Connecticut News

[doogie1303]

I've been on all of I-95 in CT back in 2009, and saw the TERRIBLE traffic. Jeez. I-95's lane set up could be this:

10-12 lanes between NY State Line and Housatonic River
12 lanes between Housatonic River and I-91
10 lanes between I-91 and CT 77
8 lanes between CT 77 and CT 9
6 lanes between CT 9 and CT 85
10 lanes between CT 85 and Clarence B Sharp Highway (CT 349)
4 lanes between CT 349 and RI State Line

The problem with that is that SW CT is too densely populated/filled with NIMBYs. They could POSSIBLY widen I-95 to 8 lanes, but 10 or 12? Never. Plus, it's really only SW CT that has all the bad traffic. East of New Haven would probably be fine at 6 lanes with auxiliary lanes in between.

Between Guilford and the RI state border, I-95 and the Boston Post Road (aka US 1) have got it handled. Anyway, the state just finished a huge project on the bridge that carries 95 and the Northeast Corridor and wouldn't want to rip up what they just finished. Yes, I-95 needs more lanes in Fairfield County, but it's not happening. NIMBYism is worse on the Fairfield County shoreline than Trenton/Princeton pre-95/doomed Somerset Freeway.  It'll just end like 

I-95 needs to be a minimum of 3 lanes from Branford to the RI line which is the state plan that was supposed to be complete by 2025 but I'm guessing that has slipped big time. 2 lanes isn't cutting it, and no one is hopping onto the two lane Post Rd as an alternative, not if they're sane anyway. In the summer traffic is terrible through those little beach towns and having a lot of traffic destined for the casinos, RI beaches, and the Cape exacerbates things. It's not uncommon to have traffic suck as it usually does from exit 4 through 48, then have it stop and go after that until about the exit 62 area only to come to a dead stop again at exit 70 as Route 9 traffic merges on and tries to get out of the exit only lane over the Baldwin Bridge while 95 itself is narrowing from 4 to 2 lanes. They should do something with the 9 SB to 95 NB ramp since traffic for that ramp is always backed up several miles in the summer, but options there are really limited and presents another reason why Route 11 should be completed to 95 so there's some other direct way to 95 from the Hartford area besides 9.

East of New Haven to the I-395 split, I-95 is still the original "Connecticut Turnpike", except for the Baldwin Bridge which was replaced in 1994. The only work that has been done on the road has been merely cosmetic, no major improvements to lane layout. Its a narrow 4-lane highway with on-off ramps not built for today's highways speeds.

They should have widened the road when they replaced the median with a Jersey Barrier back in the late 1990s, but you can thank Gov. Rowland for that, he was opposed to widening the highway.

[Duke87]

East of New Haven to the I-395 split, I-95 is still the original "Connecticut Turnpike", except for the Baldwin Bridge which was replaced in 1994. The only work that has been done on the road has been merely cosmetic, no major improvements to lane layout. Its a narrow 4-lane highway with on-off ramps not built for today's highways speeds.

They should have widened the road when they replaced the median with a Jersey Barrier back in the late 1990s, but you can thank Gov. Rowland for that, he was opposed to widening the highway.

Eh, the politicians are a product of their environment. Rowland was opposed to widening it as were all the NIMBYs, which Connecticut has lots and lots of.

Connecticut's problem is a major lack of perspective combined with aversion to change and general complacency. Your average Connecticutter does not drive often if ever in parts of the country where the roads don't suck, so in a Stockholm syndrome sort of way they don't realize how bad things really are. They just accept it as normal. And widening roads, rather than being welcomed as a way of improving travel, is instead seen as an invitation for people's lifestyles to be ruined by increasing density. There seems to be a mindset of "if you don't build it, they won't come".

Connecticut also in the past 25 years or so has gone from being a state that was generally well rounded and had its shit together to a state that despite ever increasing taxes finds its budget increasingly unstable and can't find money to pay for anything, which of course also has very significant implications for the state's ability to improve infrastructure. Especially when gas tax revenues keep getting raided to plug holes in the general budget.

[lowerdeck]

I often go from Plainfield northward on I-395, and only within the last week have the new exit numbers started being installed.  So far I seen signs (at the exit itself) for 28/87, 32/89, 35/90, 37/91, and 38/92 (NB only) - hidden behind the existing signage.  No BGS have been installed north of the Plainfield/Griswold line, and some of the metal posts still have not been put in yet. 

Nearly all of them are ground posted, even ones that were above the roadway before.  The one exception is SB in Putnam, where they installed a new overhead - presumably for an Exit Only lane for 45/95 (Kennedy Drive).

I rarely venture south of Plainfield (on 395), so I hadn't realized the new signs were already up Norwich and southward.

[shadyjay]

According to the contract plans, some overheads are staying but the majority are being moved to the ground.  Former Exits 84-85 and 91 will retain overhead signage on existing supports.  Exits 90 and 98 (that left exit to Rt 12) are going ground.  Not to mention the majority of bridge-mounted signs are going to the ground. 

Also there are two contracts at work here.... one from East Lyme to Plainfield (including 2A and Mohegan Connector), while the other from Plainfield to Thompson (including 695). 

[JimmyI395]

I often go from Plainfield northward on I-395, and only within the last week have the new exit numbers started being installed.  So far I seen signs (at the exit itself) for 28/87, 32/89, 35/90, 37/91, and 38/92 (NB only) - hidden behind the existing signage.  No BGS have been installed north of the Plainfield/Griswold line, and some of the metal posts still have not been put in yet. 

Nearly all of them are ground posted, even ones that were above the roadway before.  The one exception is SB in Putnam, where they installed a new overhead - presumably for an Exit Only lane for 45/95 (Kennedy Drive).

I rarely venture south of Plainfield (on 395), so I hadn't realized the new signs were already up Norwich and southward.

One thing I notice on this project was that they are reusing some of the old supports. I figure they were going to put all new. Right now they are up to RT12 in Lisbon for the new signs. I need to get some more pictures for you guys.

[Mergingtraffic]

Get rid of the tacky mid 1980s gantries.  I-95 between Bridgeport and New Haven have a ton

[doogie1303]

Get rid of the tacky mid 1980s gantries.  I-95 between Bridgeport and New Haven have a ton

What ... you don't like the box girder yellow (or light green) elbow gantries? 

[TravelingBethelite]

Get rid of the tacky mid 1980s gantries.  I-95 between Bridgeport and New Haven have a ton

What ... you don't like the box girder yellow (or light green) elbow gantries? 

Are you kidding? They kick ass.  And they're button copy, to boot! 

[shadyjay]

You want those gantries en'masse?  Head to I-91 from Hartford, north.  The yellow ones live there, installed in the late 1980s/early 1990s and most still hold their original button copy signage.  Those between Bridgeport and New Haven are a mix of gantries... no yellow ones, maybe some older green ones.  And 98% of those west of New Haven aren't button copy anymore.

Mass. sign projects as of recent years are replacing ALL gantries and moving all primary signs to overhead.  CT sign projects are going the other way.. moving more and more signs to the ground and only replacing spot gantries here n' there. 

BTW, a contract for this year's random sign replacement project gets released tomorrow.  Wonder what we'll see.  Still waiting to see last year's contract be fulfilled, at least as far as the I-91 Windsor Locks signs go. 

[Mergingtraffic]

New signing contract out today.  Good signs

However I'm not a fan of turning the right most lane on I-84 EB in Newtown between Exits 10-11 into a long AUX lane, where the 3rd lane exits at Exit 11 gore rather than going a few 1000 feet past it like it currently does.

http://www.biznet.ct.gov/scp_search/BidDetail.aspx?CID=36938
Here's a map of the lane ending:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Wasserman+Way,+Newtown,+CT+06470/@41.4136372,-73.2718655,401m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x89e7fb52c6ee5bd1:0x509b57596441a11c

As a cash strapped DOT, they just put up new signs for Exit 11 EB in the beginning of 2014 in this area when the last signing contract came through and even painted new "lane ending" arrows, which probably cost a lot, now they're spending money to redo the signs. Money could've been spent elsewhere to add a turning lane or another sign that badly needs. it.

[kurumi]

New signing contract out today.  Good signs
...
http://www.biznet.ct.gov/scp_search/BidDetail.aspx?CID=36938

Skip to page 222 of the Project Specifications link for the sign images.

[PHLBOS]

New signing contract out today.  Good signs
...
http://www.biznet.ct.gov/scp_search/BidDetail.aspx?CID=36938

Skip to page 222 of the Project Specifications link for the sign images.

So ConnDOT's pretty much going Series C for all its non-Interstate route shields on BGS'.  Previous BGS', including recent installations, have all been Series D for CT route shields (including 3-digit routes).

[noelbotevera]

I've been on all of I-95 in CT back in 2009, and saw the TERRIBLE traffic. Jeez. I-95's lane set up could be this:

10-12 lanes between NY State Line and Housatonic River
12 lanes between Housatonic River and I-91
10 lanes between I-91 and CT 77
8 lanes between CT 77 and CT 9
6 lanes between CT 9 and CT 85
10 lanes between CT 85 and Clarence B Sharp Highway (CT 349)
4 lanes between CT 349 and RI State Line

The problem with that is that SW CT is too densely populated/filled with NIMBYs. They could POSSIBLY widen I-95 to 8 lanes, but 10 or 12? Never. Plus, it's really only SW CT that has all the bad traffic. East of New Haven would probably be fine at 6 lanes with auxiliary lanes in between.

Between Guilford and the RI state border, I-95 and the Boston Post Road (aka US 1) have got it handled. Anyway, the state just finished a huge project on the bridge that carries 95 and the Northeast Corridor and wouldn't want to rip up what they just finished. Yes, I-95 needs more lanes in Fairfield County, but it's not happening. NIMBYism is worse on the Fairfield County shoreline than Trenton/Princeton pre-95/doomed Somerset Freeway.  It'll just end like 

I-95 needs to be a minimum of 3 lanes from Branford to the RI line which is the state plan that was supposed to be complete by 2025 but I'm guessing that has slipped big time. 2 lanes isn't cutting it, and no one is hopping onto the two lane Post Rd as an alternative, not if they're sane anyway. In the summer traffic is terrible through those little beach towns and having a lot of traffic destined for the casinos, RI beaches, and the Cape exacerbates things. It's not uncommon to have traffic suck as it usually does from exit 4 through 48, then have it stop and go after that until about the exit 62 area only to come to a dead stop again at exit 70 as Route 9 traffic merges on and tries to get out of the exit only lane over the Baldwin Bridge while 95 itself is narrowing from 4 to 2 lanes. They should do something with the 9 SB to 95 NB ramp since traffic for that ramp is always backed up several miles in the summer, but options there are really limited and presents another reason why Route 11 should be completed to 95 so there's some other direct way to 95 from the Hartford area besides 9.

East of New Haven to the I-395 split, I-95 is still the original "Connecticut Turnpike", except for the Baldwin Bridge which was replaced in 1994. The only work that has been done on the road has been merely cosmetic, no major improvements to lane layout. Its a narrow 4-lane highway with on-off ramps not built for today's highways speeds.

They should have widened the road when they replaced the median with a Jersey Barrier back in the late 1990s, but you can thank Gov. Rowland for that, he was opposed to widening the highway.

It's almost been a week since I touched on this, but I have a solution to I-95 in Fairfield County. Demolish I-95 south of I-91, and US 1 too. they destroy US 7 to make FF County beg and cough up the money. It's the only way to make it work.

[KEVIN_224]

I found it odd that ConnDOT is starting to install those 1/5 mile markers along the CT Fastrak route. So far they're mostly between the Kane Street and Newington Junction stations. Mile 0 will be the New Britain end.

[JakeFromNewEngland]

http://www.milfordmirror.com/48585/2-groups-meet-tuesday-to-protest-i-95-exit-33-changes/

This whole project seems to be going a lot slower than anticipated. The bridge I think was supposed to be open by this year, but now they're saying next summer. Now people are complaining about the new exit reconstruction..

[Mergingtraffic]

http://www.milfordmirror.com/48585/2-groups-meet-tuesday-to-protest-i-95-exit-33-changes/

This whole project seems to be going a lot slower than anticipated. The bridge I think was supposed to be open by this year, but now they're saying next summer. Now people are complaining about the new exit reconstruction..

Here's a more detailed article about people's different views:
http://www.milfordmirror.com/24974/group-says-i-95-exit-33-changes-would-hurt-milford-businesses/

Basically, everyone wants what's best for them and not the region as a whole.

Speaking of special interests:
I saw this piece about the Merritt Parkway
http://www.theday.com/article/20150820/NWS05/150829934

[Duke87]

It is interesting how the Merritt Parkway was built, 80 years ago, with provision for it eventually to be doubled in width. A provision which to this day remains unused because everyone is so attached to the road in its current state. But the argument that it can't be touched due to its historical significance falls flat on account of the existence of this provision.

Note that the Hearst Tower in Manhattan was allowed to be built within the façade of an existing historic structure in large part because said structure was originally designed with the idea in mind that it might someday be expanded into a taller tower. It therefore was determined that doing so was in line with the building's history rather than in violation of it. By the same logic, expanding the Merritt Parkway would not constitute violation of its historic nature since it was from the beginning meant to be expanded. Alas, the desires of a real estate firm to expand a building most people had never heard of are weighted differently than the desires of a state DOT to expand a beloved road.

Practically speaking, if aesthetics were not a particular concern, widening the Merritt would be a great idea... at least north of exit 34. South of exit 34 traffic counts are low enough that the road generally operates just fine as four lanes, even during rush hour. Greenwich isn't too densely populated and people who commute to the city usually take Metro-North. The rush hour congestion in Fairfield County is largely from intra-Connecticut commuting.

[Pete from Boston]

It is interesting how the Merritt Parkway was built, 80 years ago, with provision for it eventually to be doubled in width. A provision which to this day remains unused because everyone is so attached to the road in its current state. But the argument that it can't be touched due to its historical significance falls flat on account of the existence of this provision.

Note that the Hearst Tower in Manhattan was allowed to be built within the façade of an existing historic structure in large part because said structure was originally designed with the idea in mind that it might someday be expanded into a taller tower. It therefore was determined that doing so was in line with the building's history rather than in violation of it. By the same logic, expanding the Merritt Parkway would not constitute violation of its historic nature since it was from the beginning meant to be expanded. Alas, the desires of a real estate firm to expand a building most people had never heard of are weighted differently than the desires of a state DOT to expand a beloved road.

Carrying out a possibility left open is not preserving the what's there now, though.  Ideas don't get landmark status the way an actual physical item does.

There's of course a lot of precedent for salvaging a building by converting it into something greatly different from what it was; whether or not this is indeed historic "preservation" is fodder for some debate.  We have a beloved diner here that's now a gutted shell mounted to the front of a plain old restaurant.  I don't consider the diner preserved, more "remembered."

This isn't to say that preservation is what matters, just that it's what's been decided, and that diverting to an ancient plan doesn't equal honoring history.  I'm not even a purist when it comes to these things–may I burn in hell for saying anything good about the Red Sox, but they have done a tremendous job in extensively modifying Fenway Park to keep a historic commercial venue viable, while my beloved New York Yankees made a terrible blunder not doing so with their historic home.  I'm not sure if or how Fenway's recent landmark status affects further efforts in this regard, but they don't seem to have slowed.

However, doubling the size of Fenway however creatively would not be preservation at all, in my opinion.

[southshore720]

As a former Milford resident, I always found it annoying to have to drive on US 1 in Devon to get to Stratford.  I would've appreciated the convenience of a SB Exit 33.  And the "businesses" there aren't anything to write home about...especially the Kmart.

[TravelingBethelite]

Hi all. Reporting in from the free wi-fi @ Bradley International. A couple things to report: New sinage on I-91 looks nice. Gonna miss the button copy though.  Pavement from Exit 17 to the mixmaster on I-84 is getting regrooved. There's major construction, appearing to be highway-related, around Exits 25-25A also on I-84. That's all for now.

[kurumi]

(Not Connecticut "News", but I can't locate the existing "old photos" thread to reanimate)

I took another look at the Brookfield photo here: http://florencegriswoldmuseum.org/exhibitions/online/the-exacting-eye-of-walker-evans/

Check out the partially erased "182" on the Danbury sign:


State Highway 182 was the old (pre-1932) name for CT 133. This may have been a signing convention statewide at the time. I'd like to find more examples.

[noelbotevera]

(Not Connecticut "News", but I can't locate the existing "old photos" thread to reanimate)

I took another look at the Brookfield photo here: http://florencegriswoldmuseum.org/exhibitions/online/the-exacting-eye-of-walker-evans/

Check out the partially erased "182" on the Danbury sign:


State Highway 182 was the old (pre-1932) name for CT 133. This may have been a signing convention statewide at the time. I'd like to find more examples.

What route went right towards Kent?

[kurumi]

The highway to Kent (via New Milford) would have been SH 156: today's CT 25, between US 6 in Newtown and US 7 in Brookfield. I can't see any traces on the sign, though.

[mariethefoxy]

Hi all. Reporting in from the free wi-fi @ Bradley International. A couple things to report: New sinage on I-91 looks nice. Gonna miss the button copy though.  Pavement from Exit 17 to the mixmaster on I-84 is getting regrooved. There's major construction, appearing to be highway-related, around Exits 25-25A also on I-84. That's all for now.

when did they replace the signs? When I was up that way in March it was one of the few places in CT still left with a decent run of the old signs. Do they still have the white, fading HOV Lane signs?

[TravelingBethelite]

Hi all. Reporting in from the free wi-fi @ Bradley International. A couple things to report: New signage on I-91 looks nice. Gonna miss the button copy though.  Pavement from Exit 17 to the mixmaster on I-84 is getting regrooved. There's major construction, appearing to be highway-related, around Exits 25-25A also on I-84. That's all for now.

when did they replace the signs? When I was up that way in March it was one of the few places in CT still left with a decent run of the old signs. Do they still have the white, fading HOV Lane signs?

I'm fairly sure they do, but there were two things affeccting my judgement on that: (1) It was day, so no reflection, and (2), they signs are white, which are more difficult to see a reflection on period, let alone the day.