Connecticut News

[jp the roadgeek]

Mixmaster news coming to the forefront.

http://www.wfsb.com/story/35366228/congresswoman-esty-to-discuss-mixmaster-construction-project-today

[abqtraveler]

Mixmaster news coming to the forefront.

http://www.wfsb.com/story/35366228/congresswoman-esty-to-discuss-mixmaster-construction-project-today

If you look at the track record of ConnDOT in completing major projects:  10 years to reconstruct I-95 through Bridgeport, and more than 15 years to reconstruct the Q-Bridge along with the I-91/I-95 and Route 34 interchange in New Haven, I anticipate that rebuilding the I-84/Route 8 Mixmaster will be at least a 10-year job, once started.  I'm not a bit surprised that they'll spend a few hundred million dollars and several years rehabilitating the existing viaducts to keep them serviceable until the replacement interchange is built.  So maybe we'll see the new Mixmaster interchange completed in 20-25 years at the rate ConnDOT is going right now.

[RobbieL2415]

Mixmaster news coming to the forefront.

http://www.wfsb.com/story/35366228/congresswoman-esty-to-discuss-mixmaster-construction-project-today

If you look at the track record of ConnDOT in completing major projects:  10 years to reconstruct I-95 through Bridgeport, and more than 15 years to reconstruct the Q-Bridge along with the I-91/I-95 and Route 34 interchange in New Haven, I anticipate that rebuilding the I-84/Route 8 Mixmaster will be at least a 10-year job, once started.  I'm not a bit surprised that they'll spend a few hundred million dollars and several years rehabilitating the existing viaducts to keep them serviceable until the replacement interchange is built.  So maybe we'll see the new Mixmaster interchange completed in 20-25 years at the rate ConnDOT is going right now.

They are ahead though with the Waterbury add-a-lane project.

[abqtraveler]

Mixmaster news coming to the forefront.

http://www.wfsb.com/story/35366228/congresswoman-esty-to-discuss-mixmaster-construction-project-today

If you look at the track record of ConnDOT in completing major projects:  10 years to reconstruct I-95 through Bridgeport, and more than 15 years to reconstruct the Q-Bridge along with the I-91/I-95 and Route 34 interchange in New Haven, I anticipate that rebuilding the I-84/Route 8 Mixmaster will be at least a 10-year job, once started.  I'm not a bit surprised that they'll spend a few hundred million dollars and several years rehabilitating the existing viaducts to keep them serviceable until the replacement interchange is built.  So maybe we'll see the new Mixmaster interchange completed in 20-25 years at the rate ConnDOT is going right now.

They are ahead though with the Waterbury add-a-lane project.

Let's see if they end up with sinkholes opening up in the roadway, storm drains that lead to nowhere, and light fixtures falling off their masts.  That occurred on the section of I-84 immediately east of where construction is happening now, which was widened about 10 years ago.  Surprisingly (or not...it's Corrupticut), no one ever went to jail over that mess. 

[Mergingtraffic]

Mixmaster news coming to the forefront.

http://www.wfsb.com/story/35366228/congresswoman-esty-to-discuss-mixmaster-construction-project-today

It'll be the same song and dance.  In 2007, they studied replacing the mixmaster and narrowed it down to 3 alternatives.  It seemed very promising, work could even start in 10 years.  Well, guess what?  The state couldn't get their act together and now they will study the same thing AGAIN to make sure nothing changed!  IDK who to blame the state or the DOT.  I guess the state because the DOT gets their funding from lawmakers, who can't prioritize transportation money.

It will happen again, they will study again to make sure the old 2007 study holds up or if "needs" changed and then there will be no money and it will lag and then in 2028 they will redo the study again.

Meanwhile, other states have kept up with their transportation system (although locals in their respective areas probably disagree, but compared to CT, other states do just fine) such as I-395 in DC, even though traffic clogged today was once a 4-lane road in the 1960s and the same with I-75 in Atlanta. Over the past 4 decades other states have made improvements to roads and got them done.

[Beeper1]

Exactly.  The list of projects that are badly needed, and studied over and over and over but never seem closer to implementation is staggering:

- I-95 widening Branford to New London
- Mixmaster
- Route 11  (possibly dead at this point)
- I-84 widening Danbury-Waterbury
- US-7/Merritt Pkwy interchange
- I-84 Hartford viaduct replacement

The only time we see any real action seems to be in the case of imminent structural collapse, and that's generally only on bridges (Q Bridge, Sikorsky Bridge, Wheeler Bridge, Charter Oak Br, and going back a ways to the Baldwin Bridge).

[jp the roadgeek]

Exactly.  The list of projects that are badly needed, and studied over and over and over but never seem closer to implementation is staggering:

- I-95 widening Branford to New London
- Mixmaster
- Route 11  (possibly dead at this point)
- I-84 widening Danbury-Waterbury
- US-7/Merritt Pkwy interchange
- I-84 Hartford viaduct replacement

The only time we see any real action seems to be in the case of imminent structural collapse, and that's generally only on bridges (Q Bridge, Sikorsky Bridge, Wheeler Bridge, Charter Oak Br, and going back a ways to the Baldwin Bridge).

Or actual structural crash, such as the Mianus River bridge.

[shadyjay]

Exactly.  The list of projects that are badly needed, and studied over and over and over but never seem closer to implementation is staggering:

- I-95 widening Branford to New London
- Mixmaster
- Route 11  (possibly dead at this point)
- I-84 widening Danbury-Waterbury
- US-7/Merritt Pkwy interchange
- I-84 Hartford viaduct replacement

And I'll add Route 9-Middletown to that list!

I somehow wouldn't be surprised if, by 2050, I-95 is still 2 lanes each way (except some spot improvements).  The Hartford viaduct may be done by then, but I'm not holding out hope for the Merritt Pkwy/US 7 interchange.  I'm guessing button copy will still be around as well. 

[Beeper1]

..and I-395 will still be the only highway with milepost-based exit numbers.

[MikeTheActuary]

..and I-395 will still be the only highway with milepost-based exit numbers.

But they'll still have the old exit number supplemental signage up?

[RobbieL2415]

Exactly.  The list of projects that are badly needed, and studied over and over and over but never seem closer to implementation is staggering:

- I-95 widening Branford to New London
- Mixmaster
- Route 11  (possibly dead at this point)
- I-84 widening Danbury-Waterbury
- US-7/Merritt Pkwy interchange
- I-84 Hartford viaduct replacement

The only time we see any real action seems to be in the case of imminent structural collapse, and that's generally only on bridges (Q Bridge, Sikorsky Bridge, Wheeler Bridge, Charter Oak Br, and going back a ways to the Baldwin Bridge).

CT 11 is officially dead AFIAK.  The viaduct is most definitely happening.  It wouldn't have gotten this far into planning in terms of community outreach of it wasn't.  The other three are up in the air and could go either way IMO.  I-95 widening is a matter of land acquisition and adequate ROW. 

But they at least went ahead with the Waterbury add-a-lane project.  The Q Bridge was also just finished as well as the I-91/95/34 interchange.

[Mergingtraffic]

http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/politics/Governor-Proposes-Wiping-Out-Reserves-Millions-in-Cuts-421904133.html

Malloy plans to raid the transportation fund to balance the budget.

Gee...he's one of the major talkers of a "lock box" on transportation funds but he is the one raiding it.  Irony. 

All year they talk about the importance of transportation funding but when it comes to budget balance time, they don't give a shit about transportation or anything.

Nothing will ever change...just like what I said above with the study after study...

[Beeper1]

I wonder if they are going to do a study to determine which studies should be continued.

[Duke87]

Connecticut has bigger problems than transportation funding, sadly. The state is in a very financially precarious situation because of its dependence on income tax revenue from billionaire hedge fund managers... who've been leaving the state in significant numbers in recent years. The top 50 taxpayers contributed $217 million less in 2016 than in 2015.

And this is during generally "good" economic times. The next time Wall Street decides it's time for a stock market crash, the state of Connecticut will be crashing along with it.

[Mergingtraffic]

http://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/documents/dhighwaydesign/rte9middletown_plan.pdf

I check the CT DOT site and there's still projects that sneak by. lol  Check out the CT-9 Middletown project.  What sneaked by me was Main St traffic circle with the CT-17 ramp configuration to CT-9 NB.

[shadyjay]

Another trip down and back from VT to CT and I noticed another new sign on I-91 North:

91NB-Exit23 by Jay Hogan, on Flickr

This is from the same project that replaced the I-91 NB Exit 38 1/2 mile and I-91 NB Exit 45 signs.  This sign maintains the "status quo" of existing signs, even though the MUTCD bans a street and a town name from being on the same sign.  Perhaps in a future sign replacement project, "Rocky Hill" will be exchanged for "Shunpike Rd", or it'll just be "TO 3 / Rocky Hill". 

From the same project, the signs/support on the onramp from CT 15 South and Airport Rd to I-91 SB in Hartford are also to be replaced but haven't yet.  The graffitti-colored sign and assembly butt up against I-91 NB between Exits 28 & 29.

[jp the roadgeek]

Interesting that they removed the "TO" from the sign since Route 3 is about 1/2 mile or so away.  Route 3 is actually Cromwell Ave. in that area (becomes Shunpike at the Cromwell line).

[shadyjay]

Actually, "TO" used to be displayed on the Phase III reflective button copy version.  Sometime in the late 1990s, all signs for Exit 23 were converted to Phase IV, and the "TO" was removed. 

Whoops, forgot Route 3 isn't Shunpike Rd in that area.  Okay then, I guess I can live with "TO 3/ROCKY HILL" instead.  I'd also change Exit 24 to "99/SILAS DEANE HWY".  The "Rocky Neck/Exits 23-24/Town Line" sign seems sufficient enough to denote that two exits access Rocky Hill.

[Mergingtraffic]

Another trip down and back from VT to CT and I noticed another new sign on I-91 North:

91NB-Exit23 by Jay Hogan, on Flickr

This is from the same project that replaced the I-91 NB Exit 38 1/2 mile and I-91 NB Exit 45 signs.  This sign maintains the "status quo" of existing signs, even though the MUTCD bans a street and a town name from being on the same sign.  Perhaps in a future sign replacement project, "Rocky Hill" will be exchanged for "Shunpike Rd", or it'll just be "TO 3 / Rocky Hill". 

There's another street name-town name violator on I-84 EB in Danbury for Exit 3.  Sign was put up in 2015.  There's "Exit 3 Ridgefield Park Ave."  Where is "ridgefield park ave?"  oh wait it's the town Ridgefield.

PS....new signage for Exit 11 EB as well. The Exit 11 "exit now" sign that was put up in 2015 has been replaced with an "exit only exit now" sign.  Striping for the 3rd lane into an aux lane hasn't happened yet.

On another subject of I-84 EB in Danbury, there are 3 pull-throughs for Exit 3.  2 signs say "I-84 TO US-7 Waterbury Hartford" at the Exit 3 1 Mile and "exit now" sign bridge.  But the sign at the 1/2 mile bridge says ONLY "TO US-7 Waterbury Hartford"  That can't be allowed can it? Taking off the actual road you're on for one sign?

[SectorZ]

http://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/documents/dhighwaydesign/rte9middletown_plan.pdf

I check the CT DOT site and there's still projects that sneak by. lol  Check out the CT-9 Middletown project.  What sneaked by me was Main St traffic circle with the CT-17 ramp configuration to CT-9 NB.

Does this make all of CT 9 up to at least feasible Interstate standards? I've never driven the whole length but been through that Middletown stretch. Wonder if CT vies for an x84, x91, or x95 number for it?

[shadyjay]

The I-84 EB Exit 11 signage is part of the same project... sites 1A and 1B.   There's also another I-84 EB sign change planned, replacing the HOV lane sign mounted on a bridge east of the I-84/I-384 split in East Hartford.  However, the 1980s I-84/I-384 jct sign will remain and just the HOV lane sign will be replaced. 

Regarding CT 9, I highly doubt that the stretch between Exit 12(NB) and Exit 14 is up to interstate standards.  There's almost no shoulder and a very narrow median and some sharp curves.  Outside of that, there's nothing "earth-shattering" that would forbade an interstate designation.  But I just can't see it.  Not unless CT 154 becomes CT 9 again, and is extended northward over CT 99, just like it did, pre-[existing]Route 9.

I'm not a huge fan of the present plan for getting rid of the lights on Route 9, though maybe it'll actually come to pass.  For the southern Route 17 connection with Route 9, I'd convert the connector to more of a surface road and a SPUI with full access to/from both directions of Route 9, improving access to the riverfront, and extending the connector right to River Rd.  Then have the intersection of Route 17 and Main St Ext be at-grade, vs an interchange with two traffic circles.   The new Route 9 "southern connector" interchange (present #13) would replace #14 and #15 and maintain access to the south end of Middletown from 9NB. 

One does have to wonder if Route 17 will revert to surface roads (South Main St/Main St) instead of piggybacking on with Route 9.  Northbound, no sooner would you enter Route 9, then you'd immediately have to take the next exit in 1/2 mile, a left exit no doubt.  Seems too like it would add too much traffic to Main St, as all Portland-bound traffic northbound would have to enter it to get across the river.  At least at present, you enter at the far north end, which is the west approach of the Arrigoni. 

[RobbieL2415]

http://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/documents/dhighwaydesign/rte9middletown_plan.pdf

I check the CT DOT site and there's still projects that sneak by. lol  Check out the CT-9 Middletown project.  What sneaked by me was Main St traffic circle with the CT-17 ramp configuration to CT-9 NB.

Does this make all of CT 9 up to at least feasible Interstate standards? I've never driven the whole length but been through that Middletown stretch. Wonder if CT vies for an x84, x91, or x95 number for it?

I see CT 9 as a primary route.  It's not like you're bypassing or spurring from/around a city.  Its a vector route: Hartford to Old Saybrook.  That's why CT 2 will never be a 3DI, it's Hartford to New London, a primary route linking two cities.  I-395 makes sense the way it is because it's the outermost bypass of Providence.

[Mergingtraffic]

Regarding CT 9, I highly doubt that the stretch between Exit 12(NB) and Exit 14 is up to interstate standards.  There's almost no shoulder and a very narrow median and some sharp curves.  Outside of that, there's nothing "earth-shattering" that would forbade an interstate designation.  But I just can't see it.  Not unless CT 154 becomes CT 9 again, and is extended northward over CT 99, just like it did, pre-[existing]Route 9.

I'm not a huge fan of the present plan for getting rid of the lights on Route 9, though maybe it'll actually come to pass.  For the southern Route 17 connection with Route 9, I'd convert the connector to more of a surface road and a SPUI with full access to/from both directions of Route 9, improving access to the riverfront, and extending the connector right to River Rd.  Then have the intersection of Route 17 and Main St Ext be at-grade, vs an interchange with two traffic circles.   The new Route 9 "southern connector" interchange (present #13) would replace #14 and #15 and maintain access to the south end of Middletown from 9NB. 

I noticed from CT-9 NB to CT-66 will be a left off-ramp and CT-66 EB to CT-9 NB will be a left on-ramp.  I don't see why they can't make them both right hand extis/entrances to CT-9 NB?!  They can move the NB lanes of CT-9 NB towards the center and get rid of the grassy median and then have the ramps where the right of way of the current NB lanes are.  It would make the curves of the ramp not as tight.  looking at the PDF it looks like a switch-a-roo with the ramps and mainline NB lanes.

[shadyjay]

I think the idea with the CT 9 proposal was to minimize impacts/views of the river and keep the costs down.  That's why only the southbound lanes would be elevated.  But they'll raise to climb over the NB onramp from Hartford Avenue, then drop down quickly to pass beneath the railroad bridge, then rise again to climb over the NB offramp to Washington Street.  I don't know if its the best design, but if it actually gets built, then at least the lights will be gone!   There really isn't much space at all to work with there.  In a perfect world, I'd send Route 9 over to Portland and back. 

I wonder, with Route 11 being cancelled, will Route 2 and Route 11 forever be signed as the "Route to New London"?  It's advertised as far north as the North Meadows on I-91.  But with Route 11 never being built (in our lifetimes, at least), perhaps it should be kept on Route 2 to I-395, and sign Route 11 as "Salem". 

[RobbieL2415]

I think the idea with the CT 9 proposal was to minimize impacts/views of the river and keep the costs down.  That's why only the southbound lanes would be elevated.  But they'll raise to climb over the NB onramp from Hartford Avenue, then drop down quickly to pass beneath the railroad bridge, then rise again to climb over the NB offramp to Washington Street.  I don't know if its the best design, but if it actually gets built, then at least the lights will be gone!   There really isn't much space at all to work with there.  In a perfect world, I'd send Route 9 over to Portland and back. 

I wonder, with Route 11 being cancelled, will Route 2 and Route 11 forever be signed as the "Route to New London"?  It's advertised as far north as the North Meadows on I-91.  But with Route 11 never being built (in our lifetimes, at least), perhaps it should be kept on Route 2 to I-395, and sign Route 11 as "Salem".

Or decommission CT 11 and sign it as "To CT 85 New London", that way you don't have to change a thing in Hartford.