Connecticut News

[zzyzx]

Here's a really detailed article about the Sport Hill Rd. bridge over the Merritt from The Historical Society of Easton. Before the land was even cleared for building the roadway, the bridge structures were built, as explained here:

In the spring of 1934, with only some of the rights-of-way having been secured, work began anyway. Much of the federal grant money had been ear-marked for bridge construction, so in a rather unorthodox move, Commissioner MacDonald let out contracts to build new bridges where no roads had yet been laid out or started. One such bridge was the one at Sport Hill Road, just a few yards south of the Easton-Fairfield town line.

The article also explains the mystery of why there is no Exit 45 on the Merritt:

If you've ever given directions to a friend traveling east on the Merritt, you probably realize that Exit 44 at Black Rock Turnpike isn't followed by Exit 45, but rather by Exit 46 at Sport Hill Road. That is because Exit 45 was originally on the drawing board for Morehouse Highway, a once through road from lower Fairfield all the way to its intersection with Westport Road in Easton.

[abqtraveler]

Here's a really detailed article about the Sport Hill Rd. bridge over the Merritt from The Historical Society of Easton. Before the land was even cleared for building the roadway, the bridge structures were built, as explained here:

In the spring of 1934, with only some of the rights-of-way having been secured, work began anyway. Much of the federal grant money had been ear-marked for bridge construction, so in a rather unorthodox move, Commissioner MacDonald let out contracts to build new bridges where no roads had yet been laid out or started. One such bridge was the one at Sport Hill Road, just a few yards south of the Easton-Fairfield town line.

The article also explains the mystery of why there is no Exit 45 on the Merritt:

If you've ever given directions to a friend traveling east on the Merritt, you probably realize that Exit 44 at Black Rock Turnpike isn't followed by Exit 45, but rather by Exit 46 at Sport Hill Road. That is because Exit 45 was originally on the drawing board for Morehouse Highway, a once through road from lower Fairfield all the way to its intersection with Westport Road in Easton.

The current Exit 44 used to be a cloverleaf before it was reconstructed about 20 years ago. The ramps for Route 58 south was Exit 44 and the ramps for northbound Route 58 was Exit 45. Reconstruction in the late 90s eliminated the cloverleaf and consolidated the two exits into one, Exit 44.

[zzyzx]

Is CTDOT downgrading roads across the state?  Route 156 in Waterford by Millstone is now a 2 lane road with a center turn lane.  It was 4 lanes previously and now on the other side there's a through lane and a left turn lane to turn into Millstone. 

I'm surprised to see Center turn lanes as they are uncommon in the state, especially in the SE part where there isn't as much urban traffic. What's it like in other parts of the state where they are restriping?




iPhone

[mariethefoxy]

I hate when they do that, because now if you are stuck behind grandma doing 25 in a 40 you are screwed, before you could pass

[vdeane]

I hate when they do that, because now if you are stuck behind grandma doing 25 in a 40 you are screwed, before you could pass

I've actually heard traffic calming advocates bring that up as one of the reasons why they want road diets.

[SectorZ]

I hate when they do that, because now if you are stuck behind grandma doing 25 in a 40 you are screwed, before you could pass

I've actually heard traffic calming advocates bring that up as one of the reasons why they want road diets.

I wish traffic calming advocates had to label their cars as such just so everyone could drive 25 in a 40 zone in front of them.

[Duke87]

The article also explains the mystery of why there is no Exit 45 on the Merritt:

If you've ever given directions to a friend traveling east on the Merritt, you probably realize that Exit 44 at Black Rock Turnpike isn't followed by Exit 45, but rather by Exit 46 at Sport Hill Road. That is because Exit 45 was originally on the drawing board for Morehouse Highway, a once through road from lower Fairfield all the way to its intersection with Westport Road in Easton.

The current Exit 44 used to be a cloverleaf before it was reconstructed about 20 years ago. The ramps for Route 58 south was Exit 44 and the ramps for northbound Route 58 was Exit 45. Reconstruction in the late 90s eliminated the cloverleaf and consolidated the two exits into one, Exit 44.

Yeah, that bit about Morehouse being why there is no exit 45 is bogus.

The fact that an interchange was once planned there is of intrigue, but they contradict their own assertion when they note that "an interchange at that location was abandoned before construction even began".

See here's the thing: when the Merritt first opened (1938/1940), the exits weren't numbered. Exit numbers first appeared in 1948. Any interchanges which were not built and not still planned would have been excluded from the numbering sequence.

And indeed... we know that the interchange with Black Rock Turnpike originally two exits each way, which were numbered 44 and 45, so that's where exit 45 was. This is also consistent with how CT assigned exit numbers in the early days - when there were separate exits for each direction of a road, they were given separate numbers rather than A-B or S-N/E-W.

[RobbieL2415]

Manchester DPW is removing the pedestrian islands at the intersection of Buckland St., Pleasant Valley Rd., and Buckland Hills Dr.  Going by the contract plans:

-NTOR is being implemented
-Two phases per direction, one for protected turns, the other for thru and right turns.
-Pedestrian signals appear to be timed during the thru phases.

[kurumi]

Manchester DPW is removing the pedestrian islands at the intersection of Buckland St., Pleasant Valley Rd., and Buckland Hills Dr.  Going by the contract plans:

-NTOR is being implemented
-Two phases per direction, one for protected turns, the other for thru and right turns.
-Pedestrian signals appear to be timed during the thru phases.

https://goo.gl/maps/skfPsadwQTmSsFjM8

That's a 4-way intersection with 2 thru lanes each direction, median dividers in each direction, double left turn lanes for each direction, and a channelized right turn for each direction. It honestly seems like it's not in Connecticut. And I'm not sure there are any other intersections like that in the state.

[RobbieL2415]

Manchester DPW is removing the pedestrian islands at the intersection of Buckland St., Pleasant Valley Rd., and Buckland Hills Dr.  Going by the contract plans:

-NTOR is being implemented
-Two phases per direction, one for protected turns, the other for thru and right turns.
-Pedestrian signals appear to be timed during the thru phases.

https://goo.gl/maps/skfPsadwQTmSsFjM8

That's a 4-way intersection with 2 thru lanes each direction, median dividers in each direction, double left turn lanes for each direction, and a channelized right turn for each direction. It honestly seems like it's not in Connecticut. And I'm not sure there are any other intersections like that in the state.

There's another one with the same design at Buckland/Adams Sts. and Tolland Tpke.
They were installed 30 years ago when the mall opened and obviously designed to promote continuous traffic flow.  IMO they're the best engineered intersections in the state.  Traffic is heavy but always moving and the lights are very well-timed.  What I think spurred this change is:

1) The increase in luxury apartments in the area have resulted in increased foot traffic and a need for safer crosswalks.  With the separated right turns peds are only protected by the "Yield" sign.
2) The intersection is prone to see accidents involving right and U-turning traffic, hence going over to NTOR.
3) The benefit of separated right turns has been rendered moot by high traffic volumes.
4) The signal installation is 30 years old and will be upgraded with video pre-emption.  There's also provisions for all of Buckland St. to get cameras.
5) CONNDOTs desire for more doghouse signals for right lanes.

[ipeters61]

Manchester DPW is removing the pedestrian islands at the intersection of Buckland St., Pleasant Valley Rd., and Buckland Hills Dr.  Going by the contract plans:

-NTOR is being implemented
-Two phases per direction, one for protected turns, the other for thru and right turns.
-Pedestrian signals appear to be timed during the thru phases.

https://goo.gl/maps/skfPsadwQTmSsFjM8

That's a 4-way intersection with 2 thru lanes each direction, median dividers in each direction, double left turn lanes for each direction, and a channelized right turn for each direction. It honestly seems like it's not in Connecticut. And I'm not sure there are any other intersections like that in the state.

I grew up in South Windsor around that intersection and I eventually had to change my routing to my university at Christmas time and change my routing home from work so I wouldn't have to wait in line forever to make the left from the I-84 EB ramp to Buckland Road and then make another left onto Pleasant Valley.

From work (coming in from I-384), I just would loop around on Tolland Turnpike and Chapel Street.  From school (coming from Willimantic), I stopped taking I-384/US-6 and just took CT-31 to I-84 WB.

[Duke87]

It is at this point SOP in CT to remove channelized right turns wherever they exist, as intersections come up for rebuild.

Increased pedestrian safety is of course the justification for such a policy broadly, but I don't think the merits of each individual case are really being considered. See for example how the rebuild of I-95 exits 44/45 eliminated the free-flowing turn from CT 10 south to I-95 south, in spite of the fact that there is no sidewalk on that side of the street and pretty much no objective reason for a pedestrian to be on that side of the street.

Pedestrian safety is also the primary reason why NTOR is gradually proliferating.

[MikeTheActuary]

It is at this point SOP in CT to remove channelized right turns wherever they exist, as intersections come up for rebuild.

Increased pedestrian safety is of course the justification for such a policy broadly, but I don't think the merits of each individual case are really being considered. See for example how the rebuild of I-95 exits 44/45 eliminated the free-flowing turn from CT 10 south to I-95 south, in spite of the fact that there is no sidewalk on that side of the street and pretty much no objective reason for a pedestrian to be on that side of the street.

Pedestrian safety is also the primary reason why NTOR is gradually proliferating.

In the case of the Buckland intersection, while there are some pedestrians (but not enough to justify a dedicated pedestrian phase without a manual request), I wonder if the bigger concern is just driver aggression due to overall traffic volume at that intersection.  Despite my best efforts to avoid that intersection, I have observed several accidents involving RTOR vehicles there.

[zzyzx]

The article also explains the mystery of why there is no Exit 45 on the Merritt:

If you've ever given directions to a friend traveling east on the Merritt, you probably realize that Exit 44 at Black Rock Turnpike isn't followed by Exit 45, but rather by Exit 46 at Sport Hill Road. That is because Exit 45 was originally on the drawing board for Morehouse Highway, a once through road from lower Fairfield all the way to its intersection with Westport Road in Easton.

The current Exit 44 used to be a cloverleaf before it was reconstructed about 20 years ago. The ramps for Route 58 south was Exit 44 and the ramps for northbound Route 58 was Exit 45. Reconstruction in the late 90s eliminated the cloverleaf and consolidated the two exits into one, Exit 44.

Yeah, that bit about Morehouse being why there is no exit 45 is bogus.

The fact that an interchange was once planned there is of intrigue, but they contradict their own assertion when they note that "an interchange at that location was abandoned before construction even began".

See here's the thing: when the Merritt first opened (1938/1940), the exits weren't numbered. Exit numbers first appeared in 1948. Any interchanges which were not built and not still planned would have been excluded from the numbering sequence.

And indeed... we know that the interchange with Black Rock Turnpike originally two exits each way, which were numbered 44 and 45, so that's where exit 45 was. This is also consistent with how CT assigned exit numbers in the early days - when there were separate exits for each direction of a road, they were given separate numbers rather than A-B or S-N/E-W.

That makes much more sense.  And that is why I trust the people on this forum more than some writers who can't do their research right. 

[RobbieL2415]

Specifically, it looks like there will be an LPI phase added to the intersection.

[wytout]

Work started this week on the roundabout at 319 and 190 in Stafford.  Initial tree clearing within the project limits is nearly done.

[zzyzx]

Not surprisingly, there's been a significant decrease in traffic on the state's highways since the stay at home orders went into place. On sections of I-95, traffic volumes are down 50% on average

As more people stay at home during the pandemic, traffic volumes on state highways have dropped significantly to an average of 50%, and even lower in areas of southeastern Connecticut.

Fewer cars on the roads has led to a host of impacts for the state's transportation system. Crews are able to work more efficiently on construction projects. But it also means fewer gas tax dollars for the Special Transportation Fund.

The state Department of Transportation also is reporting an uptick in speeding on highways and is urging drivers to maintain safe speeds.

Traffic lower starting in mid-March

DOT Spokesman Kevin Nursick said the department started to see a noticeable decrease in traffic starting March 13, with volumes continuing to drop and then holding steady at a 50% decrease on average.

An analysis by MS2, a software development and data management firm for transportation agencies, calculates "the daily traffic volume change as compared to the same day of week in the same month for the most recent year that data is available." State traffic was down about 38% on Saturday, April 25, 2020, compared to Saturday, April 27, 2019, and about 61% on Sunday, April 26, 2020, compared to April 28, 2019, according to MS2. On Monday, April 27, 2020, traffic dropped about 48% compared to Monday, April 29, 2019.

Nationally, traffic was down about 36% on Saturday, April 25, 2020; about 37% on Sunday, April 26; and about 32% on Monday, April 27, compared to last year.

A stretch of Interstate 95 in East Lyme and Route 2 in North Stonington, sites of two of the state's 23 automated traffic counters, are seeing lower traffic volumes than the state average.

I-95 in East Lyme, which averaged 71,920 vehicles a day last year, had a traffic volume of 34,071 vehicles on Monday, April 20, and 24,576 vehicles on Sunday, April 19, according to DOT data.

East Lyme Police Chief Michael Finkelstein said there is a noticeable fluctuation in traffic volumes on roads in East Lyme. He said morning commutes are far less traveled, while volumes later in the day appear fairly normal.

Route 2 in North Stonington, which averaged 12,896 daily vehicles in 2019, saw 3,940 vehicles on Monday, April 20, and 3,501 vehicles on Sunday, April 19, the state data shows.

Interactive charts and the rest of the article from The Day is in the link.

[DJStephens]

I hate when they do that, because now if you are stuck behind grandma doing 25 in a 40 you are screwed, before you could pass

I've actually heard traffic calming advocates bring that up as one of the reasons why they want road diets.

I wish traffic calming advocates had to label their cars as such just so everyone could drive 25 in a 40 zone in front of them.

A conversion from a four lane with no center lane to three lane works in some cases.   In other situations, it doesn't.   Have observed locally most four lanes here going to three lanes.  Some of them should have been rebuilt and widened as five lane jobs.   Very poor E-W capacity in most of the rio grande valley.    Both las Cruces and in Albuquerque.   The mindset must be simply that the traffic is going to go away (now it has with the virus, but it has been returning to normal recently)

[Mergingtraffic]

It is at this point SOP in CT to remove channelized right turns wherever they exist, as intersections come up for rebuild.

Increased pedestrian safety is of course the justification for such a policy broadly, but I don't think the merits of each individual case are really being considered. See for example how the rebuild of I-95 exits 44/45 eliminated the free-flowing turn from CT 10 south to I-95 south, in spite of the fact that there is no sidewalk on that side of the street and pretty much no objective reason for a pedestrian to be on that side of the street.

Pedestrian safety is also the primary reason why NTOR is gradually proliferating.

I can't stand it when they take away free flowing movements. Exit 44-45 is now a disaster in my opinion.  It seems to be PC, as free flowing traffic or flowing traffic in general is not PC.  Right channelized turns which every state has but for some reason it's not good enough in CT.

At the end of the CT-72 Expwy there's a right channelized turn before the blvd begin

[abqtraveler]

It is at this point SOP in CT to remove channelized right turns wherever they exist, as intersections come up for rebuild.

Increased pedestrian safety is of course the justification for such a policy broadly, but I don't think the merits of each individual case are really being considered. See for example how the rebuild of I-95 exits 44/45 eliminated the free-flowing turn from CT 10 south to I-95 south, in spite of the fact that there is no sidewalk on that side of the street and pretty much no objective reason for a pedestrian to be on that side of the street.

Pedestrian safety is also the primary reason why NTOR is gradually proliferating.

I can't stand it when they take away free flowing movements. Exit 44-45 is now a disaster in my opinion.  It seems to be PC, as free flowing traffic or flowing traffic in general is not PC.  Right channelized turns which every state has but for some reason it's not good enough in CT.

At the end of the CT-72 Expwy there's a right channelized turn before the blvd begin

You haven't seen nothin' yet. Just wait until they install a signalized intersection on the US-7 freeway where it junctions with the Merritt Parkway. Because placing a traffic light on a freeway with traffic moving at 70 mph makes total sense if you're in Connecticut.

[deathtopumpkins]

It seems to be PC, as free flowing traffic or flowing traffic in general is not PC.  Right channelized turns which every state has but for some reason it's not good enough in CT.

It's not just CT, and it's not "PC". Free flowing right turns are dangerous for pedestrians. MassDOT prohibits them now too.

Highway design changes and evolves over time as we learn what works and what doesn't. There are countless things that were once common practice, but have since been recognized as being unsafe. The only agenda behind it is safety.

[KEVIN_224]

I now wonder how old the CT 9 expressway is? I passed over it on the Coles Road bridges in Cromwell. They're very close to the I-91 interchange. They're stamped as 1967.

[kurumi]

I now wonder how old the CT 9 expressway is? I passed over it on the Coles Road bridges in Cromwell. They're very close to the I-91 interchange. They're stamped as 1967.

I only have "1969" as the opening date for the I-91 to Middletown segment. Not very precise.

[shadyjay]

Given the way several bridges were built in the area (Cromwell/Rocky Hill), 1967 wouldn't surprise me for a build year.  Heck, the I-291 bridges on I-91 were built and that road never even opened!

[RobbieL2415]

I now wonder how old the CT 9 expressway is? I passed over it on the Coles Road bridges in Cromwell. They're very close to the I-91 interchange. They're stamped as 1967.

Bridge stamp dates reflect their construction, not their utilization.

They weren't in complete service until CT 9 was extended through New Britain, in and around 1990.