Connecticut News

[jp the roadgeek]

I wonder if there going to do anything north of Route 83 and 30 on I-84

There's really nothing left to do east of Vernon on I-84 except to change the exit numbers on the tabs to mileage based.  The signs to the MA line are relatively new.

[RobbieL2415]

I wonder if there going to do anything north of Route 83 and 30 on I-84

They'll eventually be replacing all the signs to coincide with the exit renumbering.  Some of them have already been replaced north of exit 66.

The signs from exit 60 to exit 65 are some of the oldest east of the river, dating back to the early 80s when that stretch was widened

[JJBers]

Well, I guess I better be keeping look for that

[shadyjay]

Oh it'll be awhile.  No contracts on the horizon to replace any signs east of the river on I-84.  Same goes for I-91.  Only contracts upcoming in the next couple years I see are I-84 east of Southington to Hartford Farmington, CT 8 (whole thing in segments), I-95 Groton to RI state line, and I-95 from Branford to New London, segments only.

Now that ** COULD ** change, depending on what the Feds say regarding ConnDOT's timeline for exit renumbering.  Sure, the state could issue a contract to modify existing signs.  I see that happening first before signs on I-91 get replaced.  Some of them were installed in the late 1980s.

[Mergingtraffic]

Oh it'll be awhile.  No contracts on the horizon to replace any signs east of the river on I-84.  Same goes for I-91.  Only contracts upcoming in the next couple years I see are I-84 east of Southington to Hartford Farmington, CT 8 (whole thing in segments), I-95 Groton to RI state line, and I-95 from Branford to New London, segments only.

Now that ** COULD ** change, depending on what the Feds say regarding ConnDOT's timeline for exit renumbering.  Sure, the state could issue a contract to modify existing signs.  I see that happening first before signs on I-91 get replaced.  Some of them were installed in the late 1980s.

It seems the DOT was in a rush to blanket the state in reflective button copy.  Almost all signs were replaced between 1985-1992 (about 7 years) or so. The US-7 Expressway from Danbury to Brookfield never got it and remained with non-reflective button copy until 2009.
(The only roads to not get reflective button copy were CT-25 Expressway and I-84 east of the river in Hartford.)

I wonder why the rush?  Now they seem laxed about it.  Just think how many signs were and were not replaced in the past 7-10 years.

[RobbieL2415]

Oh it'll be awhile.  No contracts on the horizon to replace any signs east of the river on I-84.  Same goes for I-91.  Only contracts upcoming in the next couple years I see are I-84 east of Southington to Hartford Farmington, CT 8 (whole thing in segments), I-95 Groton to RI state line, and I-95 from Branford to New London, segments only.

Now that ** COULD ** change, depending on what the Feds say regarding ConnDOT's timeline for exit renumbering.  Sure, the state could issue a contract to modify existing signs.  I see that happening first before signs on I-91 get replaced.  Some of them were installed in the late 1980s.

It seems the DOT was in a rush to blanket the state in reflective button copy.  Almost all signs were replaced between 1985-1992 (about 7 years) or so. The US-7 Expressway from Danbury to Brookfield never got it and remained with non-reflective button copy until 2009.
(The only roads to not get reflective button copy were CT-25 Expressway and I-84 east of the river in Hartford.)

I wonder why the rush?  Now they seem laxed about it.  Just think how many signs were and were not replaced in the past 7-10 years.

Was there a series of button copy signs prior to 1985?



This is a screen grab of a 1974 news story from WTIC (now WFSB) about possible changes in the Hartford area's highways.  The lettering on these long gone signs looks rather bold and pronounced, leading me to believe that they may be button copy.

[jp the roadgeek]

Screenshot is of what is today Exit 48 A&B (Capitol Ave/Asylum St.  The Asylum ramp being added about 15 years later).  That's when there was a proposal for a tunnel under Bushnell Park to connect to the Whitehead Highway to create I-484 as a connection to I-91 North, which is why there was never a direct connection from I-84 East to I-91 North until 1990.  Once that project was cancelled, one had to exit onto Morgan St, then turn onto Columbus Blvd. to get to I-91 North.  I remember the traffic nightmare trying to get to Bradley Airport as a kid, and having to allot an extra 10-15 minutes for it.  Speaking of Bradley: another fascinating story on that newscast was about the people mover planned for Bradley Airport that was partially built but never used. 

As for button copy, I remember seeing a lot of it as a kid, but the green paint on BGS's easily faded so after years of solar exposure the signs were basically a pale green.

[KEVIN_224]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGjK_NQQjWE&index=25&list=FLxqRs_5SiHClOhFWAbR_mMQ The highway segment starts at the 3:18 mark. Enjoy!

[RobbieL2415]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGjK_NQQjWE&index=25&list=FLxqRs_5SiHClOhFWAbR_mMQ The highway segment starts at the 3:18 mark. Enjoy!

I like the part where they talk about the Bradley PeopleMover.  If only, if only...

[MikeTheActuary]

I like the part where they talk about the Bradley PeopleMover.  If only, if only...

...it would have been in the way of at least the new garage, and interfered with the construction of the new terminal.

Google has an archived news article on the demise of the people mover.  The cars now reside  at the Connecticut Trolley Museum.

Also, while trying to get an image to help guess where the people mover ran, I discovered that UCONN has a nifty little mashup to compare imagery from the 1934, 1990, 2004, 2006, and 2012 aerial photo surveys to current Google Maps imagery.  Following I-91 on the 1990 layer is interesting.

[kefkafloyd]

The people mover tracks ran from Terminal B to parking lots on Schoephoester road. Those lots are now under the ramp area for what is the new Terminal A as well as the postal service ramp and the Hertz/Avis rental lot. Until Terminal B was demolished there was one remaining bit of the people mover left, the escalator shelter had one of the old concrete pads left over.

Unfortunately there seems to be no aerials from 1975-1980. It was just ahead of its time; airport people movers are now all the rage. It didn't help the fate of the people mover that the off-airport parking lots all lobbied to essentially get it killed by Ella Grasso.

[Beeper1]

Has there been any official word on what the next highway in CT to get mileage-based exit numbers will be?  I know there are plans in the works for sign replacements on Routes 8, 25, and the Merritt.  Will they be getting them?

[shadyjay]

I believe 8 and 25 will be next.  All that remains will be two signing projects, after the current one:  Bridgeport to Derby/Shelton area, and from there, north to Waterbury. 

I-95 could be a possibility after that.  A project to replace signs from Groton to RI will begin later this year.  After that, just Branford to New London signage needs to be replaced, and even that is just "spotty" with the oldest signs being the 1993-vintage between Exits 54-59 (which replaced the original turnpike signage), and the 1993-vintage Exits 68-70.  I doubt signs would be replaced west of New Haven before exit numbers convert, and I doubt we'd see many exit changes through there anyway.  Maybe 1 or 2, but that's it. 

The last would probably be I-91, CT 2, and CT 9, as no projects to replace signs are on the horizon. 

But then again, it all could be done with overlays, if the 15-20 year timeline ConnDOT put out gets rejected by the Feds.

[mariethefoxy]

i dunno why they didnt just replace the numbers only to fast track converting to mileage exits where the signs were still in good shape. Pennsylvania has quite a bit of button copy left, especially in Pittsburgh and Philly area where all they did was change the number in the tab.

[Mergingtraffic]

From THE DAY newspaper in New London about widening I-95.  Note: the funding that was taken b/c of the budget shortfalls...after all the talk it's still happening.

The commissioner of the state Department of Transportation has told local officials that widening Interstate 95 and improving the interchange with Interstate 395 is the long-term solution to accidents on the highway between Old Lyme and Waterford.
"I think that is imminent in terms of us looking to the Bond Commission shortly to get that going, which is good news," said James P. Redeker. "I think it's been on the back burner, if any burner, for too long, and it's time to bring it to the front burner."
Redeker was responding to a concern raised by local officials about the "growing problem" on I-95 in Old Lyme, East Lyme and Waterford, following his presentation to the Southeastern Connecticut Council of Governments on Tuesday morning in Norwich.
East Lyme First Selectman Mark Nickerson said the problem on the road goes beyond distracted driving and ongoing construction. He pointed to the tightening of the highway and hills in the area.
He asked Redeker if signs, lights and painting on the highway could alert people to slow down for the five-mile stretch that is a high-accident area.
"The highway has been shut down four times in the last two weeks, and we haven't started summer yet," Nickerson said of recent accidents.
An analysis of data by The Day found that between 1995 and 2014, the stretch from Exit 71 to the split with I-395 had the highest number of fatalities and injuries in the state east of the Connecticut River: 785, or about a quarter of the crashes that injured or killed.
Redeker said the rate of traffic incidents is not much different than it's been in the past prior to recent construction.
He said the DOT has added extra signage during the construction project, which is intended to improve safety in the area with features like safety barriers.
He said the state has looked at adding signs but said there are limits to what signs can do, and the DOT does not want to create more distractions.
"In the longer term and in the very near future, I think we'll be launching the initiation of the program to fix the interchange with 95/395 and begin to look at the widening of that section as a priority," Redeker said.
Gov. Dannel P. Malloy's 30-year "Let's Go CT" transportation plan calls for fixing the interchange and widening the stretch of I-95 between the Baldwin Bridge and the Gold Star Bridge.
Two-thirds of the projects within the "$100 billion, 30-year vision" would bring infrastructure to "a state of good repair," while the other third is "based solely on the economic impact and return on investment," Redeker said.
The I-95/I-395 interchange in East Lyme and Waterford is one of the "major bottlenecks" in the state, according to a DOT document for Let's Go CT.
"The left-hand exit from I-95 westbound to I-395 northbound creates safety and congestion problems," the document states. "The close proximity to interchange 75 (I-95/Route 1) also creates operational problems."
The expanse of I-95 between the Baldwin Bridge and the Gold Star Bridge is "the most in need of capacity and safety improvements" in eastern Connecticut, according to an online dashboard for Let's Go CT. 
The ramp-up plan calls for about $65 million to design improvements to I-95 between Old Lyme and New London and begin the right-of-way process. This phase is slated for 2018 to 2020 and onward, according to a state document.

The five-year plan also includes $750,000 for a study of a Shore Line East station in Niantic in 2016-17 and $32 million for construction to renovate the Gold Star Bridge in 2017-18.
Redeker said the state legislature has supported the five-year ramp-up plan to "Let's Go CT," which calls for $2.8 billion in bonding.
Later on Tuesday, while discussing with the Southeast Area Transit board of directors the likelihood of flat funding for the transit district, Redeker addressed some of the ongoing challenges facing transportation funding.
He said the hoped-for "lockbox" to secure transportation funding did not come to fruition.
He said the current state budget resolution cut $50 million from the transportation fund.
Meanwhile, the state budget and transportation fund are facing some negative trends of lower-than-expected gas prices and sales tax revenue.
The legislature and governor had anticipated the transportation fund would be solvent through 2020 or 2021, but the latest projections show a deficit in 2019, Redeker said.
State Department of Transportation spokesman Kevin Nursick said in an email interview that the DOT anticipates still being able to fund the Shore Line East station study, upgrades to the Gold Star Bridge and the design and right-of-way process for the stretch of I-95.
The redesign of I-95 would include the design for the I-395 interchange, if the DOT determines that is a priority for the corridor.
"Our expectation is that the recent budget resolution will not dramatically affect our ability to move forward with the ramp up," he wrote.
"The 30 Year vision has always necessitated discussion about future revenue sources. That issue remains unresolved at this time," he added.
At the council meeting, Salem First Selectman Kevin Lyden identified Route 85 safety improvements, which are in the five-year ramp-up plan, as one of the "highest priorities" for the regional council.
The improvement of I-95 between Old Lyme and New London, a stretch of road which he called "very problematic," is another priority, he said.
Lyden said the DOT held meetings and put up some additional signs for Route 85, and suggested a similar approach for I-95 in the interim.
He said he was glad the I-95 improvements would proceed to the design and right-of-way process, but that's still some time away, "so we're not going to have significant improvements in that area for several years."
"I would ask your team to really look at a way to make that area safer," Lyden added. "It's a very high-accident area, and maybe it compares with how accidents were in the past, but there's still an unacceptable number."
Redeker said he understood and would come back with some thoughts.
Carlos Virgen contributed to this report.

[Duke87]

Meanwhile, the state budget and transportation fund are facing some negative trends of lower-than-expected gas prices and sales tax revenue.
The legislature and governor had anticipated the transportation fund would be solvent through 2020 or 2021, but the latest projections show a deficit in 2019, Redeker said.

Yes, well, that will happen when a significant chunk of your gas tax is set as a percentage of the wholesale price. Low gas prices = less revenue. Which is a shame because construction is cheaper when gas prices are lower, so there is a good opportunity being missed.

That said, I don't see an obvious cause for sales tax revenue being lower than expected.

[jp the roadgeek]

Meanwhile, the state budget and transportation fund are facing some negative trends of lower-than-expected gas prices and sales tax revenue.
The legislature and governor had anticipated the transportation fund would be solvent through 2020 or 2021, but the latest projections show a deficit in 2019, Redeker said.

Yes, well, that will happen when a significant chunk of your gas tax is set as a percentage of the wholesale price. Low gas prices = less revenue. Which is a shame because construction is cheaper when gas prices are lower, so there is a good opportunity being missed.

That said, I don't see an obvious cause for sales tax revenue being lower than expected.

There could be 3 reasons why sales tax revenue could be lower than expected:

Lower than expected tourism leading to lower sales overall.

Cheaper gas leading to citizens traveling out of state where some items are cheaper and/or sales tax is lower or even exempt (ie liquor and clothing in MA)

Less disposable income because of higher income tax rates.

[mariethefoxy]

I know I time out big purchases when Im gunna be in NH and Delaware already for other things so I can take advantage of the fact those states don't have sales tax.

[connroadgeek]

I know I time out big purchases when Im gunna be in NH and Delaware already for other things so I can take advantage of the fact those states don't have sales tax.

If you are a resident of NY, like CT, you are supposed to report that on your annual income tax filing with the state as use tax where you make up the difference between the tax you would have paid if purchased locally and what you did (or didn't) pay.

[connroadgeek]

What do they think they are going to do with the 95/395 interchange? There's nothing wrong with it, and it's not the cause of the accidents. The worst stretch is from the Baldwin Bridge to about Society Rd. Highway quickly goes from 4 to 2 lanes and there's hills, limited sight lines, and people are just flying coming over that bridge - it's almost a bit like a downhill slalom. And there are a ton of trucks and casino buses.

[vdeane]

I know I time out big purchases when Im gunna be in NH and Delaware already for other things so I can take advantage of the fact those states don't have sales tax.

If you are a resident of NY, like CT, you are supposed to report that on your annual income tax filing with the state as use tax where you make up the difference between the tax you would have paid if purchased locally and what you did (or didn't) pay.

I don't think I know anyone who ACTUALLY does that though.  It's unenforceable and would be a paperwork nightmare to even try to comply with.  You'd need to save every recipt for every purchase you ever made outside of the area where you live (even a different county within NY has use tax), have the tax itemized, figure out what the tax is where you live, computer that, compute the difference, enter into the tax form.

[shadyjay]

What do they think they are going to do with the 95/395 interchange? There's nothing wrong with it, and it's not the cause of the accidents. The worst stretch is from the Baldwin Bridge to about Society Rd. Highway quickly goes from 4 to 2 lanes and there's hills, limited sight lines, and people are just flying coming over that bridge - it's almost a bit like a downhill slalom. And there are a ton of trucks and casino buses.

I think the main problem with the interchange isn't just the interchange itself, but the whole highway from Exit 74 to Exit 76.  Northbound, you have a heavy merge from Exit 74, a steep downgrade, a short merge from Exit 75, and the left exit 76, with people from Exit 75 trying to reach.  Southbound, you have Exit 80 (which should be eliminated), a curve into a heavy merge from I-395, I-95 traffic trying to get off at Exit 75, before the steep upgrade, curve at Exit 74, then the exit itself.  Seeing all the traffic through here, I still find it amazing my dad and I crossed I-95 on foot at Exit 75 some 30 years ago (wow - that long?) to go fishing.  I don't think we caught anything.

My plan for the area is widening I-95 to 3 lanes in each direction from Exit 70 out to Exit 74, construct new Exit 74 nb on/off ramps by extending Industrial Drive, then widen to 4 lanes from this point to Exit 76.  Retain Exit 75 NB ramp.  Make Exit 76 a right exit (exit only + an option lane), intersecting with a realigned Exit 75 NB onramp that would split to 95NB and 395NB.  Then I-95 3 lanes from Exit 76 out to New London.  SB, a flyover Exit 75 leaving before the I-395 merge.  3 lanes would become 4 where I-395 comes in, narrowing down to 3 at Exit 74, which would be eliminated, SB, and a new realigned SB onramp.  This plan would eliminate all weaving conditions and help dramatically.  Would require replacement of the US 1 bridge at Exit 75 and widening to full shoulders.  Definitely needs to be done.  Basically, I just tweaked the ConnDOT plans for the project. 

But I do agree... there's just a lot of truck and bus traffic and its all "hauling ass" through the area.  An extra lane and interchange tweaking will help, as would required blasting and bridge replacements to give the highway a more "open" feel.

[cl94]

I know I time out big purchases when Im gunna be in NH and Delaware already for other things so I can take advantage of the fact those states don't have sales tax.

If you are a resident of NY, like CT, you are supposed to report that on your annual income tax filing with the state as use tax where you make up the difference between the tax you would have paid if purchased locally and what you did (or didn't) pay.

I don't think I know anyone who ACTUALLY does that though.  It's unenforceable and would be a paperwork nightmare to even try to comply with.  You'd need to save every recipt for every purchase you ever made outside of the area where you live (even a different county within NY has use tax), have the tax itemized, figure out what the tax is where you live, computer that, compute the difference, enter into the tax form.

I sure as hell don't. I buy alcohol on trips to New Hampshire I take every few months just to take advantage of the lower prices and lack of tax. Furthermore, living in a region with major shopping centers in 4 counties (Albany, Rensselaer, Saratoga, Warren, the latter 2 with a significantly lower tax rate), it would be nearly impossible for me to do it because I do too much shopping in a county where I don't live.

[jp the roadgeek]

I know I time out big purchases when Im gunna be in NH and Delaware already for other things so I can take advantage of the fact those states don't have sales tax.

If you are a resident of NY, like CT, you are supposed to report that on your annual income tax filing with the state as use tax where you make up the difference between the tax you would have paid if purchased locally and what you did (or didn't) pay.

I don't think I know anyone who ACTUALLY does that though.  It's unenforceable and would be a paperwork nightmare to even try to comply with.  You'd need to save every recipt for every purchase you ever made outside of the area where you live (even a different county within NY has use tax), have the tax itemized, figure out what the tax is where you live, computer that, compute the difference, enter into the tax form.

I sure as hell don't. I buy alcohol on trips to New Hampshire I take every few months just to take advantage of the lower prices and lack of tax. Furthermore, living in a region with major shopping centers in 4 counties (Albany, Rensselaer, Saratoga, Warren, the latter 2 with a significantly lower tax rate), it would be nearly impossible for me to do it because I do too much shopping in a county where I don't live.

The only purchase that will be caught is a car purchased out of state.  It'll raise a red flag when you go to register it and it shows up on your local town's property tax rolls, especially if you own a home (unless you own a home in the state where you purchased the car or registered it in a friend or relative's name who lives in that state.

[Duke87]

Re: 95/395 junction -

The close proximity of exits 75 and 76 would seem to make this a prime candidate for some braided ramps. A few homes would likely need to be demolished for this to be done northbound, though, which means it won't happen. At least not in that direction.
Widening this section of I-95 so that 395 is a lane drop instead of an outright left exit would be nice and perhaps even feasible.
A poor man's solution to the safety issue might be to simply close the northbound onramp at exit 75.

Re: out of state sales tax -

Should the state choose to audit this sort of thing they could ask to see your credit card statements and inquire as to what became of every listed out of state purchase. They could even put the burden of proof on you and assume that you owe use tax on every out of state purchase unless you can demonstrate that you don't. It's draconian but aren't all tax audits?

That said, I haven't heard of this being done. It is probably a fair statement to say that this rule is unenforced, but that doesn't mean it is unenforceable.