Connecticut News

[MikeTheActuary]

... except to give people incentives to get out of their cars and onto the rails.  I know tolling is a very sensitive and hot topic issue to a lot of CT residents.  But perhaps a $5 toll at the border would help.

Border-only tolls would probably be blocked by the feds, but I do think there is something to be said for generally tolling congested highways that run generally parallel to viable public transit routes.

However, as we've seen in recent years, that's a political non-starter in Connecticut.

There's a better chance of addressing one of the problems with Connecticut's interstates -- too many/too frequent interchanges.  I think there is popular support for the idea...but efforts to do that would still be doomed, thanks to public resistance to "their" interchanges potentially being eliminated, due to the lack of viable alternatives.

[vdeane]

There's a better chance of addressing one of the problems with Connecticut's interstates -- too many/too frequent interchanges.  I think there is popular support for the idea...but efforts to do that would still be doomed, thanks to public resistance to "their" interchanges potentially being eliminated, due to the lack of viable alternatives.

In the 90s, Congress had a similar problem with military bases.  Everyone knew there were too many for our needs, but nobody wanted to close one in their backyard.  The solution was to set up a commission that would form the list, and then do a straight vote yes or no on the whole list, with no amendments allowed.  Could something like that work here?  Come up with a list of interchanges, and then decide whether or not to close them, with no haggling allowed over which interchanges are on the list?

[MikeTheActuary]

Come up with a list of interchanges, and then decide whether or not to close them, with no haggling allowed over which interchanges are on the list?

I doubt it.   Some state legislators would vote "no" because "their" interchange (much less their constituents') was on the list.

ConnDOT could make the decision on its own...but the legislators and local activists would turn up the pressure to the extent that ConnDOT would have to reverse course.

In fairness, surface arterials and connectors really aren't up to handling the change in traffic patterns that would result from closing a bunch of interchanges.

[abqtraveler]

Getting more trucks off the road and improving freight service in the I-95 corridor is also a difficult task, since the NEC basically went "all passenger" starting back in the 1970s, with CT freight coming in/out via Springfield MA.  Getting through NYC is the biggest problem for freight trains.

Freight trains still run on the New Haven Line, but they are limited to off-peak hours...mainly at night.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZkLgXn_OUg

[shadyjay]

The freight trains that run on the New Haven Line are the seasonal stone train from New Haven down to LI, and the CSX local which serves the local customers along the line, of which there are only a handful left.  None of these are thru trains, as there is no convenient way for freight to get across the Hudson/New York Harbor.  Prior to the 1970s, there was an extensive car float operation from Bay Ridge NY to Greenville NJ.  That all went out the window when the railroad that took over decided to route freight to New England up to Albany, then east to Springfield, and back down south.  This allowed the car float operation to be nearly abandoned.  The mass exodus of industry from New England also didn't help matters. 

There have been talks over the years of building a freight rail tunnel beneath New York harbor between the Bay Ridge area and the NJ port, but it has been just that... talk.  But, if you had a tunnel then there would be a direct freight link between the NJ terminal area and southern New England.  If you could run intermodal service, putting the trailers on flat cars, then having a big terminal somewhere to convert back to highway service, that would be ideal.

But the problem isn't just getting across NY Harbor... it's the clearance issues on the lines of Amtrak and Metro-North between the rails and the catenary (overhead wires), not to mention the century old bridges and overpasses.  I can't imagine what the pricetag would be for clearing the New Haven Line for double stack trains.  And then, you'd have to negotiate with Amtrak and Metro-North to get the track time.  You'd pretty much be restricted to the overnight period when there's less trains running. 

In a perfect world, the NY Harbor Tunnel would be built and electrified and Cedar Hill Yard just north of I-91/I-95 in New Haven would have an intermodal facility (the land is there already for it, as well as highway access) and all the trucks could start from there.  A couple 100-car double stack container trains would relieve a lot of traffic off I-95 in SW CT, not to mention help with the Cross Bronx and GWB. 

All it takes is $.  A lot of $$$$$$.  And political push. 

[kurumi]

Hey, another study: ConnDOT received a grant (see press release) to consider the future of the Berlin Turnpike.

The 11-mile Berlin Turnpike is a critical corridor connecting New Haven and Hartford Counties ripe with commerce and economic development opportunities. This grant award will help lay the foundation to create a future Route 5 with safety at the forefront. It will allow for the study and design of pedestrian and bicycle friendly infrastructure, such as sidewalks and trails, and look to develop a public transportation hub and land development opportunities in Newington, Wethersfield, and Berlin.

I don't think we'll see a Florida-style elevated treatment with frontage roads, much less a 6-laning throughout. But it's an important enough arterial that a road diet also seems unlikely.

There's a dormant plan to build at SPUI at CT 175, which might remain out of scope.

A physically separated bike and pedestrian path could be interesting.

Also, only Route 5 is mentioned; not Route 15.

[RobbieL2415]

Hey, another study: ConnDOT received a grant (see press release) to consider the future of the Berlin Turnpike.

The 11-mile Berlin Turnpike is a critical corridor connecting New Haven and Hartford Counties ripe with commerce and economic development opportunities. This grant award will help lay the foundation to create a future Route 5 with safety at the forefront. It will allow for the study and design of pedestrian and bicycle friendly infrastructure, such as sidewalks and trails, and look to develop a public transportation hub and land development opportunities in Newington, Wethersfield, and Berlin.

I don't think we'll see a Florida-style elevated treatment with frontage roads, much less a 6-laning throughout. But it's an important enough arterial that a road diet also seems unlikely.

There's a dormant plan to build at SPUI at CT 175, which might remain out of scope.

A physically separated bike and pedestrian path could be interesting.

Also, only Route 5 is mentioned; not Route 15.

Also potentially out of scope would be a redo of the CT 9 interchange. I find it very confusing for unfamiliar drivers.

I'm guessing what's in-scope would be replacing some left turns with jughandles, adding express bus lanes and multi-use paths.

[Duke87]

So this escaped notice but CT's work zone speed camera program which previously expired at the end of last year was reauthorized permanently in May with a few key changes:
1) the maximum number of cameras has been increased from 3 to 15
2) the threshold for being issued a ticket by one has been reduced from 15 over to 10 over, matching what the legislation for permanent local cameras authorizes
3) they are now allowed in any work zone with a speed limit of 45 mph or greater, not just those on limited-access highways

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2024/ACT/PA/PDF/2024PA-00040-R00HB-05330-PA.PDF

[RobbieL2415]

So this escaped notice but CT's work zone speed camera program which previously expired at the end of last year was reauthorized permanently in May with a few key changes:
1) the maximum number of cameras has been increased from 3 to 15
2) the threshold for being issued a ticket by one has been reduced from 15 over to 10 over, matching what the legislation for permanent local cameras authorizes
3) they are now allowed in any work zone with a speed limit of 45 mph or greater, not just those on limited-access highways

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2024/ACT/PA/PDF/2024PA-00040-R00HB-05330-PA.PDF

I had a thought a few days ago after that drunk driver killed a DOT worker on I-91 in Wallingford. What if they added in temporary speed tables and rumble strips to get people to slow down through work zones?

[SectorZ]

So this escaped notice but CT's work zone speed camera program which previously expired at the end of last year was reauthorized permanently in May with a few key changes:
1) the maximum number of cameras has been increased from 3 to 15
2) the threshold for being issued a ticket by one has been reduced from 15 over to 10 over, matching what the legislation for permanent local cameras authorizes
3) they are now allowed in any work zone with a speed limit of 45 mph or greater, not just those on limited-access highways

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2024/ACT/PA/PDF/2024PA-00040-R00HB-05330-PA.PDF

I had a thought a few days ago after that drunk driver killed a DOT worker on I-91 in Wallingford. What if they added in temporary speed tables and rumble strips to get people to slow down through work zones?

So the speed table launches the drunk into a few cars and kills multiple people instead?

[bmitchelf]

So this escaped notice but CT's work zone speed camera program which previously expired at the end of last year was reauthorized permanently in May with a few key changes:
1) the maximum number of cameras has been increased from 3 to 15
2) the threshold for being issued a ticket by one has been reduced from 15 over to 10 over, matching what the legislation for permanent local cameras authorizes
3) they are now allowed in any work zone with a speed limit of 45 mph or greater, not just those on limited-access highways

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2024/ACT/PA/PDF/2024PA-00040-R00HB-05330-PA.PDF

I had a thought a few days ago after that drunk driver killed a DOT worker on I-91 in Wallingford. What if they added in temporary speed tables and rumble strips to get people to slow down through work zones?

It wasn't a work zone on the highway, they were picking up trash and mowing between on and off ramp and the driver took the exit too fast. But rumble strips would make sense.

[MikeCL]

Between Fairfield and Bridgeport?  Only real work they did there back in the early 00s was the rehabilitation of the viaducts and adding an extra lane as a result.  Honestly, adding another lane down to I-287 isn't going to solve the problem, for any long duration.  I'd like to see 2 peak-directional express lanes, separated from the main roadway by barriers.  Such as, I-95 South would get the 2 additional lanes during the AM rush, I-95 North gets them in the PM rush.  Have minimum entry/exit points, like maybe every 10 miles, that would just be slip ramps to/from the main lanes.  Also, toll the express lanes.  As far as normal widening goes, from Stamford to I-287 would be possible. 

But in lower Fairfield County, real estate is very expensive and the I-95 right of way is fairly narrow and built up all around.  There's lot of exits and overpasses and such.  So there's really no easy solution...

... except to give people incentives to get out of their cars and onto the rails.  I know tolling is a very sensitive and hot topic issue to a lot of CT residents.  But perhaps a $5 toll at the border would help.  Getting more trucks off the road and improving freight service in the I-95 corridor is also a difficult task, since the NEC basically went "all passenger" starting back in the 1970s, with CT freight coming in/out via Springfield MA.  Getting through NYC is the biggest problem for freight trains.

No easy solution any way you slice it!

Since we are talking about the extra lane added in Bridgeport any reason why the curve at 27A is the way it is and not across to the left? is it due to the State Police being in that area?

[shadyjay]

You mean why isn't Exit 27-A, NB, a left exit?  Perhaps because of the turnpike design with the narrow median which precluded left exits.  Those left exits on the turnpike are only at spaces where the median widens out to accomodate the left exit, unlike I-84 and I-91 which have largely wide variable medians when there are left exits, or in the case of Exit 29A NB, that was the original thru road, with I-91 north of Exit 29A being added later.

[shadyjay]

NOTICE OF PLANS BEING DEVELOPED FOR I-91 SIGN REPLACEMENT

It won't be going out to bid until Spring 2025, but at least there's going to be some new signs for the northern end of I-91.  This project will cover I-91 from the Windsor/Windsor Locks town line to the Mass state line, along with the limited access portion of CT 190 in Enfield and Suffield.

https://portal.ct.gov/dot/ctdot-press-releases/2024/replacement-signs-on-interstate-91-and-sections-of-route-190-in-enfield-and-suffield

Some overheads in this area have been replaced in recent years and there's another couple due to be replaced in the next year.  The majority of the signs from Exit 44 to the state line date back to when I-91 was widened to 6 lanes, sometime in the late 1980s, so they're well past due for replacement (maybe not as bad as I-84 in E Hartford and Manchester, but still up there). 

We probably won't see mileage based exits with this project yet, either, as there's still the Middletown-to-Windsor section to get new signs (minus around Exit 29 in Hartford and some other spots).

[The Ghostbuster]

Since Interstate 91 only travels 58 miles within the state of Connecticut, the exit tabs will not have to be expanded to accommodate the new mileage-based numbers, will they (the exit conversion is slated for 2027)?

[MikeTheActuary]

For the Windsor Locks - Enfield stretch, no additional space will be required.   There is one exit, "Exit 41 & 39" that would have a shorter exit tab indicated by renumbering, however.

(I wonder if they'll take this resigning to simplify that to just "Exit 41" for a couple of years.)

The same cannot be said for the Middletown-Windsor stretch, however.  There are a couple of exits where they will need to consider that suffixes will come into play post-renumbering.   For example, according to one list floating around, current Exit 30 would become new Exit 38C.

(And, of course, the Middletown-Windsor stretch has "Exit 39 & 41" to worry about.)

[Alps]

For the Windsor Locks - Enfield stretch, no additional space will be required.  There is one exit, "Exit 41 & 39" that would have a shorter exit tab indicated by renumbering, however.

(I wonder if they'll take this resigning to simplify that to just "Exit 41" for a couple of years.)

The same cannot be said for the Middletown-Windsor stretch, however.  There are a couple of exits where they will need to consider that suffixes will come into play post-renumbering.  For example, according to one list floating around, current Exit 30 would become new Exit 38C.

(And, of course, the Middletown-Windsor stretch has "Exit 39 & 41" to worry about.)

At the same time, expect some number fudging to try to minimize some of the lettered suffixes. We will find out once design plans are released.

[vdeane]

(I wonder if they'll take this resigning to simplify that to just "Exit 41" for a couple of years.)

That would be logical.  When I saw those exit signs, I was assuming some weird braided ramp setup.  Nope.  Just a half interchange and a quarter interchange with an interchange that serves a different route in the middle, with movements between exits 39 and 41 requiring local roads.  Sorry ConnDOT, but literally any other state would just sign exit 39 NB and exit 41 SB.

[MikeTheActuary]

Remember that I-91 exits 39 and 41 used to be complete interchanges, before exit 40 was redesigned.  Given Connecticut's tradition of being the land of steady habits, and how heated some folks along I-95 get when the possibility of getting rid of "their" exits is discussed in the name of bringing I-95 closer to modern design, I can see ConnDOT deciding to use the "Exit 39 & 41" / "Exit 41 & 39" labels to appease any constituent grumpiness, etc.

We're probably far enough along in history that they could have simplified the exit designations awhile ago, but inertia is a thing.

(However, in local traffic reporting, and on VMS messages, they are just "Exit 39" and "Exit 41".)

[Rothman]

The 39&41 exit was a fun little CT quirk.

[shadyjay]

The 39&41 exit was a fun little CT quirk.

Just like how all Exit 27s on I-84, I-91, and I-95 are out of order in one direction.

[jp the roadgeek]

As long as they change Exit 44 signage and eliminate the SOUTH banner for US 5.  Drivers have been able to access both directions for almost 40 years since Exit 43 was closed and the 44 ramp reconfigured. 

[shadyjay]

Excellent point about Exit 44.... they replaced NB signage as part of the Dexter Coffin Bridge rehabilitation but left the SOUTH on there.  We'll see what a "blanket" project will do for that exit's signage. 

[dantheman]

Excellent point about Exit 44.... they replaced NB signage as part of the Dexter Coffin Bridge rehabilitation but left the SOUTH on there.  We'll see what a "blanket" project will do for that exit's signage. 

Funny... I've probably driven through there hundreds of times and never noticed that the exit is only signed for 5 south.

[RobbieL2415]

CT 218 in Bloomfield will be getting a computerized traffic signal system (CTSS) in 2026:
https://portal.ct.gov/dotbloomfield0011-0160