Connecticut News

[Duke87]

Back to meaningful discussion, one cost factor that rarely gets mentioned in the beaten-to-death "Why the Connecticut Turnpike will never be widened southeast of New Haven" topic is that as a coastal route, it's littered with bridges over wide estuaries.

And as a highway through a densely populated area which was well developed before its construction, it's littered with a lot of overpasses and underpasses in general. Which don't have the same environmental impact problems as bridges over estuaries but do drive the cost of widening the road up all the same.

[TravelingBethelite]

I agree. If it were 5-10 more miles inland, it might be a whole different story. You'd have to bridge more rivers but few or no estuaries.

[JakeFromNewEngland]

Back to meaningful discussion, one cost factor that rarely gets mentioned in the beaten-to-death "Why the Connecticut Turnpike will never be widened southeast of New Haven" topic is that as a coastal route, it's littered with bridges over wide estuaries.  As we've seen recently over the Quinnipiac and Housatonic, replacing these bridges is an enormous, slow undertaking. The same would end up being repeated in Bridgeport, Greenwich, Norwalk, and elsewhere.  An easier nut to crack for sure than popular opposition, but a serious issue just the same.

As much as I'd love to see a better I-95 in SW CT, it won't happen and for those issues. The original CT Turnpike was built with probably 1960s-1970s estimated traffic counts and back then they just built the routes where they were easiest to build. ConnDOT recently has been doing spot improvements (Bridgeport widening and reconstruction, mega New Haven project, Norwalk and Stamford widenings), if they keep up with doing small things like these it'll probably help for now.

[Pete from Boston]

Back to meaningful discussion, one cost factor that rarely gets mentioned in the beaten-to-death "Why the Connecticut Turnpike will never be widened southeast of New Haven" topic is that as a coastal route, it's littered with bridges over wide estuaries.

And as a highway through a densely populated area which was well developed before its construction, it's littered with a lot of overpasses and underpasses in general. Which don't have the same environmental impact problems as bridges over estuaries but do drive the cost of widening the road up all the same.

Right.  It was my intent to say that my point was in addition to the density/disapproval issues that are the usual constant reasons cited for the project's unfeasibility.

[Alps]

Back to meaningful discussion, one cost factor that rarely gets mentioned in the beaten-to-death "Why the Connecticut Turnpike will never be widened southeast of New Haven" topic is that as a coastal route, it's littered with bridges over wide estuaries.

And as a highway through a densely populated area which was well developed before its construction, it's littered with a lot of overpasses and underpasses in general. Which don't have the same environmental impact problems as bridges over estuaries but do drive the cost of widening the road up all the same.

Right.  It was my intent to say that my point was in addition to the density/disapproval issues that are the usual constant reasons cited for the project's unfeasibility.

You would have to widen each one as you replace it over many years.

[doogie1303]

Back to meaningful discussion, one cost factor that rarely gets mentioned in the beaten-to-death "Why the Connecticut Turnpike will never be widened southeast of New Haven" topic is that as a coastal route, it's littered with bridges over wide estuaries.

And as a highway through a densely populated area which was well developed before its construction, it's littered with a lot of overpasses and underpasses in general. Which don't have the same environmental impact problems as bridges over estuaries but do drive the cost of widening the road up all the same.

Right.  It was my intent to say that my point was in addition to the density/disapproval issues that are the usual constant reasons cited for the project's unfeasibility.

You would have to widen each one as you replace it over many years.

I'll agree that the costs to widen large bridges is one factor that makes a highway cost prohibitive from being upgraded, but I'll ask this, how many "major" bodies of water (like sizable rivers) does I-95 cross between New Haven and New London? The only large bridge I can think of is the Baldwin Bridge over the Connecticut River, but that was already upgraded in 1994. The Q in New Haven has been done, so whats the other large crossings? The smaller bridges and overpasses (which are numerous) between New Haven and New London will need addressing, but should not be as costly as the Q or the Baldwin and can be upgraded or replaced over a number of years. I've already seen several crossings that have already been widened (mainly between exit 76 and 82) when the bridges were replaced, so someone's thinking ahead.

[shadyjay]

ConnDOT thinking ahead?  I don't think so!  Several bridges are being replaced in Old Lyme/East Lyme area (Society Rd at Exit 73 and Flat Rock Road 1 mile west of Exit 71 come to mind).  Abutments for the bridges are pretty much being placed in the same location as the existing spans.  Maybe farther back a little but not nearly enough for another lane in each direction.  So when the time comes to widen this stretch, they will all need to be modified again.  Not too bright.  The Maine Turnpike, on the other hand, has been replacing bridges north of the 3-lane section and are setting piers/abutments back far enough to accommodate another lane in each direction for a project that is still years off.  That's thinking ahead. 

The main problem you have east of New Haven to I-395 is the numerous tidal estuaries that I-95 passes through.  The East River at the Madison/Guilford line and the Leuitenant River in Old Lyme between the Exit 70s come to mind.  That's gonna be more environmentally challenging than replacing overpasses.  No way I-95 would have been able to be built today along its present alignment.   

[MikeTheActuary]

ConnDOT thinking ahead?  I don't think so!  Several bridges are being replaced in Old Lyme/East Lyme area (Society Rd at Exit 73 and Flat Rock Road 1 mile west of Exit 71 come to mind).  Abutments for the bridges are pretty much being placed in the same location as the existing spans.  Maybe farther back a little but not nearly enough for another lane in each direction.  So when the time comes to widen this stretch, they will all need to be modified again.  Not too bright.

While I don't know that it's the case with I-95, there have been projects in the past where public comment forced/"forced" ConnDOT to not take such forward-thinking measures specifically because NIMBYs didn't want it to be any easier to add lanes.

[MikeTheActuary]

Courant article yesterday on I-84 plans: http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-hartford-i-84-viaduct-0908-20150908-story.html

No firm news; just a public floating of the idea of closing down I-84 in Hartford to expedite replacing the Aetna Viaduct with a surface-level freeway.

[TravelingBethelite]

The article is behind a paywall. On asides, though, I like the idea of a slightly-raised surface freeway in Hartford. The Aetna Viaduct has never been visually appealing.

[Rothman]

So, close down one of the most heavily traveled sections of interstate in the state?  In other states with viaduct replacement issues (e.g., I-81 Syracuse viaduct), it seems there's an obvious detour (in Syracuse: I-481) or they came up with incredibly expensive means of keeping traffic "going" (e.g., Big Dig).  Where does Connecticut expect all that traffic to go?

[KEVIN_224]

I doubt travelers on I-84 East would take I-691 East at the Cheshire/Southington town line to I-91 North. Westbound, CT 15 South to to Charter Oak Bridge doesn't work well. Are trucks really going to go that far to CT 9 North in Cromwell and then over to CT 72 West in New Britain? I think not.

[kurumi]

I know! They could use US 6 as an alternate... oh wait

[shadyjay]

If they had built I-291 around the city like they were supposed to, that would be the perfect alternate route.  But, alas...

[noelbotevera]

Here's my detour suggestion (I screwed up a line for EB)

Eastbound:
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/41.5517523,-73.0487216/41.7696139,-72.6712846/@41.7842075,-72.6845389,13.7z/data=!4m29!4m28!1m25!3m4!1m2!1d-73.0483731!2d41.8256955!3s0x89e7a2293af8ad2b:0x92a29f459b7150e3!3m4!1m2!1d-72.7238315!2d41.7859782!3s0x89e7ab5a40b96f9d:0x130c3be05c48ece8!3m4!1m2!1d-72.6849269!2d41.7776913!3s0x89e6549f426e1345:0x5fb094d40f4e6edd!3m4!1m2!1d-72.6781253!2d41.7742125!3s0x89e6549dbebfdb21:0xc5b6f266a222fada!3m4!1m2!1d-72.673911!2d41.7722217!3s0x89e6537d580d2189:0x9a6b45dbce0593ae!1m0!3e0?hl=en

Westbound:
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/41.7640288,-72.6448923/41.6687709,-72.829887/@41.6701729,-72.8305855,16.82z?hl=en

[JakeFromNewEngland]

Here's my detour suggestion (I screwed up a line for EB)

Eastbound:
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/41.5517523,-73.0487216/41.7696139,-72.6712846/@41.7842075,-72.6845389,13.7z/data=!4m29!4m28!1m25!3m4!1m2!1d-73.0483731!2d41.8256955!3s0x89e7a2293af8ad2b:0x92a29f459b7150e3!3m4!1m2!1d-72.7238315!2d41.7859782!3s0x89e7ab5a40b96f9d:0x130c3be05c48ece8!3m4!1m2!1d-72.6849269!2d41.7776913!3s0x89e6549f426e1345:0x5fb094d40f4e6edd!3m4!1m2!1d-72.6781253!2d41.7742125!3s0x89e6549dbebfdb21:0xc5b6f266a222fada!3m4!1m2!1d-72.673911!2d41.7722217!3s0x89e6537d580d2189:0x9a6b45dbce0593ae!1m0!3e0?hl=en

Westbound:
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/41.7640288,-72.6448923/41.6687709,-72.829887/@41.6701729,-72.8305855,16.82z?hl=en

I really doubt anyone is gonna travel all the way to Torrington just to bypass Hartford if I'm seeing that correctly. If you're trying to travel eastbound, a much more easier route would be I-691 to I-91 to CT 15 to I-84.

[jp the roadgeek]

Here's my detour suggestion (I screwed up a line for EB)

Eastbound:
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/41.5517523,-73.0487216/41.7696139,-72.6712846/@41.7842075,-72.6845389,13.7z/data=!4m29!4m28!1m25!3m4!1m2!1d-73.0483731!2d41.8256955!3s0x89e7a2293af8ad2b:0x92a29f459b7150e3!3m4!1m2!1d-72.7238315!2d41.7859782!3s0x89e7ab5a40b96f9d:0x130c3be05c48ece8!3m4!1m2!1d-72.6849269!2d41.7776913!3s0x89e6549f426e1345:0x5fb094d40f4e6edd!3m4!1m2!1d-72.6781253!2d41.7742125!3s0x89e6549dbebfdb21:0xc5b6f266a222fada!3m4!1m2!1d-72.673911!2d41.7722217!3s0x89e6537d580d2189:0x9a6b45dbce0593ae!1m0!3e0?hl=en

Westbound:
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/41.7640288,-72.6448923/41.6687709,-72.829887/@41.6701729,-72.8305855,16.82z?hl=en

I really doubt anyone is gonna travel all the way to Torrington just to bypass Hartford if I'm seeing that correctly. If you're trying to travel eastbound, a much more easier route would be I-691 to I-91 to CT 15 to I-84.

Which means the right lane for I-91 for Exit 29 should be backed up to Cromwell.  Of course, there's always CT 3 E to CT 2W to I-84 to avoid that.  As for me, I'll go 84-72-9-175-5/15 to hit 84 east of Hartford 

[MikeTheActuary]

My apologies for the paywall link.  I got to it through a Bing news aggregation, and got the article.  Other than the expected community opinions the gist is that ConnDOT is apparently considering a Hyperfix-style option.

I doubt travelers on I-84 East would take I-691 East at the Cheshire/Southington town line to I-91 North. Westbound, CT 15 South to to Charter Oak Bridge doesn't work well. Are trucks really going to go that far to CT 9 North in Cromwell and then over to CT 72 West in New Britain? I think not.

Actually, I use the 84»691»91 routing fairly frequently when I'm heading to points in western CT.

Don't forget that the 91-5/15/Charter Oak interchange is up for reconstruction/realignment....and I'm not sure that the viaduct replacement is really scheduled beyond "we have to do it before the viaduct collapses".

Replacing the viaduct is going to suck because of the limited alternatives.  I'm not sure whether the suckage would be worse with a relatively short period in the deep depths of hell rather than years spent in a higher layer of the underworld.

[Alps]

It's one thing if they need a series of weekend closures to move things around on the Aetna Viaduct. You can announce it in advance, prepare your alternate routes - maybe wait for the 91@15 project to add a lane - and hope people don't show up, but there will be some pain if they do. But this doesn't work long-term because you're banking on a significant traffic volume drop from deferred trips (if the road's closed this weekend, I'll go next weekend). I can't see a closure happening for months.

[JakeFromNewEngland]

Here's my detour suggestion (I screwed up a line for EB)

Eastbound:
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/41.5517523,-73.0487216/41.7696139,-72.6712846/@41.7842075,-72.6845389,13.7z/data=!4m29!4m28!1m25!3m4!1m2!1d-73.0483731!2d41.8256955!3s0x89e7a2293af8ad2b:0x92a29f459b7150e3!3m4!1m2!1d-72.7238315!2d41.7859782!3s0x89e7ab5a40b96f9d:0x130c3be05c48ece8!3m4!1m2!1d-72.6849269!2d41.7776913!3s0x89e6549f426e1345:0x5fb094d40f4e6edd!3m4!1m2!1d-72.6781253!2d41.7742125!3s0x89e6549dbebfdb21:0xc5b6f266a222fada!3m4!1m2!1d-72.673911!2d41.7722217!3s0x89e6537d580d2189:0x9a6b45dbce0593ae!1m0!3e0?hl=en

Westbound:
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/41.7640288,-72.6448923/41.6687709,-72.829887/@41.6701729,-72.8305855,16.82z?hl=en

I really doubt anyone is gonna travel all the way to Torrington just to bypass Hartford if I'm seeing that correctly. If you're trying to travel eastbound, a much more easier route would be I-691 to I-91 to CT 15 to I-84.

Which means the right lane for I-91 for Exit 29 should be backed up to Cromwell.  Of course, there's always CT 3 E to CT 2W to I-84 to avoid that.  As for me, I'll go 84-72-9-175-5/15 to hit 84 east of Hartford

I was gonna say another alternate route would be to take CT 3 to CT 2 to I-84, but the CT 15 route is more direct IMO.

[noelbotevera]

My apologies for the paywall link.  I got to it through a Bing news aggregation, and got the article.  Other than the expected community opinions the gist is that ConnDOT is apparently considering a Hyperfix-style option.

I doubt travelers on I-84 East would take I-691 East at the Cheshire/Southington town line to I-91 North. Westbound, CT 15 South to to Charter Oak Bridge doesn't work well. Are trucks really going to go that far to CT 9 North in Cromwell and then over to CT 72 West in New Britain? I think not.

Actually, I use the 84»691»91 routing fairly frequently when I'm heading to points in western CT.

Don't forget that the 91-5/15/Charter Oak interchange is up for reconstruction/realignment....and I'm not sure that the viaduct replacement is really scheduled beyond "we have to do it before the viaduct collapses".

Replacing the viaduct is going to suck because of the limited alternatives.  I'm not sure whether the suckage would be worse with a relatively short period in the deep depths of hell rather than years spent in a higher layer of the underworld.

A smaller detour is to zigzag your way around Hartford just to get back on I-84. Either have that absurd EB detour or zigzagging Hartford's streets...which one is worse?

[Zeffy]

A smaller detour is to zigzag your way around Hartford just to get back on I-84. Either have that absurd EB detour or zigzagging Hartford's streets...which one is worse?

I'll take my chances with Hartford's streets rather than going literally like 30 minutes out of my way to Torrington and back again.

[Pete from Boston]

A smaller detour is to zigzag your way around Hartford just to get back on I-84. Either have that absurd EB detour or zigzagging Hartford's streets...which one is worse?

I'll take my chances with Hartford's streets rather than going literally like 30 minutes out of my way to Torrington and back again.

US 44 is in fact "Hartford's streets," any of which will add more than 30 minutes if all of 84 is doing it with you.

Moreover, a parade of trucks up the steep incline of Talcott Mountain would be, well, very slow.

[JakeFromNewEngland]

A smaller detour is to zigzag your way around Hartford just to get back on I-84. Either have that absurd EB detour or zigzagging Hartford's streets...which one is worse?

I'll take my chances with Hartford's streets rather than going literally like 30 minutes out of my way to Torrington and back again.

US 44 is in fact "Hartford's streets," any of which will add more than 30 minutes if all of 84 is doing it with you.

Moreover, a parade of trucks up the steep incline of Talcott Mountain would be, well, very slow.

Not to mention, that area was the site of a nasty tractor trailer accident where a truck lost control going down the mountain and slammed into cars at the bottom of the intersection. I doubt the state would route MORE trucks onto that route due to that accident.

[noelbotevera]

A smaller detour is to zigzag your way around Hartford just to get back on I-84. Either have that absurd EB detour or zigzagging Hartford's streets...which one is worse?

I'll take my chances with Hartford's streets rather than going literally like 30 minutes out of my way to Torrington and back again.

US 44 is in fact "Hartford's streets," any of which will add more than 30 minutes if all of 84 is doing it with you.

Moreover, a parade of trucks up the steep incline of Talcott Mountain would be, well, very slow.

Not to mention, that area was the site of a nasty tractor trailer accident where a truck lost control going down the mountain and slammed into cars at the bottom of the intersection. I doubt the state would route MORE trucks onto that route due to that accident.

It's on CT 8, isn't it. Hmm, I should probably reconsider my choices of being a roadgeek.