPS unless you're stopped. Listening to directions coming from it is hands-free and thus doesn't fall under the statute.

In order to get around the prohibition as written you would have to either have the camera be a permanent part of the vehicle (a la Street view cars) or be able to operate it hands-free.

As for legislative intent, you could just as easily argue that the intent is to stop people from using devices which distract them from driving, which they will say a camera qualifies as. New York and Ontario have similar laws and the courts in both jurisdictions have already ruled that use of a camera while driving is illegal under them. Meanwhile if you do get the courts to throw your ticket out, you can bet the legislature will subsequently amend the law to close the loophole that allowed that.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on September 24, 2014, 10:43:56 AM
QuoteEffective 1-October, it will be illegal to be using a handheld electronic device while driving a vehicle (ie... no cell phones).  It's already illegal to do so in a work zone, but on Oct 1, it'll be illegal everywhere in the state.

VTrans has already started posting signage noting the new permanent law...I pass one such sign on I-91 near the Wilder exit last night, but it was well after dark so no photo.

Mods:  the discussion on "legislative intent" is interesting enough, but also non-topic enough to where it probably warrants splitting those posts off into a separate thread.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: jcroyer80 on September 24, 2014, 03:13:31 PM
Meant to post this the other day but there was a good article in the Free Press about traffic congestion in Chittenden County and various projects Vtrans is working on or planning.  One of the more interesting nuggets was that in 2016 the Chittenden County Regional Planning Comission will begin the analysis to expand Interstate 89 to 3 lanes in both directions between Exit 12 (Williston) and Exit 17 (Colchester/Islands/Milton).  As someone who drives this route daily I can agree that this project is way overdue (as is the "12b" exit at Route 116 and/or a full interchange at Exit 13).

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/local/2014/09/15/vtrendlines-chittenden-county-traffic/15514571/
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: shadyjay on September 24, 2014, 05:41:07 PM
It's too bad that the state chose the Burlington-Charlotte corridor to initiate a trial (later cancelled) commuter rail service.  What they should've done was tried it on the Montpelier-Burlington section.  Then if all goes well, you could expand it up to St Albans area.  Not much would be required, either, as the main is already good for 59.  Maybe install a signal system to get 79 mph, overhaul between Essex Jct and Burlington (that section is 10 mph), reactivate some passing sidings, and add a few stations. 

As many would say, it's not just those driving in between Montpelier, Burlington, and intermediate points... it's also those driving in from Underhill to the east and Hinesburg to the south.  Hinesburg traffic backs up Route 116 daily.  What's the solution there?  Bus service? 

Maybe a solution is expanded park & ride facilities.  They just finished expanding the Richmond lot but it seems to be full again.  I don't know how many spaces they added - I don't think it was that many.  It's kind of restricted by its site as far as expansion, sitting in between US 2 and I-89.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on September 24, 2014, 07:44:52 PM
I don't think 89 needs 3 lanes each way.  Traffic may be bad but it isn't THAT bad.  At most, all that's needed is some auxiliary lanes between Exits 13, 14, and 15.

There are far worse areas than 89.  2A near Williston's "retail hell" is also "traffic hell".  Williston Rd and Main St (basically 2 through South Burlington and Burlington) are also bad....but options there are much more limited due to limited street width.

As for commuter rail service, I was under the impression that the Burlington-Charlotte rail service was because VTrans was rebuilding Shelburne Rd at the time.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: shadyjay on September 24, 2014, 09:49:52 PM
Quote from: froggie on September 24, 2014, 07:44:52 PM
I don't think 89 needs 3 lanes each way.  Traffic may be bad but it isn't THAT bad.  At most, all that's needed is some auxiliary lanes between Exits 13, 14, and 15.

Definitely agree that only auxiliary lanes are needed.  Far less costly than additional full-blown travel lanes.  Between Exits 13 & 14, auxiliary lanes would definitely help, especially northbound.  As for between Exits 14 & 15, the Winooski River Bridge is already 3 lanes in each direction, so you'd have about a mile section to widen there.

Quote

There are far worse areas than 89.  2A near Williston's "retail hell" is also "traffic hell".  Williston Rd and Main St (basically 2 through South Burlington and Burlington) are also bad....but options there are much more limited due to limited street width.

No disagreements there.  I think Williston Road would benefit with 2 lanes each way plus a center turning lane, or even better, a median divider with designated u-turns (sort of like VT 15 just to the north).  There's a heck of a lot of turning traffic which backs up traffic. 

As for Route 2A by Taft Corner (aka "retail hell"), if they ever get around to building the rest of the Circ, it would take all that Essex Junction-bound traffic off that stretch.  But for some reason, the circ is still shelved.  Maybe we'll see it after the "Southern Connector" is built.  That may solve some of the Shelburne Road problem, as I-189 backs up onto the "Exit 1 ramp" with traffic bound for Rt 7 North.

QuoteAs for commuter rail service, I was under the impression that the Burlington-Charlotte rail service was because VTrans was rebuilding Shelburne Rd at the time.

Yes it was, but the service was discontinued by then-Gov Douglas just as the Shelburne Road project was starting.

Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: jcroyer80 on September 25, 2014, 08:50:57 AM
Quote from: froggie on September 24, 2014, 07:44:52 PM
I don't think 89 needs 3 lanes each way.  Traffic may be bad but it isn't THAT bad.  At most, all that's needed is some auxiliary lanes between Exits 13, 14, and 15.

There are far worse areas than 89.  2A near Williston's "retail hell" is also "traffic hell".  Williston Rd and Main St (basically 2 through South Burlington and Burlington) are also bad....but options there are much more limited due to limited street width.

As for commuter rail service, I was under the impression that the Burlington-Charlotte rail service was because VTrans was rebuilding Shelburne Rd at the time.

I agree... to a point.  Sitting in traffic on 89 every day (NB & SB) you can clearly see the need for more capacity.  Also remember this is just the analysis so any buildout would be years down the road, if ever.  Colchester (which is getting the diverging diamond at exit 16) is making a big push to develop Severence Corners which will only increase the amount of traffic at exit 16 in the future.  Traffic on 89SB in the morning tends to back up from 14 past the Winooski River Bridge and god forbid you get an accident or snowstorm. The quickest solution as you state would aux lanes from 13 to 15 with third lane (NB) over bridge at exit 15 being an exit only lane.

As for 2A in Williston, if you go to the CCRPC webiste you can see the Circ alternative plans for the area.  Most promising is the plan to build additional side streets in the area (in Taft Corners and on the Walmart/Home Depot side) to keep traffic off of 2A.  As for the Circ, it has been cancelled and will never be built.  The money is being dispersed to the Circ Alternative projects in 3 phases.  Phases I and II have already been awarded funds and are in the scoping stages. 

Commuter Rail from Charlotte to Burlington was cancelled due to low ridership and high cost and as shadyjay rightly mentions, before the massive rebuilding of Shelburne Road ever began.

A new park and ride is to be built soon at exit 12 in Williston.  The plan is for the Link Express to stop there in addition to the Richmond park and ride which has no more capacity to expand.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: hotdogPi on September 25, 2014, 02:51:12 PM
(Not sure where else to post this.)

I-89 crosses VT 62, 63, 64, 65, and 66 in order. Is this intentional?
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: yakra on September 25, 2014, 04:49:59 PM
Not sure about the I-89 part, but I bet the number clustering was intentional, with the routes designated at about the same time.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Alex on September 25, 2014, 04:51:37 PM
Quote from: 1 on September 25, 2014, 02:51:12 PM
(Not sure where else to post this.)

I-89 crosses VT 62, 63, 64, 65, and 66 in order. Is this intentional?

The state based threads are appropriate for random questions such as this.  :nod:
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: shadyjay on September 25, 2014, 05:17:18 PM
Quote from: 1 on September 25, 2014, 02:51:12 PM
(Not sure where else to post this.)

I-89 crosses VT 62, 63, 64, 65, and 66 in order. Is this intentional?

I always thought that was kinda cool.... and wanted to route US 2 back onto State Street through Montpelier (it's already Business-2 IIRC), then resign what is now US 2 between Bailey Ave and VT 12 as VT 61.  Just so you'd have 66-65-64-63-62-61.  But outside of that "cool factor" that only people like us on here would notice, it'd serve no useful purpose.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Alps on September 26, 2014, 12:57:33 AM
That talk of 6x highways reminds me how I've always found the New England route numbering interesting.
Single and low double-digits - Part of the New England route numbering system, major routes
1xx three-digits - Major routes, not part of the system
Other single and double-digit numbers, some of which are low - Minor routes
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: shadyjay on September 26, 2014, 07:37:50 PM
A couple of updates from southern Vermont:

"Some" progress is being made on the I-91 Guilford to Rockingham sign replacement.  Markers are up where footings for new signs will be placed.  A couple of completed footings are visible around Brattleboro.  No actual new signs yet.  It will be interesting to see how they will sign Exits 2 and 3, whether they will keep the present signing which implies a VT 9 concurrency.  I believe the contract only includes up to before Exit 7 (Springfield), so that overhead is safe for now.  But the Exit 4 button copy gore sign SB is indeed marked for replacement.

The new weigh station NB at the Mass state line is complete and "open".  It's gated though so no parking by anyone when the facility is closed.  Signs advertise the weigh station just before the border in Mass. as well.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on September 27, 2014, 08:48:42 AM
Quote from: shadyjayNo disagreements there.  I think Williston Road would benefit with 2 lanes each way plus a center turning lane, or even better, a median divider with designated u-turns (sort of like VT 15 just to the north).  There's a heck of a lot of turning traffic which backs up traffic.

The problem with Williston Rd is that any such change would effectively require a full reconstruction and additional right-of-way for most of the corridor.  For that reason, I just don't see it happening.

Quote from: jcroyer80As for 2A in Williston, if you go to the CCRPC webiste you can see the Circ alternative plans for the area.  Most promising is the plan to build additional side streets in the area (in Taft Corners and on the Walmart/Home Depot side) to keep traffic off of 2A.

Very familiar with the CCRPC website and the Circ alternative proposals.  But the additional side streets in Williston will still not cover the fact that there is a lot of traffic congestion at the 2A/89 interchange.  Which is why there are some proposals for a Diverging Diamond at Exit 12 as well.

Also, looking at the Circ alts, the Colchester part is certainly dead, but it appears that CCRPC still left open the possibility of connecting 289 to 89 in Williston.  IMO, if the state wants to keep IBM or whatever takes IBM's place, they'll need to build that connection.  2A just won't cut it, no matter how many improvements they make, as the "retail hell" will just consume whatever improvements they manage.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on September 27, 2014, 10:15:03 AM
Regarding VT 62-66, it does appear that this numbering was intentional, but it should be noted that they had different origins and timeframes:

VT 62:  originated in 1959 as the "Berlin State Highway", connecting the airport to US 302 via the steep 2-lane connector that splits off today's VT 62 on top of the ridge.  The "Berlin Interstate Connector" was built along with I-89 ca. 1970, but doesn't appear to have been given a number at first.  The first reference to the VT 62 route number I've been able to find is when the connector into downtown Barre was built ca. 1974.

VT 63:  built as the "South Barre Access Road" or "South Barre State Highway" in conjunction with construction of I-89, opening around the same time (ca. 1970).  Does not appear to have been numbered until sometime between 1977 and 1980.

VT 64:  originated as the "Northfield-Williamstown State Highway", added ca. 1970 (same timeframe as I-89 opening).  Does not appear to have been numbered until sometime between 1980 and 1983.

VT 65:  originated in 1937 as the "Brookfield State Highway" connecting the village to VT 12 via the Floating Bridge.  It was extended east to VT 14 in 1953, but didn't receive the VT 65 number until sometime between 1976 and 1982.

VT 66:  originated in 1964 as the "Randolph State Highway".  Numbered as VT 66 ca. 1971 (might have also been 1970).
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: jcroyer80 on September 29, 2014, 09:51:24 AM
Quote from: froggie on September 27, 2014, 08:48:42 AM
Quote from: shadyjayNo disagreements there.  I think Williston Road would benefit with 2 lanes each way plus a center turning lane, or even better, a median divider with designated u-turns (sort of like VT 15 just to the north).  There's a heck of a lot of turning traffic which backs up traffic.

The problem with Williston Rd is that any such change would effectively require a full reconstruction and additional right-of-way for most of the corridor.  For that reason, I just don't see it happening.

Quote from: jcroyer80As for 2A in Williston, if you go to the CCRPC webiste you can see the Circ alternative plans for the area.  Most promising is the plan to build additional side streets in the area (in Taft Corners and on the Walmart/Home Depot side) to keep traffic off of 2A.

Very familiar with the CCRPC website and the Circ alternative proposals.  But the additional side streets in Williston will still not cover the fact that there is a lot of traffic congestion at the 2A/89 interchange.  Which is why there are some proposals for a Diverging Diamond at Exit 12 as well.

Also, looking at the Circ alts, the Colchester part is certainly dead, but it appears that CCRPC still left open the possibility of connecting 289 to 89 in Williston.  IMO, if the state wants to keep IBM or whatever takes IBM's place, they'll need to build that connection.  2A just won't cut it, no matter how many improvements they make, as the "retail hell" will just consume whatever improvements they manage.

My comments weren't about the 2A/89 intersection but more about 2A through "retail hell" north to Route 2.  No doubt the interchange is overtaxed and needs to be redone.  More realistic in the short/medium-term is getting traffic exiting 89 onto 2A moving through the area more efficiently, which should help some with the interchange issues.  The additional street network hopefully will take some stress off of 2A and reduce some of the worst back-ups in the area.  Many people already use roads like Marshall Ave to completely avoid 2A/89 on their trips back to South Burlington/Burlington/Colchester. Anything that gets traffic off of 2A is a good thing.

As for the Circ, my understanding from the CCRPC WENTS report (and from attending town of Williston meetings) is that a full connection between 89 and 289 is off the table.  The Circ, in all parts, is dead.  What is still on the table, however, as part of the Circ alts is EITHER a new bridge over the Winooski which would connect 289 to Redmond Road (the most likely choice) or a new exit off 89 which would connect to Mountain View Road.  In 2012 both the Essex and Williston Selectboards voted in favor of the Redmond Road Connector Plan (bridge connecting to 289).
http://www.ccrpcvt.org/transportation/corridors/williston-essex-network-transportation-study/
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: vdeane on September 29, 2014, 01:49:12 PM
Quote from: jcroyer80 on September 29, 2014, 09:51:24 AM
As for the Circ, my understanding from the CCRPC WENTS report (and from attending town of Williston meetings) is that a full connection between 89 and 289 is off the table.  The Circ, in all parts, is dead.  What is still on the table, however, as part of the Circ alts is EITHER a new bridge over the Winooski which would connect 289 to Redmond Road (the most likely choice) or a new exit off 89 which would connect to Mountain View Road.  In 2012 both the Essex and Williston Selectboards voted in favor of the Redmond Road Connector Plan (bridge connecting to 289).
http://www.ccrpcvt.org/transportation/corridors/williston-essex-network-transportation-study/
What killed it off?  It seems like the route would improve access to the area.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: jcroyer80 on September 29, 2014, 02:42:18 PM
Quote from: vdeane on September 29, 2014, 01:49:12 PM
Quote from: jcroyer80 on September 29, 2014, 09:51:24 AM
As for the Circ, my understanding from the CCRPC WENTS report (and from attending town of Williston meetings) is that a full connection between 89 and 289 is off the table.  The Circ, in all parts, is dead.  What is still on the table, however, as part of the Circ alts is EITHER a new bridge over the Winooski which would connect 289 to Redmond Road (the most likely choice) or a new exit off 89 which would connect to Mountain View Road.  In 2012 both the Essex and Williston Selectboards voted in favor of the Redmond Road Connector Plan (bridge connecting to 289).
http://www.ccrpcvt.org/transportation/corridors/williston-essex-network-transportation-study/
What killed it off?  It seems like the route would improve access to the area.

I'll preface my response with two quick points:  One, I'm a pretty liberal guy and Two, my experience with the Circ and related issues have been mostly in the late 90's and 2000's.  People may certainly view things differently than I do.

The easy answer would be "NIMBY"ers... but it's not that simple. It was killed by a combination of bureaucracy, lawsuits, "NIYBY"  (Not in YOUR back yard)ers, increasing cost and finally frustration from the Feds.   While there was strong local support for the project, there was (like anything else) also local opposition. I would argue however that the local opposition was the minority but was bolstered by state and national environmental organizations.  In recent decades the largest opposition to the Circ care from the well-funded Conservation Law Foundation (which is a [regional] organization with state offices in Vermont).   The lawsuits against the Circ never stopped coming.   Costs continued to rise, citizens got more pissed off that money was being spent on the Circ but nothing was being built.  At the same time money was not being spent to improve other roads/intersections in the area. In 2004 with construction slated to begin, Federal Judge Sessions stopped the Circ again in its tracks.  In the late 2000's it looked like construction might finally start, but the Feds basically told Vermont to "shit or get off the pot"  and with another slew of lawsuits looking likely Governor Shumlin finally pulled the plug and said it was time to move on.

The money that was slated for the Circ is being spent on other smaller projects in/around the Colchester/Essex/Williston area.   Attached is a good article from the Burlington Free Press that sums up the new projects: http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20131126/NEWS02/311260013/Instead-of-the-Circ

What pissed off a lot of Vermonters, me included, is that the most vehement opposition to the Circ was coming from a [regional] organization funded by [many] non-Vermonters.  It was a case of "We'll tell you what should and shouldn't be built in your back yard."   I understand some opposition to new roads.  But in this case the road is clearly needed.  This was going to be a boulevard (at least in the most recent iteration) and not a 4 lane superhighway.  It would allow a place already overbuilt to allow traffic to move freely instead of idling in traffic spewing fumes and Co2 into the air.   But in an over litigious society, you can truly stop something if you have enough money to continually file lawsuits, even if you aren't going to win.  In this case a policy of delay, delay, delay (while costs rise) was successful in stopping the Circ.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: vdeane on September 29, 2014, 02:48:21 PM
Quote from: jcroyer80 on September 29, 2014, 02:42:18 PM
But in an over litigious society, you can truly stop something if you have enough money to continually file lawsuits, even if you aren't going to win.
I honestly don't understand why judges don't throw out these lawsuits.  After the first couple lawsuits, if I were a judge, I would have thrown them out even before summary judgement, hold the environmental organizations in contempt of court, AND make them pay all the state's cost.  I'm not sure if they even had standing in those cases.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Pete from Boston on October 02, 2014, 06:16:14 PM


The CLF has offices in Providence, Boston, Portland, Concord, and Montpelier.  They are a local, not national organization. 

If they didn't have standing, chances are the cases were thrown out for lack of standing.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 03, 2014, 12:21:17 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on October 02, 2014, 06:16:14 PM
If they didn't have standing, chances are the cases were thrown out for lack of standing.

But standing, at least on federal lawsuits attacking an EIS or ROD, is remarkably easy for a group opposed to a highway project to achieve.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Pete from Boston on October 03, 2014, 08:25:10 AM

Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 03, 2014, 12:21:17 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on October 02, 2014, 06:16:14 PM
If they didn't have standing, chances are the cases were thrown out for lack of standing.

But standing, at least on federal lawsuits attacking an EIS or ROD, is remarkably easy for a group opposed to a highway project to achieve.

So it seems.  Which is why I question  the insinuation that they may not have done so.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: jcroyer80 on October 03, 2014, 09:05:57 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on October 02, 2014, 06:16:14 PM


The CLF has offices in Providence, Boston, Portland, Concord, and Montpelier.  They are a local, not national organization. 

If they didn't have standing, chances are the cases were thrown out for lack of standing.

My apologies, they are a regional organization.  It still does not change the fact (whether you agree with them or not) that they were the largest obstruction to the building of the Circ and completely unwilling to compromise on their position.  As an advocacy group they took it upon themselves to decide what should be built in our backyard.   Again, my apologies for calling them a national organization.  I have edited my prior post (changes in brackets) to reflect this.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on October 03, 2014, 09:39:24 AM
In other news, I discovered that the Champlain Parkway (2-lane parkway extension of I-189 to Lakeside Ave and improving Pine St) received its Act 250 permit, per a Burlington Free Press (http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/local/2014/08/26/champlain-parkway-gets-final-permit/14612787/) article from 6 weeks ago.

Haven't heard if the opponent appealed (they had 30 days to do so), and a quick search didn't bring up any new articles.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on October 10, 2014, 03:03:17 PM
Had reason to swing into Morrisville, VT today...the VT 100 bypass is still not open.  There's some final side-road painting plus striping and signage to finish, and the traffic signal at Bridge St has not been installed yet.  Signage that has been installed confirms that it will be limited-access and will have a 40 MPH speed limit.

I did find one item of interest:  there are grooves in the pavement along and just south of the bypass where lane and edge striping would normally go.  I'm wondering if these grooves mean that VTrans is going to experiment with thermoplast striping. Normally, such striping would get torn away by the snowplows, but with the pavement grooves it might work.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: cl94 on October 10, 2014, 11:55:40 PM
Quote from: froggie on October 10, 2014, 03:03:17 PM
Had reason to swing into Morrisville, VT today...the VT 100 bypass is still not open.  There's some final side-road painting plus striping and signage to finish, and the traffic signal at Bridge St has not been installed yet.  Signage that has been installed confirms that it will be limited-access and will have a 40 MPH speed limit.

I did find one item of interest:  there are grooves in the pavement along and just south of the bypass where lane and edge striping would normally go.  I'm wondering if these grooves mean that VTrans is going to experiment with thermoplast striping. Normally, such striping would get torn away by the snowplows, but with the pavement grooves it might work.

Not necessarily. NYSTA started putting grooves on resurfaced sections of highway a few years back and they just put paint down. Difference is that the paint in the grooves can last through a bad winter (or 2-3), while surface paint may not last a year in the northeast. A few other states do the same thing to preserve the markings.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on October 11, 2014, 06:10:49 AM
That would be the other option.  I just haven't ever seen VTrans put the pavement grooves in on a project before.  For example, the pavement reconstruction they did on I-91 in Lyndon/St. J this summer lacked the grooves.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on October 30, 2014, 09:55:19 PM
VTrans made a post on Facebook today suggesting the Morrisville Bypass will open tomorrow.  A VPR (http://digital.vpr.net/post/bikes-and-pedestrians-will-be-allowed-morrisville-bypass-now) update confirms that it'll open tomorrow at 2pm.  The article also mentions that bikes and peds will be allowed on the bypass in the interim, until the VTrans Traffic Committee decides the matter in December.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on November 01, 2014, 10:27:53 PM
Morrisville Bypass did indeed open yesterday.  We braved the rain (and some snow) to take a look today.  As noted earlier, it has a 40 MPH speed limit and a traffic signal at Bridge St.  Also, as I suspected, the indentations I saw in the pavement were indeed for the use of adding thermoplast striping.

A few photos:

(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3950/15065543074_a89f3e8494_c_d.jpg) (https://www.flickr.com/photos/ajfroggie/15065543074/)
^  Approaching the north end of the bypass, at a roundabout on VT 15.

(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3949/15499613129_064f1084d1_c_d.jpg) (https://www.flickr.com/photos/ajfroggie/15499613129/)
^  Speed Limit 40 and Prohibited signs.  The white patches on the prohibited sign are due to the late change noted in the VPR article that VTrans will allow bikes and pedestrians on the bypass for the time being.

(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3950/15683524981_51ce85731d_c_d.jpg) (https://www.flickr.com/photos/ajfroggie/15683524981/)
^  Bridge over the Lamoille River, going southbound.

(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3955/15500240027_d129038e94_c_d.jpg) (https://www.flickr.com/photos/ajfroggie/15500240027/)
^  Approaching the south end of the bypass.  VTrans is in the process of resigning the old route through town as Historic VT 100.

(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5614/15661721606_1a0584f059_c_d.jpg) (https://www.flickr.com/photos/ajfroggie/15661721606/)
^  Northbound this time, just north of the river and at the only traffic signal on the bypass, at Bridge St.  This signal was the holdup in finishing and opening the bypass (original opening was supposed to be 4 weeks ago).  Also of note:  protected-only lefts at the signal.  The bridge behind the signal is for the Lamoille Valley Rail Trail, and barely visible behind the bridge is a decent rock cut that was required for the project.

More photos on my Flickr set (https://www.flickr.com/photos/ajfroggie/sets/72157646752163404/).  I only managed 10 photos due to the poor weather.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Alps on November 02, 2014, 09:05:37 PM
Quote from: froggie on November 01, 2014, 10:27:53 PM
Morrisville Bypass did indeed open yesterday.  We braved the rain (and some snow) to take a look today.  As noted earlier, it has a 40 MPH speed limit and a traffic signal at Bridge St.  Also, as I suspected, the indentations I saw in the pavement were indeed for the use of adding thermoplast striping.
Despite your wishes, our meet was devoid of snow. Surprisingly, we didn't wish bad weather on you.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on November 29, 2014, 12:02:49 PM
Leave it to Google to screw up a new road rendition.  Their view of Morrisville (https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=44.566991,-72.602978&spn=0.018925,0.045362&t=m&z=15) shows the new VT 100 bypass, but not on any zoom further out than this one.  They also have the route designations swapped..."Historic Route 100" is the old route through the middle of town.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: vdeane on November 29, 2014, 02:55:29 PM
I was able to get both zooms further in and out to show it.  Maybe it just took time to update?
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Alps on November 29, 2014, 06:28:53 PM
Quote from: froggie on November 29, 2014, 12:02:49 PM
Leave it to Google to screw up a new road rendition.  Their view of Morrisville (https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=44.566991,-72.602978&spn=0.018925,0.045362&t=m&z=15) shows the new VT 100 bypass, but not on any zoom further out than this one.  They also have the route designations swapped..."Historic Route 100" is the old route through the middle of town.

Couldn't get directions to route over it yet. I'll be through there tomorrow afternoon. (We might could meet up? I'll let you know when I'm stateside.)
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on December 30, 2014, 10:44:58 PM
A couple items of note.  First, now that the Morrisville bypass is open, the town took out one of the traffic signals along old VT 100 (now signed HISTORIC VT 100).

Second, similar to the bypass pavement striping, there's now a section of I-91 south of Barnet where VTrans ground out the pavement and applied striping in the grooves.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: c172 on April 25, 2015, 12:50:55 PM
I used to go to college in Putney, on U.S. 5 north of Brattleboro. We here in my native CA have seen all sorts of "historic" signs go up for former segments of U.S. 101. At least out here, they make the "historic" markers look different, and thus arguably less confusing. Looks like that's not the case in VT (or is "Historic" 100 still legally a part of VT 100?).
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Alps on April 25, 2015, 03:45:59 PM
Quote from: c172 on April 25, 2015, 12:50:55 PM
I used to go to college in Putney, on U.S. 5 north of Brattleboro. We here in my native CA have seen all sorts of "historic" signs go up for former segments of U.S. 101. At least out here, they make the "historic" markers look different, and thus arguably less confusing. Looks like that's not the case in VT (or is "Historic" 100 still legally a part of VT 100?).
In VT, HISTORIC banners just say a route is historic in nature, not that it's a former route.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: yakra on April 26, 2015, 11:54:59 PM
Quote from: Alps on April 25, 2015, 03:45:59 PM
In VT, HISTORIC banners just say a route is historic in nature, not that it's a former route.
Which is a pain in the butt. VT7A and Historic VT7A are one and the same.
But Historic VT100 is a different beast from VT100 proper. So, in the latter case at least, the "historic" route functionally serves as a flavor of bannered route.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Alps on April 28, 2015, 10:52:28 PM
Quote from: yakra on April 26, 2015, 11:54:59 PM
Quote from: Alps on April 25, 2015, 03:45:59 PM
In VT, HISTORIC banners just say a route is historic in nature, not that it's a former route.
Which is a pain in the butt. VT7A and Historic VT7A are one and the same.
But Historic VT100 is a different beast from VT100 proper. So, in the latter case at least, the "historic" route functionally serves as a flavor of bannered route.
It really ought to be Business 100.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: The Nature Boy on May 05, 2015, 01:49:31 AM
Here's a random aside:

I notice that Vermont and New York have a few highways that share numbers on both sides of the state line and as such can be seen as a extension of each other. Vermont does this with New Hampshire at least once in Norwich when it continues NH 10A as VT 10A for about a half mile until the I-91/US 5 junction. VT 10A is basically a child of NH Route 10 and has nothing to do with VT Route 10.

Are there any other instances of Vermont and New Hampshire doing this? I just remember the NH/VT Route 10A situation from personal experience. Also, does anyone know how long Vermont Route 10A has existed there? I know that that area was formerly a rail village named Lewiston before it was demolished to make way for the interstate. That road served a valuable purpose during that time since it was the connection between Dartmouth and the rail station in Lewiston and is the only river crossing between Hanover and Vermont.

I do have to wonder why NHDOT decided to even number that half mile strip from Hanover's main street to the Ledyard Bridge but that's a different topic.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: hotdogPi on May 05, 2015, 06:16:38 AM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on May 05, 2015, 01:49:31 AM
Here's a random aside:

I notice that Vermont and New York have a few highways that share numbers on both sides of the state line and as such can be seen as a extension of each other. Vermont does this with New Hampshire at least once in Norwich when it continues NH 10A as VT 10A for about a half mile until the I-91/US 5 junction. VT 10A is basically a child of NH Route 10 and has nothing to do with VT Route 10.

Are there any other instances of Vermont and New Hampshire doing this? I just remember the NH/VT Route 10A situation from personal experience. Also, does anyone know how long Vermont Route 10A has existed there? I know that that area was formerly a rail village named Lewiston before it was demolished to make way for the interstate. That road served a valuable purpose during that time since it was the connection between Dartmouth and the rail station in Lewiston and is the only river crossing between Hanover and Vermont.

I do have to wonder why NHDOT decided to even number that half mile strip from Hanover's main street to the Ledyard Bridge but that's a different topic.

I'm not sure if you're talking about any routes or just ones other than a simple number. Some that are just a number include 9, 11, 12, 25, 26, and 119.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: The Nature Boy on May 05, 2015, 12:37:47 PM
Quote from: 1 on May 05, 2015, 06:16:38 AM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on May 05, 2015, 01:49:31 AM
Here's a random aside:

I notice that Vermont and New York have a few highways that share numbers on both sides of the state line and as such can be seen as a extension of each other. Vermont does this with New Hampshire at least once in Norwich when it continues NH 10A as VT 10A for about a half mile until the I-91/US 5 junction. VT 10A is basically a child of NH Route 10 and has nothing to do with VT Route 10.

Are there any other instances of Vermont and New Hampshire doing this? I just remember the NH/VT Route 10A situation from personal experience. Also, does anyone know how long Vermont Route 10A has existed there? I know that that area was formerly a rail village named Lewiston before it was demolished to make way for the interstate. That road served a valuable purpose during that time since it was the connection between Dartmouth and the rail station in Lewiston and is the only river crossing between Hanover and Vermont.

I do have to wonder why NHDOT decided to even number that half mile strip from Hanover's main street to the Ledyard Bridge but that's a different topic.

I'm not sure if you're talking about any routes or just ones other than a simple number. Some that are just a number include 9, 11, 12, 25, 26, and 119.

I was more or less referring to a number continuing across state lines, which is probably more common nationwide than I'm thinking. I'm also wondering if there are any other instances like Vermont/NH 10A where the Vermont route is a continuation of a suffixed route that is a child of New Hampshire road, like 10A is or even vice versa.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: hotdogPi on May 05, 2015, 02:27:05 PM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on May 05, 2015, 12:37:47 PM
Quote from: 1 on May 05, 2015, 06:16:38 AM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on May 05, 2015, 01:49:31 AM
Here's a random aside:

I notice that Vermont and New York have a few highways that share numbers on both sides of the state line and as such can be seen as a extension of each other. Vermont does this with New Hampshire at least once in Norwich when it continues NH 10A as VT 10A for about a half mile until the I-91/US 5 junction. VT 10A is basically a child of NH Route 10 and has nothing to do with VT Route 10.

Are there any other instances of Vermont and New Hampshire doing this? I just remember the NH/VT Route 10A situation from personal experience. Also, does anyone know how long Vermont Route 10A has existed there? I know that that area was formerly a rail village named Lewiston before it was demolished to make way for the interstate. That road served a valuable purpose during that time since it was the connection between Dartmouth and the rail station in Lewiston and is the only river crossing between Hanover and Vermont.

I do have to wonder why NHDOT decided to even number that half mile strip from Hanover's main street to the Ledyard Bridge but that's a different topic.

I'm not sure if you're talking about any routes or just ones other than a simple number. Some that are just a number include 9, 11, 12, 25, 26, and 119.

I was more or less referring to a number continuing across state lines, which is probably more common nationwide than I'm thinking. I'm also wondering if there are any other instances like Vermont/NH 10A where the Vermont route is a continuation of a suffixed route that is a child of New Hampshire road, like 10A is or even vice versa.

The numbers I mentioned are all continuations from New Hampshire into Vermont. In fact, every existing non-suffixed numbered route in New Hampshire with a number under 33 goes into another state.

As for other suffixed examples, MA 114A is related to RI 114, not MA 114.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: The Nature Boy on May 05, 2015, 02:32:50 PM
Thanks for answering the question. It was just something that was bugging me last night.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Beeper1 on May 05, 2015, 06:58:30 PM
VT-22A is a child of NY-22.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Ian on May 05, 2015, 11:17:03 PM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on May 05, 2015, 01:49:31 AM
Here's a random aside:

I notice that Vermont and New York have a few highways that share numbers on both sides of the state line and as such can be seen as a extension of each other. Vermont does this with New Hampshire at least once in Norwich when it continues NH 10A as VT 10A for about a half mile until the I-91/US 5 junction. VT 10A is basically a child of NH Route 10 and has nothing to do with VT Route 10.

Are there any other instances of Vermont and New Hampshire doing this? I just remember the NH/VT Route 10A situation from personal experience. Also, does anyone know how long Vermont Route 10A has existed there? I know that that area was formerly a rail village named Lewiston before it was demolished to make way for the interstate. That road served a valuable purpose during that time since it was the connection between Dartmouth and the rail station in Lewiston and is the only river crossing between Hanover and Vermont.

I do have to wonder why NHDOT decided to even number that half mile strip from Hanover's main street to the Ledyard Bridge but that's a different topic.

NH 113B in Chatham, NH is a child of ME 113. ME 113 even enters New Hampshire at several spots near there.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: shadyjay on June 20, 2015, 03:18:17 PM
Sign replacement update on I-91 between Mass state line and Rockingham:

Finally some new signs are up and supports are up for most other signs.  Got on this morning at Exit 6 heading south and observed new signs for Exit 6 and 5.  Changes for Exit 5 NB include only two route markers:  TO US 5 / VT 123.  VT 121 is left out.  Text is Clearview, similar to other projects on I-89 north of Exit 3.  Full compliment of 3 signs per exit, with a separate blue sign for exit services.  Previously, exits in this area only got 2 signs (1 mile and the "exit here" sign), with the symbols hanging off the last sign. 

What is interesting (and logical) is the first NB parking area just north of Exit 4 in Putney is now back to being signed as a Weigh Station.  Originally this was a weigh station, but was resigned a parking area.  It works better as a weigh station, since it doesn't really have any parking spots.  Meanwhile, the parking area a few miles up has been signed a parking area all along (except for a brief period in the late 1990s). 

I took a few pics, which I'll most likely post early next week, along with a full NB report through the project limits.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Mergingtraffic on June 20, 2015, 05:08:40 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on June 20, 2015, 03:18:17 PM
Sign replacement update on I-91 between Mass state line and Rockingham:

Finally some new signs are up and supports are up for most other signs.  Got on this morning at Exit 6 heading south and observed new signs for Exit 6 and 5.  Changes for Exit 5 NB include only two route markers:  TO US 5 / VT 123.  VT 121 is left out.  Text is Clearview, similar to other projects on I-89 north of Exit 3.  Full compliment of 3 signs per exit, with a separate blue sign for exit services.  Previously, exits in this area only got 2 signs (1 mile and the "exit here" sign), with the symbols hanging off the last sign. 

What is interesting (and logical) is the first NB parking area just north of Exit 4 in Putney is now back to being signed as a Weigh Station.  Originally this was a weigh station, but was resigned a parking area.  It works better as a weigh station, since it doesn't really have any parking spots.  Meanwhile, the parking area a few miles up has been signed a parking area all along (except for a brief period in the late 1990s). 

I took a few pics, which I'll most likely post early next week, along with a full NB report through the project limits.

What types of signs are they replacing? Button copy? Non-reflective button copy?
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on June 20, 2015, 09:02:53 PM
Non-button copy that held up surprisingly well.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: shadyjay on June 20, 2015, 10:15:36 PM
Within this project limits, one button copy sign remains standing.... the exit gore sign for Exit 4-SB.  Its days are numbered, though, as posts for the new sign are up.

I'd guess most of the signs in the project limits were installed sometime in the mid 1980s.  Most of them had the text "EXIT" before the 1 MILE distance.  The Exit 5-NB signs were replaced in the 1990s (originally just had Bellows Falls as a control point), and Exit 5-SB signs had the route markers modified.  All have now been replaced with this project.

Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: shadyjay on June 21, 2015, 07:38:02 PM
Updated 6/22/15 - pm

SB shots for Exit 5....

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-4486pIF6Km8/VYdJgPGh-oI/AAAAAAAAUbM/UFoW6YSss_k/s640/IMG_2725.JPG)

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-NtFN_R1W1F0/VYdJhsGDsvI/AAAAAAAAUbU/rhSCT5SHLR4/s640/IMG_2727.JPG)

Note there seems to be an extra space to the right of the "5" in the exit tab.... perhaps wide enough for mileage-based exits in the future?  Also note the recently cut trees in the first shot.  Crews were out that day (Saturday) cutting around the new signs.  The lane closure in the second shot was for some sort of bridge work/inspection.

Now a selection of NB shots taken Monday 6/22....

NB Exit 5 "exit now"... still some cutting to do here.  Note absence of VT 121 shield, previously displayed on the older signage:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-8zzBClJQaRk/VYhmssikgZI/AAAAAAAAUdY/KcRoZY-D9qQ/s720/IMG_2810.JPG)

NB Exit 6 "exit now".... the old 1 mile advance sign for this exit has been replaced with a 1 1/2 Milse sign, in the same location as the old one.  The distances on the old signs were off.  NB Exit 4 1 mile is the same way, will most likely read 1 1/2 Miles when the new sign goes up:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-lxDTl4-MMbQ/VYhm86sO95I/AAAAAAAAUd0/oQx8cU6STpM/s720/IMG_2814.JPG)

NB reassurance trailblazer north of Exit 6.... pretty standard issue for VT reassurance signs on the mainline occuring after each onramp:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-rAz3hzF1Ado/VYhnFXaZkrI/AAAAAAAAUd8/H4WooTB7SlI/s720/IMG_2816.JPG)

NB mileage destinations north of Exit 6, the final NB sign in this contract.  Much smaller than its original:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-4NKbV5ED0uo/VYhnGEykf8I/AAAAAAAAUeE/4KTikXu9YJ8/s720/IMG_2817.JPG)

Following completion of this project, old signs in VT will be limited to I-91 Exits 7, 8, and 10, and I-89 Jct I-91 exit and Exit 1.  Not sure when a contract to replace those signs will come out, but it will be interesting to see how the I-89/I-91 jct gets resigned, and whether or not the overhead NB at Exit 7 will remain, and if it does, if I-91 NORTH will be added to the control points of Windsor/White River Jct on the pullthrough.  A pullthrough is kind of helpful at that location, since the onramp comes before the offramp.  Exit 8 shields only were replaced and Exit 9 got all new signs a few years back (which are NOT Clearview, btw). 

In the time between my SB drive on Sat and the NB drive on Mon, crews had installed new signs SB down to Exit 4 and were actively working.   Most posts are placed in both directions, except some around Exit 3.  Weigh Station and Parking Area signs are in the more traditional non-Clearview font.  The SB weigh station signage for "ALL TRUCKS - NEXT RIGHT" now says "ALL TRUCKS-NEXT RIGHT" with a black on white bottom which reads "WHEN FLASHING".  Looks like this will replace the former CLOSED/OPEN flip sign.  The flashers are not installed yet, however, and there's still some cutting to do since the sign is kinda in the trees.

Next update will most likely be in a month or so.

Full album is located at:
https://picasaweb.google.com/108118189767835080687/I91SignReplacementInVT#


Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: vdeane on June 22, 2015, 09:56:33 PM
It looks like VT may indeed be planning a switch: http://www.sevendaysvt.com/vermont/wtf-while-we-were-driving-part-2/Content?oid=2535889
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Rothman on June 22, 2015, 10:13:20 PM
Quote from: vdeane on June 22, 2015, 09:56:33 PM
It looks like VT may indeed be planning a switch: http://www.sevendaysvt.com/vermont/wtf-while-we-were-driving-part-2/Content?oid=2535889

Pfft.  I'll believe it when I see it.

I've been waiting for NY to switch over for years and am pretty sure it'll never happen.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on June 22, 2015, 10:22:44 PM
When I emailed the VTrans signing head a year or so ago, they were intending at the time to petition FHWA to delay a conversion to milepost-based exit numbering.  Can't imagine a whole lot has changed since then.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Rothman on June 22, 2015, 10:25:06 PM
Heh.  Last time I inquired at NYSDOT, they sent me that really old "study" they did where they said they tried it out on I-890 and I-895 and it didn't work.  I might still have that old document somewhere.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: cl94 on June 23, 2015, 07:11:22 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 22, 2015, 10:25:06 PM
Heh.  Last time I inquired at NYSDOT, they sent me that really old "study" they did where they said they tried it out on I-890 and I-895 and it didn't work.  I might still have that old document somewhere.

New York is kinda switching over. At least I-99 and I-781 aren't sequential. I-99/US 15 was renumbered from sequential. It's gonna happen at some point. Massachusetts is supposedly changing over and Connecticut is in the process of doing so. It won't be long at all until all bordering states/provinces have mile/km numbering. Face it- things would actually be easier if I-87 got new numbers just because there would no longer be 3 each of exits 1, 2, and 4-14.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: vdeane on June 23, 2015, 09:03:00 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 22, 2015, 10:25:06 PM
Heh.  Last time I inquired at NYSDOT, they sent me that really old "study" they did where they said they tried it out on I-890 and I-895 and it didn't work.  I might still have that old document somewhere.
That's what happens when you study distance-based numbering on the roads that show the least benefit.  I fully suspect that had I-88 been completed a decade earlier and received its exit numbers during the study that NY would have switched.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Rothman on June 23, 2015, 09:06:13 PM
Quote from: cl94 on June 23, 2015, 07:11:22 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 22, 2015, 10:25:06 PM
Heh.  Last time I inquired at NYSDOT, they sent me that really old "study" they did where they said they tried it out on I-890 and I-895 and it didn't work.  I might still have that old document somewhere.

New York is kinda switching over. At least I-99 and I-781 aren't sequential. I-99/US 15 was renumbered from sequential. It's gonna happen at some point. Massachusetts is supposedly changing over and Connecticut is in the process of doing so. It won't be long at all until all bordering states/provinces have mile/km numbering. Face it- things would actually be easier if I-87 got new numbers just because there would no longer be 3 each of exits 1, 2, and 4-14.

You would be very surprised by the insurmountable amount of resistance at NYSDOT to mileage-based numbering.  Every time it is brought up, including even being suggested for inclusion in NYSDOT's capital program update instructions, the old criticisms are trotted out:

--Business would have to update their advertising
--What's the point of this in NYC?
--Costs too much when we're struggling to maintain the infrastructure that we have -- we have more important things to do with the little money that we have.
--A relatively new one being heard:  GPS market penetration is sufficient to make the exit numbering switch unnecessary.

:banghead:

I remember one discussion where one person actually protested: "But what do you do about people who just go by the old exit numbers?"  Someone else explained using "OLD EXIT XX" signs.  This actually started a discussion that ended with the senior manager in the meeting suggesting using "NEW EXIT XX" signs.  I KID YOU NOT.

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:


Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: amroad17 on July 07, 2015, 07:57:16 PM
I can see the point about changing to milepost-based exits in NYC.  Should leave exit numbers the way they are instead of having an Exit 14A-B-C-D-E-F-G for example.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: AMLNet49 on July 08, 2015, 06:26:16 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on July 07, 2015, 07:57:16 PM
I can see the point about changing to milepost-based exits in NYC.  Should leave exit numbers the way they are instead of having an Exit 14A-B-C-D-E-F-G for example.

Exactly, the only road with mile-based numbers in the city (I-95) is a bit of alphabet soup going 1ABC, 2AB, 3, 4AB, 5AB, 6ABC, 7ABC, 8ABC. Other roads in the city would likely be worse.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Rothman on July 08, 2015, 07:01:07 PM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on July 08, 2015, 06:26:16 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on July 07, 2015, 07:57:16 PM
I can see the point about changing to milepost-based exits in NYC.  Should leave exit numbers the way they are instead of having an Exit 14A-B-C-D-E-F-G for example.

Exactly, the only road with mile-based numbers in the city (I-95) is a bit of alphabet soup going 1ABC, 2AB, 3, 4AB, 5AB, 6ABC, 7ABC, 8ABC. Other roads in the city would likely be worse.

I just don't see it as that big of a problem.  At least 40 states use mileage-based exit numbers.  Bring 'em here, too.  I'm tired of keeping track of how far I have to go between exits.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: cl94 on July 08, 2015, 07:14:24 PM
Thing is that most highways in New York City would be fine. No worse than what we have in Kansas City, Chicago, Columbus, etc. In some cases, pairs of partial exits that should share a number get one for each partial exit. Not as much alphabet soup as you'd think, especially if they take a little liberty in assigning numbers.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: amroad17 on July 09, 2015, 06:06:03 PM
I would not see a problem with milepost-based exit numbers in New York State or any New England states.  I am not really a huge fan of seeing EXIT 2Y (Kansas City) or EXIT 51I (Chicago).  There would probably be some places along the BQE or Gowanas that would have Exit XXG or EXIT XXH signed. 

As far as Vermont, I believe I-89 and I-91 should have milepost-based exits.  Many of them are fairly far apart and the DOT would save a bit of money not erecting NEXT EXIT XX MILES signs.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Rothman on July 09, 2015, 07:17:45 PM
One thing though:  Although I see a problem when you may have multiple ramps in a mile on an urban freeway, I do prefer exit numbers that use N, S, E, W rather than A, B, C. 
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Alps on July 10, 2015, 10:49:38 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on July 09, 2015, 06:06:03 PM
I would not see a problem with milepost-based exit numbers in New York State or any New England states.  I am not really a huge fan of seeing EXIT 2Y (Kansas City) or EXIT 51I (Chicago).  There would probably be some places along the BQE or Gowanas that would have Exit XXG or EXIT XXH signed. 

As far as Vermont, I believe I-89 and I-91 should have milepost-based exits.  Many of them are fairly far apart and the DOT would save a bit of money not erecting NEXT EXIT XX MILES signs.

NYC doesn't really have any roads with numbered exits that close together. On the Henry Hudson or FDR you might get 1/2 mile spacing - I would be surprised to see more than a D suffix at any point. Even I-95 only made it up to 1D with mile-based numbering.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: cl94 on July 10, 2015, 11:09:33 PM
Quote from: Alps on July 10, 2015, 10:49:38 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on July 09, 2015, 06:06:03 PM
I would not see a problem with milepost-based exit numbers in New York State or any New England states.  I am not really a huge fan of seeing EXIT 2Y (Kansas City) or EXIT 51I (Chicago).  There would probably be some places along the BQE or Gowanas that would have Exit XXG or EXIT XXH signed. 

As far as Vermont, I believe I-89 and I-91 should have milepost-based exits.  Many of them are fairly far apart and the DOT would save a bit of money not erecting NEXT EXIT XX MILES signs.

NYC doesn't really have any roads with numbered exits that close together. On the Henry Hudson or FDR you might get 1/2 mile spacing - I would be surprised to see more than a D suffix at any point. Even I-95 only made it up to 1D with mile-based numbering.

I ran through everything and you wouldn't even have many C exits. On many of the roads, fiddle around with the numbering a tiny bit and you'd have no suffix for some exits. One thing NYC did was build most of its expressways along existing roads, so frontage roads are used extensively to cut down on the amount of exits/entrances. I-278 would have 1 D (on Staten Island, of all places). Grand Central Parkway could eliminate the need for a D by rounding down or combining the I-295 exit into a single designation/suffix. Hell, the LIE already has A-E suffixxes at Exit 22, so many suffixes certainly wouldn't be a new thing for NYSDOT.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: shadyjay on July 13, 2015, 12:50:13 AM
Back to VT...

I traveled VT 279 from VT 9 to US 7 for the first time today.  Here are some shots of the bypass, and of US 7 north to Rutland...

https://picasaweb.google.com/108118189767835080687/VT279US7

Next weekend I plan on traveling I-91 South again from Rockingham to the state line so I should have new sign pics in that area by next Monday or Tuesday.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on July 14, 2015, 09:13:15 PM
http://www.wcax.com/story/29537538/williston-skunk-receives-extra-stripe-from-road-crew

If I was a road crewman, I wouldn't want to pick up a skunk (dead or otherwise) either...
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on July 22, 2015, 08:00:26 AM
As part of a repaving project, a number of old US route signs in St. Johnsbury are in the process of being replaced.  Some of the shields being replaced used Series E font for the numerals.

I'm not sure of the status of the state-name I-91 trailblazers along ALT US 5 yet...my guess is that they'll also be replaced.

On a related note, and since I forgot to mention it here earlier (I did on the Northeast Roads group on Facebook), after 20 years of existence, ALT VT 122 is now finally signed in Lyndonville.  It was created in 1995 when VT 122 was rerouted to its current ending at US 5/VT 114, but never signed until now.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: shadyjay on August 01, 2015, 04:01:47 PM
I-91 sign replacement project, Mass state line to Rockingham UPDATE:

Most new signs are up... exceptions are a couple signs on either side of the West River Bridge replacement in Brattleboro.  In each direction, a sign for the various exits in Brattleboro before Exit 3-SB and before Exit 1-NB that reads Canal St Exit 1/ Downtown Exit 2/ Putney Road/Exit 3.  Other changes include a single VT 9 shield for Exit 2 (no direction, but supplemental signage NB says VT 9 East use Exit 3), and Exit 1 now reads "US 5 to VT 142 / Brattleboro / Guilford".  New "Welcome To Vermont" sign is unusually small. 

Pics will be posted either Sunday night or Monday.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: KEVIN_224 on August 01, 2015, 09:34:36 PM
Is the VT welcome sign the standard one? Like the smaller green and white one on VT Route 9 West in Brattleboro, coming in from Chesterfield, NH? (Crossing the Connecticut River bridge)
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: shadyjay on August 01, 2015, 09:50:53 PM
Yes it is.   I'll get a pic of it tomorrow on my way home. 
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: shadyjay on August 02, 2015, 08:50:21 PM
So all the new sign shots are in my album located here:

https://picasaweb.google.com/108118189767835080687/I91SignReplacementInVT

Here's a shot of the new state line sign... WAYYYYY smaller than the one it replaced:

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-6HwSqiUuQ8E/Vb6m0Sy1NoI/AAAAAAAAUzA/-xkfWAZZpkA/s720-Ic42/IMG_3267.JPG)


And a shot of the "Brattleboro Exits" sign:

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-iqTLtZikbLQ/Vb6nOVHQibI/AAAAAAAAUzo/-51kePRywEI/s720-Ic42/IMG_3274.JPG)

And for those curious, the Exit 2 overheads on VT 9 which have both I-91 shields and text for US 5 and VT 9 are still up.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: vdeane on August 03, 2015, 12:49:01 PM
I guess we can say goodbye to the idea of Vermont having real welcome signs.  The I-91 sign was the only one that wasn't incredibly small:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fnysroads.com%2Fimages%2Fgallery%2FVT%2Fi91%2F101_1880-s.JPG&hash=50b402f9e9959444204bb1875cb5f2d3a700780a)
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: KEVIN_224 on August 05, 2015, 06:36:22 PM
Tooling around Brattleboro, VT today, I snapped these few pictures:

Seen halfway between I-91 Exit 1 and the south end of downtown.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FOw5zr6F.jpg&hash=5b553555f01d969673694ef5de0bf73b4c89b79b)

It's pure comedy as to how short VT Route 119 really is! Barely 1/3 of a mile... if that!
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F2S4PURR.jpg&hash=bfc58e5bd22f671d306cddeb7f6a91289b04b951)

New Hampshire had all of their signs lined up in a neat little row. This was on the Hinsdale, NH side of the Connecticut River.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F69Wp8XC.jpg&hash=341b7480bf6ea0cff5fdde7cb82b080130cd0379)

Vermont's little reference marker, which made me think of New York right away.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FAQfUkRS.jpg&hash=e83f6165a81ec5524beedfb648ca8ff18a089fd8)

I think the rotary/shields sign is 5 years old or so.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FMXAv0HB.jpg&hash=40374b079d3a3c4ad778bfa277b57a0d207b87df)

So close that you can see the sheeting they used.  :-P
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FIMg55yf.jpg&hash=572828d185cbe570d268e67fb7373dd13506b122)

No, it's not I-91 North in Guilford...it's VT Route 9 West in Brattleboro, just after the Connecticut River Bridge.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FZYpCcQE.jpg&hash=07358b4fee402695dff23693722e1fee24e3872d)

The northern side of the Seabees Memorial Bridge, which carries VT/NH Route 9 over the Connecticut River.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FFRSfzyf.jpg&hash=99e60b99a64371c8263df06f0d4a17ad9a55e1aa)
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: KEVIN_224 on August 20, 2015, 06:24:40 PM
More Brattleboro? OK! Why not? :)

I noticed this survey marker embedded into the sidewalk along extremely short VT Route 119. The marker couldn't have been more than 10 feet from the New Hampshire state line.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fq681pOV.jpg&hash=70ce3e41f7bc1b054f6923e9ce8daab75649d826)

I still like these state route markers better than the kind they had in the past.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fm2FYWzP.jpg&hash=e744a34f360797799efacc58ce68fde0dc70a7d0)

Yes, a Vermont Avenue in Vermont. Anyways, I notice the "State Highway Begins" sign here. I assume it's quietly marking the boundary of the VILLAGE of Brattleboro? This shot is on US Route 5 looking north.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F5KmVh68.jpg&hash=db0ef2d1bc4e0a5c6a63993a31d813dc3dcd251c)

I've never seen this font on a Connecticut road sign. Yes, I'm aware there's a Springfield, VT along I-91, hence the use of "MA" on the top sign. :)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FuMnuU0Y.jpg&hash=7dc76d73ff154ac41df6114837b0062e8d141d5d)

I-91 would never look this quiet 2 hours to the south in Hartford! This is where US Route 5 passes over I-91 in the far north end of Brattleboro. The distance sign stated 59 miles to White River Junction. The bridge is at roughly Mile 12.3 of I-91 itself.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F7qJ0pTA.jpg&hash=bdd02cbdf58b29f01be7833798f23e129d3b0f6e)

My only problem with this type of town line sign is how it's parallel to the road. That might be a bad thing during a blizzard or a driving rain storm. I also see how the reference marker resets, too.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FFkRkMay.jpg&hash=a8ef22639d27e2839ea096ae1a57539e892ada4a)
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: shadyjay on August 20, 2015, 08:08:31 PM
The "state highway ends/begins" signs refer to the point where the road maintenance switches between state and town control.  I've been behind a state plow truck and they will pick their blades up immediately upon reaching the "state highway ends" sign.  Most numbered routes within Brattleboro, Burlington, Rutland, St Albans, St Johnsbury, etc, are town control (except the interstates of course).  Of course, there are some exceptions.

And then there are a handful of routes in the state that are numbered but yet are maintained by the towns.  That's why new "old" shields are used (the basic white circle/oval), such as Route 132 (I-89 Exit 2), Route 140 west of Wallingford, and Route 121 from Bellows Falls, westward. 
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on August 20, 2015, 08:15:42 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224I noticed this survey marker embedded into the sidewalk along extremely short VT Route 119. The marker couldn't have been more than 10 feet from the New Hampshire state line.

How far were you from the low-water mark on the Vermont side of the river?  That by definition is where the state line is.

QuoteMy only problem with this type of town line sign is how it's parallel to the road. That might be a bad thing during a blizzard or a driving rain storm. I also see how the reference marker resets, too.

Yes, reference marker mileage resets at town lines.  As for the town line signs, drivers are not the intended audience, believe it or not.

Quote from: shadyjayThe "state highway ends/begins" signs refer to the point where the road maintenance switches between state and town control.  I've been behind a state plow truck and they will pick their blades up immediately upon reaching the "state highway ends" sign.  Most numbered routes within Brattleboro, Burlington, Rutland, St Albans, St Johnsbury, etc, are town control (except the interstates of course).  Of course, there are some exceptions.

The reality is somewhat murkier.  What shadyjay describes are, for the most part, officially designated as Class 1 Town Highways.  They are considered the extensions of state highways through cities and villages, and VTrans actually retains some responsibility along them, mostly related to major projects, and road repair, and in most cases signage.  The towns are responsible for day-to-day maintenance (hence the snowplow observation).
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: KEVIN_224 on August 20, 2015, 09:53:20 PM
The survey marker was embedded in the sidewalk, next to the red wall of the Whetstone Station. I can tell you that the wooden sidewalk planks started maybe 1.5 feet east of the marker at the most. Come to think of it, I didn't see an actual state line sign on that bridge, unlike the Seabees Bridge on VT/NH Route 9 a few miles upstream. The Whetstone Station picture was from August 20th, while the picture of the bridge and Wantastiquet Mountain was from about 2 weeks ago:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FonEDfv4.jpg&hash=cb506b6f9b8152570089d75ec777435776d3162e)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F8Wb0sit.jpg&hash=ef2d3c501a3c3e53a30edc9f1933d63607a7075b)
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: The Nature Boy on August 29, 2015, 09:05:59 AM
http://www.wcax.com/story/29902037/vermont-interstate-91-bridge-to-be-replaced-this-weekend (http://www.wcax.com/story/29902037/vermont-interstate-91-bridge-to-be-replaced-this-weekend)

It looks like Vermont is going to replace a bridge in a weekend.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on August 29, 2015, 10:09:47 AM
Mostly slide a new bridge into place.  They've been building the replacement spans adjacent to the existing spans this summer.  This weekend they'll tear down the old spans and slide the new ones over in their places.  I've been watching it from time to time as that's the exit where the VA Medical Center I go to is located.

(EDIT)  Also, per the public release (http://www.i91wrj.vtransprojects.vermont.gov/documents/Weekly%20preview%208_24_15_8_31_15.pdf), only the northbound span will be slid into place this weekend.  Southbound is planned for sometime in September.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Pete from Boston on August 29, 2015, 11:39:05 AM

Quote from: KEVIN_224 on August 20, 2015, 09:53:20 PM
The survey marker was embedded in the sidewalk, next to the red wall of the Whetstone Station. I can tell you that the wooden sidewalk planks started maybe 1.5 feet east of the marker at the most. Come to think of it, I didn't see an actual state line sign on that bridge, unlike the Seabees Bridge on VT/NH Route 9 a few miles upstream. The Whetstone Station picture was from August 20th, while the picture of the bridge and Wantastiquet Mountain was from about 2 weeks ago:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FonEDfv4.jpg&hash=cb506b6f9b8152570089d75ec777435776d3162e)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F8Wb0sit.jpg&hash=ef2d3c501a3c3e53a30edc9f1933d63607a7075b)

I wish these posts happened a couple of months ago.  I did that very walk across the river, hiking Mt. Wantastiquet and following it up with a visit to Whetstone Station.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: shadyjay on August 30, 2015, 08:36:23 PM
So on our way to the St Lawrence this weekend, we traversed the "Circ" (VT 289) in Essex.  Massive... and I do mean MASSIVE construction is taking place along what would be the northbound carriageway (the Circ is a Super 2).  This construction even extends west past the terminus, where there is a lot of clearing and blasting taking place.  It looks like crews are laying some pipeline, but it seems a LOT more substantial than that.  I would've thought we would've caught wind on the "twinning" of 289 and any further extension being eminent, but I've seen nothing on the news about it.   Only recent news in expressway/new roadway construction approval has been the Champlain Parkway.  I'd love to see the Circ built to connect to I-89 at both ends.

So what really is going on? 
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: DJDBVT on August 31, 2015, 07:14:36 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on August 30, 2015, 08:36:23 PM
So on our way to the St Lawrence this weekend, we traversed the "Circ" (VT 289) in Essex.  Massive... and I do mean MASSIVE construction is taking place along what would be the northbound carriageway (the Circ is a Super 2).  This construction even extends west past the terminus, where there is a lot of clearing and blasting taking place.  It looks like crews are laying some pipeline, but it seems a LOT more substantial than that.  I would've thought we would've caught wind on the "twinning" of 289 and any further extension being eminent, but I've seen nothing on the news about it.   Only recent news in expressway/new roadway construction approval has been the Champlain Parkway.  I'd love to see the Circ built to connect to I-89 at both ends.

So what really is going on?

The construction you saw was part of the 41-mile Addison Natural Gas Project (https://vermontgas.com/addison-rutland-natural-gas-project/), which, when completed, will run from Colchester to the Middlebury area.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on August 31, 2015, 08:28:42 AM
Just got an email from VTrans that verifies what DJDBVT said...it's part of a natural gas line.  "VT Gas is running a line from Colchester to Addison County and a section of it runs parallel to VT 289."
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: shadyjay on August 31, 2015, 09:47:14 PM
Quote from: froggie on August 31, 2015, 08:28:42 AM
Just got an email from VTrans that verifies what DJDBVT said...it's part of a natural gas line.  "VT Gas is running a line from Colchester to Addison County and a section of it runs parallel to VT 289."

That's what I thought too but it just seemed like a lot of work for a pipeline.  My friend who was driving was convinced it was part of expanding/widening the "circ" but I think he was just confusing it with the Champlain Parkway, which just recently got the green light for construction. 

After all, if the Circ was being widened/twinned/etc.... we'd be all over it on this board!! 
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on September 01, 2015, 09:27:04 PM
If the Circ was being widened or twinned, I've have expected to hear about it in the local news or on CAX before now...
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on October 18, 2015, 07:35:46 AM
So we had enough snow in some places yesterday/last night (1.3" at my house) to where VTrans broke out the snowplows, at least on I-91 north of Lyndonville.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: KEVIN_224 on October 18, 2015, 08:57:57 AM
Any idea if the I-91 bridge construction is still going in Brattleboro? I was last up there in late August. I saw a construction zone starting almost immediately after Exit 1 heading north.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on October 18, 2015, 09:01:05 AM
Yes.  They're replacing the bridges over the West River and VT 30.  It'll be a multi-year project...at least through next year (if not into 2017).
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: KEVIN_224 on October 18, 2015, 09:16:55 AM
That explains the little orange alternate I-91 signs then! I saw this one along US Route 5 in Brattleboro back in August:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F4hKWq2l.jpg&hash=9861b80c508af18451f6ed4179eb5b3d273fc422)
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: cl94 on October 18, 2015, 01:19:45 PM
Quote from: froggie on October 18, 2015, 09:01:05 AM
Yes.  They're replacing the bridges over the West River and VT 30.  It'll be a multi-year project...at least through next year (if not into 2017).

It's lasting that long? I hoped it would be over by now. It's on the most direct route between where I'm moving and the closest New Hampshire liquor store  :spin:
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: shadyjay on October 18, 2015, 01:23:52 PM
For more on the project, see:  http://www.i91brattleborobridge.com/

It seems its been "slow going" but I imagine once the piers get finished, then its just a matter of laying the deck.  What's interesting is the new bridge will be wide enough to replace the two original bridges, the NB demolished to build the new bridge and the SB will be demolished once the new bridge is open.  But until that happens, travelers will have to endure another year of single lane traffic between Exits 2 & 3. 

And once this job is complete, I wonder what the next "big one" for VT will be.  I wonder about the one up in Rockingham (just past Exit 6) over the Williams River/GMRC or the one over the White River/NECR up in White River Jct.... at least there's less traffic over those both. 
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on October 18, 2015, 07:43:42 PM
QuoteAnd once this job is complete, I wonder what the next "big one" for VT will be.  I wonder about the one up in Rockingham (just past Exit 6) over the Williams River/GMRC or the one over the White River/NECR up in White River Jct.... at least there's less traffic over those both. 

According to VTrans, the Williams River bridges will be next, kicking off in 2017.  There's also the I-89 bridges over the river between Hartford and West Leb starting in 2018...that'll be mostly a NH project but some VT involvement.  From what little I've seen, the project will include full shoulders on both sides and an auxiliary lane on the SB 89 side between the 91 on-ramp and the NH 12A exit.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: KEVIN_224 on October 24, 2015, 04:32:45 PM
Here's a question for Vermont roads:

While I-91 heading towards Brattleboro this past August, I noticed the tiny 1/20 mile markers in gray. Are those really necessary? How else would I know the Guilford/Vernon town line heading north is at MM 2.35? ;)

Does I-89 have them, too? (It's the only 2DI in New England I've never been on.)
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on October 24, 2015, 09:58:05 PM
Those are Vermont's older-style milemarkers for the Interstates.  Yes both I-89 and I-93 have them (I don't recall offhand if I-189 does).  Given that VTrans now uses more standardized 0.2 mile markers, I do not believe the 0.05 markers are being replaced as they're lost (usually due to winter snowplowing, at least that's how some on I-91 in Sheffield have disappeared).  But VTrans hasn't removed them either.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: DJDBVT on October 25, 2015, 08:15:56 AM
In the recent sign replacement project on I-91 between Guilford and Rockingham, the 0.05 markers have all been replaced with new ones.

Quote from: froggie on October 24, 2015, 09:58:05 PM
Those are Vermont's older-style milemarkers for the Interstates.  Yes both I-89 and I-93 have them (I don't recall offhand if I-189 does).  Given that VTrans now uses more standardized 0.2 mile markers, I do not believe the 0.05 markers are being replaced as they're lost (usually due to winter snowplowing, at least that's how some on I-91 in Sheffield have disappeared).  But VTrans hasn't removed them either.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: DJDBVT on October 25, 2015, 08:25:38 AM
Those little signs predate the current I-91 bridge replacement. They originally went up then the bridges between Exits 1 and 2 were done a few years back. A more recent signage development - within the past 6 weeks or so - is the placement of full-sized I-91 shields topped with orange ALTERNATE banners along US 5 between Exits 1 and 4. VTrans will occasionally close the onramps at Exit 3 on weekends with lots of traffic (such as Sunday afternoons during foliage and ski seasons) to keep southbound traffic on I-91 moving a little smoother into the construction zone.

Quote from: KEVIN_224 on October 18, 2015, 09:16:55 AM
That explains the little orange alternate I-91 signs then! I saw this one along US Route 5 in Brattleboro back in August:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F4hKWq2l.jpg&hash=9861b80c508af18451f6ed4179eb5b3d273fc422)
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on November 25, 2015, 11:20:20 AM
A few notes from trips this week:

- Route designations in Morrisville have changed again.  Back in January, in response to concerns especially from "north end" businesses (mostly the strip malls along old 100 south of 15), local officials held meetings and a survey asking local residents and business owners/employees what they thought both old 100 and the bypass should be designated.

Based on that feedback, local officials requested and VTrans agreed to change the designations, though it took until this month to get the signage up.  VT 100 is back on its old pre-bypass routing through Morrisville.  The bypass is now officially "Alternate VT 100", with an additional "Truck Route" banner posted.

- VTrans has put new striping on southbound I-91 from south of I-93 to the Wells River (just north of US 302).  This striping is similar to what they did on the above-mentioned Morrisville bypass, where they cut/scraped grooves in the pavement, then applied what looked like thermoplast striping in the grooves.  Theoretically, this will last longer than their normal pavement, as due to the grooves the stripes are placed in, the snowplows won't scrape the thermoplast off.

I only saw it along this southbound stretch of 91.  I did not see any northbound, nor did I see it anywhere else between Barton and Fairlee.

- When VTrans redecked the I-89 bridges just east of VT 100 this year, they closed the former ramp from NB 100 to SB 89 and built a temporary turn lane so that all traffic could use the loop ramp to SB 89 (previously the SB 100 to SB 89 loop).  Given posts and barriers now on the old ramp, it appears they have made this change permanent.

- The temporary traffic signal at US 2/Center Rd in Middlesex has been removed in the past 3 weeks.  This signal was in place during the above-mentioned bridge redecking project, as the construction crews would close all access to SB 89 from 100 during the evening rush hour with traffic redirected down US 2 to Middlesex and the Exit 9 onramp.  A traffic signal had also been placed at the eastern US 2/VT 100 junction closer to Waterbury, but I'm not sure if it's still there. (shadyjay?)
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: shadyjay on November 25, 2015, 02:11:26 PM
Haven't been up that way in a while, as my winter job has set in which has me working nights.  Given the traffic signal at the US 2/VT 100S intersection was temporary, mostly related to the "rush hour" ramp closure of 100 to 89S at Exit 9, I'd guess it's removed, especially if the one at Exit 9 has been removed.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Alps on December 05, 2015, 08:42:30 AM
As seen on Northeast Roads (FB group): Feedback sought on South Burlington intersections, doesn't mention US 2 or VT 116 as being part of these junctions (2 = Williston, for reference) (http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/local/2015/12/05/s-burlington-feedback-sought-intersections/76775584/)

Leads to project website, which includes ability to contact and leave feedback on project (http://www.sburl.com/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC=%7BB8F12E38-B205-476F-83C4-4E3922433644%7D)

Personally, I feel that the two Alt 3s are silly - a continuous median hampers access to businesses on either side, and the most congested commute times (particularly westbound in the AM, as eastbound in the PM has to get through the I-89 interchange) won't see a lot of turning traffic. I also hate roundabouts and I think in this case, the volume of commuters will overwhelm them and not provide gaps for the side streets. So I favor Concepts 1 or 2.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on December 05, 2015, 02:02:48 PM
Quotedoesn't mention US 2 or VT 116 as being part of these junctions (2 = Williston, for reference)

Given the intended audience, most residents/readers know those roads more by their streetnames than by their route numbers.

Two things that should be noted.  First, Midas/White intersection realignment notwithstanding, Alt 1 is the only alternative that doesn't require additional right-of-way along Williston Rd, so I see that as being the likely outcome.

Second, ALL of the alternatives would provide a continuous median, which I don't think is as bad a problem as Alps is making it out to be.  For starters, the eastern half of that block (from the Valero station east) already has a curb median, so really no change there.  And peak hour traffic (of which westbound is just as bad, if not moreso, during the PM) already effectively serves as a median for those trying to turn in/out.  Also, for the businesses on the south side of the street, it is generally easier (not to mention much safer) to pop through the Price Chopper shopping area to either Midas or Hinesburg Rd in order to turn left onto Williston.  And folks heading west on Williston wanting to turn in there have to turn onto Hinesburg or Midas anyway to get there...the existing access point is where the above-mentioned curb median is.

Valero and Subway have a back driveway entrance to White St so they could get around.  The only real "losers" to a full median would be the Swiss Host Motel & Village....their only access is on Williston Rd.  But it'd be a short loop around on White St and Hinesburg Rd to get back around.

I'm not as anti-roundabout as Alps or HB, but I don't see roundabouts working here....not because of the traffic volume as Alps asserts, but because of the right-of-way requirements.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: cl94 on December 05, 2015, 08:24:34 PM
Quote from: froggie on December 05, 2015, 02:02:48 PM
Quotedoesn't mention US 2 or VT 116 as being part of these junctions (2 = Williston, for reference)

Given the intended audience, most residents/readers know those roads more by their streetnames than by their route numbers.

Two things that should be noted.  First, Midas/White intersection realignment notwithstanding, Alt 1 is the only alternative that doesn't require additional right-of-way along Williston Rd, so I see that as being the likely outcome.

Second, ALL of the alternatives would provide a continuous median, which I don't think is as bad a problem as Alps is making it out to be.  For starters, the eastern half of that block (from the Valero station east) already has a curb median, so really no change there.  And peak hour traffic (of which westbound is just as bad, if not moreso, during the PM) already effectively serves as a median for those trying to turn in/out.  Also, for the businesses on the south side of the street, it is generally easier (not to mention much safer) to pop through the Price Chopper shopping area to either Midas or Hinesburg Rd in order to turn left onto Williston.  And folks heading west on Williston wanting to turn in there have to turn onto Hinesburg or Midas anyway to get there...the existing access point is where the above-mentioned curb median is.

Valero and Subway have a back driveway entrance to White St so they could get around.  The only real "losers" to a full median would be the Swiss Host Motel & Village....their only access is on Williston Rd.  But it'd be a short loop around on White St and Hinesburg Rd to get back around.

I'm not as anti-roundabout as Alps or HB, but I don't see roundabouts working here....not because of the traffic volume as Alps asserts, but because of the right-of-way requirements.

I'm familiar with the area and agree completely. If ROW wasn't a concern, the roundabouts would probably be fine, but ROW is quite a major concern. Roundabouts would take out the motel and the bank parking lot.

Medians won't be an issue because White Street can (and already does) function as a jughandle.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: D-Dey65 on December 18, 2015, 01:10:22 PM
I was just examining the St. Johnsbury area so I could expand the Vermont Route 2B section of the US 2 in Vermont article on Wikipedia, when I got distracted by the geographic anomalies of I-91 in the region. Something I noticed was that on US 5 there's a left-turn lane in the median for the southbound on-ramp, but not for the Comfort Inn & Suites Near Burke Mountain across from that ramp. There really should be left-turn lanes in both direction at that ramp.

Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on December 23, 2015, 12:55:35 PM
Construction on I-91 and US 5 predated the hotel (which isn't really "near Burke Mountain") by a couple decades.  The "Taj Mahal" (as it's locally called by some) did not want to pay for a turn lane when it was built, and VTrans didn't force them.  But it's not really necessary...traffic volumes on US 5 are not that heavy.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: The Ghostbuster on December 23, 2015, 04:24:44 PM
Is state highway 289 ever going to be extended in any direction, or will it remain as-is forever.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on December 23, 2015, 08:24:39 PM
It will remain as-is.  The extensions were cancelled 4 years ago.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: shadyjay on December 24, 2015, 07:04:54 PM
The traffic signal at the US 2/VT 100 South intersection on the south end of Waterbury (actually it's in Moretown) is still there.

What I did observe on Tuesday on I-91 South that was interesting was a mobile truck inspection checkpoint set up at the semi-closed parking area between Exit 1 and the Mass state line.  I say semi-closed parking area because you can pull in and out no problem but there are no breaks in the shoulder line.  There's an identical one on the NB side about 1/2 mile before the SB one.  It's the first time I've seen any weigh station/checkpoint open in a while in VT. 
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: shadyjay on January 07, 2016, 09:00:54 PM
Over the past couple days, made a trek down to the Albany/Troy area.  On the way back, I found this beauty still remaining - tried to get a pic of it but couldn't get the phone out in time....

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.599404,-73.262367,3a,72.8y,52.98h,93.09t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHflWJE864HkfNfbpHVrR8w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Then jumped on US 4 East towards Rutland, exiting at Exit 6...https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/24215318956/in/photostream/

And just down the road... https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/23613193594/in/photostream/

What's interesting about this sign is that the old shields on this overhead are holding up A LOT better than the 1994-era green oval shields.  You can see in this shot of Google Maps streetview how faded the sign is in 2012.  It's about 5x worse today.
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.6043176,-73.0137868,3a,36.8y,88.76h,79.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1snhiQwavJoWZQT_y2RjCQBQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on April 17, 2016, 11:49:48 AM
VTDigger is reporting delays in completing the replacement I-91 bridges over the West River near Brattleboro.  What was originally planned as late 2015 is now looking like 2017.
http://vtdigger.org/2016/04/15/i-91-bridge-construction-further-delayed/
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: shadyjay on June 04, 2016, 05:03:59 PM
Drove through the I-89 sign replacement project (Hartford to Royalton) yesterday and today.  Outside of a couple new regulatory signs and the new small .05/mile markers, nothing substantial yet.  They're still working on the posts to support the new signs, SB, and NB, many still need to be installed.  I wonder of the I-89 junction will get exit tabs as part of this project.  Assuming the new signs will be in Clearview, it will mean the entire distance of I-89 in Vermont will be in Clearview, though it doesn't look bad on VT's signs.  What I did observe was the contractor is using u-turn signs to cover the holes where they drilled for the foundations for the new signs.  A couple were flipped over.

They still got a ways to go on the Brattleboro/West River bridge.  If they get the new bridge open this year, I'd be impressed.  The new span isn't even unified yet, still a good gap at the northern pier. 

New crossover in place just north of Exit 6 in Rockingham.  The SB lanes are closed and traffic diverted to the NB lanes.  A rock ledge fell either earlier this year or last year onto the SB lanes and I'm guessing this project is to shore up the ledge or blast it back some. 
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: cl94 on June 19, 2016, 11:32:12 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on June 04, 2016, 05:03:59 PM
They still got a ways to go on the Brattleboro/West River bridge.  If they get the new bridge open this year, I'd be impressed.  The new span isn't even unified yet, still a good gap at the northern pier. 

New crossover in place just north of Exit 6 in Rockingham.  The SB lanes are closed and traffic diverted to the NB lanes.  A rock ledge fell either earlier this year or last year onto the SB lanes and I'm guessing this project is to shore up the ledge or blast it back some.

Drove through the area today and noticed all of this. I was shocked at the state of the Brattleboro project.

I-89 at the Waterbury project is a bit interesting. SB is back on the SB bridge, but they're redoing the bridge for the NB exit ramp. Currently, the right lane NB is exit only and separated from the left lane by cones starting about 3/4 mile before the exit. Quite a bit of last-minute weaving when people saw the cones. NB exit ramp is on a temporary alignment with a very sharp curve that can be seen in the Google aerial.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on June 21, 2016, 01:49:44 AM
Noticed on our way back from Bradley today that the replacement West River span will be a single bridge holding both directions instead of two separate bridge (one for each direction) like what previously existed.  Grading for the approaches on the north side is very apparent, and the completed segments of bridge certainly look wide enough.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Dougtone on July 07, 2016, 09:40:09 PM
Following a link I had come across from one of the roads groups on Facebook, there's a lot of historic transportation photos from Vermont out there at http://glcp.uvm.edu/landscape/se​arch/ (http://glcp.uvm.edu/landscape/se​arch/), including many road photos.

Some examples are as follows...
http://glcp.uvm.edu/landscape/asset_store/37/89/LS37892/LS37892_000_thumb_3.jpg (http://glcp.uvm.edu/landscape/asset_store/37/89/LS37892/LS37892_000_thumb_3.jpg)
US 5 sign in Guilford
http://glcp.uvm.edu/landscape/as​set_store/15/57/LS15573/LS15573_0​00_thumb_3.jpg (http://glcp.uvm.edu/landscape/as​set_store/15/57/LS15573/LS15573_0​00_thumb_3.jpg)
Burlington distance sign on miles and kilometers
http://glcp.uvm.edu/landscape/as​set_store/61/08/LS61082/LS61082_0​00_thumb_3.jpg (http://glcp.uvm.edu/landscape/as​set_store/61/08/LS61082/LS61082_0​00_thumb_3.jpg)
Artist rendering of I-189/US 7 interchange in South Burlington as a trumpet.
http://glcp.uvm.edu/landscape/asset_store/42/01/LS42017/LS42017_000_thumb_3.jpg (http://glcp.uvm.edu/landscape/asset_store/42/01/LS42017/LS42017_000_thumb_3.jpg)
I-91 and VT 9, Brattleboro
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: KEVIN_224 on July 08, 2016, 09:58:27 PM
I'm bugged out by that last link from Brattleboro! (BTW, only the 1st and 4th links are working for me.) Is that shot from the north of today's Exit 3 rotary? That looks a bit like Wantastiquet Mountain in the background. That'd be a bit to the left heading south, since it's on the New Hampshire side of the Connecticut River.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: shadyjay on July 09, 2016, 05:18:49 PM
US 5 north of the Exit 3 rotary makes perfect sense, heading south.  The Jct VT 9 and the Jct 91 to the right makes perfect sense if that's the location. 
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: KEVIN_224 on July 10, 2016, 09:18:55 AM
It looks like it could be the area north of the rotary, where the Motel 6 (I've stayed at twice) is.

https://goo.gl/maps/7etbtWz1aQv
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Mergingtraffic on July 14, 2016, 03:01:30 PM
anybody know where any old state-named interstate shields left around the state? I'd to get some pics.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: cl94 on July 14, 2016, 05:04:34 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on July 14, 2016, 03:01:30 PM
anybody know where any old state-named interstate shields left around the state? I'd to get some pics.

First one that comes to mind is I-91 SB immediately south of I-89. Check the state name shield thread for a few more.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: KEVIN_224 on July 14, 2016, 05:39:23 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FtC0XPHn.jpg&hash=812bf0ba418c2548dda5e27f2f4dcebd74b397cd)

White River Junction, at the eastern end of Sykes Mountain Avenue. Took this picture on July 13, 2016. :)

https://goo.gl/maps/dferEQMaqK52

That eastern edge of Sykes was a bitch to walk up. Pretty steep and quite narrow until you're up the hill!
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: shadyjay on July 14, 2016, 06:01:08 PM
Just a couple hours ago, I drove through the Hartford-Royalton (I-89) sign replacement project.  A bunch of new signs up, in both directions.  Looks like the new signage for BGSs is in Clearview, which means I-89 will be Clearview from end-to-end in Vermont. 

Other notes, SB:
Exit 2 changes:  VT 132 gets a green circle shield, and the control points are now Sharon AND Strafford. 
Exit 1 changes:  Quechee is gone from the BGSs... only Woodstock is listed.  Quechee denoted to a secondary sign, along with Killington.
91 Jct:  signage remained status-quo for the most part vs the old signage.  The gore gets a small I-91 sign, like how NH signs their interstate-interstate jcts.  The final overhead BGS hasn't been replaced yet.

Observed NB (in the rear view):
Crews were working on putting up signs near Exit 2.
Welcome Center now says "REST AREA/VERMONT WELCOME CENTER".
Exit 1 signage keeps US 4/Woodstock/Rutland.
No overhead gantries for I-91 jct replaced yet.

Further update early next week, along with pics.  With these changes, the only old-style circle state shields left on an interstate in VT are on I-91 at Exit 7.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: KEVIN_224 on July 15, 2016, 07:08:53 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FKx2aOX6.jpg&hash=df6f1f48fa113ad335d9fd319453fba70deb7e3d)

This gantry is on US Route 5 South in White River Junction. I was walking over from the Greyhound bus agency behind me on Sykes Mountain Avenue. Just out of frame was a small secondary sign on I-91 which (I believe) said "Woodstock/Rutland - THIS EXIT".

I also noticed the US Route 4 bridge over the Connecticut River into West Lebanon, NH is brand new. My shot north up the Connecticut River from the middle shows no sign of the previous bridge being there:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FTjfy2oe.jpg&hash=9f3a241fc95998af874c5e5b4e16e70f2306b556)
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: shadyjay on July 15, 2016, 09:05:34 PM
I really hate that gantry on US 5.  I don't know if its the all-caps "St Johnsbury" or the center arrow on the middle sign, or the arrow on the US 5 sign, but it's GOT TO GO!!!  On another note, the bridges which carry I-91 over US 5 in this image were the ones that were replaced over the course of a weekend via the slide-in method.

The US 4 bridge was deemed unsafe and a temporary bridge went up, I believe immediately south of the old bridge.  Then the old bridge was removed and a new one built in its place, with the temporary bridge then being removed.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: KEVIN_224 on July 16, 2016, 12:51:12 AM
They sure didn't look old at all. As I walked under them on Thursday morning, walking from the Super 8 motel, towards the Greyhound agency on Sykes Mountain Avenue:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FxhafYZY.jpg&hash=5e2b557fbe6c0757e178db6d6e0523b636811e88)

This was on the inside of the southbound I-91 bridge, front left side if driving south:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F5Mkav0b.jpg&hash=bead0c070746b8ef03298c96ea849cdfd2001a2d)

As for the US Route 4 bridge over the Connecticut River, the last Google Street View available was September 2012. It does NOT look anything like this now!
https://goo.gl/maps/54MBA1gGn7t
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on July 16, 2016, 09:56:47 PM
Only took them about 5 years to get that replacement US 4 bridge done.  The temporary bridge was up for far too long.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on July 29, 2016, 08:39:18 AM
Can't make this stuff up.  The photos especially are comic.

http://www.wcax.com/story/32562969/police-say-vermont-crash-prompted-by-gps-order-to-turn
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: cl94 on July 29, 2016, 09:12:08 AM
Quote from: froggie on July 29, 2016, 08:39:18 AM
Can't make this stuff up.  The photos especially are comic.

http://www.wcax.com/story/32562969/police-say-vermont-crash-prompted-by-gps-order-to-turn

You can't fix stupid.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: 7/8 on July 29, 2016, 12:40:51 PM
Quote from: froggie on July 29, 2016, 08:39:18 AM
Can't make this stuff up.  The photos especially are comic.

http://www.wcax.com/story/32562969/police-say-vermont-crash-prompted-by-gps-order-to-turn

Wow, how fast was she going during her planned "U-turn"?

The article title reminds of The Office, when Michael Scott drives his car into the lake :-D
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: The Ghostbuster on July 29, 2016, 03:44:00 PM
There was to be some sort of roadway built off the end of Interstate 189? I know it wasn't going to be a freeway. Is that project still going to be built, or has it been canceled?
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on July 30, 2016, 09:25:14 PM
No new news.  Past news can be found by searching for it in this thread.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: jcroyer80 on August 01, 2016, 12:11:55 PM
http://www.champlainparkway.org/ (http://www.champlainparkway.org/)   

Latest info there. Click recent activity to see updates.  Project still in design.  Earliest construction could start is 2018.

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/local/2015/12/05/champlain-parkway-inches-forward/76660256/
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Alps on August 13, 2016, 11:52:30 PM
Interesting sign... takes a little while to read it properly. https://goo.gl/maps/fEbyDYgDYH22
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on August 15, 2016, 09:49:40 AM
The reverse of the "ALT TO VT 108" signs on the northbound 100 turn-off to Moscow.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: shadyjay on August 17, 2016, 09:32:19 PM
A couple updates:

I-91 Brattleboro Bridge:
The new bridge is still not unified, but it's getting close.  The website has changed the bridge opening date to Spring 2017, so looks like one more winter of work. 

I-91 Rock Stabilization - Rockingham:
When heading south last Thursday, the crossover was still in place, with the southbound lanes closed.  Earlier today (8/17), traffic is now using the southbound roadway once again, and I saw crews removing the temporary southbound lane from the left lane of I-91 NB.  The removal work included crews pulling up the white stripe over the yellow stripe left shoulder and a crane removing the jersey barriers.  Still some work to be done before full 2-lanes/each way resumes. 

I-89 sign work:
Most new ground-mount signs are up from Hartford to Royalton, EXCEPT the overheads around the I-91 jct.  Did see a new foundation laid for the 89SB overhead at 91jct.  Northbound old signs remain around Exit 1 and the Sharon Rest Area. 
Some photos can be found at:  https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/albums/72157659016202648.  Just scroll to the end of the album. 
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Pete from Boston on September 08, 2016, 12:21:13 AM
Anyone know what this marker designates?  My cousin found it on 100B in Moretown.

(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8823/28912213013_739feda381_b.jpg)
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on September 08, 2016, 08:05:29 AM
An old state aid marker.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Pete from Boston on September 08, 2016, 08:29:34 AM
Quote from: froggie on September 08, 2016, 08:05:29 AM
An old state aid marker.


Can you elaborate a little on what that means?  I can't relate these numbers (other than 1967) to anything. 

According to the online VTTrans documents,100B was added to the system in 1935.  Could this be for a side road?  (I don't know its exact location.)
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on September 08, 2016, 08:35:10 AM
The S 016 is the state aid indication here.  Couldn't tell you more without seeing it in context or knowing exactly where it is.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Pete from Boston on September 08, 2016, 09:33:53 AM
Quote from: froggie on September 08, 2016, 08:35:10 AM
The S 016 is the state aid indication here.  Couldn't tell you more without seeing it in context or knowing exactly where it is.

Thanks, that was enough to get me going.  It's the upgrade and relocation of 100B from the 1960s:

http://vtransmap01.aot.state.vt.us/rp/dpr/DIAsBuiltFilestore/ROW_Plans_/01R30270650/PDF/01R302.pdf

I'll have him get the other side to see if the next project down (There was an S0167(6) south of here, not sure about north) is on there.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on October 18, 2016, 07:41:02 AM
A VTDigger article from this morning (linked below) includes a photo from downtown Bennington, VT which shows that the former 2-lens left-turn signal at US 7/VT 9 has been replaced by a more standard 3-lens signal.

A check of GMSV shows this change was made by last November.  I haven't been in downtown Bennington for a few years so I missed the change.

http://vtdigger.org/2016/10/17/bennington-commercial-real-estate-market-heating/
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Alps on October 18, 2016, 12:11:25 PM
Quote from: froggie on October 18, 2016, 07:41:02 AM
A VTDigger article from this morning (linked below) includes a photo from downtown Bennington, VT which shows that the former 2-lens left-turn signal at US 7/VT 9 has been replaced by a more standard 3-lens signal.

A check of GMSV shows this change was made by last November.  I haven't been in downtown Bennington for a few years so I missed the change.

http://vtdigger.org/2016/10/17/bennington-commercial-real-estate-market-heating/
Yeah, it was there at least last summer if not earlier.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: cl94 on October 18, 2016, 12:31:16 PM
The new signal was definitely there in August when I went through.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: shadyjay on October 23, 2016, 07:53:39 PM
Brand new "Welcome to Vermont" sign installed on I-89 Northbound, coming up from N.H....


(https://c4.staticflickr.com/6/5797/29891431243_1df3989678_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Mxpp7c)IMG_2578 (https://flic.kr/p/Mxpp7c) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

What's interesting about this one is its very large, much larger than the small one installed on I-91 North last year.  What's also interesting is that it seems the project to replace signs from Hartford to Royalton has wrapped up, but yet the northbound signs for the I-91 jct have not been replaced.  Southbound, all signs are replaced and there's a new overhead on the ramp to I-91.  But northbound, outside of a South 91 sign in the gore at Exit "0-S", nothing was replaced. 
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: KEVIN_224 on October 24, 2016, 12:55:43 AM
I like that one a hell of a lot more than what greets you in Guilford now at the MA border!
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on October 24, 2016, 07:32:23 AM
Noticed last night (enroute to dinner) that the northbound I-91 ramp junction with US 5/VT 105 (Exit 28/Derby) now has a traffic signal.  Likely a result of a new WalMart being built in Derby (that should be open this spring).  This makes it the northernmost I-91 interchange with a traffic signal (previously, it was Exit 13/Norwich).
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: vdeane on October 24, 2016, 01:04:09 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on October 23, 2016, 07:53:39 PM
Brand new "Welcome to Vermont" sign installed on I-89 Northbound, coming up from N.H....


(https://c4.staticflickr.com/6/5797/29891431243_1df3989678_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Mxpp7c)IMG_2578 (https://flic.kr/p/Mxpp7c) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

What's interesting about this one is its very large, much larger than the small one installed on I-91 North last year.  What's also interesting is that it seems the project to replace signs from Hartford to Royalton has wrapped up, but yet the northbound signs for the I-91 jct have not been replaced.  Southbound, all signs are replaced and there's a new overhead on the ramp to I-91.  But northbound, outside of a South 91 sign in the gore at Exit "0-S", nothing was replaced. 
They should replace the welcome signs on I-91 and I-93 with that.

I take it the exit to I-91 is now "Exit 0"?
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: shadyjay on October 24, 2016, 04:48:40 PM
The I-89 interchange with I-91 is still unnumbered.  New signs and gantries in place southbound, but still the old signs northbound, as evident by the old & faded I-91 shield on the sign behind the welcome sign seen above. 

I have noticed stakes in front of the new (last year) welcome to Vermont postage stamp-sized sign on I-91 NB in Guilford.  I'm not sure if they're left over from the previous sign replacement project, or if that one will eventually get the full size version as seen on I-89 NB.  What is interesting is, prior to the new Welcome sign on I-89, there was a small one in its place, though not quite as small as the I-91 sign. 

Funny the mention about the traffic signal at Exit 28... as I was driving north yesterday, I was recalling how many I-91 exits in VT have traffic signals on the ramps, vs those in CT.  Are VT Exits 13 & (now 28) the only ones? 

Also on I-89 NB, there's a new blue sign saying "24-HOUR TRAVEL PLAZA - EXIT 7" just past the Sharon welcome center (before Exit 2).  Came up quick - couldn't get a shot of it. 
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on October 24, 2016, 06:02:50 PM
QuoteFunny the mention about the traffic signal at Exit 28... as I was driving north yesterday, I was recalling how many I-91 exits in VT have traffic signals on the ramps, vs those in CT.  Are VT Exits 13 & (now 28) the only ones? 

Correct.  And even at that, one of the Exit 13 signals goes into flash mode at night (northbound ramps), and only the northbound Exit 28 ramps have a signal.

A temporary signal existed at Exit 11 (US 5/WRJ) during the bridge replacement project, but it is long gone now.

QuoteAlso on I-89 NB, there's a new blue sign saying "24-HOUR TRAVEL PLAZA - EXIT 7" just past the Sharon welcome center (before Exit 2).  Came up quick - couldn't get a shot of it.

Guessing this is because there's nothing along I-89 between WRJ and Berlin that's open past 9pm...they probably consider the Cumbies in Randolph (on VT 12) too far from the Interstate, whereas there's a Maplefields right at the light just off Exit 7.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: shadyjay on October 24, 2016, 07:36:09 PM
That, and they just opened said Maplewood Travel Plaza as a public-private partnership to offer an off-highway rest area/info center, but with commercial enterprises (food, fuel, etc).  The Sharon center is open till 11pm, but with the closing of the Randolph rest stop (NB) several years ago, a void was left in on-highway services.  Maplewood is classified as an official welcome center as well...
http://informationcenter.vermont.gov/centers/maplewood

There is talk of building a similar facility like Maplefield in Randolph, at the vacant land right off Exit 4 where the driving range used to be (and the whale's tails a WHILE ago before they were moved to South Burlington), but I believe it's on hold.  If that facility gets built, I bet VAOT closes the Randolph-SB rest area. 

Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: cl94 on October 24, 2016, 07:41:35 PM
I'll need to get out there in a couple of weeks to check it out, then.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: KEVIN_224 on October 24, 2016, 08:21:00 PM
Doesn't Exit 2 in Brattleboro (VT Route 9 West - Bennington) have a signal? Exit 1 in Brattleboro's south end doesn't. I know, since I've taken that exit 4 times since August of 2015. Exit 3 in Brattleboro (US 5/VT Route 9 East - Keene, NH) used to have a traffic light. The rotary took care of that!

As for Exit 11 in White River Junction, where exactly was the light? By the gardens planted by some locals?

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FkaT8sQQ.jpg&hash=72551312e6c82f913595de2e7093536f3f3aba80)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FhZaPd3l.jpg&hash=5f6e21e71b1e3346008cc4fb571dddf77440fd08)
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: cl94 on October 24, 2016, 08:27:57 PM
Exit 2 does not. Probably should, but does not.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on October 24, 2016, 09:36:59 PM
QuoteExit 3 in Brattleboro (US 5/VT Route 9 East - Keene, NH) used to have a traffic light. The rotary took care of that!

Roundabout.  Vermont doesn't do rotaries (yes, there's a difference between the two).
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: KEVIN_224 on October 25, 2016, 10:11:08 AM
Sorry. I get those two confused all the time. Don't see a lot of them in Connecticut. Massachusetts does them too often, from what I've seen!
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: cl94 on November 06, 2016, 01:46:03 PM
When did Vermont start using FYAs? I was surprised to see on in Barre yesterday and another couple on VT 116.

Swung by the new service area at I-89 Exit 7 as well. Looks a lot like the new ones on I-93 in New Hampshire minus the liquor store.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: shadyjay on November 06, 2016, 02:47:25 PM
The first I saw was up on VT 117 in Essex, west of the "5 corners".  Also the "new" left turn from VT 100 North to I-89 South at Exit 10 in Waterbury has one. 
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on November 06, 2016, 05:18:25 PM
At least 3 years ago, as I noted in another thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=2983.msg260415#msg260415).  The FYAs you likely saw on VT 116 (I'm presuming in Hinesburg) date back to then.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: cl94 on November 06, 2016, 05:26:11 PM
Quote from: froggie on November 06, 2016, 05:18:25 PM
At least 3 years ago, as I noted in another thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=2983.msg260415#msg260415).  The FYAs you likely saw on VT 116 (I'm presuming in Hinesburg) date back to then.

Shows how often I get to that part of Vermont. I typically stay south of US 4 or, if I'm up there, I keep to the major routes because it's a long-distance trip. They were in Hinesburg.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: jcroyer80 on November 14, 2016, 08:43:56 AM
FYAs are part of the new traffic signal/expanded turn lanes at the Route 7/Little Chicago/Middlebrook Road intersection in Ferrisburgh.  Lights just went up within the past month or two.  FYAs are in both directions on Route 7.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: KEVIN_224 on November 24, 2016, 03:17:31 PM
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/2016/11/24/history-space-creation-vermont-interstates/94332176/

Surprised you guys didn't link this here already! I believe it was linked on the Alp's Roads' Facebook page. Fascinating read nonetheless! My favorite picture was when the West River Bridge over I-91 in Brattleboro was nearly finished.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on November 24, 2016, 04:30:51 PM
The photos themselves were released over the summer and mentioned then.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: shadyjay on December 01, 2016, 06:05:00 PM
So today I noticed new foundations/bases in front of the postage stamp "Welcome to Vermont" sign on I-91 NB at the MA/VT state line.  Looks like there will be a larger sign there at some point in the not-too-distant future. 

Preliminary work is getting underway for the next big bridge replacement on I-91... the Williams River bridges in Rockingham at Exit 6.  No lane closures just yet, that'll happen in the spring.  Gonna be a "reroute all traffic to one bridge, replace the other, move all traffic there, replace that one" type of deal, I believe.

Still no new signs for the I-91 Jct on I-89 NB in White River Jct.  I find it odd.  If they were holding out on replacing them until the Connecticut River Bridge gets rebuilt, then why did they replace the "Welcome to Vermont" sign?  There was nothing wrong with the old one (outside of its small size).  Or maybe they'll come back to finish the job come springtime.

Got a shot of that Travel Plaza sign on I-89 NB just past the welcome center in Sharon...
(https://c5.staticflickr.com/6/5471/31216907172_6efc64f48e_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/PywNVs)IMG_2679 (https://flic.kr/p/PywNVs) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr
... there's a similar sign just before Exit 7 as well. 

And there's a good sized project going on to replace the US 2 bridge over I-89 in Middlesex, between Exits 8 & 9. 
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: shadyjay on February 04, 2017, 10:01:41 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on December 01, 2016, 06:05:00 PM
So today I noticed new foundations/bases in front of the postage stamp "Welcome to Vermont" sign on I-91 NB at the MA/VT state line.  Looks like there will be a larger sign there at some point in the not-too-distant future. 

And I guess I was right, as KEVIN_224 linked in another thread...

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=19409.msg2204014#msg2204014
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on February 04, 2017, 11:22:56 PM
A couple worthy newspaper articles.  First one is about how some have struggled with the new FYA signals on the Morrisville bypass.  Second discusses a proposed street project in Burlington that would connect the end of Battery St directly with Pine St (with the goal of it being finished around the same time as the Champlain Parkway, which would add additional traffic to Pine St).

http://www.stowetoday.com/news_and_citizen/news/local_news/blink-blink-how-about-turning-now/article_69b920d6-e991-11e6-abde-5fa48aae7e5d.html

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/2017/02/01/burlington-fast-tracks-south-end-shortcut/97152108/
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: SectorZ on February 05, 2017, 07:39:47 AM
Quote from: froggie on February 04, 2017, 11:22:56 PM
A couple worthy newspaper articles.  First one is about how some have struggled with the new FYA signals on the Morrisville bypass.  Second discusses a proposed street project in Burlington that would connect the end of Battery St directly with Pine St (with the goal of it being finished around the same time as the Champlain Parkway, which would add additional traffic to Pine St).

http://www.stowetoday.com/news_and_citizen/news/local_news/blink-blink-how-about-turning-now/article_69b920d6-e991-11e6-abde-5fa48aae7e5d.html

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/2017/02/01/burlington-fast-tracks-south-end-shortcut/97152108/

That Morrisville story is just something else. Some people are just afraid of their own shadows on the roads, and probably shouldn't be driving if they are that spooked. That being said, every intersection I've seen with an FYA has a sign explaining how to proceed through it, and the ones pictured in the story don't appear to have them.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: cu2010 on February 05, 2017, 10:38:31 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on February 05, 2017, 07:39:47 AM
That being said, every intersection I've seen with an FYA has a sign explaining how to proceed through it, and the ones pictured in the story don't appear to have them.

The ones in NY are the same way. Confusion is just as evident. I've grown to like the FYA signal, but there really needs to be a sign explaining how it actually works.

They did have a piece on the local news when the lights were first installed, but nobody watches the local news, so...
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Alps on February 05, 2017, 12:58:01 PM
Quote from: cu2010 on February 05, 2017, 10:38:31 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on February 05, 2017, 07:39:47 AM
That being said, every intersection I've seen with an FYA has a sign explaining how to proceed through it, and the ones pictured in the story don't appear to have them.

The ones in NY are the same way. Confusion is just as evident. I've grown to like the FYA signal, but there really needs to be a sign explaining how it actually works.

They did have a piece on the local news when the lights were first installed, but nobody watches the local news, so...
Prior to the existence of the FYA, no one had a problem understanding you yield to oncoming traffic on a green light. I really don't buy that argument, and it shouldn't have been installed here. It only makes sense in cases where there would be a left turn trap (lagging green on the other side) or - and only recently have I come around - when a left or right turn at a T intersection needs to yield to something like a crosswalk with a walk signal. (In which case a green arrow lasting the entire cycle would not allow pedestrians to cross.)
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: yakra on February 05, 2017, 02:38:24 PM
Quote from: froggie on February 04, 2017, 11:22:56 PM
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/2017/02/01/burlington-fast-tracks-south-end-shortcut/97152108

QuoteAshley Fisher, 29, a Burlington resident, walks Monday with her one-year-old daughter, Khloe, along King Street. Photographed July 30, 2017.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.troll.me%2Fimages%2Fancient-aliens-guy%2Ftimelords-thumb.jpg&hash=42e5a4b2179181f3b7ea143969d77ef1f8da0a47)
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: abqtraveler on February 05, 2017, 10:53:46 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on December 01, 2016, 06:05:00 PM
So today I noticed new foundations/bases in front of the postage stamp "Welcome to Vermont" sign on I-91 NB at the MA/VT state line.  Looks like there will be a larger sign there at some point in the not-too-distant future. 

Preliminary work is getting underway for the next big bridge replacement on I-91... the Williams River bridges in Rockingham at Exit 6.  No lane closures just yet, that'll happen in the spring.  Gonna be a "reroute all traffic to one bridge, replace the other, move all traffic there, replace that one" type of deal, I believe.

Still no new signs for the I-91 Jct on I-89 NB in White River Jct.  I find it odd.  If they were holding out on replacing them until the Connecticut River Bridge gets rebuilt, then why did they replace the "Welcome to Vermont" sign?  There was nothing wrong with the old one (outside of its small size).  Or maybe they'll come back to finish the job come springtime.

Got a shot of that Travel Plaza sign on I-89 NB just past the welcome center in Sharon...
(https://c5.staticflickr.com/6/5471/31216907172_6efc64f48e_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/PywNVs)IMG_2679 (https://flic.kr/p/PywNVs) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr
... there's a similar sign just before Exit 7 as well. 

And there's a good sized project going on to replace the US 2 bridge over I-89 in Middlesex, between Exits 8 & 9.

Looks like a sign replacement project is happening along I-91 in Vermont.  Any idea if Vermont plans to renumber to mile-based exits any time soon?
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: shadyjay on February 06, 2017, 06:41:18 AM
 The last of the old signs along I-91 between north of Exit 6 and I-89 will be replaced starting this spring.  Recent sign replacements have exit tabs wide enough for 2 digits.  I don't think there are any immediate plans to go to mile based exits, but they're at least planning ahead. It'll be interesting to see if this year's signs will be Clearview or not.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: abqtraveler on February 07, 2017, 01:07:05 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on February 06, 2017, 06:41:18 AM
The last of the old signs along I-91 between north of Exit 6 and I-89 will be replaced starting this spring.  Recent sign replacements have exit tabs wide enough for 2 digits.  I don't think there are any immediate plans to go to mile based exits, but they're at least planning ahead. It'll be interesting to see if this year's signs will be Clearview or not.

Sounds like Vermont is preparing for the inevitable, but doesn't have a set timeline to switch to mile-based numbering. 
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on February 17, 2017, 10:12:07 AM
An article in the Brattleboro Reformer (http://www.reformer.com/stories/60m-bridge-to-open-in-march,498433) notes that VTrans expects to move northbound I-91 traffic to the new West River bridge (which also spans over VT 30) in March.  The article suggests one southbound lane on the new bridge will open in late-April, with both southbound lanes open by mid-June.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: DJDBVT on March 21, 2017, 09:03:03 PM
Quote from: froggie on February 17, 2017, 10:12:07 AM
An article in the Brattleboro Reformer (http://www.reformer.com/stories/60m-bridge-to-open-in-march,498433) notes that VTrans expects to move northbound I-91 traffic to the new West River bridge (which also spans over VT 30) in March.  The article suggests one southbound lane on the new bridge will open in late-April, with both southbound lanes open by mid-June.

The new bridge opened to northbound traffic today. Southbound traffic continues to use the old span for now.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: cl94 on April 08, 2017, 07:25:19 PM
Southbound traffic still using old span as of this afternoon.

On a different topic, when exactly did Vermont switch away from the square shield?
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on April 08, 2017, 09:54:36 PM
QuoteSouthbound traffic still using old span as of this afternoon.

The article I cited upthread gave a late-April timeframe for southbound traffic.

Alas, don't have an answer to your other question.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: cl94 on April 08, 2017, 09:59:21 PM
Quote from: froggie on April 08, 2017, 09:54:36 PM
The article I cited upthread gave a late-April timeframe for southbound traffic.

Duh. :pan:

Of course, makes me wonder what's taking so long. You'd think they'd have it basically ready to go.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on April 09, 2017, 03:30:29 PM
Transitions/approaches at the ends.  Northbound was easy because the new bridge is where the old northbound bridge used to be.  Had to move northbound to the new bridge so that they could finish the southbound approaches.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: DJDBVT on April 20, 2017, 09:27:11 PM
Southbound I-91 traffic has been shifted to the new bridges over the West River/Route 30 and Upper Dummerston Road in Brattleboro. The old Upper Dummerston span will be dismantled next week, while the longer span over the river will be taken down over the course of the next several months.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: seicer on May 08, 2017, 11:32:34 AM
Thought this might be of interest: the original end to I-189 in Burlington (http://glcp.uvm.edu/landscape/search/details.php?ls=41648&sequence=000&set_seq=61&imageSet=1494249901-591071ad954fb&AddRel=0).

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fglcp.uvm.edu%2Flandscape%2Fasset_store%2F41%2F64%2FLS41648%2FLS41648_000.jpg&hash=932c3df17acc1560eb7a54d76567de0ddb5d3fbc)

It looks like from a USGS topo that the trumpet was constructed but later extended?

(Image from http://glcp.uvm.edu/landscape/search/details.php?ls=41648&sequence=000&set_seq=61&imageSet=1494249901-591071ad954fb&AddRel=0)

--

Other nice photos:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fglcp.uvm.edu%2Flandscape%2Fasset_store%2F41%2F23%2FLS41234%2FLS41234_000.jpg&hash=a990a5a292d07b4899939b1b9d3f7b58ce50546a)

Today: https://goo.gl/maps/djhte8Ri5K32

--

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fglcp.uvm.edu%2Flandscape%2Fasset_store%2F41%2F23%2FLS41235%2FLS41235_000.jpg&hash=9e9b0506070adc7d9ad1269307ba6cf948bd7999)

Today: https://goo.gl/maps/Z4goKcqV5QH2

--

1964:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fglcp.uvm.edu%2Flandscape%2Fasset_store%2F07%2F89%2FLS07898%2FLS07898_000.jpg&hash=f8116f28e394499d43352964507847f83fab16ef)

2005:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fglcp.uvm.edu%2Flandscape%2Fasset_store%2F07%2F89%2FLS07898%2FLS07898_001.jpg&hash=d7f1655af135bad01a4f12c657d0845f4ecc322e)

From: http://glcp.uvm.edu/landscape/search/details.php?ls=07898&sequence=000&set_seq=86&imageSet=1494249901-591071ad954fb&AddRel=0

--

1960:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fglcp.uvm.edu%2Flandscape%2Fasset_store%2F06%2F69%2FLS06694%2FLS06694_000.jpg&hash=2ba4fcef24d2ec3cbab21feebb7f38d03a15c700)

2009:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fglcp.uvm.edu%2Flandscape%2Fasset_store%2F06%2F69%2FLS06694%2FLS06694_002.jpg&hash=30ed8f7952b71edf32b4e9ff660eca807c31c2fd)

From: http://glcp.uvm.edu/landscape/search/details.php?ls=06694&sequence=000&set_seq=126&imageSet=1494249901-591071ad954fb&AddRel=0
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on May 08, 2017, 12:50:14 PM
Don't suppose you could redo those photos to shrink them down before posting them?  They're taking up a lot of bandwidth.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: seicer on May 08, 2017, 02:59:56 PM
I'll look into it later, but the link towards the top has the full set. There isn't an option to capture the images at any other resolution than thumbnail.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: SectorZ on May 08, 2017, 06:28:08 PM
So 189 used to go over 7 before going under it?
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: amroad17 on May 09, 2017, 09:08:28 PM
^ This was discussed in a thread nearly seven years ago--Interstate 189 Crossing Over US 7 in Burlington?
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Alps on May 10, 2017, 12:11:05 AM
Quote from: amroad17 on May 09, 2017, 09:08:28 PM
^ This was discussed in a thread nearly seven years ago--Interstate 189 Crossing Over US 7 in Burlington?
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3202
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: KEVIN_224 on May 11, 2017, 08:57:35 PM
I saw these highway features today (May 11, 2017) while staying overnight in White River Junction, VT:

US Route 5 South, with the off ramp from Exit 11 of I-91 North on the left. Around here is where you first see Saint Johnsbury as a control city.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FeyeGvZe.jpg&hash=ebbcbb1fb1bc59302e5a96070e562d99692bb557)

I'm now wondering how I didn't see the grading from an obvious former on-ramp here before!
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F5D6czw9.jpg&hash=e3e0ac3bb0d77f057836ab6a5b23148b85b691e1)

This sign is brand new, as it wasn't there when I was here last July. I love how the Man Of The Mountain more or less takes the place of Vermont up top!  :-D (P.S. They're fully done with the Connecticut River bridge here, signals and all.)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fs8PxJhX.jpg&hash=449ff40f7d5199749948a2e01bbb00dffde7aa20)

One sees this as VT Route 14 is ending, merging onto US Route 4 East.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F83Ixn0Y.jpg&hash=ad9615f965668956243dd16ccca3a63cd091ffcd)

Just how OLD is this one? WOW! You see it as you're on US Route 4 East, making the right turn to head into New Hampshire.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FsezJhRr.jpg&hash=0388021923c9c9886e1afd2982c7c167a9280c6c)
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on May 12, 2017, 09:55:02 AM
QuoteI'm now wondering how I didn't see the grading from an obvious former on-ramp here before!

That ramp was just taken out last year when they did the bridge replacement project on the I-91 bridges over US 5 that are in your first photo.

QuoteThis sign is brand new, as it wasn't there when I was here last July. I love how the Man Of The Mountain more or less takes the place of Vermont up top!  :-D (P.S. They're fully done with the Connecticut River bridge here, signals and all.)

Might be because that stretch of the Connecticut River is owned by New Hampshire (state line is generally defined as the mean low water mark on the Vermont side).  Might also be because NHDOT owns the bridge and not VTrans or the Town of Hartford.

QuoteJust how OLD is this one? WOW! You see it as you're on US Route 4 East, making the right turn to head into New Hampshire.

Technically, you're not on US 4 here but are instead on Bridge St.

They're definitely old.  Vermont hasn't used a square shield in decades.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: jp the roadgeek on May 12, 2017, 06:19:40 PM
What I find fascinating is that in 1960, Vermont was using the same signage that CT started implementing around 1985 or so.  It's as if ConnDOT went to Big Lots to buy its new signage :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: mariethefoxy on May 14, 2017, 04:21:44 AM
that old US 2 - VT 100 sign looks like something out of Connecticut
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: shadyjay on May 15, 2017, 07:11:52 PM
Further south along I-91....

Crews are already starting to replace signs between (north of) Exit 6 and Exit 10.  The project is starting with replacement of reflectors, guardrail markers, and mini-mileage signs (the very small green on white ones).  Also saw some support foundations installed between Exits 6 & 8.  Wonder if the signs at Exit 9 will be replaced, as they were redone a couple years ago. 

And on I-89 North in White River Jct, signs were never replaced, between the NH border and I-91.  I'm still going on the assumption that those will get replaced when the Connecticut River Bridge rehab project starts.  At least there's a full-size (non-postage-stamp-sized) Welcome to Vermont sign there as well, the same style as on I-91 at the Mass. state line. 
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: KEVIN_224 on May 16, 2017, 08:05:57 AM
I was on I-91 in Vermont recently in stages:

Thursday, May 11th - From the MA border to Exit 3 in Brattleboro. I see the northbound side of the West River Bridge replacement is done and fully open. The bus I was on went east on to NH Route 9 to service Keene, NH, then making a long ride northwest up NH Route 12 to Walpole. It crossed the Connecticut River to serve Bellows Falls, VT. Soon after we rejoined I-91 at Exit 6. I got off the interstate at Exit 11 in White River Junction.

Friday, May 12. Reverse the above until Keene, NH. From there we went west on NH Route 9 and rejoined I-91 at the rotary for Exit 3 in Brattleboro. As the blurry picture shows, at least one lane was open for the new Brattleboro bridge southbound.

These pics were taken with my cell phone. I should go back to my "dinosaur" Sony digital camera (20 MP) from 2014 or my Samsung camera (14.1 MP) from 2012!  :awesomeface:

Exit 6 in Rockingham, which I believe Bellows Falls is actually part of?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FgzAWyjr.jpg&hash=126e79648f778c258df872eb2a1b8838fdca7819)

Leaving Bellows Falls, VT, crossing the Connecticut River into Walpole, NH.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FHWTJYRv.jpg&hash=09cc7f4bde1fe1e17bf94751517413864706238b)

Say! I know those bridges! Crossed them on foot many times...but no further than where this pic was taken.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Frf9C9Bt.jpg&hash=d3d191b0044db9ff4ceece9a63d4b168db283021)

I-91 South at the new bridge in Brattleboro.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fg2P1vYb.jpg&hash=42b22896f5c6267139b80db4de58fe964f366bb5)

A random shot at Exit 2 southbound in Brattleboro. The gantry above on VT 9 West was the same ancient signs like before.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FKXBQnti.jpg&hash=9f9d78e38cf157c4d6ca0f3225692b5259c0ce3d)

As Larry King might say: "Bernardston, Massachusetts? Hello!"
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FCN3sCXi.jpg&hash=21b04f01a13e5fb9418881e9e5e3059f797bc8f6)
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: shadyjay on May 16, 2017, 05:37:58 PM
The southbound bridge in Brattleboro still needs some work to the approaches to accommodate two lanes.  They're making progress, but not there yet.  Still it's better than what we've been dealing with for the past 2-3 years.

The Rockingham Bridge project is slowly starting (at Exit 6).  No crossovers built yet but I saw crews uncovering the "semi-permanent" "LEFT LANE CLOSED" signs.  I forsee this particular project being less of a traffic headache since its past the diversion-point for a lot of traffic.  At Brattleboro, traffic heads east to NH or west/northwest to the mountains, or continues north.  For the Rockingham project, there is less traffic (not sure the actual volume) and is past more diversion points.  Northbound traffic heading for Okemo/Killington/Rutland would take Exit 6 and exit before the bridge.  The only issue will be those trying to enter northbound, as I have a feeling the NB onramp will be closed for a duration of the project. 
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: cl94 on June 10, 2017, 10:01:58 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on May 16, 2017, 05:37:58 PM
The Rockingham Bridge project is slowly starting (at Exit 6).  No crossovers built yet but I saw crews uncovering the "semi-permanent" "LEFT LANE CLOSED" signs.  I forsee this particular project being less of a traffic headache since its past the diversion-point for a lot of traffic.  At Brattleboro, traffic heads east to NH or west/northwest to the mountains, or continues north.  For the Rockingham project, there is less traffic (not sure the actual volume) and is past more diversion points.  Northbound traffic heading for Okemo/Killington/Rutland would take Exit 6 and exit before the bridge.  The only issue will be those trying to enter northbound, as I have a feeling the NB onramp will be closed for a duration of the project.

Isn't the NB onramp closed already? It was closed semi-permanently when I was through there on US 5 back in January.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: cl94 on June 11, 2017, 09:09:15 PM
When was VT 100 moved back onto its old alignment through Morrisville, with the bypass becoming ALT VT 100? I was up there today and was surprised to see that everything was changed.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on June 12, 2017, 10:28:51 AM
Sometime last year.  Locals wanted the old route through the village to remain the "mainline" and convinced VTrans to do so.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: cl94 on June 12, 2017, 02:45:06 PM
Quote from: froggie on June 12, 2017, 10:28:51 AM
Sometime last year.  Locals wanted the old route through the village to remain the "mainline" and convinced VTrans to do so.

Thanks. It was definitely signed as "historic" in March 2016 and I think it was the last time I was up that way in June.

Are the FYAs and the signal at the south end relatively new as well? I know those weren't there when the bypass opened.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on June 12, 2017, 02:59:54 PM
Yes, that is new...built late last summer.  Should have been built with the bypass, but I digress...
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: shadyjay on July 03, 2017, 03:21:13 PM
Dropped a friend of mine off in North Adams to hike the Long Trail.  We went down Rt 4 / 7 and I came back via MA 2, I-91, and I-89. 

Brattleboro Bridge project is wrapping up, though its still posted at 50 MPH.  They're working to demo the rest of the old bridge.  They still have some sign replacement to do along the southbound lanes, as the bridge project was going on when signs were replaced from the state line up to ~ MM 35.  There's still an old Exit 3 sign, an old speed limit sign, reassurance shield, etc.  The ITS for the project is gone, relocated up to the Williams River.

The crossovers for the Williams River project are completed, but traffic is still on the existing span in both directions, 2 lanes each way.  The onramp from VT 103 to 91NB at Exit 6 is still open, but has STOP signs where it meets 91NB.  Perhaps work will start after the holiday.  ITS components are up as well, as is a reduced speed of 55 mph.

Some progress being made on the MM 36-71 (Springfield-Hartford) sign replacement project.  Small mileage reference markers and colored guardrail start/end reflectors are installed.  Some foundations for new signs also installed... no posts yet.  Will be interesting to see how they resign the I-91NB jct with I-89. 

There's a detour of VT 110 on I-89 between Exits 3 & 6.  There's a detour VT 110 reassurance sign after each exit in that area. 

Also, driving around on the non-interstates, a lot of roads took a beating from a weekend/week of heavy rain.  Lots of fields washed out.  Roads that were closed are mostly open but you can see some damage around.

Had the camera on standby but nothing was really photo-worthy, except the VT 110 Detour reassurance shield on I-89NB:

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4230/35530079602_eef90fdff4_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/W8EWPm)20170702_195102 (https://flic.kr/p/W8EWPm) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on July 06, 2017, 05:41:06 PM
Regarding 89/91, I noticed last week that southbound 89 signage at the junction has been replaced, but northbound 89 signage hasn't.  I believe you'd made a comment on this at some point in the past.

Also noticed those VT 110 detour signs.  Given the timeframe for the VT 110 closure (fairly short), I believe it's for an accelerated bridge replacement in Chelsea.

Lastly, sounds like you just missed the sinkhole on I-89.  For those of you who hadn't heard, a major sinkhole opened up on northbound I-89 Monday afternoon near Mile 8.  Traffic was detoured Monday evening and through most of the night between Exit 1 (US 4/Quechee) and Exit 2 (VT 132/Sharon).  By early Tuesday morning, enough had been patched to open up one lane.  Repaving was supposed to happen yesterday, but I haven't seen or heard the results of that.

http://www.wcax.com/story/35808974/i-89-sinkhole-patched-up
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: shadyjay on July 06, 2017, 09:47:20 PM
I guess they're holding out for the rebuild of the Conn River Bridge before replacing the 91 jct signs, NB.  They have replaced the "postage stamp" welcome to VT sign with a larger one, just like on 91NB at the Mass border.  Interesting that there is now less signage for the 91SB jct, with the removal of the bridge-mounted signs and the 91SB/Brattleboro" sign.  Now, past the 91NB exit gantry, there's just a small "SOUTH I-91" sign in the gore at the exit.

Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: shadyjay on July 14, 2017, 11:24:10 PM
This evening's update, all reported in the southbound direction:

Sign replacement contract from Hartford to Rockingham: 
Foundations installed and ready for posts to support new signs for Exits 8 & 7.  For Exit 9, only one or two foundations spotted.  Exit 9 signs were replaced as part of a spot project a few years back and feature traditional fonts (highway gothic), unlike Clearview on all other new signage in recent years.  Maybe they'll replace the signs but use the same supports.  For Exit 8, it looks like they put in a foundation for supports for an "exit now" BGS.  Presently, there's just a "RIGHT LANE" sign about 1/8 mile before the exit.

Williams River/Rockingham Bridge project:
I-91 is now reduced to a single lane in each direction.  The northbound bridge will be closed first, and the southbound bridge is presently set up with a jersey barrier median, prepared to offer two-way traffic.  Crossovers are largely built but not yet striped. 

Misc,
It looks like some clearing is taking place at the on-again/off-again/back-on-again weigh station northbound in Putney.  Not sure what's going on here.  Personally, I see no reason for a weigh station here.  In the 70+ miles between the Mass. state line and White River Jct, there are no fewer than 4 weigh stations.  The only one that gets any regular use is the one at the state line.  The Springfield one is a former parking area and the Hartford one was once shared with a rest area and is nowadays a staging site for the sign project.

West River/Brattleboro Bridge project:
New foundations installed to support the remainder of the signage from the Guilford-to-Rockingham project that was not installed southbound due to the bridge project.  There's a new "BRIDGE ICES BEFORE ROAD" sign, mounted adjacent to an older "BRIDGE FREEZES BEFORE ROADWAY" sign that is now oriented on the former southbound roadway.

Next update (for me) coming most likely in mid-August. 
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: F350 on July 15, 2017, 08:59:53 PM
Search wouldn't accept "route 7s" so I'm hoping I'd get an answer.

Whatever happened to Route 7 S? I cinched it...mid 2000s?
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on July 15, 2017, 10:52:36 PM
I've never heard of a Route 7 S.  Sure you don't mean Route 7 South?
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: F350 on July 17, 2017, 01:19:33 PM
Yeah. Same thing. Between Colchester and I-89.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: hotdogPi on July 17, 2017, 01:32:04 PM
Quote from: F350 on July 17, 2017, 01:19:33 PM
Yeah. Same thing. Between Colchester and I-89.

They're not the same thing. "Route 7S" is its own route, while "Route 7 South" is the southbound direction of Route 7. See US 6N, 9W, 11W, 11E, 31W, and 31E for other examples.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: shadyjay on July 17, 2017, 03:18:23 PM
Not sure if we're talking about the same thing, but....

Some towns in Vermont refer to the sections north or south from a town center as "Rt XX North" and "Rt XX South".  For instance, in terms of addresses, a business south of the center of Stowe on Route 100 may have an address of ## Route 100 South.  A business or house east of the center of Richmond may have an address of ## Route 2 East.  Therefore, the addresses if read aloud may sound like they're on a directional route (7S, 7N, etc), but it's primarily for an E911 address.  No more days of RR 1.

Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: shadyjay on August 17, 2017, 11:09:41 AM
I-91 (north of) Exit 6 to Exit 10 sign replacement update:
New signs are going up.  No new exit guide signs up yet, but the exit gores, most regulatory signage, and some after-exit mileage signs are up.  A few new reassurance shields with the "Eisenhower Interstate System" logo and new dual-posted ENTERING TOWN OF XXXX signs.  .  New signs for the weigh station (former parking area) between Exits 6 & 7 is in place, which now have the "OPEN WHEN FLASHING" legend, vs the old flip-the sign Open/Closed. 

Also, southbound signage between Exits 3 & 2 has finally been [mostly] installed.  This includes a new "exit now" Exit 3 sign and a new 1 mile advance for Exit 2.  Both signs weren't replaced during the MA State Line to Exit 6 project since the long-term West River Bridge lane closure didn't allow the new signs/foundations to be installed. 

Update, 8/20, NB:
There are no longer any state-named shields anywhere on the I-91 NORTH mainline, with the replacement of the shields after Exits 7 and 8 (after Exit 9 was previously replaced).  Looks like all ramp signage has been replaced, along with all signs that aren't the large girder-style supports that hold BGSs, up to Exit 9.  Exit 10 gore signs have not yet been replaced.  At Exit 7, the old bridge-mounted signs for the I-91 ramps remain in place, but there are new ground-mounted signs for I-91 and its destinations.  While the Springfield weigh station signs have been replaced, those for the Hartford weigh station have not.  Didn't observe any guide signs in the Hartford weigh station (former rest area) lot, which is currently being used as a staging area for the project.  I'm guessing any day now the new guide signs will be delivered and installed.  Still tough to determine whether these new signs will be Clearview or not... the after-exit mileage signs don't appear to be Clearview, though they're small and its tough to tell.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on August 26, 2017, 09:37:16 PM
^ Coming north this evening, I was coherent enough to notice that the new distance sign after Exit 8 is definitely not Clearview.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: shadyjay on October 21, 2017, 09:30:59 PM
I-91 sign replacement project, Rockingham to Hartford update 10/21:

Almost all of the new signs are up, including regulatory, guide signs, ramp signs, and overheads.  There is still one overhead not yet replaced, at Exit 10B southbound.  The vertical posts for the new support are up but the over-the-highway structure and signs are not up yet.  Elsewhere, there are 4 new overheads in the northbound direction, all replacing previous overheads.  Southbound, there is one new overhead replacing a former ground sign at Exit 10A. 

The biggest changes for signage in this project are for Exit 10.  Exits 10S-N is now Exits 10A-B, and the control "cities" replaced... "Airport/New Hampshire" is now "Concord NH" and "Barre/ Montpelier" is now just "Montpelier". 

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4505/37127457644_785f2e4589.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/YyPVE5)91NB-Exit10-6 (https://flic.kr/p/YyPVE5) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

Signage is definitely not clearview, but instead, highway gothic (which was the prescient before a couple years of Clearview installations in VT).  Signs for Exit 9 were replaced a couple years ago as part of a spot-exit sign project, and are also in HG.  This new installation of HG fits well with the signs to the north, which were replaced in the early 2000s.  I-91's font progression is now as follows:
MA state line to Exit 6:   Clearview
Exit 7 to Exit 23:  Highway Gothic
Exits 23-29:  Clearview


Here's the link to my I-91 VT album:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/albums/72157659395066232/page2
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: 02 Park Ave on October 21, 2017, 10:27:30 PM
Are these Exit numbers sequential?
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Beeper1 on October 21, 2017, 11:05:29 PM
Yes, all the highways in VT have sequential exit numbers.  Vermont has stated they have no plans to change to mile-based exit numbers anytime in the foreseeable future, unless the feds absolutely force them to. 
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: jp the roadgeek on October 21, 2017, 11:13:05 PM
But at least switching the N-S suffixes to A-B for the I-89 exits, they've taken the first step toward being MUTCD compliant.  Just wish Burlington would have been included as a control city on I-89 North, and Montreal included on a secondary sign.  And will the I-91 interchange receive numbers on I-89 when I-89 is re-signed?
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: shadyjay on October 22, 2017, 01:07:47 AM
Signs on I-89 from Hartford to Royalton, including the I-91 interchange, were replaced last year.  The I-91 interchange was not numbered... no exit tabs or gore signs.  In fact, the gore signs they did put up have a I-91 shield, direction (NB only), and an arrow. 

Recent signing projects on I-89 and I-91 have exit tabs/gore signs which are wide enough to accommodate a mile-based number.  That's why the exit # isn't centered on auxillary signs, and same goes for the exit tabs on the guide signs themselves.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on October 22, 2017, 09:16:58 PM
Quote from: shadyjaySigns for Exit 9 were replaced a couple years ago as part of a spot-exit sign project, and are also in HG.

Of note is how this was done AFTER VTrans started using Clearview (the signs north of Lyndonville were replaced ca. 2010), and also before they started including the month/year and sign dimensions in the lower left corner.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: shadyjay on October 23, 2017, 04:57:37 PM
Sign dimensions are shown on the following:

I-91, MA state line to Exit 6, Clearview, 2015
I-91, Exit 7 to Exit 11, HG, 2017
I-89, I-91 to vic. Exit 3, Clearview, 2016

With the (soon to be) completion of this project, all interstate signage in the state is "up to date", having been replaced within the past 10 years (2008 for the section north of WRJ, 2010-11 for most of I-89, and so on).  The only old signs left in the state after this project on the interstates are:

*  I-89 NB advance signs for I-91 jct... most likely awaiting rehab of Conn River Bridge, joint project with NH
*  I-91 NB, last sign for Exit 29 in Derby, shared with a customs sign

These projects have also done away with state-named interstate shields on the mainline.  All I-91 reassurance shields end-to-end have the Eisenhower Interstate System logo.  I-89 has several that weren't installed, from Exit 16, northward. 

Weigh stations are now getting the "WHEN FLASHING" added to the bottom of the "ALL TRUCKS NEXT RIGHT" sign.  Previously, a manually-operated CLOSED/OPEN sign was featured at the bottom of the "WEIGH STATION NEXT RIGHT" signs.  Many of the weigh stations in the state are former rest areas, and some haven't been open in years. 

And finally, this I-91 project removed the flippable warning signs that used to announce a checkpoint in the main travel lanes right at the entrance to the Hartford Rest Area (SB).  This checkpoint, which was used for several years after 9/11, hasn't been used in recent years. 
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: shadyjay on November 15, 2017, 10:15:02 PM
Took a little drive up to Berlin and Graniteville today to go to the mall and to hunt down some snow tires (mission: successful).  Caught a couple things today:

Got a pic of the original "arrow per lane" sign on VT 62, perhaps the very first APL in the state:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4586/38444468541_db0834fb79_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/21zcX7v)VT62WB-topofthehill (https://flic.kr/p/21zcX7v) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

And traveled (clinched) VT 63, which is a 2-lane road with a 55 mph speed limit.  It's eastern end at VT 14:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4549/24573079678_899b95fb06_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Drrsty)VT63EB-atVT14 (https://flic.kr/p/Drrsty) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

Descended out of Graniteville into Barre via Quarry Hill Road.  What's unique about this town road is that it has a "slow vehicle lane" as it descends down towards VT 14.  This is the truck route to/from I-89 and the quarries, but still its a little strange seeing a slow vehicle lane in the downhill direction, with the uphill side only having a single lane. 

And finally, the view on I-89 of the Worcester range heading into Montpelier:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4537/24573076618_b57d030bb9_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/DrrryN)89NB-view (https://flic.kr/p/DrrryN) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: cl94 on November 15, 2017, 10:34:27 PM
Quarry Hill Rd has a slow vehicle lane because downhill trucks are loaded. Uphill trucks are generally empty.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: SectorZ on November 16, 2017, 01:36:14 PM
Quote from: cl94 on November 15, 2017, 10:34:27 PM
Quarry Hill Rd has a slow vehicle lane because downhill trucks are loaded. Uphill trucks are generally empty.

It is quite unique though. I don't recall seeing something like it anywhere else.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: roadman65 on December 08, 2017, 08:56:04 PM
Interesting fact I noticed about Vermont.  It has no 2 digit US routes as its four primary routes are single digits and it has one 3 digit route.

However, NH and ME could be said the same as well, but both states have two 3 digit routes (the same both US 202 and 302), but it is so interesting that single digit routes rule here because of its location in the grid and the fact that no misplaced routes like nearby MA that has US 44 north of US 6. 

The State of Vermont is actually using the grid quite accurately and even has its one 3 digit route running east- west which even numbers are supposed to.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: hotdogPi on December 08, 2017, 08:59:44 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on December 08, 2017, 08:56:04 PM
The State of Vermont is actually using the grid quite accurately and even has its one 3 digit route running east- west which even numbers are supposed to.

3dus routes usually have direction from what you would expect with 2dus even/odd rules, but this is not an official rule; it just happens to be that way for most routes.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: sparker on December 10, 2017, 01:49:06 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on December 08, 2017, 08:56:04 PM
Interesting fact I noticed about Vermont.  It has no 2 digit US routes as its four primary routes are single digits and it has one 3 digit route.

However, NH and ME could be said the same as well, but both states have two 3 digit routes (the same both US 202 and 302), but it is so interesting that single digit routes rule here because of its location in the grid and the fact that no misplaced routes like nearby MA that has US 44 north of US 6. 

The State of Vermont is actually using the grid quite accurately and even has its one 3 digit route running east- west which even numbers are supposed to.

Actually, ME has three 3dus routes; the aforementioned "children" of US 2 (202, 302) and also US 201 -- the only US 1 "child" confined to one state only -- as well as the only one to reach a border crossing! 
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: roadman65 on December 10, 2017, 03:15:04 PM
Quote from: sparker on December 10, 2017, 01:49:06 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on December 08, 2017, 08:56:04 PM
Interesting fact I noticed about Vermont.  It has no 2 digit US routes as its four primary routes are single digits and it has one 3 digit route.

However, NH and ME could be said the same as well, but both states have two 3 digit routes (the same both US 202 and 302), but it is so interesting that single digit routes rule here because of its location in the grid and the fact that no misplaced routes like nearby MA that has US 44 north of US 6. 

The State of Vermont is actually using the grid quite accurately and even has its one 3 digit route running east- west which even numbers are supposed to.

Actually, ME has three 3dus routes; the aforementioned "children" of US 2 (202, 302) and also US 201 -- the only US 1 "child" confined to one state only -- as well as the only one to reach a border crossing! 
With this correction of my mistake being said, it could be pointed out that ME is the only state that has more child routes than parents.  US 1 and US 2 are the only two primary US routes totaling 2, making it one less than off springs.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: hotdogPi on December 10, 2017, 08:01:19 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on December 10, 2017, 03:15:04 PM
With this correction of my mistake being said, it could be pointed out that ME is the only state that has more child routes than parents.  US 1 and US 2 are the only two primary US routes totaling 2, making it one less than off springs.

North Carolina:

1, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25, 29, 52, 64, 70, 74, 76: 14 primary routes (16 if including 19E and 19W)
117, 129, 158, 176, 178, 220, 221, 258, 264, 276, 301, 311, 321, 401, 421, 441, 501, 521, 601, 701: 20 child routes
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: roadman65 on December 12, 2017, 04:31:39 PM
Quote from: 1 on December 10, 2017, 08:01:19 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on December 10, 2017, 03:15:04 PM
With this correction of my mistake being said, it could be pointed out that ME is the only state that has more child routes than parents.  US 1 and US 2 are the only two primary US routes totaling 2, making it one less than off springs.

North Carolina:

1, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25, 29, 52, 64, 70, 74, 76: 14 primary routes (16 if including 19E and 19W)
117, 129, 158, 176, 178, 220, 221, 258, 264, 276, 301, 311, 321, 401, 421, 441, 501, 521, 601, 701: 20 child routes
Wow!

I often knew NC had countless routes, but did not know it was that much for 3 digit children. 
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: CapeCodder on February 12, 2018, 03:01:32 PM
Did Vermont ever have a SR 1? The Jimapco New England Road Atlas 1st and 3rd Editions have it on the map. It is located on the Alburgh Tongue and goes from US 2 to the Canadian border.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: cl94 on February 12, 2018, 03:21:10 PM
Quote from: CapeCodder on February 12, 2018, 03:01:32 PM
Did Vermont ever have a SR 1? The Jimapco New England Road Atlas 1st and 3rd Editions have it on the map. It is located on the Alburgh Tongue and goes from US 2 to the Canadian border.

Not that I can find anywhere else. There WAS a VT F-1 in that area which ran from the former ferry dock at Windmill Point to what is now the US 2/VT 225 intersection.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on February 12, 2018, 05:24:14 PM
No VT-1.  It should also be noted that US routes in Vermont preceded the state highway system, so there was never a VT-2, VT-4, or VT-5, either.

It's possible that Jimapco is confusing Town Highway 1 with a state highway route, but the problem there is TH-1 in Alburgh is also VT-225.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: cl94 on February 12, 2018, 06:42:22 PM
That's one of the little Vermont peculiarities. Every town- or city-maintained road has a "town highway" number (TH). This includes state and US routes. So, for example, US 7 through Old Bennington is officially designated TH 1. And, yes, that means the entirety of VT 225 is on many logs and the official VTrans town map as Alburgh TH 1. Someone looking at the town maps put out by VTrans wouldn't know that VT 225 exists.

VT 225 only exists in the route log (http://vtransmaps.vermont.gov/Maps/VTrans_RouteLogs/docs/Route_Directions.pdf) and on signage, everywhere else it is TH 1 or S293 (VTrans designation). S here is the prefix for state-supported town roads.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: vdeane on February 12, 2018, 09:28:41 PM
That would explain it.  What Jimapco marks as "VT 1" is VT 225.  Always wondered how they came up with THAT.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on February 13, 2018, 09:55:02 AM
Quote from: cl94That's one of the little Vermont peculiarities. Every town- or city-maintained road has a "town highway" number (TH). This includes state and US routes.

It only includes state and US routes where there are segments (usually through villages) that are Class 1 or Class 2 town highways.  VTrans-maintained segments do not have town highway numbers.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: yakra on February 13, 2018, 01:29:20 PM
Quote from: vdeane on February 12, 2018, 09:28:41 PM
That would explain it.  What Jimapco marks as "VT 1" is VT 225.  Always wondered how they came up with THAT.
If you mean how they came up with VT225, that was done to match QC225 next door. A common practice for VT for routes that hit state state line.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: vdeane on February 13, 2018, 02:01:11 PM
Quote from: yakra on February 13, 2018, 01:29:20 PM
Quote from: vdeane on February 12, 2018, 09:28:41 PM
That would explain it.  What Jimapco marks as "VT 1" is VT 225.  Always wondered how they came up with THAT.
If you mean how they came up with VT225, that was done to match QC225 next door. A common practice for VT for routes that hit state state line.
Meant how Jimapco came up with the erroneous "VT 1" label.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: SectorZ on February 13, 2018, 02:36:21 PM
Quote from: vdeane on February 13, 2018, 02:01:11 PM
Quote from: yakra on February 13, 2018, 01:29:20 PM
Quote from: vdeane on February 12, 2018, 09:28:41 PM
That would explain it.  What Jimapco marks as "VT 1" is VT 225.  Always wondered how they came up with THAT.
If you mean how they came up with VT225, that was done to match QC225 next door. A common practice for VT for routes that hit state state line.
Meant how Jimapco came up with the erroneous "VT 1" label.

Wonder if it is an intentional error they put in to see if anyone would copy it, proving some sort of IP theft.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: cl94 on February 13, 2018, 03:03:02 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on February 13, 2018, 02:36:21 PM
Quote from: vdeane on February 13, 2018, 02:01:11 PM
Quote from: yakra on February 13, 2018, 01:29:20 PM
Quote from: vdeane on February 12, 2018, 09:28:41 PM
That would explain it.  What Jimapco marks as "VT 1" is VT 225.  Always wondered how they came up with THAT.
If you mean how they came up with VT225, that was done to match QC225 next door. A common practice for VT for routes that hit state state line.
Meant how Jimapco came up with the erroneous "VT 1" label.

Wonder if it is an intentional error they put in to see if anyone would copy it, proving some sort of IP theft.

It would be a stupid intentional error, as that road is technically numbered "1". Would be really easy to claim "but I used the VTrans town maps!".
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Alps on April 02, 2018, 12:33:18 AM
Why is Vermont Route 3 a single digit? 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 9 were all New England Routes, and 1/6 were never used because they were New England Routes in other states.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on April 02, 2018, 09:03:46 AM
^ Not sure specifically, but I can tell you that the route number predates Vermont's official state highway system (1931), and used to extend further south along what is generally today's VT 133.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: jcroyer80 on April 12, 2018, 04:21:59 PM
Noticed in the most recent STP that Vermont has allocated money in fiscal year 2018 and 2019 for "Public Awareness and Preparedness campaign for replacement of existing sequential Interstate exit signs with referential (mile marker) exit signs."

In the FY2019 Transportation Plan, as recommended by the Governor, construction costs for the "Replacement of Existing Sequential Exit Signs with Referential Exit Signs" are listed for FY 2020 ($145,000) and FY 2021 ($475,000).   
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on April 12, 2018, 10:17:18 PM
Huh....in the past, VTrans told me that they were going to hold out as long as humanly possible on exit number conversion...I may have to fire off an email.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Alps on April 13, 2018, 12:36:26 AM
Quote from: froggie on April 12, 2018, 10:17:18 PM
Huh....in the past, VTrans told me that they were going to hold out as long as humanly possible on exit number conversion...I may have to fire off an email.
Don't poke the bear! Just let them do it!
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on April 13, 2018, 07:14:40 AM
Clarification, Steve.....clarification...
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Alps on April 13, 2018, 07:35:51 PM
Quote from: froggie on April 13, 2018, 07:14:40 AM
Clarification, Steve.....clarification...
"Excuse me, Mr. Bear, when did you say your hibernation was over"
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: AMLNet49 on April 14, 2018, 05:27:42 PM
Quote from: froggie on April 12, 2018, 10:17:18 PM
Huh....in the past, VTrans told me that they were going to hold out as long as humanly possible on exit number conversion...I may have to fire off an email.

And this might have been as long as humanly possible. With other sequential states finally changing its only a matter of time for the remaining holdouts. Even New York and Connecticut are starting to realize it will be reality soon and have started going in that direction on certain resigning projects.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on April 14, 2018, 06:41:11 PM
"As long as humanly possible", as their sign engineer explained to me at the time, was when FHWA outright forced them to.  While conversion is a mandate in the MUTCD, I don't believe FHWA has set a firm compliance-or-else date on it.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: KEVIN_224 on April 15, 2018, 06:12:22 PM
Any roads that could get renumbered besides I-89, I-91 and I-93? I-91 in greater Brattleboro and one of the White River Junction exits would be pretty easy:

1- US Route 5 (7)
2- VT Route 9 West - Bennington (9)
3- US Route 5/VT Route 9 East - Keene, NH (11)
...
11- US Route 5 White River Junction (70)
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Alps on April 15, 2018, 06:19:49 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on April 15, 2018, 06:12:22 PM
Any roads that could get renumbered besides I-89, I-91 and I-93? I-91 in greater Brattleboro and one of the White River Junction exits would be pretty easy:

1- US Route 5 (7)
2- VT Route 9 West - Bennington (9)
3- US Route 5/VT Route 9 East - Keene, NH (11)
...
11- US Route 5 White River Junction (70)
Seems unlikely. I-189 is the only wild card here but since it really has no exits, there's no need to number anything.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: cl94 on April 15, 2018, 06:31:41 PM
I mean, I guess they could renumber US 4 and US 7 if they really wanted to. US 4 is easy, especially because 2 and 3 don't change. As far as the others:

4 -> 6
5 -> 8
6 -> 15

IF US 7 got renumbered (not holding my breath), the numbers would be 13, 14, 24, 35.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: vdeane on April 15, 2018, 06:54:14 PM
Why wouldn't US 4 and US 7 be renumbered?  To not do so would be inconsistent and would be contrary to the MUTCD.

Theoretically it could be argued that exit numbers need to be added to VT 279 as well, since it's a super-2 freeway.  VT 289 is already mile-based.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: cl94 on April 15, 2018, 07:23:09 PM
Quote from: vdeane on April 15, 2018, 06:54:14 PM
Why wouldn't US 4 and US 7 be renumbered?  To not do so would be inconsistent and would be contrary to the MUTCD.

Some states have only renumbered Interstates. See Georgia. GA 400 is very much sequential.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: vdeane on April 15, 2018, 08:10:39 PM
I don't think there were any such states since the 2009 MUTCD, though.  CT and RI are renumbering non-interstates.  IMO GA, PA, and any other state that left non-interstates sequential should go back and fix it.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on April 15, 2018, 08:49:07 PM
US 7 would theoretically include the remainder of the Bennington Bypass, so Josh's suggested numbers may be off by a mile or two.

But until I hear back from VTrans, this is all speculation.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: cl94 on April 15, 2018, 08:51:23 PM
If that bypass ever gets built (though it would be nice). Of course, I was saying that about the portion of the bypass that exists, so...
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: jp the roadgeek on April 15, 2018, 08:54:57 PM
Here's the whole list of what I figure VT would look like (I apologize for the squiggled format; no way to align things here).  Current # on the left and new on the right

I-89

                                   
I-91                                          -                    1 A/B
US 4                                          1                    4
VT 132 TO VT 14                  2                    14
VT 107 TO VT 14/VT 100          3                    22
VT 66 TO VT 12                          4                    31
VT 64 TO VT 12/VT 14          5                    43
VT 63 TO VT 14                          6                    47
VT 62 East TO US 302                  7                    50
US 2 TO VT 12                          8                    53
US 2 TO VT 100B                  9                    59
VT 100 TO US 2                          10                    64
US 2 TO VT 117                          11                    78
VT 2A TO US 2/VT 116          12                    84
I-189 West TO US 7                  13                    87
US 2                                          14 E/W            89 A/B
VT 15                                  15 (NB)            90
US 2/ US 7 (TO VT 15)          16                    91
US 2/ US 7                                  17                    98
US 7/VT 104A                          18                    107
US 7/VT 36/VT 104                  19                    114
US 7/VT 207                          20                    118
US 7/VT 78                          21                    123
US 7 South                          22                    130

I-91

US 5 TO VT 142                           1                      7
VT 9 TO US 5; VT 9 West           2                      9
VT 9 East; US 5/VT 9                   3                     12
US 5                                           4                     18
US 5/VT 121/VT 123                   5                     29
US 5/VT 103                           6                     35
US 5/VT 11/VT 106                   7                     42
US 5/VT 12/VT 131                   8                     51
US 5/VT 12                           9                     60
I-89                                          10 N/S           70 A/B
US 5                                          11                    70C
TO US 5                                  12                     72
US 5/VT 10A                          13                     75
VT 113 TO US 5                          14                     84
US 5/VT 25A                          15                     92
VT 25 TO US 5                          16                     98
US 302 TO US 5                          17                     110
TO US 5                                  18                     120
I-93 South                                  19                     128
US 5                                          20                     129
US 2                                          21                     131
TO US 5                                  22                     133
US 5/VT 114                          23                     137
VT 122 TO US 5/VT 114          24                     140
VT 16 TO US 5                          25                     156
US 5/VT 58                          26                     161
VT 191 TO US 5/VT 105          27                     170
US 5/VT 105                          28                     172
TO US 5/PQ 143                          29                     177

I-93

VT 18                                    1                       8
I-91                                            - (NB)               11 A/B

I-189 (figured in future extension to Champlain Parkway)

US 7                                              1                        1
I-89                                             -                        2 A/B

US 4

VT 4A (at grade)                     1                         -
VT 22A                                     2                         2
TO VT 4A                                     3                         3
VT 30                                     4                         5
TO VT 4A                                     5                         8
BUS 4 TO VT 3/VT 4A                     6                         15

US 7

VT 279 TO VT 9                              1                         13
VT 7A                                      2                         14
VT 313 TO VT 7A                      3                         24
VT 11/VT 30 TO VT 7A              4                         35

VT 279

VT 67A TO VT 7A                       -                           3
US 7                                               -                          4 A/B









Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on April 15, 2018, 09:09:52 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeekI-189 (figured in future extension to Champlain Parkway)

No need.  I-189 is not being extended as part of the Champlain Parkway project.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: yakra on April 16, 2018, 01:39:51 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on April 15, 2018, 08:54:57 PM
(I apologize for the squiggled format; no way to align things here).
You can use the tt and /tt tags:

I-91                          -                    1 A/B
US 4                          1                    4
VT 132 TO VT 14               2                    14
VT 107 TO VT 14/VT 100        3                    22
VT 66 TO VT 12                4                    31
VT 64 TO VT 12/VT 14          5                    43
VT 63 TO VT 14                6                    47
VT 62 East TO US 302          7                    50
...
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: odditude on April 16, 2018, 02:54:41 PM
Quote from: yakra on April 16, 2018, 01:39:51 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on April 15, 2018, 08:54:57 PM
(I apologize for the squiggled format; no way to align things here).
You can use the tt and /tt tags:
or use the table tool.


I-91-1 A/B
US 414
VT 132 TO VT 14214
VT 107 TO VT 14/VT 100322
VT 66 TO VT 12431
VT 64 TO VT 12/VT 14543
VT 63 TO VT 14647
VT 62 East TO US 302750
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: shadyjay on April 27, 2018, 09:12:46 PM
While driving on 89NB today, passing the former Sharon-SB rest area (still remains signed as a weigh station), I observed a large shed-type building being constructed.  Anyone know what the purpose of this will be?  Some sort of VTrans garage? 
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on June 20, 2018, 09:54:37 AM
Missed this from a couple weeks ago, but the Burlington city council passed a resolution (https://vtdigger.org/2018/06/06/burlington-city-council-moves-forward-champlain-parkway/) to move forward on the Champlain Parkway.  The resolution, for all intents, authorizes eminent domain for the parcels needed for the project.

As noted in past threads, the Champlain Parkway project will build a 2-lane parkway from the I-189/US 7 interchange, west and north (replacing/reconstructing what was already built west of US 7) to Lakeside Ave, reconstruct Lakeside Ave, and reconstruct Pine St from Lakeside north to Main St.  The Pine St reconstruction has already begun.  The city expects to begin construction on the parkway next year.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: roadman on June 20, 2018, 02:05:14 PM
Quote from: froggie on April 14, 2018, 06:41:11 PM
"As long as humanly possible", as their sign engineer explained to me at the time, was when FHWA outright forced them to.  While conversion is a mandate in the MUTCD, I don't believe FHWA has set a firm compliance-or-else date on it.

That is correct.  While there was a compliance date for exit number conversion in the 2007 Federal Register NPA for the 2009 MUTCD, that date was deleted from the final version of the 2009 MUTCD.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on June 21, 2018, 06:19:43 AM
Another Vermont piece in the news recently.  The Vermont Superior Court has upheld a decision (https://vtdigger.org/2018/06/10/decision-89-exit-paves-way-cheaper-gas-pollution/) that grants VTrans both Act 250 (relating to development) and stormwater management permits for upcoming improvements to I-89 Exit 16 (US 2/US 7/Colchester).  The court challenge was brought jointly by three entities:  the Conservation Law Foundation, who believes the project's stormwater management plan will add pollution to Lake Champlain; and the owners of two nearby gas stations.  The gas station owners fear loss of business as the interchange improvements are required before the nearby Costco can open their own gas station, which is already built but currently sitting unused.

Reading through the court proceedings and report, the decision can basically be summed up as thus:  the opposition party's "expert witnesses" were not viewed by the Court as being credible.  The civil engineers on the forum may find reading the court proceedings (there's a link on the VTDigger article) of interest.

The planned interchange improvements will convert the interchange into Vermont's first DDI.  Associated improvements will provide a consistent 5-lane section on US 2/US 7 north to Rathe Rd (~2/3mi), add turn lanes at the Mountain View Dr intersection (immediately north of I-89), and add sidewalks/multi-use-paths on both sides of 2/7 through the interchange.  Construction is tentatively scheduled to begin next year (2019).
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on July 05, 2018, 03:13:09 PM
Double-fatal at the VT 100/Randolph Rd intersection (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.4905353,-72.6387281,17z) this afternoon.  Details are currently sketchy, but according to the Stowe Police press release (http://vtstatepolice.blogspot.com/2018/07/fw-stowe-police-press-release.html), one of the two vehicles involved is a "commercial vehicle".

The intersection has a very skewed angle which probably contributed.  My hunch (based on personal observation) is that someone was turning from Randolph onto SB 100 towards the village and either misjudged or didn't see traffic.

Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: dfilpus on July 05, 2018, 06:12:12 PM
Quote from: froggie on July 05, 2018, 03:13:09 PM
Double-fatal at the VT 100/Randolph Rd intersection (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.4905353,-72.6387281,17z) this afternoon.  Details are currently sketchy, but according to the Stowe Police press release (http://vtstatepolice.blogspot.com/2018/07/fw-stowe-police-press-release.html), one of the two vehicles involved is a "commercial vehicle".

The intersection has a very skewed angle which probably contributed.  My hunch (based on personal observation) is that someone was turning from Randolph onto SB 100 towards the village and either misjudged or didn't see traffic.


When I was there in May, coming back from Moss Glen Falls, I complained to my wife how dangerous that intersection is.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on July 06, 2018, 11:10:37 PM
It is, mainly because it's a skewed intersection and those coming off Randolph Rd often misjudge traffic.  That appears to be the case here, now that a few more details of the crash have come out.  Police are saying the two fatalities were an elderly couple visiting from Connecticut who turned from Randolph Rd onto SB 100 and were hit by a fully-loaded logging truck that was heading northbound on 100.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: KEVIN_224 on July 08, 2018, 02:48:00 PM
It turns out that this couple killed was from New Britain...my home town. Looks like the two were in their 60s to early 70s. :(
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on July 17, 2018, 04:44:49 PM
Found a temporary traffic signal (https://www.flickr.com/photos/ajfroggie/albums/72157693366137770) on I-91 in Derby yesterday.  It's there as part of a construction project to rebuild the overpass at Exit 29.  Details (and other pics) in my Flickr album linked above.

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/920/43473270321_f823cbcff4_c_d.jpg) (https://www.flickr.com/photos/ajfroggie/43473270321/)
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: cl94 on July 17, 2018, 05:15:01 PM
I didn't get pictures when I was up there, but it has been like that since at least September. I was a bit surprised to see it, actually.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: KEVIN_224 on July 18, 2018, 06:04:15 PM
I wasn't aware of any of this! Then again, I've never been north of VT Exit 11 (US 5) in White River Junction.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on July 20, 2018, 07:55:27 AM
VTDigger article this morning (https://vtdigger.org/2018/07/19/new-interstate-numbering-system-vermont-scott-hopes-not/) about Vermont pushing back against the (MUTCD) mandate to convert Interstate exit numbers from sequential-based to milepost-based. The photo comes from a familiar source...😌

I must say, I find the VTrans secretary's comments a bit disingenuous. Most of the "new signage" he refers to was installed well after the 2009 MUTCD went official.....Vermont has known for years that this mandate was coming. As a Vermont resident, I can and am in the process of writing a letter to him (and the Governor).
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: shadyjay on July 20, 2018, 10:32:06 AM
The signs installed in the past few years on I-89 and I-91 is essentially "mile-based ready", meaning the exit tabs are wide enough to accommodate 2 and 3-digit numbers.  On the rest of the signs, just replace the tabs and go.  The whole sign doesn't need to be replaced. 

With Maine converted back in the early 2000s, and CT and RI now converting, there's no reason why VT shouldn't. 
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Dougtone on August 07, 2018, 08:59:19 PM
A look back at a Vermont road proposal that never came to fruition: the Green Mountain Parkway. It was a Great Depression era proposal that would have brought about the construction of a road similar to the Blue Ridge Parkway.
https://vtdigger.org/2018/08/05/1930s-plan-vermont-paving-peaks/ (https://vtdigger.org/2018/08/05/1930s-plan-vermont-paving-peaks/)
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: CanesFan27 on September 08, 2018, 05:42:30 PM
One of my favorite places in Central Vermont is the Quechee Gorge and Quechee Gorge Bridge along US 4.

http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2018/09/travel-new-england-quechee-gorge.html
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: CanesFan27 on September 09, 2018, 09:16:55 PM
Woodstock, Vermont maybe the idealistic New England town.  Charming downtown with inns, restaurants, etc. a covered bridge, town green, ties to New England legends (vampires).

http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2018/09/travel-new-england-woodstock-vermont.html
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: csw on October 03, 2018, 01:26:48 PM
Anyone familiar with Vermont rest areas or welcome centers? I'm trying to find out where I might be able to get a state road map, if they even make one.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on October 03, 2018, 02:07:06 PM
They make one, though it's not VTrans that makes it...the Vermont Attractions Association (with assistance from the state's tourism department) has printed them for several years now.  Not only do the welcome centers stock them, but several tourist information areas as well.  There's even a stack at our local college.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: cl94 on October 03, 2018, 02:19:37 PM
Vermont has the most readily-accessible maps of any state I have seen. Virtually all state facilities and anything billing itself as "tourist information" will have maps. I've gotten stacks to pass out at historic sites, rest areas, etc.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: shadyjay on October 03, 2018, 06:50:34 PM
Yup, they are very accessible.  All state rest areas and welcome centers have several "slots" full of maps.  Only areas which don't have them are the parking areas, as there is no enclosed building or kiosk. 

Many gas stations have them available too (all in my Valley do). 
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: KEVIN_224 on October 03, 2018, 07:43:31 PM
There's a tiny booth on US Route 5 southbound in Brattleboro that has them. It's immediately north of downtown, where north and south split by a small park.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: shadyjay on December 01, 2018, 12:15:30 AM
The former overheads on VT 9 at I-91 Exit 2 in Brattleboro (seen about halfway down this page:  http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/vt/vt_9/e.html) are history, replaced with new overheads.  Caught 'em at the last minute so I only saw the one on VT 9 East at the I-91 North ramp.  The I-91 North sign has been simplified, with mentions of "US 5 North/Putney, VT 9 East/Keene NH" gone... now just "I-91 (shield) North / White River Jct" with a curved up and left arrow with "ONLY" below it, in a black-on-white box.  The right sign now says "Downtown Brattleboro" without any VT 9 shield.  Didn't get a pic, nor did I see the other assemblies.  It kind of caught me off-guard.  Had I known they got replaced, I would've gotten off and grabbed a pic or three. 
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: SectorZ on December 02, 2018, 08:28:32 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on December 01, 2018, 12:15:30 AM
The former overheads on VT 9 at I-91 Exit 2 in Brattleboro (seen about halfway down this page:  http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/vt/vt_9/e.html) are history, replaced with new overheads.  Caught 'em at the last minute so I only saw the one on VT 9 East at the I-91 North ramp.  The I-91 North sign has been simplified, with mentions of "US 5 North/Putney, VT 9 East/Keene NH" gone... now just "I-91 (shield) North / White River Jct" with a curved up and left arrow with "ONLY" below it, in a black-on-white box.  The right sign now says "Downtown Brattleboro" without any VT 9 shield.  Didn't get a pic, nor did I see the other assemblies.  It kind of caught me off-guard.  Had I known they got replaced, I would've gotten off and grabbed a pic or three.

So in this case neither sign tells you what happens to VT 9?
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: shadyjay on December 02, 2018, 09:31:51 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on December 02, 2018, 08:28:32 PM
So in this case neither sign tells you what happens to VT 9?

At least not on that one BGS at the 91NB onramp that I saw.  Perhaps there's ground-mounted signage that points the way, or a sign saying "THRU TRAFFIC USE I-91 NORTH"... I'm not sure.  Only saw that one sign assembly.

I won't be able to verify or get pics for awhile, as I've just moved back to CT from VT, after 15 years.

Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: KEVIN_224 on December 03, 2018, 06:54:47 PM
Are they trying to keep some traffic off of US Route 5 through town by having you use I-91 for one exit? I know VT Route 9 heads east from here, then runs concurrently with US Route 5 north to the Exit 3 rotary.

Personally, I always thought the "91" font on those interstate shields was ugly.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Alps on December 04, 2018, 01:08:21 AM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on December 03, 2018, 06:54:47 PM
Are they trying to keep some traffic off of US Route 5 through town by having you use I-91 for one exit? I know VT Route 9 heads east from here, then runs concurrently with US Route 5 north to the Exit 3 rotary.

Personally, I always thought the "91" font on those interstate shields was ugly.
9 has long been signed on I-91 to the connector. Last I heard, VT actually did reroute 9 that way and removed it from Brattleboro, but that's secondhand hearsay.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: KEVIN_224 on December 04, 2018, 07:12:05 AM
That might make sense, Alps. However, the last time I was in Brattleboro, VT Route 9 was still signed as going east to downtown, then north up US Route 5 to the rotary.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on December 04, 2018, 07:21:47 AM
Quote from: Alps on December 04, 2018, 01:08:21 AM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on December 03, 2018, 06:54:47 PM
Are they trying to keep some traffic off of US Route 5 through town by having you use I-91 for one exit? I know VT Route 9 heads east from here, then runs concurrently with US Route 5 north to the Exit 3 rotary.

Personally, I always thought the "91" font on those interstate shields was ugly.
9 has long been signed on I-91 to the connector. Last I heard, VT actually did reroute 9 that way and removed it from Brattleboro, but that's secondhand hearsay.

Exactly what it is...hearsay.  VT 9 still explicitly goes through the center of Brattleboro.  The problem is that signage on VT 9 approaching I-91 on both sides is a bit ambiguous.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: shadyjay on December 04, 2018, 06:15:46 PM
When I-91 signs were replaced, they were made "half" clearer that VT 9 goes through Brattleboro.  By half, I mean the Exit 2 signs were changed from "9 WEST" to just "9", while Exit 3 remained "5/9 EAST".  However, there's still a sign right before Exit 2 northbound that says "9 EAST USE EXIT 3" and one southbound before Exit 3 stating "9 WEST USE EXIT 2".  If you signed Exit 3 as just "5 / 9", you may confuse those who don't know and get off there, when in reality they want to head west.  So the current signage at Exit 3 is the best in that case.

I am really surprised that they even went as far as replacing the overheads with new overheads.  I would think ground signage would be enough to get the point across, but perhaps there's not enough room on the side of the road for that. 
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on May 16, 2019, 01:18:41 PM
A bit of an oops (https://www.facebook.com/mike.grant.79656/videos/10212564562903944/) in Lyndon this morning.  Produce truck driver damaged the overhead on the Millers Run Bridge (ALT VT 122 in Lyndon).  We passed by about a half hour later and it was very much blocked off right away.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on May 25, 2019, 01:19:05 PM
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/47929554343_a69256a891_c_d.jpg) (https://www.flickr.com/photos/ajfroggie/47929554343/)

Found this map in the 1974 Final EIS for I-91 between Ryegate and Lyndon.  It shows that VTrans did consider a full cloverleaf interchange at I-91/US 2 in St. Johnsbury, but left the two direct ramps for a future endeavor.  Given the general lack of traffic volume, it's highly unlikely they'll ever get built.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: webfil on June 03, 2019, 08:34:12 PM
Quote from: froggie on May 16, 2019, 01:18:41 PM
A bit of an oops (https://www.facebook.com/mike.grant.79656/videos/10212564562903944/) in Lyndon this morning.  Produce truck driver damaged the overhead on the Millers Run Bridge (ALT VT 122 in Lyndon).  We passed by about a half hour later and it was very much blocked off right away.
From the looks, only cosmetic damage to the portals appears to have been done, but news sources (1 (https://www.caledonianrecord.com/news/truck-causes-major-damage-to-covered-bridge-in-lyndon/article_df3b7468-77dc-11e9-b88c-0be85c8431b5.html), 2 (https://www.mychamplainvalley.com/news/local-news/large-truck-heavily-damages-historic-covered-bridge-in-lyndon/2007902126)) claim the structural damage is extensive. Any follow-up on this?
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on June 03, 2019, 08:56:41 PM
Bridge remains closed.  A bridge engineer looked at the bridge last week as part of the effort to determine how much needs to be replaced.  It's hard to tell from just looking at it, but every diagonal support beam on the upstream side of the bridge was taken out.  No word yet on timeline.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: jcroyer80 on June 10, 2019, 02:34:01 PM
Third phase of A-35 extension in Quebec announced today.  Will add 8.9 kilometers to the current project.  Once finished there will be 4.5 km remaining between A-35 and the US border/Interstate 89 (Phase 4).   This is just the beginning of the planning phase so of course no specific construction dates have been determined.

https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/canada-and-quebec-support-the-development-of-a-more-efficient-road-network-between-monteregie-region-and-the-u-s--877441475.html
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: vdeane on June 10, 2019, 08:40:16 PM
Let's hope the eventually build the last phase too.  I don't know whether that phase being on the existing four lane divided portion makes it more likely to get built (because of the different scope of work) or less likely ("eh, it's good enough as-is").  At least it will be possible to fully clinch A-35 once this phase is done (unless you're picky about such things) as the last phase is on the existing alignment.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Alps on June 10, 2019, 09:38:43 PM
Quote from: vdeane on June 10, 2019, 08:40:16 PM
Let's hope the eventually build the last phase too.  I don't know whether that phase being on the existing four lane divided portion makes it more likely to get built (because of the different scope of work) or less likely ("eh, it's good enough as-is").  At least it will be possible to fully clinch A-35 once this phase is done (unless you're picky about such things) as the last phase is on the existing alignment.
Much more likely to get the last phase built once this is done.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: jcroyer80 on November 22, 2019, 01:53:06 PM
The Chittenden County Regional Planning Committee just approved an amendment to the FY2020 TIP to add supplemental signage at all I-89 exits in Chittenden County identifying the mile marker number, but NOT replacing the sequential exit numbers.  The supplemental signage will be posted on the sign posts below the BGS.  I can only assume this will occur in other counties statewide, but this was the first version i'd seen.  Note, the example they used was from an exit off of I-91.   My apologies, for some reason i can't seem to add the image to this post.  However if you scroll down to page 3 of this short document you can see it (and maybe someone else can grab the picture).
https://www.ccrpcvt.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/NovemberTACPacket_191029.pdf
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: KEVIN_224 on November 22, 2019, 03:06:41 PM
Does this help ya? :)
(https://i.imgur.com/Cayt1xI.jpg)
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Duke87 on November 22, 2019, 07:38:37 PM
So... Is this weird method of not actually renumbering the exits an official VTrans thing, or did Chittenden County just cook that up themselves?
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: vdeane on November 22, 2019, 09:53:18 PM
I must say, I am NOT a fan of VT trying to weasel out of a conversion.  Nor do I understand it.  Out of all the New England states other than Maine, they are by far the MOST suited for mile-based numbers, but even CT doesn't have this level of resistance.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: cl94 on November 23, 2019, 01:06:44 AM
Quote from: vdeane on November 22, 2019, 09:53:18 PM
I must say, I am NOT a fan of VT trying to weasel out of a conversion.  Nor do I understand it.  Out of all the New England states other than Maine, they are by far the MOST suited for mile-based numbers, but even CT doesn't have this level of resistance.

VT in particular is a lot of old people who want to resist change as long as possible. They do have the highest median age in the country outside of Maine (converted) and New Hampshire (not converting). VTrans is likely anticipating a large amount of pushback. It's not like they can roll it out as gradually as CT, RI, and MA can.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: yakra on November 23, 2019, 11:48:44 PM
My reaction is a bit more optimistic.
Get people familiar with the numbers in preparation for a conversion.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: PHLBOS on November 25, 2019, 09:55:28 AM
Quote from: cl94 on November 23, 2019, 01:06:44 AMVT in particular is a lot of old people who want to resist change as long as possible. They do have the highest median age in the country outside of Maine (converted) and New Hampshire (not converting).
Based on information that was released last week and posted on the New Hampshire thread; NH has announced a plan to convert its exit numbers.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: jcroyer80 on November 25, 2019, 04:21:50 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on November 22, 2019, 07:38:37 PM
So... Is this weird method of not actually renumbering the exits an official VTrans thing, or did Chittenden County just cook that up themselves?

This was cooked up by Vtrans and agreed to by the DOT (according to meeting minutes).   I'm guessing you'll see this throughout the entire state, I had just seen it first mentioned by the Chittenden County Regional Planning Committee and thought it was worth posting about. 
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on November 27, 2019, 09:44:30 AM
I reached out to a transportation planner at CCRPC (for those who don't know, it's the MPO for Burlington and Chittenden County) who replied that this was indeed initiated by VTrans and agreed to by FHWA as a "temporary solution".
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: The Ghostbuster on November 27, 2019, 11:36:45 AM
I'm sure Vermont will convert eventually (how could they not?). How soon that conversion will come is anybody's guess.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: abqtraveler on December 01, 2019, 02:31:47 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on November 22, 2019, 07:38:37 PM
So... Is this weird method of not actually renumbering the exits an official VTrans thing, or did Chittenden County just cook that up themselves?

Vermont might be thinking that having dual sequential/mileage exit placards would give them a Get Out of Jail Free card from doing a full conversion to mile-based exit numbers. I suspect that what we're seeing might represent some sort of a compromise between Governor Phil Scott and the FHWA on the matter.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: amroad17 on December 02, 2019, 01:37:21 AM
Maybe Vermont should bring back "MILE 139  EXIT 24" signs like some other states used to have.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on December 02, 2019, 09:03:53 AM
Two news items out of Burlington lately.

The Burlington City Council recently approved a new roundabout on US 7 (https://vtdigger.org/2019/11/21/route-7-roundabout-in-burlington-moves-forward/).  The roundabout will replace the existing pseudo-rotary where Shelburne St, Willard St, Locust St, and Ledge Rd all come together south of downtown.  The plan is for Shelburne, Willard, and Locust to directly junction at the roundabout.  Ledge Rd will have a partial intersection at Shelburne just south of the roundabout.  There will be no direct left turns allowed from Ledge Rd to southbound Shelburne...traffic will turn right and use the roundabout to U-turn south.

The city expects to begin construction in 2021.


Meanwhile, the Champlain Parkway project is delayed again.  FHWA rescinded the Record of Decision for the project (https://vtdigger.org/2019/11/26/federal-decision-delays-champlain-parkway-construction/), citing environmental justice concerns raised by opponents.  This because the neighborhood adjacent to the project has a higher-than-normal proportion of low-income and minority residents.  The city and VTrans expect the delay to be 4 to 6 months as they review 2010 census data for the neighborhood....this because the EIS was completed before the 2010 census.  The city still hopes to begin construction next year.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Alps on December 02, 2019, 06:45:48 PM
Quote from: froggie on December 02, 2019, 09:03:53 AM
Two news items out of Burlington lately.

The Burlington City Council recently approved a new roundabout on US 7 (https://vtdigger.org/2019/11/21/route-7-roundabout-in-burlington-moves-forward/).  The roundabout will replace the existing pseudo-rotary where Shelburne St, Willard St, Locust St, and Ledge Rd all come together south of downtown.  The plan is for Shelburne, Willard, and Locust to directly junction at the roundabout.  Ledge Rd will have a partial intersection at Shelburne just south of the roundabout.  There will be no direct left turns allowed from Ledge Rd to southbound Shelburne...traffic will turn right and use the roundabout to U-turn south.

The city expects to begin construction in 2021.


Meanwhile, the Champlain Parkway project is delayed again.  FHWA rescinded the Record of Decision for the project (https://vtdigger.org/2019/11/26/federal-decision-delays-champlain-parkway-construction/), citing environmental justice concerns raised by opponents.  This because the neighborhood adjacent to the project has a higher-than-normal proportion of low-income and minority residents.  The city and VTrans expect the delay to be 4 to 6 months as they review 2010 census data for the neighborhood....this because the EIS was completed before the 2010 census.  The city still hopes to begin construction next year.

Visual of roundabout: https://vtdigger.org/2015/09/07/burlingtons-first-roundabout-is-in-the-works/ . Not noted - how this will affect traffic, which currently has 4 lanes south of that split but will now merge into 2 lanes to fit in the roundabout.

I just laugh at the Champlain Parkway. Wake me when it's open.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: vdeane on December 02, 2019, 08:28:07 PM
They really should have 4 lanes on the south side of the roundabout.  They could have made it a partial two lane roundabout to make it work optimally, but it looks like they took the cheap way out to fit it in the existing ROW.  If they're hoping the Champlain Parkway will make the lanes on US 7 less necessary, then they should probably wait for it to be built (if it ever is, which I really worry about), because it looks like the NIMBYs (most of whom probably weren't even living there before planning for the thing began) are having success at moving against it.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on December 03, 2019, 07:28:18 AM
Quote from: vdeanebecause it looks like the NIMBYs (most of whom probably weren't even living there before planning for the thing began) are having success at moving against it.

This is largely incorrect.  Most of the NIMBYs are residents along the Pine Street corridor and many have been living there for decades.  One of the key opponents, while not necessarily a neighborhood resident, is the city's former Public Works director.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: The Ghostbuster on December 03, 2019, 12:37:18 PM
I have a feeling the Champlain Parkway will ultimately meet the same fate as extending Interstate 189 northward: CANCELLATION!
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: vdeane on December 03, 2019, 12:45:20 PM
Quote from: froggie on December 03, 2019, 07:28:18 AM
Quote from: vdeanebecause it looks like the NIMBYs (most of whom probably weren't even living there before planning for the thing began) are having success at moving against it.

This is largely incorrect.  Most of the NIMBYs are residents along the Pine Street corridor and many have been living there for decades.  One of the key opponents, while not necessarily a neighborhood resident, is the city's former Public Works director.

This project has also been proposed in one form or another for decades.  Unless they were there before 1974, since that's when the first proposal for the Southern Connector came out.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on December 04, 2019, 08:36:12 AM
The project at current is considerably different than what was proposed in the 1970s.  The 1970s versions weren't defeated by NIMBYs but by the massive pollution in the Pine Street Canal.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: vdeane on December 04, 2019, 01:03:06 PM
Still, something was proposed to go through there for decades, and if they're objecting to a two-lane surface street, I can't imagine they would have been OK with a four-lane freeway.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: bob7374 on December 12, 2019, 12:05:45 PM
News report about VTrans adding 'milepoint' exit numbers to exit signs in 2020:
https://www.mynbc5.com/article/changes-coming-to-vermont-highway-exit-signs/30199461 (https://www.mynbc5.com/article/changes-coming-to-vermont-highway-exit-signs/30199461)
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: vdeane on December 12, 2019, 12:58:30 PM
Is VT not aware that most states just put an overlay on the exit tab instead of replacing the whole sign?  Also, I thought VT 289 was already mile-based with respect to the originally proposed extensions?  Finally, why not add numbers to VT 279?
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Brandon on December 12, 2019, 01:15:16 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 12, 2019, 12:58:30 PM
Is VT not aware that most states just put an overlay on the exit tab instead of replacing the whole sign?  Also, I thought VT 289 was already mile-based with respect to the originally proposed extensions?  Finally, why not add numbers to VT 279?

It appears as though Vermont lives in a little bubble world of its own here.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: 5foot14 on December 13, 2019, 12:45:25 PM
For what they are spending on these signs they could probably renumber everything with overlays. For comparison, Massachusetts is spending $2.8 million to do the entire state, with far more exits. It's not like that have a lot of exits in Vermont and all of their signs were recently replaced so yeah..... Seems like a pointless waste. Unless they are hoping they can get away with leaving these signs up indefinitely, thus not actually converting the exit numbers themselves.

SM-G900P

Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: KEVIN_224 on December 13, 2019, 09:03:26 PM
Change I-91 in Brattleboro over to Exits 7, 9 and 11. Leave the rest of the state alone. See how long it takes local to figure the mess out! :D
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: vdeane on December 13, 2019, 09:13:58 PM
Quote from: 5foot14 on December 13, 2019, 12:45:25 PM
Unless they are hoping they can get away with leaving these signs up indefinitely, thus not actually converting the exit numbers themselves.
I honestly expect that is what they plan to do.  Especially given their "forgetting" about overlays when they've designed their newer signs specifically to accommodate them.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Interstate1956 on January 06, 2020, 06:31:24 PM
Help me with this conversion to a milepost based exit system. I thought the only "changing out" of signage would include the exit sign and the exit tab on the top of the BGS sign one mile up the highway. The rest of the sign can stay. In Vermont's case that shouldn't end up being "millions" of dollars. The way Vermont is choosing to implement this makes it more confusing not less.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: vdeane on January 06, 2020, 09:49:55 PM
Quote from: Interstate1956 on January 06, 2020, 06:31:24 PM
Help me with this conversion to a milepost based exit system. I thought the only "changing out" of signage would include the exit sign and the exit tab on the top of the BGS sign one mile up the highway. The rest of the sign can stay. In Vermont's case that shouldn't end up being "millions" of dollars. The way Vermont is choosing to implement this makes it more confusing not less.
Technically it doesn't even need to include that... for new/large enough signs, a simple overlay will suffice.  Vermont seems to be under the impression that they need to replace the full sign for some reason... which I suspect may have something to do with "we don't really want to convert and are looking for an excuse to drag our feet".

(personal opinion)
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: The Ghostbuster on January 07, 2020, 03:29:40 PM
Although this seems to be a "compromise", I think VDOT should renumber all exit numbers to mileage-based, and the only sign replacements should be the signs where exit numbers would be in the triple digits. The rest of the signs can remain unreplaced and unaltered (except for the exit number).
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: sprjus4 on January 10, 2020, 10:37:27 PM
Should Vermont speed limit be lowered to 55 mph? (https://www.wcax.com/content/news/Should-Vermont-speed-limit-be-lowered-to-55-mph-566853621.html)
QuoteBURLINGTON, Vt. (WCAX) Some Vermont lawmakers are pitching a bill to lower the statewide speed limit on major highways from 65 mph to 55 mph. The idea is just being floated now, with supporters saying it aims to cut crashes, save fuel and help with climate change. Our Ike Bendavid found mixed reactions on the road.

In Vermont, the top highway speed limit currently sits at 65 mph. But in New York and New Hampshire, it's at 70 mph.

Dropping down to 55 mph has happened before and would be a big change for drivers.

"I would actually like to see it increased to 70 like in New Hampshire," said Miranda Davison of Hardwick.

But with lawmakers looking at ways to combat climate change, one idea that has surfaced is for drivers to slow down to a maximum of 55 mph.

Many drivers we talked to were skeptical.

"I don't think it's a good idea because people are going to go the speed they want anyway," Davison said.

"I think it should stay where it is. If you lower it, people are still going to speed," said Kelli Flood of Colchester.

No proposal has officially been introduced in Montpelier but supporters may be counting on Vermonters' concerns about climate change.

"I am a supporter of doing anything I can to reduce the burning of fossil fuels," said Collette Foster of Hardwick.

A lower speed limit has been tried before. In the '70s, Congress reduced the speed limit to 55 mph nationally to help cut fuel consumption during the energy crisis. The 55 cap was lifted in the '90s. This time, the idea is also energy-related, aimed at reducing fuel consumption and carbon emissions.

"I was alive when the speed limit was reduced to 70 to 55 back in the day during the oil crisis and I know that it does save fuel use," Foster said.

"I have never thought about it in those terms," said Cortland Johnson of Waterbury. "Any way we can reduce greenhouse gases has got to be a little helpful."

Again, there is no official proposal but Williston Rep. Jim McCullough is pushing the concept and it has already been discussed in the House Transportation Committee. McCullough told WCAX News on Thursday that he knows the idea is controversial, but he plans to introduce a bill and is hopeful it will pass.

"We need to reduce our carbon footprint in the state of Vermont by nearly half of our carbon footprint," Rep. Jim McCullough, D-Williston, said.
If this were to ever become a thing, Vermont would have the lowest maximum speed limit of all 50 states.

Seems pointless IMO. I doubt it would actually do much to "reduce emissions".
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Duke87 on January 10, 2020, 11:39:19 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 10, 2020, 10:37:27 PM
Seems pointless IMO. I doubt it would actually do much to "reduce emissions".

Indeed, but it'd give some people warm fuzzies that they can feel like they're doing something.

Knowing how Vermont State Police operate though, it WOULD be enforced.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: jp the roadgeek on January 11, 2020, 12:13:46 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on January 10, 2020, 11:39:19 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 10, 2020, 10:37:27 PM
Seems pointless IMO. I doubt it would actually do much to "reduce emissions".

Indeed, but it'd give some people warm fuzzies that they can feel like they're doing something.

Knowing how Vermont State Police operate though, it WOULD be enforced.

They're watching

(https://movie-fanatic-res.cloudinary.com/iu/s--Up4BfNh9--/t_teaser_wide/cs_srgb,f_auto,fl_strip_profile.lossy,q_auto:420/v1364990861/super-troopers.jpg)
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on January 11, 2020, 08:37:20 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on January 10, 2020, 11:39:19 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 10, 2020, 10:37:27 PM
Seems pointless IMO. I doubt it would actually do much to "reduce emissions".

Indeed, but it'd give some people warm fuzzies that they can feel like they're doing something.

Knowing how Vermont State Police operate though, it WOULD be enforced.

:-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D


(VSP would try to enforce it, but they are so few in number that it would be hilarious.  Vermont lacks the police numbers for effective speed enforcement as it is....this would make it much worse.)
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: vdeane on January 11, 2020, 10:03:24 PM
Ridiculous.  Let's hope this goes nowhere.  IMO VT needs to INCREASE their speed limit on interstates, not decrease it!
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: sprjus4 on January 11, 2020, 10:34:23 PM
Quote from: vdeane on January 11, 2020, 10:03:24 PM
Ridiculous.  Let's hope this goes nowhere.  IMO VT needs to INCREASE their speed limit on interstates, not decrease it!
Agreed. Vermont, along with New York and New Jersey, need to increase their limits to 70 mph on interstate highways.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: cl94 on January 12, 2020, 12:54:08 PM
The 55 bill isn't even the craziest thing to come out of the legislative session. There's a bill to legalize prostitution (https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2020/01/12/vermont-bill-decriminalize-adult-prostitution) and another to ban cell phone use by people under 21 (https://www.mynbc5.com/article/vermont-bill-would-ban-cellphone-use-for-anyone-under-21/30456265).

Edit: hyperlink error
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: sprjus4 on January 12, 2020, 02:05:09 PM
Quote from: cl94 on January 12, 2020, 12:54:08 PM
The 55 bill isn't even the craziest thing to come out of the legislative session. There's a bill to legalize prostitution (https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2020/01/12/vermont-bill-decriminalize-adult-prostitution) and another to ban cell phone use by people under 21 (https://www.mynbc5.com/article/vermont-bill-would-ban-cellphone-use-for-anyone-under-21/30456265).
That cellphone ban is merely a joke. It won't ever pass.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: PHLBOS on January 13, 2020, 08:50:09 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 10, 2020, 10:37:27 PMSeems pointless IMO. I doubt it would actually do much to "reduce emissions".
Those of us who were alive and/or coherent at the time the National Speed Limit was lowered to 55 in reaction to the 1973-74 gas prices spikes and long lines at the pumps; know that such was done as a means to reduce fuel consumption.  At the time & given what was available in terms of vehicle transmissions; such, for the most part, had some validity & truth.

However, the days of 3-speed automatics (GM's 2-speed Power-Glide automatic was already being phased out during the early 70s) and non-overdrive gear transmissions are long gone among newer vehicles.  Overdrive and later multi-speed/variable transmissions, the former has been available as far back as the early 80s have rendered the 55-mph speed limit as a fuel-saving measure obsolete.  Case-and-point: both of my current vehicles (a 2007 Mustang & a 2011 Crown Vic) get their optimum fuel economy between 68-72 mph.

Bottom line: these legislators that propose measures like these are still stuck in the 70s IMHO.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: jcroyer80 on January 15, 2020, 01:56:59 PM
Before everyone gets all bent out of shape, just remember that this is the beginning of the legislative session.  That means that almost anyone in the VT House or Senate can propose a bill.  Many (most?) of which will go nowhere and never leave the committee they are assigned to.  Even if by some crazy reason any of these bills pass committee and pass both chambers, there is zero chance our Republican governor would sign them.  The cell phone bill was made as a "joke" to prove a point.  The 55 mph bill and the others mentioned were simply proposals and for some reason the press picked them up and ran with them as serious proposals that had a chance of becoming law.

Ok. Rant over.

Quote from: cl94 on January 12, 2020, 12:54:08 PM
The 55 bill isn't even the craziest thing to come out of the legislative session. There's a bill to legalize prostitution (https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2020/01/12/vermont-bill-decriminalize-adult-prostitution) and another to ban cell phone use by people under 21 (https://www.mynbc5.com/article/vermont-bill-would-ban-cellphone-use-for-anyone-under-21/30456265).


Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: roadman on January 15, 2020, 02:20:48 PM
The legislator who introduced the bill banning cell phone use by people under 21 has admitted it is unlikely to pass and that he filed it merely to make a point.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: roadman65 on January 21, 2020, 11:01:32 AM
Heard on FB that Vermont is considering lowering the interstate maximum speed limit back to ole 55.  Do not know how true it is or not, does anyone know if this is true?

Considering neighboring NH has 70 mph written in to their law and I believe is posted along rural parts of I-93, it seems so odd, but then again VT still uses mainly 50 mph on off freeway rural roads as the max with only a few select routes at a 55 mph maximum speed.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: deathtopumpkins on January 21, 2020, 12:48:14 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 21, 2020, 11:01:32 AM
Heard on FB that Vermont is considering lowering the interstate maximum speed limit back to ole 55.  Do not know how true it is or not, does anyone know if this is true?

Read the posts immediately above yours.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: roadman65 on January 21, 2020, 10:45:43 PM
I only read the cell phone one, lol!  Did not see the one above it!  Anyway, it is still a good subject to inquire about as it was on Facebook and ole Bernie is from that particular state who believes in socialism, and having a 55 again would indeed be that.

Anyway, the way the pages went from one to the other here it is kind of hard to go through em all one by one.  Sounds though promising that it won't happen from that post.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on January 22, 2020, 08:32:48 AM
^ The legislative proposals and Bernie being from Vermont have nothing to do with each other.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Alps on January 22, 2020, 10:31:30 AM
Quote from: froggie on January 22, 2020, 08:32:48 AM
^ The legislative proposals and Bernie being from Vermont have nothing to do with each other.
And 55mph has nothing to do with socialism... Don't feed the roadman65.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: PHLBOS on January 22, 2020, 10:44:52 AM
Quote from: Alps on January 22, 2020, 10:31:30 AM
Quote from: froggie on January 22, 2020, 08:32:48 AM
^ The legislative proposals and Bernie being from Vermont have nothing to do with each other.
And 55 mph has nothing to do with socialism.
I wouldn't necessarily go that far with that statement.  It's more than just a mere coincidence that those (in Vermont or elsewhere) seeking to propose a reinstatement of the 55 mph maximum speed limit have political views that are, at a minimum, very left of center.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: sprjus4 on January 22, 2020, 11:18:02 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 22, 2020, 10:44:52 AM
Quote from: Alps on January 22, 2020, 10:31:30 AM
Quote from: froggie on January 22, 2020, 08:32:48 AM
^ The legislative proposals and Bernie being from Vermont have nothing to do with each other.
And 55 mph has nothing to do with socialism.
I wouldn't necessarily go that far with that statement.  It's more than just a mere coincidence that those (in Vermont or elsewhere) seeking to propose a reinstatement of the 55 mph maximum speed limit have political views that are, at a minimum, very left of center.
And also one of the main drivers for the proposal is to help "reduce emissions" and "help with climate change".
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: roadman65 on January 22, 2020, 12:49:03 PM
We all know too well there are not enough cops to enforce speed laws these days.  Come down to Florida and if you can do 90 mph from Tampa to Daytona Beach on I-4 ( a big if cause Orlando traffic is a big issue) chances are you will not get caught going over the various speed limits ranging from 55 to 70 along the 132 miles of freeway.

So lowering the speed limit in a rural state that has a small fraction of the global auto traffic is like pulling one strand of hay out of a big bail to reduce its size.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: PHLBOS on January 22, 2020, 02:43:20 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 22, 2020, 11:18:02 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 22, 2020, 10:44:52 AM
Quote from: Alps on January 22, 2020, 10:31:30 AM
Quote from: froggie on January 22, 2020, 08:32:48 AM
^ The legislative proposals and Bernie being from Vermont have nothing to do with each other.
And 55 mph has nothing to do with socialism.
I wouldn't necessarily go that far with that statement.  It's more than just a mere coincidence that those (in Vermont or elsewhere) seeking to propose a reinstatement of the 55 mph maximum speed limit have political views that are, at a minimum, very left of center.
And also one of the main drivers for the proposal is to help "reduce emissions" and "help with climate change".
Which, as previously mentioned up-thread, is flat-out bogus (or at least obsolete) given the advances in vehicle transmissions since the 70s.  It's not like everyone's currently still driving around with 3-speed non-overdrive automatics let alone GM's 2-speed Power Glide transmission. 

Long story short: if vehicles' maximium fuel economy is now obtained at a higher speed range; then reducing the highway speed limits as a means to save fuel/reduce emissions actually increases consumption & emissions.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: sprjus4 on January 22, 2020, 03:09:50 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 22, 2020, 02:43:20 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 22, 2020, 11:18:02 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 22, 2020, 10:44:52 AM
Quote from: Alps on January 22, 2020, 10:31:30 AM
Quote from: froggie on January 22, 2020, 08:32:48 AM
^ The legislative proposals and Bernie being from Vermont have nothing to do with each other.
And 55 mph has nothing to do with socialism.
I wouldn't necessarily go that far with that statement.  It's more than just a mere coincidence that those (in Vermont or elsewhere) seeking to propose a reinstatement of the 55 mph maximum speed limit have political views that are, at a minimum, very left of center.
And also one of the main drivers for the proposal is to help "reduce emissions" and "help with climate change".
Which, as previously mentioned up-thread, is flat-out bogus (or at least obsolete) given the advances in vehicle transmissions since the 70s.  It's not like everyone's currently still driving around with 3-speed non-overdrive automatics let alone GM's 2-speed Power Glide transmission. 

Long story short: if vehicles' maximium fuel economy is now obtained at a higher speed range; then reducing the highway speed limits as a means to save fuel/reduce emissions actually increases consumption & emissions.
It's just another radical approach to fight "climate change" at all costs.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Alps on January 22, 2020, 05:26:49 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 22, 2020, 03:09:50 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 22, 2020, 02:43:20 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 22, 2020, 11:18:02 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 22, 2020, 10:44:52 AM
Quote from: Alps on January 22, 2020, 10:31:30 AM
Quote from: froggie on January 22, 2020, 08:32:48 AM
^ The legislative proposals and Bernie being from Vermont have nothing to do with each other.
And 55 mph has nothing to do with socialism.
I wouldn't necessarily go that far with that statement.  It's more than just a mere coincidence that those (in Vermont or elsewhere) seeking to propose a reinstatement of the 55 mph maximum speed limit have political views that are, at a minimum, very left of center.
And also one of the main drivers for the proposal is to help "reduce emissions" and "help with climate change".
Which, as previously mentioned up-thread, is flat-out bogus (or at least obsolete) given the advances in vehicle transmissions since the 70s.  It's not like everyone's currently still driving around with 3-speed non-overdrive automatics let alone GM's 2-speed Power Glide transmission. 

Long story short: if vehicles' maximium fuel economy is now obtained at a higher speed range; then reducing the highway speed limits as a means to save fuel/reduce emissions actually increases consumption & emissions.
It's just another radical approach to fight "climate change" at all costs.
But that's not socialism. Unless you want to argue all speed limits are socialism. What's the topic here? Vermont?
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: VTGoose on January 23, 2020, 08:55:25 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 22, 2020, 12:49:03 PM
We all know too well there are not enough cops to enforce speed laws these days.  Come down to Florida and if you can do 90 mph from Tampa to Daytona Beach on I-4 ( a big if cause Orlando traffic is a big issue) chances are you will not get caught going over the various speed limits ranging from 55 to 70 along the 132 miles of freeway.

So lowering the speed limit in a rural state that has a small fraction of the global auto traffic is like pulling one strand of hay out of a big bail to reduce its size.

And at what magical time might one be able to actually reach 90 mph on I-4? We did see less traffic on a midnight drive from the Orlando airport to Apollo Beach, but that was a rarity. Now pretty much any part of I-75 (when it isn't choked with traffic from a fender-bender or construction) is wide open and the speed limit is just a suggestion to a lot of drivers.

As to Vermont, why? Lowering the speed limit would require more police and more vehicles, which seems to defeat the purpose of reducing emissions (unless the cops are outfitted with electric patrol cars).
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: PHLBOS on January 23, 2020, 09:21:25 AM
Quote from: Alps on January 22, 2020, 05:26:49 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 22, 2020, 03:09:50 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 22, 2020, 02:43:20 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 22, 2020, 11:18:02 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 22, 2020, 10:44:52 AM
Quote from: Alps on January 22, 2020, 10:31:30 AM
Quote from: froggie on January 22, 2020, 08:32:48 AM
^ The legislative proposals and Bernie being from Vermont have nothing to do with each other.
And 55 mph has nothing to do with socialism.
I wouldn't necessarily go that far with that statement.  It's more than just a mere coincidence that those (in Vermont or elsewhere) seeking to propose a reinstatement of the 55 mph maximum speed limit have political views that are, at a minimum, very left of center.
And also one of the main drivers for the proposal is to help "reduce emissions" and "help with climate change".
Which, as previously mentioned up-thread, is flat-out bogus (or at least obsolete) given the advances in vehicle transmissions since the 70s.  It's not like everyone's currently still driving around with 3-speed non-overdrive automatics let alone GM's 2-speed Power Glide transmission. 

Long story short: if vehicles' maximium fuel economy is now obtained at a higher speed range; then reducing the highway speed limits as a means to save fuel/reduce emissions actually increases consumption & emissions.
It's just another radical approach to fight "climate change" at all costs.
But that's not socialism. Unless you want to argue all speed limits are socialism. What's the topic here? Vermont?
While speed limits in general aren't socialism per se; those pushing for a reinstatement of a national 55 mph speed limit are, more often than not, politicians/advocates that have strong left-wing views.  The socialism part of the issue involves the reasoning for backing/proposing such. 

In Vermont's case, since you asked what does such have to do with VT/thread topic; state legislators are proposing the 55 mph speed limit legislation as a means to combat climate change; article-links covering such are posted upthread.  That rationale is based on the old 70s notion that 55 Saves Fuel (less fuel burned = less pollution); a rationale that long since no longer applies with respect to today's gasoline/diesel-powered vehicles due to advancements in transmission technology.  Most hybrids OTOH due to their electric/gas engine setup & design get better mileage around town than on the highway.  However, proposing legislation for a maximum 30 mph speed limit and mandating that everybody drive hybrids would automatically die in committee.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: KEVIN_224 on January 25, 2020, 02:55:46 PM
https://www.newscentermaine.com/article/life/wellness/vermont-hopes-to-complete-93-mile-rail-trail-by-mid-decade/97-75efd60b-33cf-4497-80f9-9556dff16026

Linked from NBC of Portland, ME for whatever reason. Something about an unused "rail trail" in northern Vermont.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: shadyjay on January 25, 2020, 07:00:49 PM
It crossed
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on January 25, 2020, 02:55:46 PM
https://www.newscentermaine.com/article/life/wellness/vermont-hopes-to-complete-93-mile-rail-trail-by-mid-decade/97-75efd60b-33cf-4497-80f9-9556dff16026

Linked from NBC of Portland, ME for whatever reason. Something about an unused "rail trail" in northern Vermont.

The Lamoille Valley corridor stretches from St Johnsbury, east to the St Albans area.  It passes through classic rural Vermont.  The eastern half has a pretty twisty routing and some good grades... travel US 2 from St J/I-91, west to Danville and you'll climb some pretty steep grades.  I rode part of this railroad, from Morrisville east to the Joe's Pond area back around 1991/92.  It was a nice ride, but just a little "too far north" to tap into the resort business.  Not much industry up there either... not enough to support a 90-mile rail line.  So it's going to rec path status.  That involves not just removing the rails/ties and calling it good.  Washed out bridges need to have some sort of crossing re-established, though doesn't have to be as elaborate.  The ROW needs to be graded.  Not sure if pavement is going in, or more of a hard-packed gravel surface.  They've been working on it for a few years now. 

Unfortunately, this is probably the one line that has been abandoned in recent times where it just simply doesn't have the location/routing to make any $$$, and thus couldn't realistically be saved.  During the 1960s-1970s, it had about a half dozen different operators who all tried to make a go of it, with limited success.  The railroad I work for acquired the 4 passenger cars that were used in this line in the mid 90s and we run them regularly, so a piece of the railroad was saved.  Just wished I saved the hat my parents bought me back from that visit in 1991. 

The Fisher Bridge, east of Morrisville along VT 15, is the last remaining railroad covered bridge in Vermont.  Hit here for my photos of it I took during a 2018 day drive through the area.  You'll see how some work is required in this area to make it safe for regular use by recreationalists. 
https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/sets/72157705447585414/with/31679770177/
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on January 26, 2020, 08:11:13 AM
Quote from: shadyjayThe Lamoille Valley corridor stretches from St Johnsbury, east to the St Albans area.  It passes through classic rural Vermont.  The eastern half has a pretty twisty routing and some good grades... travel US 2 from St J/I-91, west to Danville and you'll climb some pretty steep grades.  I rode part of this railroad, from Morrisville east to the Joe's Pond area back around 1991/92.  It was a nice ride, but just a little "too far north" to tap into the resort business.  Not much industry up there either... not enough to support a 90-mile rail line.  So it's going to rec path status.  That involves not just removing the rails/ties and calling it good.  Washed out bridges need to have some sort of crossing re-established, though doesn't have to be as elaborate.  The ROW needs to be graded.  Not sure if pavement is going in, or more of a hard-packed gravel surface.  They've been working on it for a few years now. 

A few comments:

- The completed segments...Cambridge Junction to Morrisville and West Danville to St. J, have already proven popular.
- St J is not far from Burke, where Kingdom Trails draws numerous bicycle tourists during the non-winter months.
- Most of the ROW is intact and what I've walked does not need to be graded.  The full corridor has been used for 15 years by VAST as part of their snowmobile trail network.
- Right now, the bridges are the biggest impediment...especially between Morrisville and Hardwick.  They'll need to be rehabilitated or replaced, and that is what's driving the remaining cost to finish the trail.
- The surface on the completed segments is basically "hard packed gravel".
- I'm on a Greensboro committee that's looking at how to tie the town center into the trail.  There's a few property owners adjacent to the trail in Greensboro Bend that are opposed to the trail's completion, but most of Greensboro supports the trail.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: astralentity on January 30, 2020, 07:36:13 AM
This post will be two fold.

In my travels through Vermont recently, mostly up and down the VT-22A corridor, I noticed something uniquely out of place in Vermont.  At the Addison/Shoreham line, the Town of Addison sign is traffic facing and looks to be made and placed by VTrans.  I know the traditional town line and county line signs are the blade signs that you almost cause an accident to look at.  Is there a movement to go towards more traffic facing town/county line signs like that?

VT's version of the "little green signs"...  I pretty much figured out that the mileage resets at each town line.  What is the middle line of numbers for?
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: cl94 on January 30, 2020, 12:15:08 PM
Quote from: astralentity on January 30, 2020, 07:36:13 AM
This post will be two fold.

In my travels through Vermont recently, mostly up and down the VT-22A corridor, I noticed something uniquely out of place in Vermont.  At the Addison/Shoreham line, the Town of Addison sign is traffic facing and looks to be made and placed by VTrans.  I know the traditional town line and county line signs are the blade signs that you almost cause an accident to look at.  Is there a movement to go towards more traffic facing town/county line signs like that?

VT's version of the "little green signs"...  I pretty much figured out that the mileage resets at each town line.  What is the middle line of numbers for?

Town identifier. Reference markers are as follows:
Top line: Route number with 4 digits, leftmost is the hundreds digit. Last digit is a numerical representation of the suffix (1 = A, 2 = B, 3 = C) or 0 if the route has no suffix
Middle line: County code (2 digits) and town code (2 digits)
Bottom line: Town mileage to 1/100 of a mile.

Generally, RMs are placed every 2/10 mile and at intersections, with intersection mileage to the hundredth.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on January 31, 2020, 11:08:28 AM
Quote from: astralentityIn my travels through Vermont recently, mostly up and down the VT-22A corridor, I noticed something uniquely out of place in Vermont.  At the Addison/Shoreham line, the Town of Addison sign is traffic facing and looks to be made and placed by VTrans.  I know the traditional town line and county line signs are the blade signs that you almost cause an accident to look at.  Is there a movement to go towards more traffic facing town/county line signs like that?

VTrans uses both.  The "blade signs" delineate town and county boundaries on non-freeway routes as well as several Class 2 Town Highways.  The "town of xxx" signs, assuming you're referring to these (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.0854471,-73.3026901,3a,75y,19.94h,72.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2fVSbX5mIbo1zUhRJ_v2pw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), are used when entering town centers and hamlets.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: astralentity on January 31, 2020, 03:37:36 PM
Quote from: froggie on January 31, 2020, 11:08:28 AM
Quote from: astralentityIn my travels through Vermont recently, mostly up and down the VT-22A corridor, I noticed something uniquely out of place in Vermont.  At the Addison/Shoreham line, the Town of Addison sign is traffic facing and looks to be made and placed by VTrans.  I know the traditional town line and county line signs are the blade signs that you almost cause an accident to look at.  Is there a movement to go towards more traffic facing town/county line signs like that?

VTrans uses both.  The "blade signs" delineate town and county boundaries on non-freeway routes as well as several Class 2 Town Highways.  The "town of xxx" signs, assuming you're referring to these (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.0854471,-73.3026901,3a,75y,19.94h,72.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2fVSbX5mIbo1zUhRJ_v2pw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), are used when entering town centers and hamlets.

I know the difference in the use cases.  I'll see the Town of xx signs on US 7 too.  What I'm seeing is they're using the "Town of xx" signs on surface roads, like my example above at the Shoreham/Addison line on VT 22A.  This is also set up next to the existing blade sign.  It could be a sign placed by Addison, similar to the wooden signs I see placed by towns like Benson, Orwell,  Fair Haven, etc.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: KEVIN_224 on January 31, 2020, 04:35:43 PM
I took this town line sign picture in August 2015:
(https://i.imgur.com/oXcU81U.jpg)

Going by the little green makers, I'm guessing US Route 5 within Brattleboro is 4.9 miles long? The only part I'm missing of that, whether by foot, car or bus, is the small portion south of Exit 1 to the Guilford town line.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: DJDBVT on January 31, 2020, 06:26:02 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on January 31, 2020, 04:35:43 PM

Going by the little green makers, I'm guessing US Route 5 within Brattleboro is 4.9 miles long?


It's 5.49 miles. The bottom line is hundredths of miles.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: KEVIN_224 on January 31, 2020, 06:38:55 PM
OK. Got it! I just know we don't have those markers here in Connecticut. I've walked the distance of US 5 in that town a few times. From the south end Price Chopper plaza and Lipton Mart/Shell station (with Greyhound) until a few feet past that town line sign. Quite the hike. Took just over an hour if I didn't stop to cross the Route 119 bridge into Hinsdale, NH.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on February 01, 2020, 01:09:32 PM
Quote from: astralentityWhat I'm seeing is they're using the "Town of xx" signs on surface roads, like my example above at the Shoreham/Addison line on VT 22A.

The problem here is that Shoreham and Addison aren't adjacent.  Bridport is in between.  Did you mean Addison/Bridport?  I'm not aware of anything at that location.

A photo of the sign in question would help.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: astralentity on February 03, 2020, 07:04:12 AM
Quote from: froggie on February 01, 2020, 01:09:32 PM
Quote from: astralentityWhat I'm seeing is they're using the "Town of xx" signs on surface roads, like my example above at the Shoreham/Addison line on VT 22A.

The problem here is that Shoreham and Addison aren't adjacent.  Bridport is in between.  Did you mean Addison/Bridport?  I'm not aware of anything at that location.

A photo of the sign in question would help.

Yes, you're correct.  I had a jumble of things in my head at the time I posted.  It's the Addison/Bridport line heading north on 22A.  Next time I'm there I'll take a pic.

I guess that's what happens when you've traveled the entirety of 22A from Granville to Ferrisburgh and back several times in your life  :spin:
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: bob7374 on April 20, 2020, 11:33:40 PM
VTrans has created a webpage devoted to its upcoming placement of 'milepoint' exit number signs throughout the state. Like MassDOT they created an interactive map that shows the new milepost exit number and the corresponding, to be kept, for now, sequential number. They also have exit lists by highway, including for US 4 and US 7 and VT 289 (showing no new numbers). They are assigning the milepost exit numbers to all exits, even interstate to interstate, for example the I-93 milepost numbers for the I-91 exit will be 11 A and B.

The website: https://vtrans.vermont.gov/projects/exit-numbering (https://vtrans.vermont.gov/projects/exit-numbering)
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: shadyjay on April 21, 2020, 12:07:55 AM
Still think its a waste of time and money.  They're going through the trouble to make these new signs, which I think will just add to the confusion.  Instead, they could've made this website to educate the public on the new mile-based exits, then gone around and slapped up the new numbers on the existing signs, except replacing a few gores/tabs which are too small to accommodate 3 digits. 

But I digress...
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: amroad17 on April 21, 2020, 01:17:52 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on April 21, 2020, 12:07:55 AM
Still think its a waste of time and money.  They're going through the trouble to make these new signs, which I think will just add to the confusion.  Instead, they could've made this website to educate the public on the new mile-based exits, then gone around and slapped up the new numbers on the existing signs, except replacing a few gores/tabs which are too small to accommodate 3 digits. 

But I digress...
This could be their way of grooming the public on mile-based exits.  Instead of changing the EXIT signs to the mile-based numbers and having a supplemental OLD EXIT xx, in this way, they are preparing for the mile-based exit numbers while still retaining the "traditional" sequential numbers so as not to "upset the apple cart" for Vermont citizens.

Seems to be a recurring theme for much of the New England states--and to some extent, New York.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: bob7374 on June 09, 2020, 03:46:35 PM
Based on a post to several Private FB road groups, Vermont has started putting up its 'Milepoint Exit #' signs along I-89. A photo in the post shows Exit 2 with the Milepoint Exit 13 tab at the bottom. Based on a comment the tabs have been added at least as far north as Exit 17 (MP 97). According to the post Vermont doesn't plan to change the existing sequential exit numbers until the next round of sign replacement around 2030. Road trip anyone?

Update. I've gotten permission to post the photo from Steve Goodwin on my New England Exit Renumbering website:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fvtmilepointexitsg620a.jpg&hash=7577b658909506981f072fdff7723f0b2704c746)
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: machias on June 09, 2020, 06:56:11 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on April 21, 2020, 01:17:52 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on April 21, 2020, 12:07:55 AM
Still think its a waste of time and money.  They're going through the trouble to make these new signs, which I think will just add to the confusion.  Instead, they could've made this website to educate the public on the new mile-based exits, then gone around and slapped up the new numbers on the existing signs, except replacing a few gores/tabs which are too small to accommodate 3 digits. 

But I digress...
This could be their way of grooming the public on mile-based exits.  Instead of changing the EXIT signs to the mile-based numbers and having a supplemental OLD EXIT xx, in this way, they are preparing for the mile-based exit numbers while still retaining the "traditional" sequential numbers so as not to "upset the apple cart" for Vermont citizens.

Seems to be a recurring theme for much of the New England states--and to some extent, New York.

You have to feel bad for motorists and others who base their whole identity on their exit number
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: shadyjay on June 09, 2020, 08:12:26 PM
I still find it amusing that the one road in Vermont with mile-based exits is losing exit numbers completely as part of this project.  Granted, the mile markers count up from a southern terminus that hasn't (and probably never will be) built.  But, amusing nevertheless.

Wonder if anyone would notice if the one exit on I-93 just became the mile-based number, without this milepoint b/s. 
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: vdeane on June 09, 2020, 09:14:57 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on June 09, 2020, 08:12:26 PM
I still find it amusing that the one road in Vermont with mile-based exits is losing exit numbers completely as part of this project.  Granted, the mile markers count up from a southern terminus that hasn't (and probably never will be) built.  But, amusing nevertheless.

Wonder if anyone would notice if the one exit on I-93 just became the mile-based number, without this milepoint b/s. 
They're taking away the exit numbers on VT 289?  I thought the reason the "milepoint exit" column said "N/A" was because the exit numbers were already mileage-based.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Alps on June 09, 2020, 10:46:42 PM
Quote from: vdeane on June 09, 2020, 09:14:57 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on June 09, 2020, 08:12:26 PM
I still find it amusing that the one road in Vermont with mile-based exits is losing exit numbers completely as part of this project.  Granted, the mile markers count up from a southern terminus that hasn't (and probably never will be) built.  But, amusing nevertheless.

Wonder if anyone would notice if the one exit on I-93 just became the mile-based number, without this milepoint b/s. 
They're taking away the exit numbers on VT 289?  I thought the reason the "milepoint exit" column said "N/A" was because the exit numbers were already mileage-based.
This.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: shadyjay on June 11, 2020, 12:47:39 AM
Didn't think of that.  I assumed they were removing the exit numbers since they count from a future that will most likely never occur.  But yeah they could be left alone.  I guess we'll wait and see.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: bob7374 on June 16, 2020, 12:06:21 AM
Meanwhile, it now looks like it won't be until 2035 until Vermont renumbers its exits:
https://www.wcax.com/content/news/Mile-markers-added-to-Vermont-interstate-exits-571269701.html (https://www.wcax.com/content/news/Mile-markers-added-to-Vermont-interstate-exits-571269701.html)
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: vdeane on June 16, 2020, 02:30:44 PM
Yikes.  This just keeps getting worse.  15 years from now?  Might as well be never.  And no, VT, the feds did not mandate little plaques, they mandated conversion... the plaques are just your way of trying to weasel out of it, probably in the hopes that everybody will have forgotten about this (or changed the policy) come 2035.
Title: Vermont
Post by: Pete from Boston on June 16, 2020, 06:47:49 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on June 09, 2020, 03:46:35 PM
Based on a post to several Private FB road groups, Vermont has started putting up its 'Milepoint Exit #' signs along I-89. A photo in the post shows Exit 2 with the Milepoint Exit 13 tab at the bottom. Based on a comment the tabs have been added at least as far north as Exit 17 (MP 97). According to the post Vermont doesn't plan to change the existing sequential exit numbers until the next round of sign replacement around 2030. Road trip anyone?

Update. I've gotten permission to post the photo from Steve Goodwin on my New England Exit Renumbering website:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fvtmilepointexitsg620a.jpg&hash=7577b658909506981f072fdff7723f0b2704c746)

Good lord, that's some confusing nonsense for motorists. They even invented the word "milepoint,"  because a good thing to do is to make motorists think about extra things and their purpose while driving.

EDIT: As it turns out, they did not, in fact, invent the word.

https://www.definitions.net/definition/MILEPOINT

           "MilePoint is a new travel social
            network for frequent flyers/business
            travelers."
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Alex on June 16, 2020, 06:51:18 PM
Quote from: vdeane on June 16, 2020, 02:30:44 PM
Yikes.  This just keeps getting worse.  15 years from now?  Might as well be never.  And no, VT, the feds did not mandate little plaques, they mandated conversion... the plaques are just your way of trying to weasel out of it, probably in the hopes that everybody will have forgotten about this (or changed the policy) come 2035.

This is from a state that probably will never build another mile of new road. Shouldn't be surprised that they are lackluster on implementing this.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: vdeane on June 16, 2020, 09:30:25 PM
Quote from: Alex on June 16, 2020, 06:51:18 PM
Quote from: vdeane on June 16, 2020, 02:30:44 PM
Yikes.  This just keeps getting worse.  15 years from now?  Might as well be never.  And no, VT, the feds did not mandate little plaques, they mandated conversion... the plaques are just your way of trying to weasel out of it, probably in the hopes that everybody will have forgotten about this (or changed the policy) come 2035.

This is from a state that probably will never build another mile of new road. Shouldn't be surprised that they are lackluster on implementing this.
They still have long distances between exits, rending sequential numbers of little utility, and a numbering anomaly resulting from the I-89/I-91 junction not being numbered on I-89.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: amroad17 on June 17, 2020, 02:04:02 AM
$250,000 (of federal money) for an "extra step" when the DOT could have just changed the EXIT tabs or put on an overlay for, I'm guessing, a lot less money!  It is just Vermont holding on to an outdated tradition of sequential exit numbers--especially in a state that is perfect for a changeover from sequential to mile(point)-based exits.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: abqtraveler on June 17, 2020, 10:42:16 AM
Quote from: amroad17 on June 17, 2020, 02:04:02 AM
$250,000 (of federal money) for an "extra step" when the DOT could have just changed the EXIT tabs or put on an overlay for, I'm guessing, a lot less money!  It is just Vermont holding on to an outdated tradition of sequential exit numbers--especially in a state that is perfect for a changeover from sequential to mile(point)-based exits.

People up in New England are very resistant to change, hence why Vermont is gong with Milepoint exit placards until the next round of sign replacements takes place 10-20 years down the road. Apparently that was enough to satisfy the FHWA's requirement for mile-based exit numbers, for now.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on June 17, 2020, 11:01:06 AM
^ Correct.  Local media has reported that FHWA signed off on this.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: vdeane on June 17, 2020, 01:35:42 PM
Yeah, if I were FHWA, I wouldn't have, especially with the long time scale.  Who knows if Vermont will even still be doing full-scale sign rehabs anymore in 15 years?  They could become like New York, where replace in kind on a per-sign basis is often done instead.  With modern GIS-based inventories and asset management software, I expect such to become increasingly common across the country - after all, the reason for a corridor-wide rehab in the first place is because you don't know the condition of every individual sign.  As transportation dollars become increasingly scarce, I don't see why a state would spend the money to do it the old way.  Yes, the old way would make roadgeeks more happy... but states don't budget for roadgeeks.  They budget to serve the needs of the traveling public for the lowest cost possible, so if you can get a section of road back to good condition by replacing 5 signs instead of 20, you're going to replace 5.

(personal opinion)
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: roadman65 on June 17, 2020, 03:41:55 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on June 16, 2020, 06:47:49 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on June 09, 2020, 03:46:35 PM
Based on a post to several Private FB road groups, Vermont has started putting up its 'Milepoint Exit #' signs along I-89. A photo in the post shows Exit 2 with the Milepoint Exit 13 tab at the bottom. Based on a comment the tabs have been added at least as far north as Exit 17 (MP 97). According to the post Vermont doesn't plan to change the existing sequential exit numbers until the next round of sign replacement around 2030. Road trip anyone?

Wonder why they skipped I-91?  I can see that they consider interstate to interstate junctions as meaningless like PennDOT did in their days of sequential numbers, but here on I-91  at the same interchange you get an exit number.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: vdeane on June 17, 2020, 09:27:05 PM
Although for the longest time that number was only barely signed... but I-189 has a number too.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on June 17, 2020, 10:33:32 PM
Worth noting that, originally, I-91 didn't have an exit number at I-89 either.  This appears to have been changed ca. 1970 when the Exit 10 number (previously the US 5/WRJ exit) was moved to the I-89 interchange and everything north of there was adjusted (it helps that, except for some mileage in Derby, nothing was finished north of Norwich at the time).

Also, curiously, the 1971 state map shows I-89 as having Exit 1 at I-91 and Exit 1A at US 4.  I suspect it was never signed as such because from the 1972 edition on, Exit 1 went back to US 4.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: jcroyer80 on August 27, 2020, 01:34:40 PM
Sounds like today was the groundbreaking for Segment 3 (out of 4) of the Autoroute 35 expansion towards the Vermont border.  From the Vermont press release "Segment 3 of A-35 stretches 8.9 kilometers (5.6 miles) from Route 133 in Saint-Sebastien south to Saint-Armand. Segment 4 is the final 4.5 kilometers (2.8 miles) that will connect south to the U.S-Canadian border. The MTQ indicates a full-completion target date in 2025."

https://governor.vermont.gov/press-release/governor-phil-scott-congratulates-quebec-autoroute-35-groundbreaking
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: PHLBOS on August 28, 2020, 11:26:35 PM
Quote from: vdeane on June 16, 2020, 02:30:44 PMYikes.  This just keeps getting worse.  15 years from now?  Might as well be never.
And one thought CT was slow to change.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on December 31, 2020, 09:52:19 PM
The Essex-Charlotte Ferry on Lake Champlain will be suspended next Monday.  That will leave Plattsburgh-Grand Isle as the only operating ferry on the lake.

https://vtdigger.org/2020/12/21/shutdown-of-charlotte-essex-ferry-raises-outcry-on-both-sides-of-the-lake/
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: deathtopumpkins on January 04, 2021, 09:00:49 AM
Quote from: froggie on December 31, 2020, 09:52:19 PM
The Essex-Charlotte Ferry on Lake Champlain will be suspended next Monday.  That will leave Plattsburgh-Grand Isle as the only operating ferry on the lake.

https://vtdigger.org/2020/12/21/shutdown-of-charlotte-essex-ferry-raises-outcry-on-both-sides-of-the-lake/

Did the Ticonderoga ferry shut down too?
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: astralentity on January 04, 2021, 09:21:11 AM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on January 04, 2021, 09:00:49 AM
Did the Ticonderoga ferry shut down too?

That one always shuts down for the winter.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: deathtopumpkins on January 04, 2021, 09:59:08 AM
Quote from: astralentity on January 04, 2021, 09:21:11 AM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on January 04, 2021, 09:00:49 AM
Did the Ticonderoga ferry shut down too?

That one always shuts down for the winter.

Yes, but we're talking about ferries shutting down indefinitely.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: cl94 on January 04, 2021, 06:20:23 PM
The Ticonderoga ferry never even opened in 2020 because COVID. Unknown if it will open for summer 2021.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Dougtone on February 07, 2021, 10:09:48 AM
Over the weekend, we lost the 110 year old River Road Covered Bridge that crossed the Missiquoi River in Troy, Vermont. A snowmobile that was crossing the bridge broke down and caught fire. The fire eventually went out of control, damaging and destroying the bridge in the process. The bridge was the only crossing over the river for a few miles in either direction, serving as a motor vehicle link for local residents.

https://www.wcax.com/2021/02/06/video-landmark-covered-bridge-in-troy-collapses-from-fire-damage/ (https://www.wcax.com/2021/02/06/video-landmark-covered-bridge-in-troy-collapses-from-fire-damage/)
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: jcroyer80 on March 17, 2021, 01:19:59 PM
Not sure if everyone is aware but the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission and Vtrans are in the process of developing a comprehensive investment program for the 37 mile I-89 corridor in Chittenden County through 2050.   The website is  https://envision89.com/ (https://envision89.com/).   Right now the process is focusing on possible interchange improvements at Exits 13 and 14, along with the long discussed possibility of an Exit 12b at Route 116.  A third lane between Exists 14 and 15 will also be evaluated as part of the process.

Right now on the Homepage you can see a link to the draft interchange concept plans (along with a number of other documents and presentations).  Exits 13 and 14 each have two alternatives shown while 12b only has one.  Enjoy!

Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: The Ghostbuster on March 17, 2021, 05:11:38 PM
The map shows the Southern Connector off the end of Interstate 189 as constructed. Looks like any extensions of VT 289 are permanently dead. Hopefully by 2050, Interstate 89 (and all of Vermont) will have mileage-based exits.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: vdeane on March 17, 2021, 08:39:42 PM
What's up with the 12B exit number?  Would they be renumbering 12 to 12A?  Seems silly when VTrans allegedly plans to properly convert to mile-based in 2030.  Maybe this could convince them to convert early, assuming it's built before then.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: jcroyer80 on March 18, 2021, 10:15:12 AM
Quote from: vdeane on March 17, 2021, 08:39:42 PM
What's up with the 12B exit number?  Would they be renumbering 12 to 12A?  Seems silly when VTrans allegedly plans to properly convert to mile-based in 2030.  Maybe this could convince them to convert early, assuming it's built before then.

They've been talking about this interchange for well over a decade now.  I don't see this interchange getting built before 2030 so if it ever does actually happen it likely will be Exit 86.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on March 18, 2021, 12:20:42 PM
Various thoughts and responses:

Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: SectorZ on March 18, 2021, 03:13:37 PM
Quote from: froggie on March 18, 2021, 12:20:42 PM
Various thoughts and responses:


  • The interchange concepts are recently posted...last time I looked at the study website (about a month ago), they weren't there.
  • The 12B exit number is in no small part because it's been considered in planning for over 20 years.  This is by far not the first time (or even 2nd time) VTrans has looked at an interchange at 116.  I agree with jcroyer that it's highly unlikely to see construction this decade.  They'll upgrade Exit 12 before they'll build this one.
  • That Exit 12B rendering is very different than was was suggested a decade ago.  At that time, the leading candidate was more of a standard diamond with the northbound off-ramp intersecting Tilley Dr and the northbound on-ramp coming off the 116/Tilley intersection.
  • Regarding the 289 comments, VT 289 is not part of this study.  But it's been well-documented that 289 extensions were dropped ten years ago, though VTrans still owns much of the right-of-way.
  • It's worth noting that, in the SPUI alternative for Exit 13, I-189 would be decommissioned and dropped to a state highway.
  • One interchange that appears to be missing is a proposed interchange between 14 and 15.  This has shown up in long-range BTV plans as part of airport redevelopment/expansion and plans for a more direct northern access road to the airport.
  • Personally, I think auxiliary lanes would be more important between 13 and 14 than between 14 and 15...it's a much shorter distance there with higher merging/diverging volumes, especially the volumes coming off Exit 13.

The exit 13 hybrid option, which appears to retain I-189, has a planned u-turn ramp west of I-89.

Curious how many interstates have such a feature.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: hotdogPi on March 18, 2021, 03:14:34 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on March 18, 2021, 03:13:37 PM
Curious how many interstates have such a feature.

While it's not an Interstate, MA 213 does at its western end.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: jcroyer80 on March 18, 2021, 04:58:20 PM
Quote from: froggie on March 18, 2021, 12:20:42 PM
Various thoughts and responses:


  • The interchange concepts are recently posted...last time I looked at the study website (about a month ago), they weren't there.
  • The 12B exit number is in no small part because it's been considered in planning for over 20 years.  This is by far not the first time (or even 2nd time) VTrans has looked at an interchange at 116.  I agree with jcroyer that it's highly unlikely to see construction this decade.  They'll upgrade Exit 12 before they'll build this one.
  • That Exit 12B rendering is very different than was was suggested a decade ago.  At that time, the leading candidate was more of a standard diamond with the northbound off-ramp intersecting Tilley Dr and the northbound on-ramp coming off the 116/Tilley intersection.
  • Regarding the 289 comments, VT 289 is not part of this study.  But it's been well-documented that 289 extensions were dropped ten years ago, though VTrans still owns much of the right-of-way.
  • It's worth noting that, in the SPUI alternative for Exit 13, I-189 would be decommissioned and dropped to a state highway.
  • One interchange that appears to be missing is a proposed interchange between 14 and 15.  This has shown up in long-range BTV plans as part of airport redevelopment/expansion and plans for a more direct northern access road to the airport.
  • Personally, I think auxiliary lanes would be more important between 13 and 14 than between 14 and 15...it's a much shorter distance there with higher merging/diverging volumes, especially the volumes coming off Exit 13.

Appreciate all the thoughts froggie! Not sure if you recall but a few years ago there was some back and forth between the Airport and South Burlington when SB built a solar array on the land that BTV marked for their access road off 89.  Other than showing up in the BTV 2030 Master Plan i don't think there has been much additional discussion about that roadway.

As for the aux lanes on 89 I find in the evening that NB traffic really gets backed up between 14 and 15 heading northbound.  However in the morning the heavy volume is between 13 and 14 heading southbound.   Pre-Covid it was heavy in both directions between 13 and 15. I THINK the initial discussions about the third lane mentioned being between 13 and 15 but the section before 14 now seems to have been dropped.




Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: shadyjay on March 18, 2021, 06:39:20 PM
With the heavy merge coming northbound at Exit 13 and the short distance to Exit 14 (<1 mile), I can't see why not a 3rd lane could be added in both directions between Exits 13 & 14.  It doesn't necessarily have to be a thru lane, especially if the cloverleaf is modified with a c-d road approach.  The 3rd lane can be an "operational" lane, basically combining the Exit 13 acceleration and the Exit 14 decelleration (and vice versa southbound).  You wouldn't have to replace any bridges, either (except the US 2 over I-89 bridge, but that would be replaced if Exit 14 is modified I'm sure).  North of Exit 14, you have one overpass and maybe one underpass to worry about.  The Winooski River Bridge is already 3 lanes each way, so really you've got about a mile of widening in each direction north of Exit 14, and the 1/2-3/4 mile between Exits 13-14. 

Its interesting to note that Vermont's interstates have retained their same number of exits (and basic ramp configurations) since day 1, and that, outside of some lengthening of acceleration/ decelleration lanes, no widenings have taken place on the interstates.  I can't think of many other US states to have these same claims, and I am sure there are those hardcore ones who will say "leave I-89 alone" (and they're probably the ones that got Exit 10-A aborted - I'm looking at you, Bolton).  After having spent some 15 years in VT, leaving in 2018, I can tell you there is indeed the need for at least a mile or two of widening of I-89 in the Burlington area. 
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: SectorZ on March 18, 2021, 06:41:11 PM
Quote from: 1 on March 18, 2021, 03:14:34 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on March 18, 2021, 03:13:37 PM
Curious how many interstates have such a feature.

While it's not an Interstate, MA 213 does at its western end.

I know that one well. Fun fact: no one knows how to yield from 93 south entering it.

The Spaluding Tpke in NH, also not an interstate, used to have one near exit 4 before the freeway was reconfigured.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: hotdogPi on March 18, 2021, 07:48:20 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on March 18, 2021, 06:41:11 PM
Quote from: 1 on March 18, 2021, 03:14:34 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on March 18, 2021, 03:13:37 PM
Curious how many interstates have such a feature.

While it's not an Interstate, MA 213 does at its western end.

I know that one well. Fun fact: no one knows how to yield from 93 south entering it.

The Spaluding Tpke in NH, also not an interstate, used to have one near exit 4 before the freeway was reconfigured.

I thought of another one (and actually on an Interstate) about 30 minutes later, but I wasn't home: I-495 (MA) exits 44-45 (sequential), from NB → SB only.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Alps on March 18, 2021, 07:56:39 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on March 18, 2021, 03:13:37 PM
Quote from: froggie on March 18, 2021, 12:20:42 PM
Various thoughts and responses:


  • The interchange concepts are recently posted...last time I looked at the study website (about a month ago), they weren't there.
  • The 12B exit number is in no small part because it's been considered in planning for over 20 years.  This is by far not the first time (or even 2nd time) VTrans has looked at an interchange at 116.  I agree with jcroyer that it's highly unlikely to see construction this decade.  They'll upgrade Exit 12 before they'll build this one.
  • That Exit 12B rendering is very different than was was suggested a decade ago.  At that time, the leading candidate was more of a standard diamond with the northbound off-ramp intersecting Tilley Dr and the northbound on-ramp coming off the 116/Tilley intersection.
  • Regarding the 289 comments, VT 289 is not part of this study.  But it's been well-documented that 289 extensions were dropped ten years ago, though VTrans still owns much of the right-of-way.
  • It's worth noting that, in the SPUI alternative for Exit 13, I-189 would be decommissioned and dropped to a state highway.
  • One interchange that appears to be missing is a proposed interchange between 14 and 15.  This has shown up in long-range BTV plans as part of airport redevelopment/expansion and plans for a more direct northern access road to the airport.
  • Personally, I think auxiliary lanes would be more important between 13 and 14 than between 14 and 15...it's a much shorter distance there with higher merging/diverging volumes, especially the volumes coming off Exit 13.

The exit 13 hybrid option, which appears to retain I-189, has a planned u-turn ramp west of I-89.

Curious how many interstates have such a feature.
I-278 NJ had one for a long time during Goethals Bridge reconstruction to detour a closed ramp.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on March 18, 2021, 08:28:12 PM
There was a public Zoom meeting tonight on the I-89 study, which I attended.  While the intention of tonight's meeting was on the metrics being used to evaluate the alternatives, there were a number of interchange-specific comments at tonight's meeting relating to specific alternatives.  I made some comments myself and also learned a few things:


They are accepting Email comments through Monday at the email on the Envision89 website.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: bluecountry on April 07, 2021, 10:00:02 PM
Was surprised I-91, how at Brattleboro, while not crowded, volume picks up significantly.
Any reason why?
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Rothman on April 07, 2021, 10:19:35 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on April 07, 2021, 10:00:02 PM
Was surprised I-91, how at Brattleboro, while not crowded, volume picks up significantly.
Any reason why?
MA people shopping up yonder.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on April 08, 2021, 09:48:11 AM
Not sure what they're getting in Brattleboro that they can't get in Greenfield.

The funny thing about that statement is that I-91 average traffic volumes are similar both north and south of Brattleboro, though there is a slight drop at Exit 4 (Putney).  There are more notable drops at Hanover, Bradford, and Lyndonville.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: DJDBVT on April 10, 2021, 01:46:07 AM
Quote from: froggie on April 08, 2021, 09:48:11 AM
Not sure what they're getting in Brattleboro that they can't get in Greenfield.

Most likely a quicker route to sales tax-free NH. Walmart, liquor stores, etc.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Rothman on April 10, 2021, 04:37:33 AM
Quote from: froggie on April 08, 2021, 09:48:11 AM
Not sure what they're getting in Brattleboro that they can't get in Greenfield.

The funny thing about that statement is that I-91 average traffic volumes are similar both north and south of Brattleboro, though there is a slight drop at Exit 4 (Putney).  There are more notable drops at Hanover, Bradford, and Lyndonville.
Pfft.  As someone who grew up in western MA, people would head up there every now and then because they had a couple of outlet stores and sometimes, cheaper cars.

Greenfield didn't have anything northern Northampton didn't already have (especially comparing to what Greenfield has around I-91)...and then Northampton's downtown strip was always more vibrant (or, at least revitalized in the mid-1980s while Greenfield still limped along -- psychologically, getting to downtown Greenfield also felt like a longer trip off the beaten path as well, which didn't help).  I know Greenfield is now bemoaning the demise of their beloved Wilson's -- the family owned department store in their downtown -- but, that lasted a couple of decades longer than it should have due to local fervor and local government support (I believe outright subsidies).

Short of it is that even though Northampton, Greenfield and Brattleboro are similar dots on the map, they are three distinct communities in terms of their economies and shopping options.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Stephane Dumas on April 27, 2021, 01:41:45 PM
I saw this little goof from Vermont DOT.  Looks like VT-207 along with VT-235 was promoted to US highways. ;)
https://www.google.com/maps/@45.0068108,-72.9794095,3a,75y,236.07h,90.39t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sErriVu_s3yniS4rUjP46ZQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Alps on April 27, 2021, 06:53:15 PM
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on April 27, 2021, 01:41:45 PM
I saw this little goof from Vermont DOT.  Looks like VT-207 along with VT-235 was promoted to US highways. ;)
https://www.google.com/maps/@45.0068108,-72.9794095,3a,75y,236.07h,90.39t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sErriVu_s3yniS4rUjP46ZQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
quiet, you're ruining my next site update! :D
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on April 27, 2021, 11:38:43 PM
Also mentioned elsewhere (and perhaps on this forum too) years ago.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: yakra on April 28, 2021, 10:37:45 AM
Quote from: Alps on April 27, 2021, 06:53:15 PM
quiet, you're ruining my next site update! :D
LOL, you said siteupdate (https://github.com/TravelMapping/DataProcessing/blob/master/siteupdate/python-teresco/siteupdate.py).
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: webfil on May 06, 2021, 01:01:49 PM
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on April 27, 2021, 01:41:45 PM
I saw this little goof from Vermont DOT.  Looks like VT-207 along with VT-235 was promoted to US highways. ;)

It's not a VtDOT goof; VT-235 is maintained by the town of Franklin for its whole length. From my many bike trips there, I remember most (if not all) the 207 and 235 signs being all in US-highway style in Franklin, while in Highgate, the trailblazers are signed correctly.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: shadyjay on May 06, 2021, 04:00:15 PM
There are several routes statewide that are town-maintained and have unique markers (or old school circle markers).  There's one at the western end of Route 121 at the south end of Bellows Falls, and in Burlington there used to be some US 127 shields at the south end of the Beltline.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on May 06, 2021, 09:09:48 PM
^ "US 127" shields still existed in the Old North End as of about a year ago.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: abqtraveler on May 18, 2021, 09:23:56 AM
I just bought my 2022 Rand McNally Road Atlas. Of particular note, it now shows exit numbers on all of Vermont's highways as mileage-based. My understanding is that Vermont now has added "Milepoint Exit" numbers on placards below exit signs, but still keeps the existing sequential numbers on the exit tabs. I'm guessing that Rand McNally is leaning forward a bit in giving Vermont credit for converting to the mile-based exit numbering scheme?
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on May 18, 2021, 10:53:21 AM
More or less.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: shadyjay on May 18, 2021, 11:07:26 AM
They did that with the Circ one, saying it was under construction from Williston north to Essex. Next year it was removed. 
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: abqtraveler on May 18, 2021, 12:04:15 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on May 18, 2021, 11:07:26 AM
They did that with the Circ one, saying it was under construction from Williston north to Essex. Next year it was removed.

If I recall correctly, back in the early 2000s, VTRANS actually started construction to complete the Circ, but that construction was shut down by lawsuits brought on by highway opponents. The judge at the time ruled that the original EIS was outdated and had to be redone before construction could resume. By the time the new EIS was published in 2011, the governor announced the cancellation of the Circ.

But back to construction in the early 2000s, they got as far as clearing out trees in portions of the ROW before the project was shut down by the judge's ruling.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: roadman65 on September 08, 2021, 08:06:41 PM
😯! It's about time. Vtrans not only have much better guide signs on VT 9 at I-91, but better controls for I-91.  No more " Massachusetts"  for I-91 SB and Putney, VT for I-91 NB!

The state name and considering Putney is in the same state, putting Vt with it was not needed. However Springfield and White River are more appropriate control cities anyway.  Though I am surprised Springfield is closer to Brattleboro than White River as the WB guide on VT 9 lists the mileages as they did not erect a gantry in that direction.

Anyway, those old ones needed updating for a while.  Too bad they don't create a Business Route 9 and have VT 9 concur with I-91 from exits 2 to 3. They still have a Keene, NH sign going EB with a TO VT 9 posted. Why not do that?
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: FlatlanderinVT on September 09, 2021, 07:56:48 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on September 08, 2021, 08:06:41 PM
😯! It's about time. Vtrans not only have much better guide signs on VT 9 at I-91, but better controls for I-91.  No more " Massachusetts"  for I-91 SB and Putney, VT for I-91 NB!

The state name and considering Putney is in the same state, putting Vt with it was not needed. However Springfield and White River are more appropriate control cities anyway.  Though I am surprised Springfield is closer to Brattleboro than White River as the WB guide on VT 9 lists the mileages as they did not erect a gantry in that direction.

Anyway, those old ones needed updating for a while.  Too bad they don't create a Business Route 9 and have VT 9 concur with I-91 from exits 2 to 3. They still have a Keene, NH sign going EB with a TO VT 9 posted. Why not do that?

Living in the very southern part of Vermont I drive to Brattleboro extremely often and right through this interchange. I guess I do it so frequently that I didn't even pay attention to this change. 

Interesting that you mention VT-9 running concurrent with I-91 from there to Exit 3. It made me think that off the top of my head I can't think of a single instance of a state route being concurrent on any of the interstates in Vermont. I'm not sure if it is just a coincidence or if there is some reason for it. I suppose there are actually very few instances like this one where it would make sense of course but it is something interesting to ponder.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: shadyjay on September 10, 2021, 04:30:22 PM
To I-91 motorists, VT 9 West is accessed off Exit 2 and VT 9 East is Exit 3.  You wouldn't necessarily get off Exit 2 and go east on VT 9 to NH 9 to Keene.  You could, but it would be time consuming and unnecessary. 

There is not a case of any state or US route multiplexing with an interstate in Vermont.  In fact, that is almost the case with the entire length of I-91, except for about 1/4 mile distance in south Springfield, MA where US 5 hops on, but doesn't get out of the far right operational lane. 

If there was a case for a concurrency, then VT 9 in Brattleboro would be it.  But it still is signed officially through downtown.  Prior to the Exit 2 signs being replaced, they did read " 9 WEST ".  Now they just read "9", but they kept the supplemental "To 9 EAST/Keene/Use Exit 3". 
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Rothman on September 10, 2021, 11:54:42 PM
Isn't US 20 concurrent with I-91 for a short while as well?
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: jp the roadgeek on September 11, 2021, 12:26:36 AM
Quote from: Rothman on September 10, 2021, 11:54:42 PM
Isn't US 20 concurrent with I-91 for a short while as well?
Not quite.  It runs on frontage roads along I-91, but never joins the mainline.  It is, however, concurrent with I-291 west of Exit 4.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: vdeane on September 26, 2021, 10:57:27 PM
So, having seen milepoint exit numbers firsthand today, I'm even less sure how FHWA approved this in lieu of actually converting.  They're signed even less frequently than former exit numbers are (only one per interchange per direction), and VTrans isn't wholly consistent about placement, either.  It's the last sign prior to the gore more often than not, but exceptions are frequent enough that this cannot be relied upon.  It is in no way possible to navigate to an exit with the milepoint number - it's quite clear that VTrans just did the minimum necessary to get FHWA off their backs in the hope that the conversion mandate will just go away before the 2030 proper switch timetable they gave FHWA comes around (given that they were originally going to convert last year before this milepoint thing happened, I'm not holding my breath).  It's a shame - Vermont is absolutely perfect for mile-based exit numbers and it would make gauging distances on the interstate much easier (they at least have regularly posted distance signs with a nice system of using the next exit and next major control city, but that requires doing math relative to the milemarkers).  One thing is certain - Rand McNally should not have used the milepoint numbers in their atlases.

I also went to the travel service center off exit 7.  Overall it struck me as similar to a Sheetz or Wawa but with paper slips instead of touch screens.  That said, it's a very strange system to order and pay for hot "MTO" food.  You need to grab and fill out a slip and give it to the clerk.  Nobody tells you this, so if the clerk notices you they end up grabbing it for you and you fill it out in front of them.  Then you need to ask them for a printed slip (similar to what Sheetz and Wawa print off the ordering machines), because they won't just give it to you, even though they are necessary to pay for the order!  I only found out when I got to the cash register with my food and was told that I needed a slip that nobody gave me and had no way of knowing about.  Overall, despite being a "traveler service center", it seems to be geared more towards locals than travelers.  They even have some grocery items like frozen food.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: 5foot14 on September 27, 2021, 10:39:39 AM
Quote from: vdeane on September 26, 2021, 10:57:27 PM
So, having seen milepoint exit numbers firsthand today, I'm even less sure how FHWA approved this in lieu of actually converting.  They're signed even less frequently than former exit numbers are (only one per interchange per direction), and VTrans isn't wholly consistent about placement, either.  It's the last sign prior to the gore more often than not, but exceptions are frequent enough that this cannot be relied upon.  It is in no way possible to navigate to an exit with the milepoint number - it's quite clear that VTrans just did the minimum necessary to get FHWA off their backs in the hope that the conversion mandate will just go away before the 2030 proper switch timetable they gave FHWA comes around (given that they were originally going to convert last year before this milepoint thing happened, I'm not holding my breath).  It's a shame - Vermont is absolutely perfect for mile-based exit numbers and it would make gauging distances on the interstate much easier (they at least have regularly posted distance signs with a nice system of using the next exit and next major control city, but that requires doing math relative to the milemarkers).  One thing is certain - Rand McNally should not have used the milepoint numbers in their atlases.

I also went to the travel service center off exit 7.  Overall it struck me as similar to a Sheetz or Wawa but with paper slips instead of touch screens.  That said, it's a very strange system to order and pay for hot "MTO" food.  You need to grab and fill out a slip and give it to the clerk.  Nobody tells you this, so if the clerk notices you they end up grabbing it for you and you fill it out in front of them.  Then you need to ask them for a printed slip (similar to what Sheetz and Wawa print off the ordering machines), because they won't just give it to you, even though they are necessary to pay for the order!  I only found out when I got to the cash register with my food and was told that I needed a slip that nobody gave me and had no way of knowing about.  Overall, despite being a "traveler service center", it seems to be geared more towards locals than travelers.  They even have some grocery items like frozen food.
I took a trip up 89 to Waterbury a few weeks ago, and I agree the milepoint numbers are completely useless. Maybe if they had put them on more than one of the advance exit signs and the gore signs they might be useful but as is they just aren't. Also the font is too small to be read from a distance. I can't believe FHWA signed off on that...

SM-A515U

Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: abqtraveler on September 28, 2021, 09:02:47 AM
Quote from: 5foot14 on September 27, 2021, 10:39:39 AM
Quote from: vdeane on September 26, 2021, 10:57:27 PM
So, having seen milepoint exit numbers firsthand today, I'm even less sure how FHWA approved this in lieu of actually converting.  They're signed even less frequently than former exit numbers are (only one per interchange per direction), and VTrans isn't wholly consistent about placement, either.  It's the last sign prior to the gore more often than not, but exceptions are frequent enough that this cannot be relied upon.  It is in no way possible to navigate to an exit with the milepoint number - it's quite clear that VTrans just did the minimum necessary to get FHWA off their backs in the hope that the conversion mandate will just go away before the 2030 proper switch timetable they gave FHWA comes around (given that they were originally going to convert last year before this milepoint thing happened, I'm not holding my breath).  It's a shame - Vermont is absolutely perfect for mile-based exit numbers and it would make gauging distances on the interstate much easier (they at least have regularly posted distance signs with a nice system of using the next exit and next major control city, but that requires doing math relative to the milemarkers).  One thing is certain - Rand McNally should not have used the milepoint numbers in their atlases.

I also went to the travel service center off exit 7.  Overall it struck me as similar to a Sheetz or Wawa but with paper slips instead of touch screens.  That said, it's a very strange system to order and pay for hot "MTO" food.  You need to grab and fill out a slip and give it to the clerk.  Nobody tells you this, so if the clerk notices you they end up grabbing it for you and you fill it out in front of them.  Then you need to ask them for a printed slip (similar to what Sheetz and Wawa print off the ordering machines), because they won't just give it to you, even though they are necessary to pay for the order!  I only found out when I got to the cash register with my food and was told that I needed a slip that nobody gave me and had no way of knowing about.  Overall, despite being a "traveler service center", it seems to be geared more towards locals than travelers.  They even have some grocery items like frozen food.
I took a trip up 89 to Waterbury a few weeks ago, and I agree the milepoint numbers are completely useless. Maybe if they had put them on more than one of the advance exit signs and the gore signs they might be useful but as is they just aren't. Also the font is too small to be read from a distance. I can't believe FHWA signed off on that...

SM-A515U
Which is why I think Rand McNally jumped the gun in labeling Vermont's exits as mile-based in their 2022 Road Atlas. I'm curious as to whether Rand McNally will backpedal and revert to sequential exits for its 2023 atlas, as the milepoint exit numbers are not prominently displayed on all guide signs.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Mdcastle on September 28, 2021, 07:45:43 PM
Did Vermont use the color yellow for their highway signs for a time after the demise of the New England route numbering system?
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: kramie13 on October 18, 2021, 02:44:10 PM
Quote from: vdeane on September 26, 2021, 10:57:27 PM
So, having seen milepoint exit numbers firsthand today, I'm even less sure how FHWA approved this in lieu of actually converting.  They're signed even less frequently than former exit numbers are (only one per interchange per direction), and VTrans isn't wholly consistent about placement, either.  It's the last sign prior to the gore more often than not, but exceptions are frequent enough that this cannot be relied upon.

I was in VT a couple of weeks ago and found it rather jarring that instead of a full-fledged exit number conversion like Massachusetts did, each exit on I-89 and I-91 had "milepoint exit xx" on random exit signs.  Sometimes they were at the 1 mile sign, other times at the sign with the exit arrow (not the gore, but the one with the route number).

Also, on I-89, if you travel north from NH, the first exit is for I-91, but that interchange is not numbered, then the 2nd exit after crossing the state line on I-89 is in fact, exit 1.  Why is this?
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on October 18, 2021, 03:02:28 PM
In the early Interstate days, exit numbers were not required at Interstate-to-Interstate junctions.  Some were later added (such as I-91 having exit numbers at I-89).  Others weren't.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: shadyjay on October 19, 2021, 09:31:55 PM
Found this still in the wild a couple weeks ago, off US 4 West at Exit 5...

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51574360486_0871a97ddb_4k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2mzs5xQ)US4WB-Exit05-ramp (https://flic.kr/p/2mzs5xQ) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

...this sign harkens back to when there were extruded aluminum signs at offramps (they lasted on I-91 north of WRJ into the 2000s).  Also back then, onramps had large extruded signs as well, similar to CT's highway onramps.  Starting in the 90s, onramp signs were changed to sheet aluminum signs and most of the extruded ones came down, except where overhead (and even some overhead ones came down, or where replaced).

And there's still that lone button copy sign still up just south of US 4 on a side road adjacent to US 7, despite other signs replaced in the area.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Alps on October 19, 2021, 10:54:40 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on October 19, 2021, 09:31:55 PM
And there's still that lone button copy sign still up just south of US 4 on a side road adjacent to US 7, despite other signs replaced in the area.
¿perdon?
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: shadyjay on October 20, 2021, 05:05:51 PM
Quote from: Alps on October 19, 2021, 10:54:40 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on October 19, 2021, 09:31:55 PM
And there's still that lone button copy sign still up just south of US 4 on a side road adjacent to US 7, despite other signs replaced in the area.
¿perdon?

This little guy...

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.5751198,-72.9665481,3a,90y,243.84h,80.19t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4To8KSiMcHXeimA5hidyBQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Alps on October 20, 2021, 05:38:42 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on October 20, 2021, 05:05:51 PM
Quote from: Alps on October 19, 2021, 10:54:40 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on October 19, 2021, 09:31:55 PM
And there's still that lone button copy sign still up just south of US 4 on a side road adjacent to US 7, despite other signs replaced in the area.
¿perdon?

This little guy...

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.5751198,-72.9665481,3a,90y,243.84h,80.19t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4To8KSiMcHXeimA5hidyBQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
We call those "jughandles"
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: shadyjay on October 20, 2021, 05:49:29 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.5751198,-72.9665481,3a,15y,258.72h,89.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4To8KSiMcHXeimA5hidyBQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

We call this extremely rare in VT.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on October 20, 2021, 11:13:17 PM
Probably the only one of its kind.  Fairly certain the jughandles on 2 between 89 and the lake are not signed as such.  I know the jughandles on 15 near Camp Johnson aren't...
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Dougtone on November 05, 2021, 01:45:30 PM
The Brookfield Floating Bridge on VT 65 closes for the season today, so I decided to write a blog article about the history of the floating bridge.

http://www.gribblenation.org/2021/11/brookfield-floating-bridge-vermont.html
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on April 26, 2022, 10:58:30 PM
WPTZ is reporting (https://www.mynbc5.com/article/champlain-causeway-to-begin-construction-in-july/39829593#) that the Champlain Parkway will begin construction in July.  The Burlington City Council unanimously approved construction in their meeting yesterday.  As noted elsewhere in the forum, the project will utilize and extend the abandoned I-189 spur west of US 7 up to Lakeshore Ave as a 2-lane parkway.  The project also includes reconstruction of Lakeshore Ave and Pine St.  The first phase (the spur extension) is expected to be completed in 2024 with the entire project completed in 2027.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Alps on April 26, 2022, 11:49:42 PM
Quote from: froggie on April 26, 2022, 10:58:30 PM
WPTZ is reporting (https://www.mynbc5.com/article/champlain-causeway-to-begin-construction-in-july/39829593#) that the Champlain Parkway will begin construction in July.  The Burlington City Council unanimously approved construction in their meeting yesterday.  As noted elsewhere in the forum, the project will utilize and extend the abandoned I-189 spur west of US 7 up to Lakeshore Ave as a 2-lane parkway.  The project also includes reconstruction of Lakeshore Ave and Pine St.  The first phase (the spur extension) is expected to be completed in 2024 with the entire project completed in 2027.

Dear roadgeeks, walk it now.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Alps on April 26, 2022, 11:51:19 PM
Quote from: froggie on April 26, 2022, 10:58:30 PM
WPTZ is reporting (https://www.mynbc5.com/article/champlain-causeway-to-begin-construction-in-july/39829593#) that the Champlain Parkway will begin construction in July.  The Burlington City Council unanimously approved construction in their meeting yesterday.  As noted elsewhere in the forum, the project will utilize and extend the abandoned I-189 spur west of US 7 up to Lakeshore Ave as a 2-lane parkway.  The project also includes reconstruction of Lakeshore Ave and Pine St.  The first phase (the spur extension) is expected to be completed in 2024 with the entire project completed in 2027.

But also, if it's supposed to connect the South End to downtown, why isn't the 2nd phase going to extend it...? No one's written what's in each phase
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on April 27, 2022, 12:43:47 AM
It's on the project website.  First phase is extending the spur up to Lakeshore Ave.  Second phase is reconstructing Pine St between Lakeshore and downtown (Main St).  The spur itself will not extend beyond Lakeshore Ave.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: MATraveler128 on April 27, 2022, 06:38:43 AM
So how will this reach downtown without demolishing buildings? There's an athletics center and a city market in the way. I'm guessing that this will face opposition from the residents there once again?
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on April 27, 2022, 09:11:08 AM
It's not reaching downtown, not as a separate route anyway...there's a Superfund site with significant soil contamination between Lakeshore Ave and the rail yard (the former Pine Street Barge Canal).  Pine St will be used to get downtown, hence why Pine St reconstruction is part of the project.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on April 27, 2022, 09:20:47 AM
Meanwhile, VTrans posted on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/VTransontheroad/photos/a.310679515637325/5233087176729843) that the VT 65 Floating Bridge in Brookfield is back open for the season.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Great Lakes Roads on May 31, 2022, 06:33:21 PM
https://www.wcax.com/2022/05/31/exit-16-diverging-diamond-project-soon-break-ground/

It's about time!
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on June 01, 2022, 08:14:55 AM
I'll believe it when it actually happens.  R.L. Vallee has been fighting it tooth and nail because their gas stations would then have to compete with Costco.  The opening of gas pumps at the nearby Costco is hingent upon the DDI and related construction.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: abqtraveler on June 01, 2022, 09:51:41 AM
Does VTrans still plan to complete the south leg of the Bennington Bypass, or is that project dead?  I haven't seen or heard anything on it in years.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: MATraveler128 on June 01, 2022, 12:15:55 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on June 01, 2022, 09:51:41 AM
Does VTrans still plan to complete the south leg of the Bennington Bypass, or is that project dead?  I haven't seen or heard anything on it in years.

Looks like it is still in the planning stages as of now. I haven't seen any news about it since 2012.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: cl94 on June 01, 2022, 03:28:50 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on June 01, 2022, 12:15:55 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on June 01, 2022, 09:51:41 AM
Does VTrans still plan to complete the south leg of the Bennington Bypass, or is that project dead?  I haven't seen or heard anything on it in years.

Looks like it is still in the planning stages as of now. I haven't seen any news about it since 2012.

I wouldn't call it dead, but it's definitely not a priority.

It's not like VAOT has a ton of spare cash lying around to build it given the other projects they need just to keep existing roads open. The other two legs were far more important.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: jcroyer80 on June 03, 2022, 12:06:07 PM
Quote from: froggie on June 01, 2022, 08:14:55 AM
I'll believe it when it actually happens.  R.L. Vallee has been fighting it tooth and nail because their gas stations would then have to compete with Costco.  The opening of gas pumps at the nearby Costco is hingent upon the DDI and related construction.

Correct. Though it does seem promising.  Vtrans put the first phase out to bid (mostly for utility work) but rejected all the initial bids.  The plan seems to be to put it out to bid again in the fall.  Costco does have their pumps open, but only during "non-peak" hours.  During the times Costco has the pumps open, Skip's gas station matches the Costco prices.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: roadman65 on June 15, 2022, 10:18:28 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/uad1WAwR26KAQBQC8
This is interesting how VTrans signs milepost exits.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: shadyjay on June 16, 2022, 06:05:04 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on June 15, 2022, 10:18:28 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/uad1WAwR26KAQBQC8
This is interesting how VTrans signs milepost exits.

I believe this was a temporary compromise by VTrans to get people used to seeing the mileposted exit numbers.  Rand McNally jumped the gun and has posted exit numbers in Vermont using the "milepoint" numbers, even though the sequential numbers are still the primary numbers. 

The VTrans site is here:
https://vtrans.vermont.gov/projects/exit-numbering

I believe another reason was they just didn't want to replace the signs.  Well, they could've just overlayed the numbers instead of having to make all the "milepoint exit #" signs they put up (granted only 1 per interchange, but still).  VT only has a dozen or so (if that) overhead signs with exit numbers, so adding overlays wouldn't have been that much more expensive... the feds payed for it anyway!
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: SectorZ on June 17, 2022, 08:06:52 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on June 16, 2022, 06:05:04 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on June 15, 2022, 10:18:28 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/uad1WAwR26KAQBQC8
This is interesting how VTrans signs milepost exits.

I believe this was a temporary compromise by VTrans to get people used to seeing the mileposted exit numbers.  Rand McNally jumped the gun and has posted exit numbers in Vermont using the "milepoint" numbers, even though the sequential numbers are still the primary numbers. 

The VTrans site is here:
https://vtrans.vermont.gov/projects/exit-numbering

I believe another reason was they just didn't want to replace the signs.  Well, they could've just overlayed the numbers instead of having to make all the "milepoint exit #" signs they put up (granted only 1 per interchange, but still).  VT only has a dozen or so (if that) overhead signs with exit numbers, so adding overlays wouldn't have been that much more expensive... the feds payed for it anyway!

I was confused by something on the link. VT says the feds are paying 100% for the "milepoint exit #" signs. Notwithstanding that they should probably not be paying for them at all, I thought the feds only paid 90% for the changes, like in Massachusetts and Rhode Island. MassDOT in any releases claimed a $2.8M cost, 90% paid by the feds.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on June 17, 2022, 09:54:35 AM
There are a few limited categories where FHWA will reimburse 100%.  Perhaps VTrans tapped one of those when they came to the agreement with FHWA.

Digging back through news articles at the time of installation, the signs cost about $250K.  Far less than MassDOT's cost, though Massachusetts also has a lot more interchanges than Vermont does.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: The Ghostbuster on June 17, 2022, 11:06:42 AM
Now if only neighboring New Hampshire Governor Chris Sununu would stop resisting and allow his state to convert to mileage-based exits as well. Unfortunately, he is too wound up in pride and nostalgia over being an "Exit 3"  kid. There must be another way to overcome his opposition.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on June 17, 2022, 11:10:15 AM
I bet his opposition softens when FHWA starts withholding Federal highway funding...something they are legally enabled to do under the Federal laws related to the MUTCD.  Though I have not heard of any timeline for FHWA to actually start penalizing the remaining sequential states.

The threat of such is the only reason why Vermont negotiated with FWHA for these "Milepost Exit" signs as a temporary stopgap.  VTrans had been bitterly opposed to changing over beforehand.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: vdeane on June 17, 2022, 12:49:12 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 17, 2022, 11:06:42 AM
Now if only neighboring New Hampshire Governor Chris Sununu would stop resisting and allow his state to convert to mileage-based exits as well. Unfortunately, he is too wound up in pride and nostalgia over being an "Exit 3"  kid. There must be another way to overcome his opposition.
Technically there's no "as well".  What Vermont has done hardly counts as a conversion.  There's only one sign per exit, usually on the last one in each direction before the gore.  You can't navigate off them.

Quote from: froggie on June 17, 2022, 11:10:15 AM
I bet his opposition softens when FHWA starts withholding Federal highway funding...something they are legally enabled to do under the Federal laws related to the MUTCD.  Though I have not heard of any timeline for FHWA to actually start penalizing the remaining sequential states.

The threat of such is the only reason why Vermont negotiated with FWHA for these "Milepost Exit" signs as a temporary stopgap.  VTrans had been bitterly opposed to changing over beforehand.

Which is odd, given that the distance between exits makes VT perfect for mile-based numbers.  I think I remember something about the next round of sign rehabs doing a proper conversion (~2030), so I guess we'll see if that actually happens.  I'm still not sure why FHWA went along with this, given that the signage as installed isn't useful for navigation.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: astralentity on June 17, 2022, 09:03:11 PM
Noticed today on the way to Williston two things going on:

New light installed at US 7 and Old Hollow Road in Ferrisburgh.

Repaving on VT 22A between VT 144 in Benson and VT 73 in Orwell.  Any specifics on this project?  I heard that repaving is planned for most of VT 22A between Fair Haven and Shoreham.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: jcroyer80 on June 21, 2022, 05:10:52 PM
Quote from: astralentity on June 17, 2022, 09:03:11 PM
Noticed today on the way to Williston two things going on:

New light installed at US 7 and Old Hollow Road in Ferrisburgh.

Repaving on VT 22A between VT 144 in Benson and VT 73 in Orwell.  Any specifics on this project?  I heard that repaving is planned for most of VT 22A between Fair Haven and Shoreham.

Repaving project is for about 15 miles from Fair Haven to Orwell (and including a small section of 22A south of Fair Haven to the NY border.   Vtrans is in the planning stages for a full reconstruction of 22A from Orwell to West Haven which will increase the travel lanes from 10 to 11 feet in width and increase the shoulders from 2 feet to 6 feet on each side (similar to the recent project in Charlotte.)
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: jcroyer80 on June 22, 2022, 09:16:49 AM
Work on the Champlain Parkway in Burlington  has begun.

https://www.wcax.com/2022/06/21/construction-resumes-burlingtons-champlain-parkway-after-30-plus-years/
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on August 26, 2022, 10:55:42 PM
Per the project website (https://www.exit16ddi.vtransprojects.vermont.gov/), the first of two contracts to build Vermont's first DDI was awarded earlier this week.  As mentioned upthread (this has been in development for years), the project will convert I-89 Exit 16 (US 2/US 7/Colchester) into a DDI and also includes improvements at nearby intersections along US 2/7.  The first contract involves utility work and retaining wall construction.  The bulk of the road work is planned for the second contract to be awarded later.  Project completion is expected in 2025.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: dkblake on November 03, 2022, 08:46:37 PM
Signage question- anyone know when the Essex town boundary signs are going to be converted to specify Essex Junction or Essex Town, and when Essex Town/Essex Junction boundary signage is going to be posted? (I'm also curious if the signs will say Essex Junction or Essex City.) I drive through Essex/Essex Junction a fair bit and have been looking out for them but haven't seen them yet.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on November 03, 2022, 10:50:52 PM
^ As I understand it, the city's name is Essex Junction, so I would hazard a bet that's what the signs will say.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: dkblake on November 04, 2022, 07:26:16 PM
It is, but there are some governmental things that use "Essex City"- if I'm not mistaken, people from Essex Junction on the primary ballots this year had their home location listed as Essex City. I assume the signs will say Essex Junction, but that's why I'm curious if they'll use Essex City when the signs get erected.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Roadgeekteen on February 20, 2023, 04:30:36 AM
Can someone tell me more about the US 4 freeway? I've always wondered what it's purpose is. I looked it up and apparently it's part of a larger, cancelled project but IDK. Does it get enough traffic to justify it's upgrades? Seems like it just connects Rutland with nothing really, and it dead ends US 20 in Wisconsin style at the state line.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: MATraveler128 on February 20, 2023, 08:51:39 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on February 20, 2023, 04:30:36 AM
Can someone tell me more about the US 4 freeway? I've always wondered what it's purpose is. I looked it up and apparently it's part of a larger, cancelled project but IDK. Does it get enough traffic to justify it's upgrades? Seems like it just connects Rutland with nothing really, and it dead ends US 20 in Wisconsin style at the state line.

It helps people get from upstate New York to Central Vermont quicker, which probably helped with traffic on the 2 lane roads. I actually wonder if this was in anticipation of a potential "I-92"  across Northern New England.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on February 20, 2023, 09:05:41 AM
^ It predates the "I-92" concept, which was studied in depth (but not with the actual 92 number) across Northern New England in the early 1970s.  Though it stands to mention that the state of Vermont did want an Interstate along the corridor as early as 1945.

In the 1960s, Rutland and the nearby skiing/tourism spots (namely Killington) were growing faster than expected...this is in no small part why the US 4 freeway was built.  New York didn't agree, which is why the freeway ends as it does near the state line.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: shadyjay on February 20, 2023, 04:40:00 PM
The few times I've taken US 4 in NY between the VT line and the Northway, there really isn't much between those two points to slow up traffic... outside of probably Whitehall itself and the light at Glens Falls.  In between those points its pretty much a 55 MPH road (with some exceptions).  The section in Vermont passes through Fair Haven, Castleton, and Center Rutland which are more "built up" and prone to more 30-40 mph speeds than in NY. 

Its the same with US 11 across the "rooftop" in NY where an interstate has been talked about for awhile.  Is one really needed?  Probably not, as its 55 MPH most of the way, slowing down in the handful of towns along the way.  The road is pretty straight with multiple opportunities for passing.  (Though I think an interstate in that area is meant more to spur economic development than to relieve congestion). 

Back to Rt 4, it would be nice if it looped around Rutland to rejoin Woodstock Rd on the "edge of development" just as you start climbing up to Killington, and in NY, if there was a bypass around Glens Falls or a more direct connection with the Northway.  In a perfect world, it would be a freeway from the NY/VT line all the way to the Northway, but its not, so we have to deal with what we have, for now.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: The Ghostbuster on February 20, 2023, 08:13:02 PM
Any eastern extension of the US 4 freeway would not only require the demolition of the Diamond Run Mall but would also run through Aitken State and Rutland City Forests (which would make any route unconstructable). Also, what is the terrain like in the forementioned forests like? Would they be a barrier to theoretically constructing a US 4 eastward freeway (or any roadway) extension? Also, it seems like getting a US 4 westward freeway extension to Interstate 87 would be quite difficult to construct (which is probably why it doesn't exist). Forests and mountains are probably also the reason why the US 7 expressway ends in East Dorset, and doesn't continue past Rutland.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: shadyjay on February 20, 2023, 08:43:00 PM
Actually, with US 7, the valley is pretty wide up to Dorset.  The only major town center along the way is Wallingford (and S. Wallingford), but outside of that, you very well could have fit in a 4-lane.  Which brings up the question, what was the reasoning behind a 4-lane expressway from Rutland south to Wallingford?  There isn't much traffic once you get south of VT 103, definitely not enough to warrant 4 lanes.  How did this section get 4 lanes, while the section from N Bennington to Manchester stay a "Super 2"?
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: MATraveler128 on February 20, 2023, 09:04:19 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 20, 2023, 08:13:02 PM
Any eastern extension of the US 4 freeway would not only require the demolition of the Diamond Run Mall but would also run through Aitken State and Rutland City Forests (which would make any route unconstructable). Also, what is the terrain like in the forementioned forests like? Would they be a barrier to theoretically constructing a US 4 eastward freeway (or any roadway) extension? Also, it seems like getting a US 4 westward freeway extension to Interstate 87 would be quite difficult to construct (which is probably why it doesn't exist). Forests and mountains are probably also the reason why the US 7 expressway ends in East Dorset, and doesn't continue past Rutland.

Actually, the Diamond Run Mall closed down a few years ago, so it could theoretically be demolished, but the aforementioned environmental costs are exactly why it hasn't and won't be extended not to mention VTrans doesn't have that kind of money.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: vdeane on February 20, 2023, 09:25:01 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on February 20, 2023, 04:40:00 PM
The few times I've taken US 4 in NY between the VT line and the Northway, there really isn't much between those two points to slow up traffic... outside of probably Whitehall itself and the light at Glens Falls.  In between those points its pretty much a 55 MPH road (with some exceptions).  The section in Vermont passes through Fair Haven, Castleton, and Center Rutland which are more "built up" and prone to more 30-40 mph speeds than in NY. 

Its the same with US 11 across the "rooftop" in NY where an interstate has been talked about for awhile.  Is one really needed?  Probably not, as its 55 MPH most of the way, slowing down in the handful of towns along the way.  The road is pretty straight with multiple opportunities for passing.  (Though I think an interstate in that area is meant more to spur economic development than to relieve congestion). 

Back to Rt 4, it would be nice if it looped around Rutland to rejoin Woodstock Rd on the "edge of development" just as you start climbing up to Killington, and in NY, if there was a bypass around Glens Falls or a more direct connection with the Northway.  In a perfect world, it would be a freeway from the NY/VT line all the way to the Northway, but its not, so we have to deal with what we have, for now.
Have you ever driven on the US 4/NY 149 corridor, especially during tourist season?  Fort Ann backs up to the point where it routinely takes several light cycles to get through, as does the whole strip where NY 149 overlaps US 9 near exit 20.  The rest of the corridor is characterized by long lines of cars traveling at the pace of the slowest driver.

Interesting that you mention US 11... I used to think that road was bad (to be fair, it's not fun when people are arriving/leaving the area colleges), but it's nothing compared to the major corridors connecting NY to VT.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: abqtraveler on March 13, 2023, 04:08:54 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on February 20, 2023, 09:04:19 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 20, 2023, 08:13:02 PM
Any eastern extension of the US 4 freeway would not only require the demolition of the Diamond Run Mall but would also run through Aitken State and Rutland City Forests (which would make any route unconstructable). Also, what is the terrain like in the forementioned forests like? Would they be a barrier to theoretically constructing a US 4 eastward freeway (or any roadway) extension? Also, it seems like getting a US 4 westward freeway extension to Interstate 87 would be quite difficult to construct (which is probably why it doesn't exist). Forests and mountains are probably also the reason why the US 7 expressway ends in East Dorset, and doesn't continue past Rutland.

Actually, the Diamond Run Mall closed down a few years ago, so it could theoretically be demolished, but the aforementioned environmental costs are exactly why it hasn't and won't be extended not to mention VTrans doesn't have that kind of money.
There are not really any feasible options to build a freeway for US-4 across the Green Mountains without spending a huge amount of money and causing a lot of environmental damage. Tunneling through the Green Mountains would have less impact on the environment, but the shear cost of a 20-30 mile long tunnel would be cost prohibitive.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: roadman65 on March 22, 2023, 04:42:16 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/hq2ur5LCQbuWcZCcA
Vermonts answer to signing milebased exit numbers. Just have the sequential exit numbers and mile based numbers both coexist.

Real cheesy I must say.

:bigass:
Quote from: abqtraveler on March 13, 2023, 04:08:54 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on February 20, 2023, 09:04:19 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 20, 2023, 08:13:02 PM
Any eastern extension of the US 4 freeway would not only require the demolition of the Diamond Run Mall but would also run through Aitken State and Rutland City Forests (which would make any route unconstructable). Also, what is the terrain like in the forementioned forests like? Would they be a barrier to theoretically constructing a US 4 eastward freeway (or any roadway) extension? Also, it seems like getting a US 4 westward freeway extension to Interstate 87 would be quite difficult to construct (which is probably why it doesn't exist). Forests and mountains are probably also the reason why the US 7 expressway ends in East Dorset, and doesn't continue past Rutland.

Actually, the Diamond Run Mall closed down a few years ago, so it could theoretically be demolished, but the aforementioned environmental costs are exactly why it hasn't and won't be extended not to mention VTrans doesn't have that kind  of money.
There are not really any feasible options to build a freeway for US-4 across the Green Mountains without spending a huge amount of money and causing a lot of environmental damage. Tunneling through the Green Mountains would have less impact on the environment, but the shear cost of a 20-30 mile long tunnel would be cost prohibitive.

MMM would have loved that last suggestion. :sombrero:
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: The Ghostbuster on March 22, 2023, 09:19:05 PM
We'll have to wait until the next sign replacement project for mileage-based exit numbers to be implemented, which has been projected to occur sometime between 2030 and 2035. As an alternative, they could do what New Hampshire's governor is doing and constantly refuse funding for a mileage-based exit conversion. Of course, Scott's and Sununu's successors could be just as opposed to mileage-based exits as they are, and then we'll be back to square one on the matter.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on March 23, 2023, 11:17:51 AM
Discussed several times ad nauseum upthread.  Starting to beat a dead horse at this point.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: The Ghostbuster on March 23, 2023, 12:11:22 PM
Sorry. This is the last time I will mention it. I promise.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on March 24, 2023, 12:22:44 AM
^ Was referring more to roadman's bringing it back up.  From what I've read, you're not wrong on the 2030 date.  There's a member of one of the Facebook groups who has done consulting for VTrans who has repeatedly mentioned 2030 as the year Vermont will fully convert over.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: roadman65 on March 26, 2023, 05:15:25 PM
All I stated was my opinion on it. Not to lecture VTrans on their being odd, is like telling NJ to stop full serve gas.

I do think it's cheesy and if it's that, it's that.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on July 26, 2023, 09:32:56 PM
Local news media (https://www.wcax.com/2023/07/26/burlingtons-champlain-pkwy-making-progress/) reporting that parts of the Champlain Parkway may be open to traffic by the end of the year.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: shadyjay on March 04, 2024, 08:26:21 PM
I was on part of the "Super 7 Super 2" from Dorset down to Manchester this morning and saw new sign posts going up... starting at the northernmost 7/7A intersection.  Not just sheet signs, but also the extruded signs for the exits are being replaced as well.  Exit gores, all exit signs, post-exit mileage signs, the whole nine yards. 

Also, the button copy sign on the jughandle off US 7 South just south of the US 4 intersection by the former mall in Rutland continues to live on.  Since its well north of the sign replacement project I mentioned, looks like its future is safe for the interim.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: The Ghostbuster on March 04, 2024, 09:21:07 PM
Are there any plans to expand the US 7 freeway north of Exit 2 (future Exit 14) to four lanes? Or do the traffic counts not warrant it?
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: shadyjay on March 04, 2024, 10:10:05 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 04, 2024, 09:21:07 PM
Are there any plans to expand the US 7 freeway north of Exit 2 (future Exit 14) to four lanes? Or do the traffic counts not warrant it?

I never have heard any mention of any widening/twinning/expressway completion/anything in the US 7 corridor between Bennington and Rutland at least in the past 20 years.  The only projects have been the Bennington Bypass.  There are some climbing lanes that extend for quite a while and I believe you can pass in designated areas as long as there's not a climbing lane the other way.  While it would be nice to have a 4-lane expressway in the entire corridor, traffic levels don't really justify it.  I wonder what the accident rate is along the Super 2, and whether or not a median divider has ever been suggested/proposed, even if its just pylons.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: Alps on March 05, 2024, 07:05:53 PM
US 7 would benefit from corridor upgrades throughout, including alternating passing lanes, smoothing and straightening curves to assist with sight lines, but this would destroy the natural beauty that you experience in that state. I think it's fine as is.
Title: Re: Vermont
Post by: froggie on March 05, 2024, 09:23:30 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on March 04, 2024, 10:10:05 PM
I wonder what the accident rate is along the Super 2, and whether or not a median divider has ever been suggested/proposed, even if its just pylons.

Not that high, from the digging I just partook.  VTrans has a crash query mapper so I took a look at 2023 data.  There were only two reported crashes along the entire Super-2 section in 2023...both south of the Arlington exit.  Doing a 3-year check (2021-2023) bumps that to a total of 5.

Quote from: Alps on March 05, 2024, 07:05:53 PM
US 7 would benefit from corridor upgrades throughout, including alternating passing lanes, smoothing and straightening curves to assist with sight lines, but this would destroy the natural beauty that you experience in that state. I think it's fine as is.

From a purely traffic perspective, 7 may warrant 4 lanes from Vergennes north...that gets into 5-digit AADT territory.  Otherwise, there isn't any lengthy widening that would be warranted.