Connecticut News

[shadyjay]

Funny, I noticed on in Derby on CT-8 SB the Exit 17 exit now sign and the Exit 15 CT-34 1/2 mile signs have been replaced and are now side mounted rather than on the overpass.  Those literally went up overnight.  They were not there Thursday. and I never saw any foundation work.

I was surprised b/c I have been following recent signing projects and didn't see those signs anywhere in them.  Even the "sign replacements at 20 locations" projects too.  Somehow I missed it.

Site 2 for Project # 170-3066

Same project will finally add a proper assembly to I-91 NB Exit 10, move a couple overheads to the ground on CT 9 SB near Exits 29 & 30, add an assembly to I-91 SB Exit 40, replace I-91 NB Exit 42/I-91 SB Exit 41(& 39) into a single assembly), amongst other "sites".

[shadyjay]

Brief summary of what to look forward to with the latest round of "spot sign replacements", #170-3066:

site1:  I-95SB Exit 23, tubular gantry being relocated from site3.
site2:  CT 8 SB Exit 17, bridge-mounted signs going to the ground.  (discussed above as being replaced already)
site3:  I-84EB/WB:  new gantry will span both directions at WB Exit 21.
site4:  I-91NB at Exit 10... new gantry to replace existing truss.  Signs removed a few years ago. 
site5/6:  I-84WB at Exit 38.  Truss being removed.  Exit 38 going side cantilever, Exit 37 ground-mounted.
site7:  CT9SB at Exit 30... going from overhead to ground-mounted.
site8:  CT9SB at Exit 29... going from overhead to ground-mounted.
site9:  I-91SB at Exit 40... to replace gantry removed.  Signs will include I-91SB pullthrough/Lane Ends/Exit 40.
site10: I-91NB/SB at Exit 41(S)/42(N)... will replace two existing gantries.
site11:   I-84EB at Exit 58, going from truss-mounted to side cantilever.  No I-84/I-384 EB pullthrough.
site12:  I-84WB 3/4 mile advance for Exit 66 going from bridge-mounted to ground.
site13:   I-95 SB 1 mile advance for Exit 65.  Signs going from bridge-mounted to ground for State Police and Exit 65-1 Mile
site14:  I-95NB after Exit 88.  Bridge-mounted "Lane Ends" sign going from bridge-mounted to ground.

As we see above, overheads are being "phased out" in favor of more ground-based signs, except in heavily-trafficked areas.  I doubt you'll see any signs on I-95 between NY and New Haven go to the ground, but elsewhere it seems like its fair game. 

[Mergingtraffic]

I-84 widening is supposed to start today. 4/1/15..no foolin'  Ground breaking is today.

http://www.i-84waterbury.com/

These signs are nearing the end.

[Duke87]

Connecticut has really caught the bug for cutting costs by downsizing signs, haven't they?

[shadyjay]

Not just CT.... years ago, I-91 and I-89 in VT used to have large signs (similar to CT) at the entrance to the onramps of limited-access highways.  As signs have been replaced over the years, these were reduced to simple shields and arrows, with small green signs denoting the major destination.  I imagine a similar practice is being done to the "I-84 East/Hartford/Left Lane" sign mentioned above.

[KEVIN_224]

http://wtnh.com/2015/04/06/replacing-the-states-busiest-stretch-of-highway/

More talk today about the Aetna Viaduct, which is I-84 from Exit 46 (Sisson Avenue) to about Exit 49 (Ann Uccello Street). Connecticut governor Dannell P. Malloy toured some of the area underneath the road today and talked about the alternatives for replacing that roadway, with any project expected to cost anywhere from $5 to $10 billion (a tunnel would be the most expensive option).

Two things are wrong with the WTNH article: 1- The screen shot is from about Exit 50 (US Route 44 West/Morgan Street) looking west. The viaduct is actually the elevated highway immediately west of the Hartford Tunnel. 2- They say the viaduct is 3 miles long. Try about 1.5 miles! Exit 45 westbound for Flatbush Avenue is very near mile marker 60. Mile marker 63 would be in East Hartford, where one would've already gone over the Bulkeley Bridge and the Connecticut River.

P.S. Not mentioned in this article is the new CT Fastrak (busway). The Sigourney Street station lies under this very viaduct. No mention was made as to how any project would impact the new roadway.

[relaxok]

Random question.. I was in CT in October 2013 and I am 90% certain that I saw a sign meant to denote US 6 but was a 6 on a normal state (black rectangular) shield. I even mentioned it to my driving companion who agreed it was weird.

Does anybody know what I'm talking about?  I think it was on 84 somewhere.  I thought about taking a pic but forgot before I came back to CA.

[kurumi]

Random question.. I was in CT in October 2013 and I am 90% certain that I saw a sign meant to denote US 6 but was a 6 on a normal state (black rectangular) shield. I even mentioned it to my driving companion who agreed it was weird.

Does anybody know what I'm talking about?  I think it was on 84 somewhere.  I thought about taking a pic but forgot before I came back to CA.

Neil Kelly got a photo a while ago: http://www.shields.aaroads.com/show.php?image=CT19630062

I think CT has state sign goofs for all the US Routes except 7 and 1A; and I've seen "extra" US markers for 15, 66, and 160.

[Alps]

Random question.. I was in CT in October 2013 and I am 90% certain that I saw a sign meant to denote US 6 but was a 6 on a normal state (black rectangular) shield. I even mentioned it to my driving companion who agreed it was weird.

Does anybody know what I'm talking about?  I think it was on 84 somewhere.  I thought about taking a pic but forgot before I came back to CA.

Neil Kelly got a photo a while ago: http://www.shields.aaroads.com/show.php?image=CT19630062

I think CT has state sign goofs for all the US Routes except 7 and 1A; and I've seen "extra" US markers for 15, 66, and 160.

I think I saw a 7 at one point. 1A will probably never have one.

[KEVIN_224]

You might be referring to I-84 in West Hartford. There are several error "6" shields in place of US Route 6. Obviously, they're leftover shields for nearby CT Route 9 which starts at Exit 39A in Farmington. BTW, Connecticut doesn't have a state route 6. 

[Alps]

Obviously, they're leftover shields for nearby CT Route 9 which starts at Exit 39A in Farmington.

So the CT 44 error is what, exactly? Or are you just wrong.

[KEVIN_224]

I'm not aware of any "CT Route 44" errors. Just the "6" signs in West Hartford, such as this one, after one gets on eastbound from Exit 40:

http://goo.gl/maps/wY15m

[kurumi]

I'm not aware of any "CT Route 44" errors. Just the "6" signs in West Hartford, such as this one, after one gets on eastbound from Exit 40:

http://goo.gl/maps/wY15m

There was one in Putnam: http://kurumi.com/roads/ct/ct12.html

GSV shows it was fixed by 2008.

[Beeper1]

There are still a few in Putnam at the junction with CT-171.  Only the ones downtown were fixed, and even there I think there is still one on Kennedy Dr westbound.

[Mergingtraffic]

Exit 44-45 on I-95 article:

http://www.nhregister.com/general-news/20150411/dot-to-close-and-demolish-exit-44-in-new-haven

A quote from the article:
When an exit ramp merges with the roadway in a travel lane, in which vehicles come off the highway without having to stop, it's called a free-flow exit, and "one of the issues we had with maintaining a free-flow was pedestrian movements,"  Pelletier said. Having a stop light at the foot of the ramp is much safer for walkers, he said.

SO it seems to be that a free-flow movement is being shelved b/c of crosswalks, and I never see peds around there anyway at the interchange.

[Pete from Boston]

I feel like that exit's closure has been "imminent" for years.

[kurumi]

Exit 44-45 on I-95 article:

http://www.nhregister.com/general-news/20150411/dot-to-close-and-demolish-exit-44-in-new-haven

A quote from the article:
When an exit ramp merges with the roadway in a travel lane, in which vehicles come off the highway without having to stop, it's called a free-flow exit, and "one of the issues we had with maintaining a free-flow was pedestrian movements,"  Pelletier said. Having a stop light at the foot of the ramp is much safer for walkers, he said.

SO it seems to be that a free-flow movement is being shelved b/c of crosswalks, and I never see peds around there anyway at the interchange.

One annoying thing that newspapers have done for a long time is not include a diagram of the proposed changes. Imagine if that were your only source of information; you'd have to pull up Google Maps to put the article in context, and still not have the complete picture.

However, there's always room for some B-roll type photo of a car exiting the freeway, or construction barriers, or two guys in hardhats.

[Duke87]

SO it seems to be that a free-flow movement is being shelved b/c of crosswalks, and I never see peds around there anyway at the interchange.

Yeah, because it's not exactly inviting to walk across. But it is in an urban area, so there is certainly potential for pedestrian traffic through there.

At any rate, the southbound loop ramp is at the end of a nasty weave and therefore has plenty of justification for elimination purely on account of vehicular safety. The northbound one... well, the same movement will be accomplished by two right turns, both of which I assume will be permitted on red. It won't mentally seem as effortless but in terms of actual delay I wonder how much difference it really will make. Eliminating a free flow movement comes with the perception of making the process so much slower, but unless longer queues develop without the free flow, that perception is not in line with reality.

That said I would also concede that the concern about pedestrian safety is likely overstated, especially since pedestrians will be able to walk along the opposite sidewalk without crossing any entering or exiting traffic at all.

But it is probably more administratively efficient for ConnDOT to simply have a blanket policy of eliminating free flow turns in urban areas than it is for them to try and argue with everyone over the merits of them in each individual case... since it is unlikely to do any significant harm.

[Mergingtraffic]

SO it seems to be that a free-flow movement is being shelved b/c of crosswalks, and I never see peds around there anyway at the interchange.

Yeah, because it's not exactly inviting to walk across. But it is in an urban area, so there is certainly potential for pedestrian traffic through there.

At any rate, the southbound loop ramp is at the end of a nasty weave and therefore has plenty of justification for elimination purely on account of vehicular safety. The northbound one... well, the same movement will be accomplished by two right turns, both of which I assume will be permitted on red. It won't mentally seem as effortless but in terms of actual delay I wonder how much difference it really will make. Eliminating a free flow movement comes with the perception of making the process so much slower, but unless longer queues develop without the free flow, that perception is not in line with reality.

That said I would also concede that the concern about pedestrian safety is likely overstated, especially since pedestrians will be able to walk along the opposite sidewalk without crossing any entering or exiting traffic at all.

But it is probably more administratively efficient for ConnDOT to simply have a blanket policy of eliminating free flow turns in urban areas than it is for them to try and argue with everyone over the merits of them in each individual case... since it is unlikely to do any significant harm.

I have noticed RI & MA have more freeflowing movements at a log of intersections, even just regular 4-way intersections, a lot of channelized right turns.  More than CT by far.

[KEVIN_224]

One of the VMS signs at the I-91/I-95 junction in New Haven was advising that I-95 Exit 44 by the West Haven town line was closing on Friday. I'm assuming that's a permanent closure?

[jp the roadgeek]

SO it seems to be that a free-flow movement is being shelved b/c of crosswalks, and I never see peds around there anyway at the interchange.

Yeah, because it's not exactly inviting to walk across. But it is in an urban area, so there is certainly potential for pedestrian traffic through there.

At any rate, the southbound loop ramp is at the end of a nasty weave and therefore has plenty of justification for elimination purely on account of vehicular safety. The northbound one... well, the same movement will be accomplished by two right turns, both of which I assume will be permitted on red. It won't mentally seem as effortless but in terms of actual delay I wonder how much difference it really will make. Eliminating a free flow movement comes with the perception of making the process so much slower, but unless longer queues develop without the free flow, that perception is not in line with reality.

That said I would also concede that the concern about pedestrian safety is likely overstated, especially since pedestrians will be able to walk along the opposite sidewalk without crossing any entering or exiting traffic at all.

But it is probably more administratively efficient for ConnDOT to simply have a blanket policy of eliminating free flow turns in urban areas than it is for them to try and argue with everyone over the merits of them in each individual case... since it is unlikely to do any significant harm.

I have noticed RI & MA have more freeflowing movements at a log of intersections, even just regular 4-way intersections, a lot of channelized right turns.  More than CT by far.

CT despises channelized right turns.

[JakeFromNewEngland]

Today I noticed what looked to be construction of a new gantry for Exit 38 Southbound on I-95. Does anyone know if ConnDOT has plans for a new assembly here?

[shadyjay]

It's part of the Fairfield to New Haven sign replacement project.  While signs were replaced in Milford a couple years back, some spot changes are part of the project.  Among them is the replacement of the damaged Exit 38 1/2 mile SB sign.  Project plans show a new overhead support 200' east of the overpass where the damaged sign sits. 

[shadyjay]

It should be noted that not just one, but two exits in the state of Connecticut will close PERMANENTLY next week:

I-95SB Exit 44 to "Downtown West Haven".  Existing Exit 45 will be resigned as Exit 44.  Part of the West River Bridge project.

I-84WB Exit 24 to "Harpers Ferry Road".  Part of the I-84 Waterbury reconstruction/widening.  Detour via Exit 25. 

[Duke87]

I have noticed RI & MA have more freeflowing movements at a log of intersections, even just regular 4-way intersections, a lot of channelized right turns.  More than CT by far.

CT despises channelized right turns.

A greater percentage of Connectuct's land area is urban/suburban than Rhode Island or Massachusetts. So there's that.

But yeah, Connecticut has been actively removing channelized right turns in many circumstances - the general reason being pedestrian safety.