Connecticut News

[Ted$8roadFan]

Saw both of those last night.  The distances shoulde be "1", "1 1/4" and "1 1/2".  distance is "1".  I did notice the new (former)Exit 16 1/2 mile advance with "Willimantic".  As far as whether its a goof or not... one contract shows that sign as "NIC" (meaning not in contract), and the next shows it as "replace exit crown only".  Now I don't know if there were any addendums that reflected any changes... obviously there was, as the new exit numbers have changed a couple times, "NEW EXIT ##" signs have been put in, and "replace exit tab" was replaced with overlays. 

Meanwhile, northbound...

CT9NB-Exit15-new by Jay Hogan, on Flickr

CT9NB-Exit16-2 by Jay Hogan, on Flickr

That last sign looks a little stubby without Willimantic.  Maybe the posts should have been a bit longer... or the spacing made a little "looser". 

All northbound fraction/mile posts are now up from I-95 to the Middletown/Cromwell line.  Southbound mileposts have been corrected.  And it appears MP 0.0 is the start of the I-95 Northbound Exit 69 offramp.

I notice the exit from CT-9 to CT-66 west no longer Meriden as a control city. I guess the state wants traffic to use CT-9 to I-91S.

[RobbieL2415]

Meanwhile, northbound...

CT9NB-Exit16-2 by Jay Hogan, on Flickr

That last sign looks a little stubby without Willimantic.  Maybe the posts should have been a bit longer... or the spacing made a little "looser". 

No, you'd have to have a wider sign, and median width is limited. That's my guess. I've seen agencies put the longer name in smaller text. CT won't do that.

No, they'll give us dinky-ass town line signs though.

[jp the roadgeek]

And now a new diagrammatic to join the APL

[Alps]

And now a new diagrammatic to join the APL

reasons the mutcd should keep apl

[shadyjay]

Looks like, at least for the southern contract outside of the city of Middletown, most new signs are up on CT 9 from I-95 to Exit 11.  We are still missing 2 ground guide signs, NB, and a few overheads SB.  They've started work on the new overheads for the I-95 jct, and have completed the restriping at the junction itself.  The 3rd lane which came from Springbrook Rd right before the split is gone, so now the left lane only goes to I-95 North and the right lane only goes to I-95 South.  The new signs will reflect this with down arrows.  The space where the third lane was is now a wide area with painted white angled lines.  No signs observed for the new lane configuration, though traditional lane markings switch to the much smaller "exiting" markings at the 1/2 mile point before the jct. 

Would have gotten pics, but I came through at 11 at night.

[Mergingtraffic]

Some Notes:

1)  It took 5 months but the Exit 13 1/2 mile sign is up on CT-8 NB.  It was sitting there since April and put up a couple weeks ago. It was the last major sign to be put up.


2) I-84 WB is Waterbury will get a new surprise AUX lane between Exit 22 on-ramp and Exit 21 off-ramp.  A nice addition that wasn't originally planned. Go tp Page 2. Traffic backs up with the Exit 22 on-ramp now ever since the widening from Exit 23 was completed.
https://mixmaster-rehab.com/uploads/files/September_22_Final.pdf?v=1663845683674

3) The CT-9 stoplight project doesn't sit right with me.  The Left exits and entrances proposed (in 2022 mind you) on CT-9 NB.  I know you'll say it's a land issue.  But is it? The plans call for the ramps to go below the highway so if both carriageways are close together with a jersey barrier wouldn't it take up the same space and allow the ramp curvatures to not be as sharp. Although I'm thankful the CT-17 on ramp to CT-9 NB will be done.  That should enter after the CT-66 off-ramp from the right IMHO like Exit 23 and 25 on I-84 EB does it.

4) same with I-91/I-691/CT-15 project, it's left me under impressed.  It's not removing any left exits and entrances. Amazing.


5) Still no extruded aluminum warning signs for the stoplights in Middletown even tho they may be going away soon.

[shadyjay]

Apparently the latest round of Rt 9 improvements to get rid of the traffic lights got the axe, and late 2022/early 2023, we're supposed to get a new "public presentation".  That's what was said at the CT 9/17 onramp project meeting, which I watched on Youtube, and is available on the ConnDOT site.  The latest alternative (the one with the overpass to Rapallo Ave) got axed, as did the traffic circle plan before it (thank god!).  So I wonder what they'll think of next! 

Personally, I would make the CT 9/17 interchange (old Exit 13) a SPUI and provide full access from both directions of CT 9.  Extend it out to River Road.  Then you get better Harbor Area access.  But, we're stuck with what we're getting... at least a proper-length acceleration lane from CT 17 NB to CT 9 NB and no stop sign.  They really should widen the Union St overpass to 3 lanes southbound to give that 3rd lane a purpose that ends just before (old) Exit 14.  The vibe I got from the public meeting was that they just want to "get this done as quick as possible" and without excess land taking, etc.  This more solidifies the "days of new road building in CT are over" mantra. 

There's also a new study (surprise!) for I-95 from Branford to the RI border.  Here we go again...
https://www.i95easternct.com/

[The Ghostbuster]

Why do I have the feeling that the traffic signals on CT 9 in Middletown will never be removed, and the existing signaled intersections will never be altered? It must be my "Connecticut Roads Sense" (like Spiderman's spider sense).

[abqtraveler]

Why do I have the feeling that the traffic signals on CT 9 in Middletown will never be removed, and the existing signaled intersections will never be altered? It must be my "Connecticut Roads Sense" (like Spiderman's spider sense).

Because there will always be people in power who will fight to keep things the way they are.

[jp the roadgeek]

Why do I have the feeling that the traffic signals on CT 9 in Middletown will never be removed, and the existing signaled intersections will never be altered? It must be my "Connecticut Roads Sense" (like Spiderman's spider sense).

Because there will always be people in power who will fight to keep things the way they are.

Hey.  In 18 days, we'll be marking the 50th anniversary of the announcement of the "temporary ending" of CT 11. 

[Ted$8roadFan]

Apparently the latest round of Rt 9 improvements to get rid of the traffic lights got the axe, and late 2022/early 2023, we're supposed to get a new "public presentation".  That's what was said at the CT 9/17 onramp project meeting, which I watched on Youtube, and is available on the ConnDOT site.  The latest alternative (the one with the overpass to Rapallo Ave) got axed, as did the traffic circle plan before it (thank god!).  So I wonder what they'll think of next! 

Personally, I would make the CT 9/17 interchange (old Exit 13) a SPUI and provide full access from both directions of CT 9.  Extend it out to River Road.  Then you get better Harbor Area access.  But, we're stuck with what we're getting... at least a proper-length acceleration lane from CT 17 NB to CT 9 NB and no stop sign.  They really should widen the Union St overpass to 3 lanes southbound to give that 3rd lane a purpose that ends just before (old) Exit 14.  The vibe I got from the public meeting was that they just want to "get this done as quick as possible" and without excess land taking, etc.  This more solidifies the "days of new road building in CT are over" mantra. 

There's also a new study (surprise!) for I-95 from Branford to the RI border.  Here we go again...
https://www.i95easternct.com/

Since that section of CT-9 abuts the Connecticut River, I wonder if any of the improvements involve impacts to the river.

[Mergingtraffic]

Apparently the latest round of Rt 9 improvements to get rid of the traffic lights got the axe, and late 2022/early 2023, we're supposed to get a new "public presentation".  That's what was said at the CT 9/17 onramp project meeting, which I watched on Youtube, and is available on the ConnDOT site.  The latest alternative (the one with the overpass to Rapallo Ave) got axed, as did the traffic circle plan before it (thank god!).  So I wonder what they'll think of next! 

Personally, I would make the CT 9/17 interchange (old Exit 13) a SPUI and provide full access from both directions of CT 9.  Extend it out to River Road.  Then you get better Harbor Area access.  But, we're stuck with what we're getting... at least a proper-length acceleration lane from CT 17 NB to CT 9 NB and no stop sign.  They really should widen the Union St overpass to 3 lanes southbound to give that 3rd lane a purpose that ends just before (old) Exit 14.  The vibe I got from the public meeting was that they just want to "get this done as quick as possible" and without excess land taking, etc.  This more solidifies the "days of new road building in CT are over" mantra. 

There's also a new study (surprise!) for I-95 from Branford to the RI border.  Here we go again...
https://www.i95easternct.com/

Another study?!? It's the 4th one. Look at the history page on the site, they list the previous studies. How many need to be done? They study it and it sits and nothing happens.
The I-84/CT-8 mixmaster is being studied again as well. What happened to the 2007-2010 one?!

[Ted$8roadFan]

Apparently the latest round of Rt 9 improvements to get rid of the traffic lights got the axe, and late 2022/early 2023, we're supposed to get a new "public presentation".  That's what was said at the CT 9/17 onramp project meeting, which I watched on Youtube, and is available on the ConnDOT site.  The latest alternative (the one with the overpass to Rapallo Ave) got axed, as did the traffic circle plan before it (thank god!).  So I wonder what they'll think of next! 

Personally, I would make the CT 9/17 interchange (old Exit 13) a SPUI and provide full access from both directions of CT 9.  Extend it out to River Road.  Then you get better Harbor Area access.  But, we're stuck with what we're getting... at least a proper-length acceleration lane from CT 17 NB to CT 9 NB and no stop sign.  They really should widen the Union St overpass to 3 lanes southbound to give that 3rd lane a purpose that ends just before (old) Exit 14.  The vibe I got from the public meeting was that they just want to "get this done as quick as possible" and without excess land taking, etc.  This more solidifies the "days of new road building in CT are over" mantra. 

There's also a new study (surprise!) for I-95 from Branford to the RI border.  Here we go again...
https://www.i95easternct.com/

Another study?!? It's the 4th one. Look at the history page on the site, they list the previous studies. How many need to be done? They study it and it sits and nothing happens.
The I-84/CT-8 mixmaster is being studied again as well. What happened to the 2007-2010 one?!

It's almost as if the state knows what it needs to do, but has neither the funding or the political will to do it.

[Rothman]

Reminds me of the Rooftop in NY.  It is not needed and will never be built, but Governors will keep trying to appease the North Country by studying it.

[RobbieL2415]

Apparently the latest round of Rt 9 improvements to get rid of the traffic lights got the axe, and late 2022/early 2023, we're supposed to get a new "public presentation".  That's what was said at the CT 9/17 onramp project meeting, which I watched on Youtube, and is available on the ConnDOT site.  The latest alternative (the one with the overpass to Rapallo Ave) got axed, as did the traffic circle plan before it (thank god!).  So I wonder what they'll think of next! 

Personally, I would make the CT 9/17 interchange (old Exit 13) a SPUI and provide full access from both directions of CT 9.  Extend it out to River Road.  Then you get better Harbor Area access.  But, we're stuck with what we're getting... at least a proper-length acceleration lane from CT 17 NB to CT 9 NB and no stop sign.  They really should widen the Union St overpass to 3 lanes southbound to give that 3rd lane a purpose that ends just before (old) Exit 14.  The vibe I got from the public meeting was that they just want to "get this done as quick as possible" and without excess land taking, etc.  This more solidifies the "days of new road building in CT are over" mantra. 

There's also a new study (surprise!) for I-95 from Branford to the RI border.  Here we go again...
https://www.i95easternct.com/

I still think they should explore a re-route of CT 9/17 through Portland. That gives the riverfront completely back to Middletown and ensures the choke point can never happen again.

[shadyjay]

I still think they should explore a re-route of CT 9/17 through Portland. That gives the riverfront completely back to Middletown and ensures the choke point can never happen again.

Oh, I agree.  But good luck getting 2 bridges over the river built, not to mention pushing an expressway through Portland. 

[Mergingtraffic]

I noticed lately I-691 backs up to I-84 West at the lane drop before it physically merged with I-84 West. It never did before. Would having the lane drop after the merge help (in effect having a 2-lane on-ramp) ??

I-84 East now backs up to I-691 as well. That I don't get. It's a well designed updated interchange. Getting on I-691 there's no merge.

Also drove i-91 Exit 29 to CT-15/US-5, there's still button copy on US-5/CT-15. Are those not being replaced?? One even had a new "right lane ends"  sign with 2 button copy signs left on the gantry.

Glad to see for i-91 Exit 28 there's a "RAMP 20mph"  yellow banner onthe BGS.  CT should do more of that.

You see the plans for CT-2/CT-17 which removes part of the CT-17 expressway road?? Aren't there better projects to put $$ towards such as the CT-2/I-395 interchange?

[shadyjay]

I-84 East now backs up to I-691 as well. That I don't get. It's a well designed updated interchange. Getting on I-691 there's no merge.

If you're referring to I-84 East to I-691 East, yeah, that's been that way for a while.  What really should happen is a 2-lane ramp.... create an operational lane from Exit 26 (Route 70) right to I-691 and make it an "option" lane.  Widen the I-84 East Exit 27 ramp to I-691 to 2 lanes.  Then perhaps extend this "3 lane section" of I-691 East right to Exit 3 (Route 10).  Part of the problem is traffic comes down the hill on I-84 East and slows, then encounters a lack of a decelleration lane into the ramp for I-691 East.... not to mention the shear volume of traffic using the ramp. 

Also drove i-91 Exit 29 to CT-15/US-5, there's still button copy on US-5/CT-15. Are those not being replaced?? One even had a new "right lane ends"  sign with 2 button copy signs left on the gantry.

You would be correct.  The pull-thrus are gone so now there's nothing saying "I-84 EAST - LEFT 2 LANES" or anything like that.  In reality, the project should have included sign replacement on CT 15 from the Berlin Tpke split right up to I-84, or at the very least, replaced the signs within the work zone in East Hartford. 

You see the plans for CT-2/CT-17 which removes part of the CT-17 expressway road?? Aren't there better projects to put $$ towards such as the CT-2/I-395 interchange?

I think its the matter of replacing a bridge, and since the bridge isn't technically needed due to it being constructed when CT 2 "went that way", it makes more sense to just yank it out. 

Just curious what are your thoughts on the CT 2/I-395 interchange?  Its not a major problem, per se.  I passed through there this afternoon.  If you're going to throw some money around, how about making Exit 78....errr... Exit 5 on I-395 Southbound a right hand exit and widen I-395 between there and Exit 79-A... cough... Exit 9.  Or again, at least make a proper decelleration lane at Exit 5 so that exiting traffic gets off the mainline sooner?  The sight lines through there aren't the greatest, either.

[RobbieL2415]

The button copy on CT 15/US 5 probably won't go away until that stretch of highway gets mileage-based exits, and that could be several years away.

[Mergingtraffic]

I-84 East now backs up to I-691 as well. That I don't get. It's a well designed updated interchange. Getting on I-691 there's no merge.

If you're referring to I-84 East to I-691 East, yeah, that's been that way for a while.  What really should happen is a 2-lane ramp.... create an operational lane from Exit 26 (Route 70) right to I-691 and make it an "option" lane.  Widen the I-84 East Exit 27 ramp to I-691 to 2 lanes.  Then perhaps extend this "3 lane section" of I-691 East right to Exit 3 (Route 10).  Part of the problem is traffic comes down the hill on I-84 East and slows, then encounters a lack of a decelleration lane into the ramp for I-691 East.... not to mention the shear volume of traffic using the ramp. 

Also drove i-91 Exit 29 to CT-15/US-5, there's still button copy on US-5/CT-15. Are those not being replaced?? One even had a new "right lane ends"  sign with 2 button copy signs left on the gantry.

You would be correct.  The pull-thrus are gone so now there's nothing saying "I-84 EAST - LEFT 2 LANES" or anything like that.  In reality, the project should have included sign replacement on CT 15 from the Berlin Tpke split right up to I-84, or at the very least, replaced the signs within the work zone in East Hartford. 

You see the plans for CT-2/CT-17 which removes part of the CT-17 expressway road?? Aren't there better projects to put $$ towards such as the CT-2/I-395 interchange?

I think its the matter of replacing a bridge, and since the bridge isn't technically needed due to it being constructed when CT 2 "went that way", it makes more sense to just yank it out. 

Just curious what are your thoughts on the CT 2/I-395 interchange?  Its not a major problem, per se.  I passed through there this afternoon.  If you're going to throw some money around, how about making Exit 78....errr... Exit 5 on I-395 Southbound a right hand exit and widen I-395 between there and Exit 79-A... cough... Exit 9.  Or again, at least make a proper decelleration lane at Exit 5 so that exiting traffic gets off the mainline sooner?  The sight lines through there aren't the greatest, either.

To me it's just substandard and tight loop cloverleaf. Typical CT style of thinking small. I'd rather have dollars go towards upgrading Expwy interchanges than removing a long ramp such as CT-17 (even tho it's a left off ramp) After the project is done, if it goes according to the plans, it'll take longer to get through.

(just like the I-95 Exit 44 project. They took out the free flow ramps and it takes longer now w the stoplights. Some of the free flow or even channelized right turns could've stayed.

[shadyjay]

I look at the I-395/CT 2-32 interchange and think "wow.. a free flowing cloverleaf interchange".  They're not that common in CT, while our neighbor to the north loves cloverleafs (a little too much, two interstates shouldn't connect with a cloverleaf). 

But, be careful what you wish for.  ConnDOT logic would overhaul the I-395/CT 2 interchange by removing a loop ramp and adding traffic lights, kinda like what they're proposing for the Merritt/US 7 in Norwalk. 

**UPDATE**

Wow, when you're right, you're right!  ConnDOT has just released its plans for improvements to the I-395/CT 2 interchange.  The contract is set to be released 4/1/2023 and work will be completed by 4/1/26. 
Here's a screenshot of what the interchange will look like:
norwich395-2 by Jay Hogan, on Flickr]
Basically, the two northern loops are converted to fill in the missing movements the interchange currently lacks (2W->395N and 395S->2W).  The loss of the ramps (395N->2W and 2W->395S) is the reason for the two new traffic signals. 



j/k!!!

[connroadgeek]

New VMSs up just before exit 5 in Greenwich both directions. Why does CT use such crappy old school VMSs compared to NY?

[Rothman]

New VMSs up just before exit 5 in Greenwich both directions. Why does CT use such crappy old school VMSs compared to NY?

Because CT exists as nothing more thsn a labor supply for NY.  Well, that and the insurer of the country, but mostly just a labor supply for NY.

Also, NY has its own ITS conference and loves the fancy gadgets.

[mariethefoxy]

the newer CT VMSes do the job, they may not have the fancy colors and such but for what they are, they tell you about the traffic coming up.

[jp the roadgeek]

Egad!! The casino goers heading back to the Hartford area are going to absolutely love the fact they're going to have to pass through a traffic signal to get on 2 West from 395 North (and I see the old exit numbers being used on 395).  That's a bottleneck/hazard waiting to happen.