Connecticut News

[kurumi]

I think I've posted this before, but it might cost less than $10 billion:
* a second Charter Oak Bridge span
* widen I-691 to 8 lanes
* upgrade 91/691 interchange
* widen I-91 to 10 lanes between 691 and COB
* upgrade 91/15 interchange at COB
* widen CT 15 from COB to present I-84
* move I-84 to 691 and 91 (you all saw this one coming :-)
* old 84 becomes I-584 (Southington to West Hartford) and I-784 (East Hartford to Founders Bridge)
* Aetna Viaduct becomes a boulevard as a lot of thru traffic is moved off it

If the dual tunnel under Hartford gets built as described in our lifetimes, I will host an AARoads roadmeet at a downtown Hartford hotel with open bar. (must be roadgeek to attend... don't drag along all your frat brothers. You'll have to pass an quick exam at the door.)

[SectorZ]

I think I've posted this before, but it might cost less than $10 billion:
* a second Charter Oak Bridge span
* widen I-691 to 8 lanes
* upgrade 91/691 interchange
* widen I-91 to 10 lanes between 691 and COB
* upgrade 91/15 interchange at COB
* widen CT 15 from COB to present I-84
* move I-84 to 691 and 91 (you all saw this one coming :-)
* old 84 becomes I-584 (Southington to West Hartford) and I-784 (East Hartford to Founders Bridge)
* Aetna Viaduct becomes a boulevard as a lot of thru traffic is moved off it

If the dual tunnel under Hartford gets built as described in our lifetimes, I will host an AARoads roadmeet at a downtown Hartford hotel with open bar. (must be roadgeek to attend... don't drag along all your frat brothers. You'll have to pass an quick exam at the door.)

As someone who had grandparents that lived in 'Old Wethersfield' and already had their road bisected by the build of 91 over 50 years ago, I can tell you that there is no way to widen 91 north of exit 26 at all. It's a great idea, but there is no space to do it, at least not without destroying more of those areas. Now, maybe you can do more with 2 and 3 to divert some traffic east of it.

[kurumi]

I think I've posted this before, but it might cost less than $10 billion:
* a second Charter Oak Bridge span
* widen I-691 to 8 lanes
* upgrade 91/691 interchange
* widen I-91 to 10 lanes between 691 and COB
* upgrade 91/15 interchange at COB
* widen CT 15 from COB to present I-84
* move I-84 to 691 and 91 (you all saw this one coming :-)
* old 84 becomes I-584 (Southington to West Hartford) and I-784 (East Hartford to Founders Bridge)
* Aetna Viaduct becomes a boulevard as a lot of thru traffic is moved off it

If the dual tunnel under Hartford gets built as described in our lifetimes, I will host an AARoads roadmeet at a downtown Hartford hotel with open bar. (must be roadgeek to attend... don't drag along all your frat brothers. You'll have to pass an quick exam at the door.)

As someone who had grandparents that lived in 'Old Wethersfield' and already had their road bisected by the build of 91 over 50 years ago, I can tell you that there is no way to widen 91 north of exit 26 at all. It's a great idea, but there is no space to do it, at least not without destroying more of those areas. Now, maybe you can do more with 2 and 3 to divert some traffic east of it.

Yes, it is threading the needle there, especially around Wethersfield Cove. (The Folly Brook nature area, between the Cove and the River, would be very nice without a freeway running through it.)

If we used CT 3, it would make engineering/capacity sense to dust off the I-491 proposal, but then you'd peel the scab off a big controversy in the area circa 1971.

[RobbieL2415]

I think I've posted this before, but it might cost less than $10 billion:
* a second Charter Oak Bridge span
* widen I-691 to 8 lanes
* upgrade 91/691 interchange
* widen I-91 to 10 lanes between 691 and COB
* upgrade 91/15 interchange at COB
* widen CT 15 from COB to present I-84
* move I-84 to 691 and 91 (you all saw this one coming :-)
* old 84 becomes I-584 (Southington to West Hartford) and I-784 (East Hartford to Founders Bridge)
* Aetna Viaduct becomes a boulevard as a lot of thru traffic is moved off it

If the dual tunnel under Hartford gets built as described in our lifetimes, I will host an AARoads roadmeet at a downtown Hartford hotel with open bar. (must be roadgeek to attend... don't drag along all your frat brothers. You'll have to pass an quick exam at the door.)

Doing that would require a whole host of exit number changes, could be quite hellacious now that we're going over to MP-based numbers.

I've always envisioned a hybrid solution:

*move I-84 in Hartford from New Park Ave. to Asylum Ave. below grade
*relocate I-84 from Asylum Ave. to Exit 57 to a tunnel.  Include full interchange with I-91.
*Restore local access between E. Hartford and Hartford via the Bulkley Bridge.  US 44 goes back to its pre-Interstate alignment in that area. 
*Simplify the CT2 Mixmaster interchange.  Provide more straightforward access to Founders Bridge via old I-84.  Have CT 2 end at Governor's Street (or possibly extend expressway to US 5 at the South Windsor/EH line).  Old I-84/Founder's Bridge becomes I-284.

[abqtraveler]

I think I've posted this before, but it might cost less than $10 billion:
* a second Charter Oak Bridge span
* widen I-691 to 8 lanes
* upgrade 91/691 interchange
* widen I-91 to 10 lanes between 691 and COB
* upgrade 91/15 interchange at COB
* widen CT 15 from COB to present I-84
* move I-84 to 691 and 91 (you all saw this one coming :-)
* old 84 becomes I-584 (Southington to West Hartford) and I-784 (East Hartford to Founders Bridge)
* Aetna Viaduct becomes a boulevard as a lot of thru traffic is moved off it

If the dual tunnel under Hartford gets built as described in our lifetimes, I will host an AARoads roadmeet at a downtown Hartford hotel with open bar. (must be roadgeek to attend... don't drag along all your frat brothers. You'll have to pass an quick exam at the door.)

Doing that would require a whole host of exit number changes, could be quite hellacious now that we're going over to MP-based numbers.

I've always envisioned a hybrid solution:

*move I-84 in Hartford from New Park Ave. to Asylum Ave. below grade
*relocate I-84 from Asylum Ave. to Exit 57 to a tunnel.  Include full interchange with I-91.
*Restore local access between E. Hartford and Hartford via the Bulkley Bridge.  US 44 goes back to its pre-Interstate alignment in that area. 
*Simplify the CT2 Mixmaster interchange.  Provide more straightforward access to Founders Bridge via old I-84.  Have CT 2 end at Governor's Street (or possibly extend expressway to US 5 at the South Windsor/EH line).  Old I-84/Founder's Bridge becomes I-284.

Another thought...how about rerouting I-84 along Route 72 and Route 9 from New Britain to I-91, then follow I-91 north to the Putnam Bridge and then completing the once-proposed freeway to near the present I-84/I-384/I-291 interchange in East Hartford (or maybe use the Charter Oak Bridge and existing freeway connections); then eliminate the section of I-84 through downtown Hartford and make the remainder of I-84 from New Britain to Hartford an I-x84 spur (I-584, perhaps)?  Would that be a viable alternative that could be more cost effective than doing another "Big Dig" project through Hartford?

[Mergingtraffic]

The CT-15/US-7 interchange project is back....hopefully for good this time.

http://www.7-15norwalk.com/

Of course it's a project that should've been finished already and is a poster child for what's wrong with the DOT and planning in this state to begin with.

[The Ghostbuster]

I would hold my breath that this project gets constructed this time. It seems like you can't build anything in Connecticut anymore.

[Beeper1]

It'll never get built.  The MPC will once again scream bloody murder until the project is killed again.

[vdeane]

http://www.7-15norwalk.com/purpose.php

Missing connections include:
-Route 7 North to the Merritt Parkway North
-Merritt Parkway South to Route 7 South
-Add other missing connections

So missing connections include "other missing connections".  No shit, Sherlock.

[kurumi]

http://www.7-15norwalk.com/purpose.php

Missing connections include:
-Route 7 North to the Merritt Parkway North
-Merritt Parkway South to Route 7 South
-Add other missing connections

So missing connections include "other missing connections".  No shit, Sherlock.

The first two do seem more important, if it gets to building only some of the four missing ramps.

The original 7/15 design (not shown at the site) from the 1950s/60s was a 4-level stack. I've only seen a newspaper rendition (which I can't track down right now).

Remember about 10-15 years ago when CT 11 plans were dusted off and the governor was saying this was a high priority and we totally want to have this completed within 10 years? This interchange proposal has that same feeling. I-84/CT 8 may be revamped before 7/15 is; it's more expensive, but end-of-life issues with the structure may force ConnDOT's hand, as the Aetna viaduct is in Hartford.

[BamaZeus]

In the early 80's, I remember reading in the Norwalk Hour that it was estimated that it would take 30 or so years to complete Super 7 to Danbury, if it was completed at all.

I also get the same feeling here, that this will never be finished.  I do kinda like the D2 alternative on that website, in terms of using the available space the best way, while causing the least disturbance to the businesses and homes nearby. 

It just feels to me like if this was ever going to get done, it would be part of the larger Super 7 project and not as a standalone deal, but I could be wrong.  And since I don't see a big push to get Super 7 finished right now, ConnDOT will probably spend the money on more urgent things like 84/8.

[jp the roadgeek]

RIP

http://www.theday.com/article/20161018/NWS01/161019218

[amroad17]

^ The sound of "Taps" being played.

Not ever having lived in Connecticut or never having a need to be in that area, it is a shame that CT 11 could not be completed. Looking at maps, it seemed that would help traffic in the area if it were completed.  It seems odd to have a freeway end before it should.  At least it will give us a conversation piece for a long time.

[Beeper1]

Being a consultant for ConnDOT must be a pretty no-pressure.  You know the project you're working on will never be built and you still get to collect millions.

[jp the roadgeek]

Being a consultant for ConnDOT must be a pretty no-pressure.  You know the project you're working on will never be built and you still get to collect millions.

Part of the reason why taxes are high, the state is circling the drain, and cities are about to declare bankruptcy.

[shadyjay]

^ The sound of "Taps" being played.

Not ever having lived in Connecticut or never having a need to be in that area, it is a shame that CT 11 could not be completed. Looking at maps, it seemed that would help traffic in the area if it were completed.  It seems odd to have a freeway end before it should.  At least it will give us a conversation piece for a long time.

Better yet, rip it up... all of CT 11.  Every time I've been on it, I've seen only a handful of cars.  If it gets as bad as they say on CT 85, then routing traffic away from that route would be the way to go.  Just put up signs "New London - 2 EAST to 395 SOUTH".  I guess you could keep CT 11 and overlay "SALEM" over "NEW LONDON", but in this era of GPS, it doesn't matter what the signs say.  If the road's there, the GPS is going to tell you the best way between Hartford and New London is 2-11-82-85.  So just get rid of the damn thing altogether.  And put a new ramp off 2EB to access 85 so there's still Salem access.

[Duke87]

Honestly I'm surprised this proposal stayed active as long as it did, considering that plans to extend I-384  (a similar project that is much more sorely needed) were dropped several years ago. CT 85 between Salem and Waterford is a picnic compared to US 6 between Bolton and Willimantic.

Honestly it is a head scratcher for me where the justification to finish CT 11 as a freeway comes from, although perhaps the corridor would see more traffic if it were completed. Still, if there are safety problems on CT 85, those can be addressed without a freeway bypass, and the existing road can be widened if need be.

Also, what Connecticut should do, but won't because they're Connecticut, is realign things in Salem such that CT 11 defaults directly into CT 85. This way through traffic doesn't need to make two turns.

[RobbieL2415]

The simple solution here would be to de-commission CT 11 and realign CT 85 onto it from Exit 18, CT 2 south to the end of the freeway.  Then old 85 becomes 85A along that stretch.

[zzyzx]

With the Route 11 extension no longer being pursued, CTDOT will now focus on improving I-95, specifically from exits 70-82 and between Bridgeport and Stamford.  As mentioned before, they are also looking into improvements for Route 85. Some info from their press release: http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?A=1373&Q=586846

The studies are made possible by recent funding allocations by the state Bond Commission — $1 million for the I-95 West study and $125,000 for I-95 East.

The I-95-East effort will begin with an update of a 2004 study outlining the needs and deficiencies of I-95 itself.  Separate investment studies are anticipated for rail and transit programs as additional funding is allocated.

While the entire corridor requires additional capacity, the primary area of need and the focus of the "East"  effort will be the section of I-95 between the Baldwin Bridge in Old Lyme and the Gold Star Bridge in New London, including the I-95 / I-395 interchange

      CTDOT is also committing to addressing safety and traffic issues on Route 85 in Salem, Montville and Waterford in lieu of an earlier proposal to extend Route 11 to the I-95 / I-395 interchange. CTDOT has been unable to get the required federal environmental approvals for a Route 11 extension and has determined the extension project will no longer be pursued. Route 85 is the primary alternative to Route 11, and local officials have repeatedly expressed a strong desire to address the Route 85 issues as soon as possible.

      The I-95 East improvements are needed to better serve residents and businesses in the region, which has an economy distinctly different from much of the rest of the state.  Much of southeastern Connecticut's economy is driven by strong tourism and manufacturing sectors.  Both are dependent on a good highway system that provides easy access for tourists from outside the region, and for trucks that transport much of the materials needed for the industries in the region.

[Mergingtraffic]

The Feds shut it down b/c CTDOT couldn't get their act together according to the article.  The Feds waited for responses and got nothing.

I remember since 2005, more studies...2007 a FEIS was done, then a couple years back another study was started around 2012 or so and then the DOT slacks and the studies become outdated. 

I sure hope they fix the I-95/I-395 interchange and make it right hand exits with flyovers.  and if they fix CT-85, the should NOT do what they did with US-7 and CT-66 (making it 4-lanes with no left turn lanes in spots and no median barrier which makes things even more unsafe) 

[shadyjay]

Also, what Connecticut should do, but won't because they're Connecticut, is realign things in Salem such that CT 11 defaults directly into CT 85. This way through traffic doesn't need to make two turns.

That was actually one of the proposals I saw on maps from the early 1980s.  It showed CT 11 being proposed from south of present terminus at CT 82 a mile or so curving into and ending at CT 85.  If such a situation had been built, it would be similar to the scaled-back US 7-North project that DID get built but as more of a bypass around Brookfield vs its original northern terminus in New Milford.  It makes it look like the expressway doesn't just end, but flows seemlessly into a surface road.  That would work for CT 11 into CT 85.  Thru traffic would bypass Salem Four Corners, but introduce more high speed traffic onto CT 85. 

Here's another idea I had... rather than just rip up all of CT 11, start out by converting it into a "Super 2".  Retain the southbound roadway and throw a jersey barrier down the middle, from CT 82 up to just before Exit 7.  Southbound exits/entrances remain the same.  Northbound, you could eliminate Exit 6 offramp but retain the onramp.  From CT 2, overlay "SALEM" over "NEW LONDON" and put up "Best Route To New London - 2 to 395 South", similar to what was done to discourage Middletown/Meriden traffic from I-91 and CT 9, respectively, from using CT 66.  Then do a study X amount of years down the line to see if traffic has increased on CT 85 or backs up on CT 11 with one lane each way.  If its dead, then consider ripping up all of CT 11.  Retain the exit from CT 2 EB but only to serve Lake Hayward Rd with access to CT 85/354 to Salem. 

[Alps]

Honestly I'm surprised this proposal stayed active as long as it did, considering that plans to extend I-384  (a similar project that is much more sorely needed) were dropped several years ago. CT 85 between Salem and Waterford is a picnic compared to US 6 between Bolton and Willimantic.

Honestly it is a head scratcher for me where the justification to finish CT 11 as a freeway comes from, although perhaps the corridor would see more traffic if it were completed. Still, if there are safety problems on CT 85, those can be addressed without a freeway bypass, and the existing road can be widened if need be.

The 11 freeway itself feels like a rare legacy of the Freeway Planning Era that actually got built. It's out there with NJ 60 and NJ 74 as a "nice to have" that was never really needed but had outsized projections of grandeur if it was built.

[Beeper1]

With the Route 11 extension no longer being pursued, CTDOT will now focus on improving I-95, specifically from exits 70-82 and between Bridgeport and Stamford.  As mentioned before, they are also looking into improvements for Route 85. Some info from their press release: http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?A=1373&Q=586846

The studies are made possible by recent funding allocations by the state Bond Commission – $1 million for the I-95 West study and $125,000 for I-95 East.

The I-95-East effort will begin with an update of a 2004 study outlining the needs and deficiencies of I-95 itself.  Separate investment studies are anticipated for rail and transit programs as additional funding is allocated.

While the entire corridor requires additional capacity, the primary area of need and the focus of the “East” effort will be the section of I-95 between the Baldwin Bridge in Old Lyme and the Gold Star Bridge in New London, including the I-95 / I-395 interchange

      CTDOT is also committing to addressing safety and traffic issues on Route 85 in Salem, Montville and Waterford in lieu of an earlier proposal to extend Route 11 to the I-95 / I-395 interchange. CTDOT has been unable to get the required federal environmental approvals for a Route 11 extension and has determined the extension project will no longer be pursued. Route 85 is the primary alternative to Route 11, and local officials have repeatedly expressed a strong desire to address the Route 85 issues as soon as possible.

      The I-95 East improvements are needed to better serve residents and businesses in the region, which has an economy distinctly different from much of the rest of the state.  Much of southeastern Connecticut’s economy is driven by strong tourism and manufacturing sectors.  Both are dependent on a good highway system that provides easy access for tourists from outside the region, and for trucks that transport much of the materials needed for the industries in the region.

Great!  More studies!  And, for budget planning purposes, we had better be ready to submit in 2025 for funds to update the 2017 study of expanding I-95.  The problem isn't a mystery and hasn't done anything but get worse in the last 12 years from the original study.  Sadly, the same can be said for most of the state of CT.

I will say that the new Q bridge looks great, but if the standard for moving a project forward is "Holy crap, the existing bridge is one windy day away from actually falling into the river!", then we aren't being pro-active enough.   

[shadyjay]

It doesn't take an engineer or yet another study to develop a solution to I-95 between Exits 70-82... add a freakin' lane and make some interchange improvements.  Start small if you want... for Exits 71-72, I'd close Exit 71 and extend the Rocky Neck Connector to the north/west to meet Four Mile River Rd.  Starting small, rebuild at least a half mile of I-95 on either side of the connector.  Or starting even smaller, close the Exit 75 onramp from US 1 to I-95 North during peak hours to eliminate cross-traffic. 

Alas, ConnDOT couldn't even get the median replacement in the area done right.  Why they didn't just pave the entire median and install a "jersey barrier" down the middle is beyond me.  Instead, they left the grass and have the barrier zig zag its way... sometimes hugging the northbound left shoulder, sometimes the southbound left shoulder.  It should've been done like it is west of the Connecticut River... right down the middle.  Now we'll see what they do to the last grass median area in East Norwalk when that project begins in the near future.

[Beeper1]

Just close the Exit 75 NB onramp altogether.   Traffic from Route 1 to I-95 has plenty of other nearby options for getting on 95.  The ramps at Exits 74, 80, and 81 are all close by.  To get on I-395, just direct US-1 traffic to the Exit 74 onramp (or savvy locals can go up to I-395 Exit 2 via Oil Mill Rd.

I agree with eliminating Exit 71.  Exit 73 (Society Rd) also seems like it could be eliminated.  Or at least it could be improved, those ramps seem sub-standard.