Connecticut News

[abqtraveler]

Also,  I was on the upper end of CT-8 last weekend, from Winsted to Thomaston.  Work on the sign replacement contract is underway, with footings being excavated for some new BGS bases.   Also some new LGS and auxiliary signs were already in place, including new exit gore signs.

Major thing to note: all the new exit gore signs have the current sequential numbers.  Has CT also ditched it's plans to convert to mile-based numbering on the rest of its highways?

The issue is that the entire length of Route 8 must be switch to mile-based exit numbers at the same time.  There are actually three contracts to replace highway signs on Route 8.  One from Waterbury to Winsted, which is underway, a second contract from I-95 in Bridgeport to Shelton which I think has been awarded but not started, the third contract covering the section between Shelton and Waterbury, which is schedule to go out to bid in the summer of 2017.  Possibly when all three contracts are finished the state will renumber exits by overlaying the new exit numbers over the old ones and placing "Old Exit XX' placards above the exit tabs for a couple of years, like on I-395.

No, as long as they start renumbering from the north, they can do it in pieces.

I remember reading an article not too long ago (need to find it now) where a ConnDOT employee was interviewed about the upcoming exit conversion, and that individual was quoted in the article stating that the FHWA would not allow the DOT to renumber exits in a piecemeal fashion; the conversion would have to occur over the length of the highway at once. 

As for the new exit signs, where were the located?  If the new signs were around Thomaston, you probably wouldn't see a change in exit numbers between sequential and mileage-based numbering because the original exit numbers, even though sequential, already match the mileposts on the stretch around Thomaston, so the new mile-based numbers wouldn't be different for that section.

[shadyjay]

I remember reading an article not too long ago (need to find it now) where a ConnDOT employee was interviewed about the upcoming exit conversion, and that individual was quoted in the article stating that the FHWA would not allow the DOT to renumber exits in a piecemeal fashion; the conversion would have to occur over the length of the highway at once. 

If that is indeed the case, we won't see a change of exit numbers on any major road in CT for a while yet.  For CT 8, that would mean waiting for the completion of the current (Thomaston-Winsted) contract, then the Shelton to Waterbury contract (to be released next year), then the Bridgeport-Shelton contract (date tba).  Once those are all done and the new signs up, then CT 8 AND CT 25 can be converted.  As far as I-95, the current contract for signs from Groton to North Stonington, then another contract to take care of Branford-New London, and then that can get converted.  Gold Star Bridge signs are part of the rehab of the bridge. 

Don't expect signs on I-91, CT 2, and CT 9 to be converted anytime soon.  I see no contracts on the horizon for those routes.  I guess each of these routes could get a big contract to do all signs at once, but probably not until 2018 at the earliest.

[southshore720]

Don't expect signs on I-91, CT 2, and CT 9 to be converted anytime soon.  I see no contracts on the horizon for those routes.  I guess each of these routes could get a big contract to do all signs at once, but probably not until 2018 at the earliest.

That's too bad.  CT 2 and CT 9 are in dire need of new signage.  Rusted button copy and you cannot read them at night.

[abqtraveler]

I remember reading an article not too long ago (need to find it now) where a ConnDOT employee was interviewed about the upcoming exit conversion, and that individual was quoted in the article stating that the FHWA would not allow the DOT to renumber exits in a piecemeal fashion; the conversion would have to occur over the length of the highway at once. 

If that is indeed the case, we won't see a change of exit numbers on any major road in CT for a while yet.  For CT 8, that would mean waiting for the completion of the current (Thomaston-Winsted) contract, then the Shelton to Waterbury contract (to be released next year), then the Bridgeport-Shelton contract (date tba).  Once those are all done and the new signs up, then CT 8 AND CT 25 can be converted.  As far as I-95, the current contract for signs from Groton to North Stonington, then another contract to take care of Branford-New London, and then that can get converted.  Gold Star Bridge signs are part of the rehab of the bridge. 

Don't expect signs on I-91, CT 2, and CT 9 to be converted anytime soon.  I see no contracts on the horizon for those routes.  I guess each of these routes could get a big contract to do all signs at once, but probably not until 2018 at the earliest.

That's why ConnDOT stated it would take up to 20 years to complete the full conversion statewide.

[shadyjay]

Don't expect signs on I-91, CT 2, and CT 9 to be converted anytime soon.  I see no contracts on the horizon for those routes.  I guess each of these routes could get a big contract to do all signs at once, but probably not until 2018 at the earliest.

That's too bad.  CT 2 and CT 9 are in dire need of new signage.  Rusted button copy and you cannot read them at night.

Yeah they are, considering they were installed in the late 1980s, shortly before the extension [direction] west of I-91 opened.  Meanwhile in Mass, they've been through 3 sign iterations since that time. 

[Mergingtraffic]

Don't expect signs on I-91, CT 2, and CT 9 to be converted anytime soon.  I see no contracts on the horizon for those routes.  I guess each of these routes could get a big contract to do all signs at once, but probably not until 2018 at the earliest.

That's too bad.  CT 2 and CT 9 are in dire need of new signage.  Rusted button copy and you cannot read them at night.

Yeah they are, considering they were installed in the late 1980s, shortly before the extension [direction] west of I-91 opened.  Meanwhile in Mass, they've been through 3 sign iterations since that time. 

Kind of interesting, that CTDOT seemed to be in a rush to implement reflective button copy in the 1980s (some roads that opened in late 70s or early 80s, had new reflective button copy signs installed around 1990, which means the NON-reflective button copy was only up for about 10 years) but today they seem to be taking their time replacing it. 

Basically the whole state was blanketed in reflective button copy around that time.

[RobbieL2415]

Aside from CT 20, 99% of District 1's signage is outdated.  The other 1% being spot improvements on 84 and 91.

District 2's signage is a little bit better.  They just opened up a signing contract for I-95 near the Gold Star Bridge.

All of District 4's surface SRs just underwent sign/shield replacement.  They look great.

Not sure about District Three.

[KEVIN_224]

What defines districts with Connecticut DOT? Our meager 8 counties?

[Duke87]

What defines districts with Connecticut DOT? Our meager 8 counties?

No, the districts don't follow county lines - they follow town lines. Remember, counties don't exist as a political division in CT, they are a historical vestige with no modern meaning. The four districts are shown on this map:


As an aside, the unsigned "secret" route numbers are mostly assigned based on district. Numbers in the 500s are in district 1, the 600s in district 2, the 700s in district 3, and the 800s in district 4.

[KEVIN_224]

Thank you for the map! As for the secret routes, it sounds about right. I know the Willow Brook Connector in Berlin, Exit 24 from CT Route 9 North, is secret route 571. It connects to CT Routes 71, 372 and Willow Brook Park (which includes New Britain Stadium).

[dgolub]

As an aside, the unsigned "secret" route numbers are mostly assigned based on district. Numbers in the 500s are in district 1, the 600s in district 2, the 700s in district 3, and the 800s in district 4.

Ah, that explains a lot.  It was pretty clear that they were based on region but didn't exactly coincide with county lines, but I never knew exactly how they divided things.

[KEVIN_224]

I'm still trying to figure out what this means then:

https://goo.gl/maps/2HyTJ33ZdtP2

It's on the bridge over I-84 West in Danbury, not long after crossing the Bethel/Danbury town line.

[noelbotevera]

I'm still trying to figure out what this means then:

https://goo.gl/maps/2HyTJ33ZdtP2

It's on the bridge over I-84 West in Danbury, not long after crossing the Bethel/Danbury town line.

My guess is that District 4 ran out of numbers in the 800s and had to use spares in the 900s to avoid duplication, unless there are still unused numbers in the 800s.

[dgolub]

I'm still trying to figure out what this means then:

https://goo.gl/maps/2HyTJ33ZdtP2

It's on the bridge over I-84 West in Danbury, not long after crossing the Bethel/Danbury town line.

My guess is that District 4 ran out of numbers in the 800s and had to use spares in the 900s to avoid duplication, unless there are still unused numbers in the 800s.

There are a batch of them scattered throughout the state.

[jp the roadgeek]

The 900 series routes are used for extremely short connectors, but are not based on district.  SR 919 is the little piece of the Berlin Turnpike southbound from the point parallel to where 5 and 15 split from the road and the remaining road becomes CT 314 to the point where 5/15 join the Turnpike by Hooters.  SR 918 is the official number for the one-way piece of roadway that most use to continue east on CT 372 at the New Britain/Berlin town line.  SR 911 is the westbound connection from where US 6 west joins I-84 to where the one-way rejoins Newtown Road (which itself is SR 806).

400 series State Service Roads are statewide and usually serve airports or state parks (401 is the number for the stub end of the Bradley connector and Schoepoester Rd. to CT 75).

[shadyjay]

Tomorrow, 12/7, ConnDOT bid plans are expected to be posted on their web site for an upcoming I-84 resigning project from Exit 30 to 39A (Southington to Farmington).  Originally the project was to encompass out to Exit 52 IIRC, but has since been scaled back, most likely because any viaduct construction will replace signs through Hartford.  As for between the "Stack" and the viaduct, who knows what'll happen through there with signs, perhaps waiting on other projects to come along. 

[jp the roadgeek]

Thank goodness.  Getting tired of seeing this lovely setup:

https://goo.gl/maps/pkiWpWGss882

[shadyjay]

Had a feeling that sign was what you were talking about, before I even clicked the link!  If I'd have to guess, I'd say those signs for Exit 32 will all be ground-mounted as part of this project, given ConnDOT's latest overhead reduction plans (see Exits 38-37 in Farmington). 

At the same time, we'll soon mourn the loss of this one, so old it doesn't have a dividing line between the sign and the exit tab:

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6255005,-72.8840094,3a,33.4y,251.38h,87.19t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssGkbG4853iRN0HJsQGpaaA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

[Mergingtraffic]

Just digging for articles about the US-7/CT-15 interchange project.  I have never seen so much hoopla over an interchange.  It's redic.  This is the poster child for what's wrong in today's society with groups and their interests and perceived realities.

http://www.thehour.com/news/article/Ramping-up-Route-7-Merritt-Parkway-interchange-9517210.php

NORWALK – After years of false starts, the state's overhaul of the Route 7-Merritt Parkway interchange is moving forward with the approval of $4 million for design work.

The money, released by the State Bond Commission on Friday, will pay for the preliminary design of the overhaul.

"We have retained Stantec, an engineering and design firm as the prime designer for this project,"  said Judd Everhart, spokesman for the Connecticut Department of Transportation. "BL Companies will serve as a sub(contractor) to Stantec and do some highway/bridge design and environmental work."

Everhart released a timetable for the project, which he described as "very preliminary."  The schedule anticipates local stakeholder meetings in 2016-17, development and evaluation of design alternatives in 2017-2018, and construction starting in 2022.

"˜Broken promises'

The purpose of the project hasn't changed: create a full-directional interchange between U.S. Route 7 and Route 15, otherwise known as the Merritt Parkway, while maintaining access at Main Avenue to and from the parkway, according to the DOT.

At present, motorists traveling west on the Merritt Parkway cannot exit to either the north- or southbound Route 7 Connector. Motorists driving either north or south on the connector cannot exit to the eastbound parkway.

State Senate Majority Leader Bob Duff, D-Norwalk, has described the situation as a "broken promise"  to residents and businesses, and a frustration and inconvenience for motorists.

He considers the $4 million for design work and the project's inclusion in the five-year ramp-up to Gov. Dannel P. Malloy's 30-year transportation plan as evidence that the interchange reconfiguration will become a reality.

"I made certain this was in the 30-year transportation plan,"  Duff said. "And then because of the fact that we have now diverted some of the sales tax to the transportation fund, it allows this project to move up and get going sooner than it would have been done had we not made that decision."

Once the project goes into design, Duff said, the DOT will put it on the federal government's work schedule. The project will be 80 percent funded by the federal government, he added.

False starts

Overhaul of the Route 7/Merritt Parkway/Main Avenue interchange has been more than a decade in planning and got underway a decade ago albeit not to everyone's liking.

In May 2005, the Merritt Parkway Conservancy and other preservationist groups filed a lawsuit against the Federal Highway Administration and the DOT in an effort to get the state to downsize its original design, which the groups considered too large, too costly and destructive to the parkway.

The following year, U.S. District Court in New Haven found that the Federal Highway Administration had not met its legal "obligation to ensure that all possible planning was done to minimize harm prior to approving the interchange project."

Design work began anew and community consensus was reached in 2009 on design Alternate 21C, which would create the four missing connections and improve the existing connections while minimizing the impact on wetlands and existing bridges. Further, the design wouldn't employ high-flying ramps, according to the DOT.

"Starting the project anew, certainly 21C will be on the table, but we have to do an alternatives analysis under NEPA, so it's possible another alternative would rise to the top,"  Everhart said Wednesday.

Community input

In order to move forward with the new project, the DOT will have to meet the requirements of the Environmental Policy Act and obtain various regulatory approvals. Community outreach also will be part of the process as design work advances.

Jill Smyth, executive director of the Merritt Parkway Conservancy, said the DOT reached out to her organization in July. She described the meeting as a preliminary meet-and-great with Stantec representatives also at the table. The conservancy's priorities remain unchanged, she indicated.

"We certainly want something that's scaled down and keeping within the character of the parkway, and most importantly, to keep those communication lines open so we can see the development of the design,"  Smith said. "It's communication and keeping in mind it needs to be within the character of the parkway and have the least amount of impact."

State Rep. Gail Lavielle, R-Wilton, said Wilton, Redding and Ridgefield residents remain nervous that the interchange overhaul will become "some kind of prelude"  to the creation of Super 7 – the never-realized expressway between Norwalk and Danbury.

"There is no stated connection and provided that the interchange is completed as an isolated project, it should be fine,"  Lavielle said. "It is really too early in the whole transportation program to get either worried or excited about any project."

She described the current interchange configuration as an inconvenience for motorists and lent her support to the overhaul provided the forthcoming design incorporates community input and addresses local concerns.

Finding money to see the project to completion will be the biggest hurdle, according to Lavielle. She said money has been allocated for other transportation project only to be removed.

"I'm very concerned about transportation funding in general,"  Lavielle said. "They can't keep what they've assigned in the transportation budget."

Look at the state rep of Wilton getting so anxious.  My god.

[Mergingtraffic]

Tomorrow, 12/7, ConnDOT bid plans are expected to be posted on their web site for an upcoming I-84 resigning project from Exit 30 to 39A (Southington to Farmington).  Originally the project was to encompass out to Exit 52 IIRC, but has since been scaled back, most likely because any viaduct construction will replace signs through Hartford.  As for between the "Stack" and the viaduct, who knows what'll happen through there with signs, perhaps waiting on other projects to come along. 

There will be an aux lane project soon between exits 40-42, so maybe that's why they stopped at Exit 39A. 
Kinda interesting, CT DOT was in a rush to blanket the state in reflective button copy but seems to be cold feet to replace it.

[Beeper1]

Just digging for articles about the US-7/CT-15 interchange project.  I have never seen so much hoopla over an interchange.  It's redic.  This is the poster child for what's wrong in today's society with groups and their interests and perceived realities.

http://www.thehour.com/news/article/Ramping-up-Route-7-Merritt-Parkway-interchange-9517210.php

NORWALK — After years of false starts, the state’s overhaul of the Route 7-Merritt Parkway interchange is moving forward with the approval of $4 million for design work.

The money, released by the State Bond Commission on Friday, will pay for the preliminary design of the overhaul.

“We have retained Stantec, an engineering and design firm as the prime designer for this project,” said Judd Everhart, spokesman for the Connecticut Department of Transportation. “BL Companies will serve as a sub(contractor) to Stantec and do some highway/bridge design and environmental work.”

Everhart released a timetable for the project, which he described as “very preliminary.” The schedule anticipates local stakeholder meetings in 2016-17, development and evaluation of design alternatives in 2017-2018, and construction starting in 2022.

‘Broken promises’

The purpose of the project hasn’t changed: create a full-directional interchange between U.S. Route 7 and Route 15, otherwise known as the Merritt Parkway, while maintaining access at Main Avenue to and from the parkway, according to the DOT.

At present, motorists traveling west on the Merritt Parkway cannot exit to either the north- or southbound Route 7 Connector. Motorists driving either north or south on the connector cannot exit to the eastbound parkway.

State Senate Majority Leader Bob Duff, D-Norwalk, has described the situation as a “broken promise” to residents and businesses, and a frustration and inconvenience for motorists.

He considers the $4 million for design work and the project’s inclusion in the five-year ramp-up to Gov. Dannel P. Malloy’s 30-year transportation plan as evidence that the interchange reconfiguration will become a reality.

“I made certain this was in the 30-year transportation plan,” Duff said. “And then because of the fact that we have now diverted some of the sales tax to the transportation fund, it allows this project to move up and get going sooner than it would have been done had we not made that decision.”

Once the project goes into design, Duff said, the DOT will put it on the federal government’s work schedule. The project will be 80 percent funded by the federal government, he added.

False starts

Overhaul of the Route 7/Merritt Parkway/Main Avenue interchange has been more than a decade in planning and got underway a decade ago albeit not to everyone’s liking.

In May 2005, the Merritt Parkway Conservancy and other preservationist groups filed a lawsuit against the Federal Highway Administration and the DOT in an effort to get the state to downsize its original design, which the groups considered too large, too costly and destructive to the parkway.

The following year, U.S. District Court in New Haven found that the Federal Highway Administration had not met its legal "obligation to ensure that all possible planning was done to minimize harm prior to approving the interchange project."

Design work began anew and community consensus was reached in 2009 on design Alternate 21C, which would create the four missing connections and improve the existing connections while minimizing the impact on wetlands and existing bridges. Further, the design wouldn't employ high-flying ramps, according to the DOT.

“Starting the project anew, certainly 21C will be on the table, but we have to do an alternatives analysis under NEPA, so it’s possible another alternative would rise to the top,” Everhart said Wednesday.

Community input

In order to move forward with the new project, the DOT will have to meet the requirements of the Environmental Policy Act and obtain various regulatory approvals. Community outreach also will be part of the process as design work advances.

Jill Smyth, executive director of the Merritt Parkway Conservancy, said the DOT reached out to her organization in July. She described the meeting as a preliminary meet-and-great with Stantec representatives also at the table. The conservancy’s priorities remain unchanged, she indicated.

“We certainly want something that’s scaled down and keeping within the character of the parkway, and most importantly, to keep those communication lines open so we can see the development of the design,” Smith said. “It’s communication and keeping in mind it needs to be within the character of the parkway and have the least amount of impact.”

State Rep. Gail Lavielle, R-Wilton, said Wilton, Redding and Ridgefield residents remain nervous that the interchange overhaul will become “some kind of prelude” to the creation of Super 7 — the never-realized expressway between Norwalk and Danbury.

“There is no stated connection and provided that the interchange is completed as an isolated project, it should be fine,” Lavielle said. “It is really too early in the whole transportation program to get either worried or excited about any project.”

She described the current interchange configuration as an inconvenience for motorists and lent her support to the overhaul provided the forthcoming design incorporates community input and addresses local concerns.

Finding money to see the project to completion will be the biggest hurdle, according to Lavielle. She said money has been allocated for other transportation project only to be removed.

“I’m very concerned about transportation funding in general,” Lavielle said. “They can’t keep what they’ve assigned in the transportation budget.”

Look at the state rep of Wilton getting so anxious.  My god.

And the Parkway Conservancy goes into full panic mode in 3...2...1...

[kurumi]

Just digging for articles about the US-7/CT-15 interchange project.  I have never seen so much hoopla over an interchange.  It's redic.  This is the poster child for what's wrong in today's society with groups and their interests and perceived realities.

http://www.thehour.com/news/article/Ramping-up-Route-7-Merritt-Parkway-interchange-9517210.php

NORWALK – After years of false starts, the state's overhaul of the Route 7-Merritt Parkway interchange is moving forward

Really? That's good news

with the approval of $4 million for design work.

Oh

State Rep. Gail Lavielle, R-Wilton, said Wilton, Redding and Ridgefield residents remain nervous that the interchange overhaul will become "some kind of prelude"  to the creation of Super 7 – the never-realized expressway between Norwalk and Danbury.

Is this her first time living in Connecticut? I know it's 2016, anything can happen, but Wilton is saaaaaafe. (Well, not from bumper to bumper traffic, or the eventual undivided 4-laning of the entire stretch, but at least there won't be a freeway.)

[bob7374]

Tomorrow, 12/7, ConnDOT bid plans are expected to be posted on their web site for an upcoming I-84 resigning project from Exit 30 to 39A (Southington to Farmington).  Originally the project was to encompass out to Exit 52 IIRC, but has since been scaled back, most likely because any viaduct construction will replace signs through Hartford.  As for between the "Stack" and the viaduct, who knows what'll happen through there with signs, perhaps waiting on other projects to come along. 

The Project Plans are now online in a zip file at:
http://www.biznet.ct.gov/scp_search/BidDetail.aspx?CID=41626

The sign plans are in the 03-Traffic PDF file.

[PHLBOS]

Quite a number of signs along that stretch (Exits 32 & 33 between Exits 33 through 35 in particular) were replaced not all that long ago.  Replacing such again seems like a waste of money.

[jp the roadgeek]

Quite a number of signs along that stretch (Exits 32 & 33 in particular) were replaced not all that long ago.  Replacing such again seems like a waste of money.

32 was not replaced.  I drive this stretch all the time. 30 is done.  31 and 32 need replacement.  33-35 are new from when the 84/72/Crooked Street interchange was reconstructed around 2002.  36 needs replacement.  37 is done.  38, 39, and 39A need replacement. 

Interesting in reading the signs that they put Plantsville on a separate sign now rather than on the actual exit sign for Exit 30.  Also, the Exit 31 Eastbound, Exit 33 Westbound,  and Exit 40 signs appear not to be MUTCD compliant as they have a route shield, street name, and control city on them.