Connecticut News

[Pete from Boston]

I'm glad to see Connecticut is starting to see how bad the system is here. I-95 needed that widening a long time ago. Hopefully during my lifetime these projects will be done.

It's been years since I actively sought and read these things, but our local MPO used to put out documents like this, outlining some XX-years ideal vision.  I believe they were required to do so every so often.  This documents reads a lot like those, which were more or less impossible to ever realize in their entirety because they'd probably require a 50¢ hike in the gas tax. 

I really don't think we're going to see any new lane from Greenwich to New Haven.  First, it would not be enough, and second, the real estate is too expensive. 

[Pete from Boston]

Interesting–first I've heard of second crossing in Middletown.   

Replacing the 84/8 structures is going to be a nightmare.

Alt 8, which is the one they want to build I think, is actually large scale...so I hope they go through with it.

http://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/documents/dpolicy/WINS/WINScoverpage_nov2010.pdf

So I-84 and N.J. Route 8 north of it will be built on totally new alignments (no longer double-decked), obviating a lot of problems with working around existing traffic.

[PHLBOS]

Interesting–first I've heard of second crossing in Middletown.   

Replacing the 84/8 structures is going to be a nightmare.

Alt 8, which is the one they want to build I think, is actually large scale...so I hope they go through with it.

http://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/documents/dpolicy/WINS/WINScoverpage_nov2010.pdf

So I-84 and N.J. CT Route 8 north of it will be built on totally new alignments (no longer double-decked), obviating a lot of problems with working around existing traffic.

FTFY. 

I agree, Alt. 8 should get the nod IMHO.

[Pete from Boston]

Interesting–first I've heard of second crossing in Middletown.   

Replacing the 84/8 structures is going to be a nightmare.

Alt 8, which is the one they want to build I think, is actually large scale...so I hope they go through with it.

http://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/documents/dpolicy/WINS/WINScoverpage_nov2010.pdf

So I-84 and N.J. CT Route 8 north of it will be built on totally new alignments (no longer double-decked), obviating a lot of problems with working around existing traffic.

FTFY. 

I agree, Alt. 8 should get the nod IMHO.

Ain't no circle shields in Connecticut.  They're clearly planning on having New Jersey build that road (or Vermont, Delaware, etc.).

[PHLBOS]

Ain't no circle shields in Connecticut.  They're clearly planning on having New Jersey build that road (or Vermont, Delaware, etc.).

I'm assuming that you're being facetious regarding the above (at least I hope you are - I've never met you personally).

Those shields were clearly copied from the newer USGS graphics; which, like the older USGS graphics before it as well as most roadmaps (Rand McNally, AAA, etc.), uses a circled shields for state highway designations regardless of which state its showing.

[JakeFromNewEngland]

I'm glad to see Connecticut is starting to see how bad the system is here. I-95 needed that widening a long time ago. Hopefully during my lifetime these projects will be done.

It's been years since I actively sought and read these things, but our local MPO used to put out documents like this, outlining some XX-years ideal vision.  I believe they were required to do so every so often.  This documents reads a lot like those, which were more or less impossible to ever realize in their entirety because they'd probably require a 50¢ hike in the gas tax. 

I really don't think we're going to see any new lane from Greenwich to New Haven.  First, it would not be enough, and second, the real estate is too expensive.

I agree. Although I would love for it to happen, there is really no land to build on. I think we'll be lucky to at least see some sort of widening project on the whole I-95 corridor in CT.

[Zeffy]

Ain't no circle shields in Connecticut.  They're clearly planning on having New Jersey build that road (or Vermont, Delaware, etc.).

Only roads New Jersey wants to build are their own, and even then New Jersey needs money, and pronto.

[Pete from Boston]

I'm glad to see Connecticut is starting to see how bad the system is here. I-95 needed that widening a long time ago. Hopefully during my lifetime these projects will be done.

It's been years since I actively sought and read these things, but our local MPO used to put out documents like this, outlining some XX-years ideal vision.  I believe they were required to do so every so often.  This documents reads a lot like those, which were more or less impossible to ever realize in their entirety because they'd probably require a 50¢ hike in the gas tax. 

I really don't think we're going to see any new lane from Greenwich to New Haven.  First, it would not be enough, and second, the real estate is too expensive.

I agree. Although I would love for it to happen, there is really no land to build on. I think we'll be lucky to at least see some sort of widening project on the whole I-95 corridor in CT.

What I suspect will happen is isolated projects like the recent one in Norwalk where capacity is improved through bottlenecks or simply the few areas where land acquisition is practical.

The total cost in the report is something like $7.5 billion to add a lane in each direction between New York State and New Haven. I think this number is wishful thinking. It would take 20 years to do, costs and the land values will go up in that time, and those are only the known unknowns.

[Alps]

Interesting–first I've heard of second crossing in Middletown.   

Replacing the 84/8 structures is going to be a nightmare.

Alt 8, which is the one they want to build I think, is actually large scale...so I hope they go through with it.

http://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/documents/dpolicy/WINS/WINScoverpage_nov2010.pdf

So I-84 and N.J. CT Route 8 north of it will be built on totally new alignments (no longer double-decked), obviating a lot of problems with working around existing traffic.

FTFY. 

I agree, Alt. 8 should get the nod IMHO.

Ain't no circle shields in Connecticut.  They're clearly planning on having New Jersey build that road (or Vermont, Delaware, etc.).

NJ doesn't have an 8, so why not? But in that case I want to be able to get there without a toll.

[Pete from Boston]

Ain't no circle shields in Connecticut.  They're clearly planning on having New Jersey build that road (or Vermont, Delaware, etc.).

I'm assuming that you're being facetious regarding the above (at least I hope you are - I've never met you personally).

Those shields were clearly copied from the newer USGS graphics; which, like the older USGS graphics before it as well as most roadmaps (Rand McNally, AAA, etc.), uses a circled shields for state highway designations regardless of which state its showing.

Yes, the comment about "N.J. 8" was a poke at the circle shield in the .pdf.

I've found the circle shield default in ArcGIS to be similarly frustrating to the USGS scenario you describe.  I use their square county route marker for state routes in Mass., but it's a pain because you have to dig a bit for a rectangle for 3-digit markers.

[PHLBOS]

It's worth noting that many state DOT roadmaps don't show the correct/actual shields for state routes.

The recent (approx. 3 years) Connecticut roadmap from ConnDOT that I have shows round and/or oval markers for its state routes.

IIRC, the Massachusetts roadmap from MassDOT does similar.

PennDOT's PA roadmap shows squares & rectangles for its state routes but circles for state routes in neighboring states.

[kurumi]

Here are my thoughts on some highway components of the 30-year plan. I skip the ones where I'd otherwise say "that would be cool to see" and so would the rest of us. Here goes.

Operationally improve CT 8 in Naugatuck Valley ($500M) - no mention of desire (in some agencies) to push for Interstate designation. But the fixups here would get it closer to standards

Super 7 extension to 7/33 in Wilton ($300M) - I'm assuming this is the southern 7/33 junction. Interchange at Grist Mill or anywhere in between? Probably not (or cost would be higher than $300M)

Operational lanes on I-95, NYSL to New Haven ($9 billion) - the doc mentions operational lanes, which I take to mean auxiliary lanes between interchanges. However, the state uses the term "speed change lane" later in the doc for the exit 8..10 project. So are we getting 8 lanes on 95 or auxiliary lanes only?

Speed change lane, I-95 northbound, exit 8 to exit 10 ($490M) - the southbound lane already exists; I-95 is 4 lanes SB here. So nearly half a billion dollars for a single lane. Damn. 

Reconstruct I-84 / US 6 / CT 4 (SR 508) interchange ($130M) - it sounds like they're going to dismantle the 3-way directional interchange and replace with: semidirectional T with C/D lanes? Or a spread diamond for both 508 and 6?

Improvements at I-91 / I-691 / CT 15 ($88M) - the doc says between exits 15 and 20, which is CT 68 to Country Club Road, with an additional operational lane in each direction. That's a lot cheaper compared to I-95. I'm guessing they would mainly widen the "squeeze" 4-lane portion of I-91 to 6 lanes, by taking from the median. (Widening outward would mean relocating CT 15, if only by 12 feet)

Replace Putnam Bridge ($295M) - Wow. New span. New alignment? Add shoulders, yes. Add another lane each direction, probably not.

New Bridge at Middletown ($2 billion) - I'm breaking my rule and including this one because it would be cool to see. I'd have a roadway coming south from the 17/66 split in Portland, across the bridge and a freeway to CT 9. Both 66 and 17 would use the new bridge. Old 66 could be 66A. 17A is extended across the Arrigoni. (The location matches an old plan from the 1960s)

Improvements to CT 2 / CT 17 interchange ($100M) - they could have done the right thing in 1964, when CT 2 was extended eastward. Now we're stuck with the left exit. $100M is probably not enough to make CT 17 exit and enter from the right. It sounds like they'll add short lanes north of the junction on CT 2 and restripe so there's no lane drop or add on the CT 2 mainline. Would they extend the operational lanes from CT 3 to CT 94?

Widen I-95 from Branford to Baldwin Bridge ($720M) - here, they mention widening from 2 to 3 operational lanes. I think they're getting sloppy with that term and they probably mean adding two thru lanes, giving a 6-lane profile (not including any auxiliary lanes)

Widen CT 2A ($100M) - this includes another 2-lane span of the M-P bridge.

[Alps]

Super 7 extension to 7/33 in Wilton ($300M) - I'm assuming this is the southern 7/33 junction. Interchange at Grist Mill or anywhere in between? Probably not (or cost would be higher than $300M)

If it's following anything like the original route, it would hit CT 33 west of US 7.

Operational lanes on I-95, NYSL to New Haven ($9 billion) - the doc mentions operational lanes, which I take to mean auxiliary lanes between interchanges. However, the state uses the term "speed change lane" later in the doc for the exit 8..10 project. So are we getting 8 lanes on 95 or auxiliary lanes only?

To me, that means "we add lanes and then toll them". HOT lanes are operational in nature. That would justify the price tag as well.

[jp the roadgeek]

It's worth noting that many state DOT roadmaps don't show the correct/actual shields for state routes.

The recent (approx. 3 years) Connecticut roadmap from ConnDOT that I have shows round and/or oval markers for its state routes.

IIRC, the Massachusetts roadmap from MassDOT does similar.

PennDOT's PA roadmap shows squares & rectangles for its state routes but circles for state routes in neighboring states.

JIMAPCO makes road maps with authentic state shields, as does the maps app in the iPhone.  Has the Keystone for PA, Old Man in the Mountains forNH, etc.

[ElPanaChevere]

THANK YOU! I've always wondered why the northeastern states (sans Maine) couldn't simply just switch over to mileage based. I mean, I understand New York is a rather large state in comparison to the ones on its eastern border, so it would take some time to switch over.

I've always hated how the first exit on I-95 north in Connecticut is exit 2. There is no 1. I doubt that this would take 20-30 years to do, let alone 5-6. Like someone mentioned, just putting up a new exit number over the old one a la Pennsylvania would do the trick just nicely.

They're able to reconstruct the whole I-95/I-91/CT 34 interchange in a matter of a few years, along with the I-95 Pequonnock River Bridge, yet this would take that long to do? Something doesn't seem right. Yes, Connecticut is a rather small state...so what's the excuse?

[connroadgeek]

THANK YOU! I've always wondered why the northeastern states (sans Maine) couldn't simply just switch over to mileage based. I mean, I understand New York is a rather large state in comparison to the ones on its eastern border, so it would take some time to switch over.

I've always hated how the first exit on I-95 north in Connecticut is exit 2. There is no 1. I doubt that this would take 20-30 years to do, let alone 5-6. Like someone mentioned, just putting up a new exit number over the old one a la Pennsylvania would do the trick just nicely.

They're able to reconstruct the whole I-95/I-91/CT 34 interchange in a matter of a few years, along with the I-95 Pequonnock River Bridge, yet this would take that long to do? Something doesn't seem right. Yes, Connecticut is a rather small state...so what's the excuse?

Because exit numbering by mileage would be confusing as f*ck. When PA did it old exit 53 became new exit 310. In CT old exit 54 becomes new exit 53 or something like that. So... get off at exit 54, take a left, wait, is that old exit 53 or new exit 54? In a small state where exits are a mile or less apart across the entire state it is useless and a waste of money. What's the largest distance between exits? Maybe 4-5 miles and that's a rarity. I do think I-395 could use a renumbering and it won't add confusion because the new vs. old numbers would be quite different. When the new vs. old numbers are very similar I think changing the numbering system is not worth the time.

[Beeper1]

Let's all read these plans with a grain of salt.  This is CT we are talking about.  Of the major projects in these plans only a couple of them have a snowball's chance in hell of ever happening.  The ones that seem actually plausible are: Widening I-95 from Branford to New London, replacing the Putnam Bridge, replacing the 84/8 interchange. All of the rest have as much chance happening as Route 11 being finished: zero.   

[connroadgeek]

"Only" $900M for a Goldstar Bridge Replacement? Ha! Any sane person knows that will cost $1.5B minimum.

[ctsignguy]

THANK YOU! I've always wondered why the northeastern states (sans Maine) couldn't simply just switch over to mileage based. I mean, I understand New York is a rather large state in comparison to the ones on its eastern border, so it would take some time to switch over.

I've always hated how the first exit on I-95 north in Connecticut is exit 2. There is no 1. I doubt that this would take 20-30 years to do, let alone 5-6. Like someone mentioned, just putting up a new exit number over the old one a la Pennsylvania would do the trick just nicely.

When the Turnpike was first constructed, the unsigned Exit 1 was I-95 south to New York City...therefore Exit 2 was logical for the eastbound traffic at that time.....

and Connroadgeek is quite correct.  Many of the Turnpike exits would be renumbered BACKWARD because I-95 has 70 exits in the first 79 miles...and if i recall, something like 50 exits in the first 55 miles.  and as the exits are around a mile apart in that stretch, the benefit vs cost/confusion simply isnt worth it to Conn DOT's thinking ....395 would make more sense as it has longer distances between exits (and would be the only stretch of Interstate left in the State with room to add exits of any kind), but the other Connecticut Interstates should be pretty much left alone

The problem with the whole forcing the mileage-based exit issue is this....in typical government fashion, "We dont care about the actual bottom line and how it affects others (in this case, the locals).....all we care about is the process and the rules that must be obeyed!"

[shadyjay]

IIRC, the article about CT changing to mile-based exits stated the reason for why it would take so long to convert over to mile-based exits was since it was being done as signs are replaced.  Since I-395's signs are being replaced right now, it made sense to convert it to mile-based at the same time. 

Also, since I-95's signs have been replaced in the past 5 years or so from the NY line up to New Haven, it makes me wonder if the numbers will even change when I-95 gets converted on the section west of New Haven.  Really no reason for them to.  Sign projects in the next few years will tackle I-95 east of Branford, so I would imagine mile-based exits would come to that route next.  No mention of any I-91 signing projects in the next few years, outside of the occasional "spot" replacements here n' there.

[Pete from Boston]

Really, mileage-based numbering is a really tiny concern in the grand scheme of things.  Once you get off these boards, it becomes a head-scratcher why money would be spent on this "to conform" at any time the signs weren't otherwise going to be replaced.

[shadyjay]

Agree, but that's what ConnDOT is going to do (I think).... convert when the signs are up for replacement.  In I-395's case, its signs were installed c 1985-86, so they're ready to be replaced.  Some of them are so old, the LEFT EXIT yellow panel on Exit 97 is more white than yellow. 

I-84's signs in the East Hartford/Manchester area date back to the construction of the I-84/I-384 interchange in the early 80s, hence the large oversized route markers. 

What I've seen for upcoming sign replacement projects mentioned on ConnDOT's site are I-95 east of Branford, I-84 from Southington to Hartford, and CT 8 north of Thomaston and down in the lower 'Naugy valley.  No mention of CT 2, CT 9, I-91, or any of I-84 east of Hartford.  Curious to see if when I-95 signs get replaced east of New Haven, will the 2000-vintage signs from Exits 60-67/70-82A get replaced completely?  Or will they do what they're doing for the current Fairfield-West Haven signage contract, just replacing the button copy and keeping most of the "Bridgeport Corridor" signage, also replaced around the late 1990s-2000 era.

CT 15 signage has been replaced in the past 15 years or so (wow - has it already been that long), and unless the feds force the Merritt to go MUTCD, I can't see it getting replaced anytime soon.  The signs that were there dated to the 1970s at least, if not earlier.  Sure, Exit 39-40 is still button copy 1990-vintage but they're still debating what to do with completing the US 7/CT 15 interchange there.  Still, it wouldn't take much to convert the parkways over to mile-based.  It's mostly all ground-signage anyway. 

[J Route Z]

I like the fact that CT uses the green backdrop for their route shields on large guide signs, as opposed to having a white square which is found on ground mounted route markers.

[Zeffy]

I like the fact that CT uses the green backdrop for their route shields on large guide signs, as opposed to having a white square which is found on ground mounted route markers.

Used to, AFAIK. They now look more akin to how Massachusetts does it albeit missing the black border.

[Alps]

Really, mileage-based numbering is a really tiny concern in the grand scheme of things.  Once you get off these boards, it becomes a head-scratcher why money would be spent on this "to conform" at any time the signs weren't otherwise going to be replaced.

I tell you, it's damn useful in a place like Vermont or New York State where exits are routinely 10-15 miles apart, then clustered around cities. Less so on I-95 west of New Haven, but certainly the more exurban areas of Connecticut would be nice to do properly.