Connecticut News

[RobbieL2415]

http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-connecticut-transportation-spending-20170613-story.html?utm_campaign=trueAnthem:+Trending+Contentutm_content=595cf0e43ed3f000072dbb78utm_medium=trueAnthemutm_source=twitter

I just saw this pop up on the Twitter feed of The Hartford Courant this morning. Hmmm...no mention of I-95 from Old Lyme to Waterford. Again!

They're fixing up I-95 in New London-Groton area? Why? (I hadn't read it all yet) Also hopefully the Hartford Line (Rail) still is funded, that seems like a cool idea.

AFIAK the final funding for the Hartford Line was secured 2-3 years ago.  They have yet to announce the operator, though.

[jp the roadgeek]

http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-connecticut-transportation-spending-20170613-story.html?utm_campaign=trueAnthem:+Trending+Contentutm_content=595cf0e43ed3f000072dbb78utm_medium=trueAnthemutm_source=twitter

I just saw this pop up on the Twitter feed of The Hartford Courant this morning. Hmmm...no mention of I-95 from Old Lyme to Waterford. Again!

They're fixing up I-95 in New London-Groton area? Why? (I hadn't read it all yet) Also hopefully the Hartford Line (Rail) still is funded, that seems like a cool idea.

AFIAK the final funding for the Hartford Line was secured 2-3 years ago.  They have yet to announce the operator, though.

They're already in the process of (re) double tracking the New Haven-Springfield corridor.  The operator announcement is coming soon

[kurumi]

Regarding the 8/25 overlap, the Bridgeport segment of the freeway was originally planned as Route 25 in the 1950s. Route 8 came along later -- but now it's the longer, complete, more prominent freeway with the lower number. The 25 history might be the reason the duplex is signed as [25] [8] on I-95 guide signs. (And at the 25/8 split, CT 25 has 6 lanes, and CT 8 has 4.)

[The Broadcaster]

Regarding the 8/25 overlap, the Bridgeport segment of the freeway was originally planned as Route 25 in the 1950s. Route 8 came along later -- but now it's the longer, complete, more prominent freeway with the lower number. The 25 history might be the reason the duplex is signed as [25] [8] on I-95 guide signs. (And at the 25/8 split, CT 25 has 6 lanes, and CT 8 has 4.)

When I was a dispatcher at Troop G, we always called everything south of the split as just "Route 25." If you said "Route 8," you were talking about the road north of the split. Every once in a while, I'd pick up a shift at Troop H, and they always referred to the Berlin Turnpike and the connector to the COB as "5 and 15."

[MikeTheActuary]

They're already in the process of (re) double tracking the New Haven-Springfield corridor.  The operator announcement is coming soon

Well, they're re-double-tracking the line south of Windsor.  For Windsor north, I forget whether they're still looking for funding, of if they just recently sourced some funding.

[shadyjay]

Because of the existing siding which starts at Windsor, the double-track actually will extend north to the vicinity of the existing Windsor Locks station.  So you'd only have to double track from that point, north to the state line, minus the Conn River Bridge, which needs a good rehab to support two tracks again.  They're still contemplating moving the Windsor Locks station to the old station site just north of downtown on Rt 159.  Enfield (Thompsonville) needs a new station and the existing Windsor station would be located south of the grade crossing.  Those stations are not yet funded. 

8/25, it would appear that 25 is the dominant route, with the additional lanes, and the fact that the whole Rt 25 expressway section (from I-95 to the end) is signed as the Col. Henry Mucci Highway.  Portions of 25 are 4 lanes NB approaching the end of the exp'y, due to a "climbing lane".  Then in a mile or so, it drops from 4 lanes to a single lane.

[vdeane]

I suspect more traffic goes to CT 8 than CT 25, despite the lane configuration.  At least that's how it looked this afternoon.  Probably because CT 8 actually goes somewhere, unlike CT 25.

I believe the fourth lane has been restriped as a shoulder.  CT sure does love climbing lanes though.  There are "slow vehicle lanes" even in places that don't appear to warrant a climbing lane.

Regarding the 8/25 overlap, the Bridgeport segment of the freeway was originally planned as Route 25 in the 1950s. Route 8 came along later -- but now it's the longer, complete, more prominent freeway with the lower number. The 25 history might be the reason the duplex is signed as [25] [8] on I-95 guide signs. (And at the 25/8 split, CT 25 has 6 lanes, and CT 8 has 4.)

Wasn't CT 8 planned to extend to the Massachusetts Turnpike?

[jp the roadgeek]

I suspect more traffic goes to CT 8 than CT 25, despite the lane configuration.  At least that's how it looked this afternoon.  Probably because CT 8 actually goes somewhere, unlike CT 25.

I believe the fourth lane has been restriped as a shoulder.  CT sure does love climbing lanes though.  There are "slow vehicle lanes" even in places that don't appear to warrant a climbing lane.

Regarding the 8/25 overlap, the Bridgeport segment of the freeway was originally planned as Route 25 in the 1950s. Route 8 came along later -- but now it's the longer, complete, more prominent freeway with the lower number. The 25 history might be the reason the duplex is signed as [25] [8] on I-95 guide signs. (And at the 25/8 split, CT 25 has 6 lanes, and CT 8 has 4.)

Wasn't CT 8 planned to extend to the Massachusetts Turnpike?

I've always referred to the Bridgeport stretch as Route 8 and forget that 25 exists south of the split.  It's a combination of Route 8 being almost 10 times as long north of the split, and that I would take Route 8 to go home from there. 

And yes, Route 8 was planned to extend to the Mass Pike, and its cancellation is the reason that there is a 30 mile gap in exits between Lee and Westfield.  NIMBY's north of the border and MassDOT refused to build its stretch, plus you have Colebrook River Lake and Otis Reservoir in the way.

[kurumi]

I suspect more traffic goes to CT 8 than CT 25, despite the lane configuration.  At least that's how it looked this afternoon.  Probably because CT 8 actually goes somewhere, unlike CT 25.

You're right. Before the split (2015 AADT):
Route 8/25: 89,200

After the split:
Route 8: 57,400; exceeds 80,000 at the Housatonic River and south of Route 73 in Waterbury
Route 25, 33,000; peaks at 44,000 north of the Merritt Parkway

[Alps]

I suspect more traffic goes to CT 8 than CT 25, despite the lane configuration.  At least that's how it looked this afternoon.  Probably because CT 8 actually goes somewhere, unlike CT 25.

I believe the fourth lane has been restriped as a shoulder.  CT sure does love climbing lanes though.  There are "slow vehicle lanes" even in places that don't appear to warrant a climbing lane.

Regarding the 8/25 overlap, the Bridgeport segment of the freeway was originally planned as Route 25 in the 1950s. Route 8 came along later -- but now it's the longer, complete, more prominent freeway with the lower number. The 25 history might be the reason the duplex is signed as [25] [8] on I-95 guide signs. (And at the 25/8 split, CT 25 has 6 lanes, and CT 8 has 4.)

Wasn't CT 8 planned to extend to the Massachusetts Turnpike?

I've always referred to the Bridgeport stretch as Route 8 and forget that 25 exists south of the split.  It's a combination of Route 8 being almost 10 times as long north of the split, and that I would take Route 8 to go home from there. 

And yes, Route 8 was planned to extend to the Mass Pike, and its cancellation is the reason that there is a 30 mile gap in exits between Lee and Westfield.  NIMBY's north of the border and MassDOT refused to build its stretch, plus you have Colebrook River Lake and Otis Reservoir in the way.

I'm not sure how serious those plans ever were. The main reason for the 30 mile gap is the lack of anything of significance between those points. The main voices looking for another exit are the handful of locals.

[jp the roadgeek]

What a CT/MA 8 expressway to the Mass Pike would do is fill a highwayless void through Litchfield County for those going to Albany and points north and west from west of Hartford and Fairfield County.  As it stands from where I live, to get to Albany on an all expressway route, I would have to backtrack 20 miles to Hartford and take I-91 to the Mass Pike.  The only other all expressway options would be heading west to the Taconic or to the Thruway, which also is quite far out of the way unless you live near the NY border in Fairfield County.  Otherwise, I'm forced to backroad it either by taking CT/MA 8 to US 20 to Lee to catch the Pike, or take CT 254 to CT 118 to US 202 to CT 63 to US 7 to MA 41 to MA 102 to NY 980D to NY 22 to catch the Berkshire Spur.  So more than a handful of locals would love to see an exit near the MA 8/US 20 junction to at least shave a few backroad miles off. 

[Alps]

What a CT/MA 8 expressway to the Mass Pike would do is fill a highwayless void through Litchfield County for those going to Albany and points north and west from west of Hartford and Fairfield County.  As it stands from where I live, to get to Albany on an all expressway route, I would have to backtrack 20 miles to Hartford and take I-91 to the Mass Pike.  The only other all expressway options would be heading west to the Taconic or to the Thruway, which also is quite far out of the way unless you live near the NY border in Fairfield County.  Otherwise, I'm forced to backroad it either by taking CT/MA 8 to US 20 to Lee to catch the Pike, or take CT 254 to CT 118 to US 202 to CT 63 to US 7 to MA 41 to MA 102 to NY 980D to NY 22 to catch the Berkshire Spur.  So more than a handful of locals would love to see an exit near the MA 8/US 20 junction to at least shave a few backroad miles off. 

There are relatively few locals, and the alternatives aren't that bad. CT 8 doesn't have the traffic to justify an extension.

[Mergingtraffic]

Only a single onramp has an I-395 control city of Providence, and that's coming from CT 2 EB.  I find it interesting that MassDOT is now using "New London CT" as the control city for I-395 from the Mass Pike.  There's no mention of New London anywhere on I-395... until you get to Exit 5.  Should New London be a control city on I-395, in place of Norwich?  Maybe.... maybe not.  Or at the very least, how bout some mileage signs?  "NORWICH ## / NEW LONDON ## / NY CITY ###".

Regarding 8/25, I thought that too, about removing the duplex.  I never understood why the two were signed that way.  It reminds me of those seemingly needless multiplexes that Maine has all over the place.

Regarding 66/691, they should renumber with MM 0 being at I-84 and continuing east, all the way to the end of the exp'y in Middlefield.  Resetting CT 66 exit numbers back to "1" for Preston Ave seems more confusing.  And do we even know where CT 66 mileage officially begins/ends?  The east end of the exp'y, heading west, has a I-691 sign on the overhead. 

While the new Exit 10 pullthrough will read "EAST I-691 TO 66", you'll still have one sign to the west that will read "66 EAST".  Wonder if that'll get replaced at some point in the not-too-distant future?  It is a bridge-mount after all, and we know ConnDOT is favoring away from those (except in Norwalk).

The signs on the new gantry on CT-2A and exit 5 were just put up two years ago with the I-395 sign project. The EB signs are the exact same.  Why not just use the older signs on the new gantry?

[JJBers]

Only a single onramp has an I-395 control city of Providence, and that's coming from CT 2 EB.  I find it interesting that MassDOT is now using "New London CT" as the control city for I-395 from the Mass Pike.  There's no mention of New London anywhere on I-395... until you get to Exit 5.  Should New London be a control city on I-395, in place of Norwich?  Maybe.... maybe not.  Or at the very least, how bout some mileage signs?  "NORWICH ## / NEW LONDON ## / NY CITY ###".

Connecticut doesn't like interstate mileage signs.

[jp the roadgeek]

Only a single onramp has an I-395 control city of Providence, and that's coming from CT 2 EB.  I find it interesting that MassDOT is now using "New London CT" as the control city for I-395 from the Mass Pike.  There's no mention of New London anywhere on I-395... until you get to Exit 5.  Should New London be a control city on I-395, in place of Norwich?  Maybe.... maybe not.  Or at the very least, how bout some mileage signs?  "NORWICH ## / NEW LONDON ## / NY CITY ###".

Connecticut doesn't like interstate mileage signs.

I can only think of 3 in the entire state, maybe a couple more, (and formerly a 4th): The 2 on CT 9 in Haddam, and the one on I-84 West in Union.  I also seem to remember one on I-91 North in Middletown in the past, and not sure if there's a couple on CT 8.

[JJBers]

Only a single onramp has an I-395 control city of Providence, and that's coming from CT 2 EB.  I find it interesting that MassDOT is now using "New London CT" as the control city for I-395 from the Mass Pike.  There's no mention of New London anywhere on I-395... until you get to Exit 5.  Should New London be a control city on I-395, in place of Norwich?  Maybe.... maybe not.  Or at the very least, how bout some mileage signs?  "NORWICH ## / NEW LONDON ## / NY CITY ###".

Connecticut doesn't like interstate mileage signs.

I can only think of 3 in the entire state, maybe a couple more, (and formerly a 4th): The 2 on CT 9 in Haddam, and the one on I-84 West in Union.  I also seem to remember one on I-91 North in Middletown in the past, and not sure if there's a couple on CT 8.

There's also one on I-384 just after US 6/44 leave.

CC 2.0 JJBers

[shadyjay]

On I-95:
NB in Greenwich (Stamford/Bridgeport)
NB in Stonington (North Stonington/Providence)
SB in Stonington (New London/New Haven)
SB in Groton (New Haven/Bridgeport)
SB in Westport (Stamford/NY City)

On CT 9:
NB in Haddam (Middletown/Hartford)
SB in Cromwell (Middletown/Old Saybrook)
SB in Haddam (Essex/Old Saybrook)

There's a couple on CT 2, don't think there's any on CT 8.  I too remember one on I-91 decades ago in Middletown, which had Miles and Km listed for IIRC, Meriden and New Haven.  It was after Exit 21, SB. 

[connroadgeek]

Why can't Bridgeport be a control city on interstates? It's the biggest city in the state and the DOT already uses it on Route 8. There was once a BGS in Norwalk at one of the entrance ramps to I-95 NB that used Bridgeport, but that was replaced in the last signing contract about 10 years ago.

[jp the roadgeek]

Must be something with AASHTO because NYSDOT also uses New Haven as a control city for I-95, I-695, and I-278 in NYC and Westchester County.  Seems that only roads that end in Bridgeport (Route 25 being the other) can use Bridgeport as a control city. 

Seems that most DOT's in the northeast have moved to using only 1 control city on new signage. ConnDOT now only uses New London as a control city on I-95 north in New Haven and eliminated Providence as a second control city. Personally, I think most BGS's and exits on the highway itself should post 2 control cities at major interchanges when it warrants, even if the second control city is quite a distance away.  When I went to Indianapolis, Indiana DOT used Chicago, Cincinnati, Peoria, and even St. Louis as control cities on their interstates.  In New Haven, I-95 should post Bridgeport/NYC southbound and New London/Providence northbound, while I-91 should post Hartford/Springfield.  Some new examples would be Hartford as a second control city after Danbury on I-84 East for interchanges on the Taconic Parkway and I-684; Philadelphia as a second control city after Trenton on I-95 junctions in NYC; Cleveland as a second control city after Erie for I-90 junctions in the Buffalo area, and Toronto as a second control city after Niagara Falls for I-190 and I-290 junctions in the Buffalo area.

[KEVIN_224]

In the Meriden area, you do have an I-91 North pullthrough which says "HARTFORD/SPRINGFIELD". On CT Route 9 South in Cromwell, the I-91 signs say "NORTH- HARTFORD/SPRINGFIELD" and "SOUTH- NEW HAVEN/NY CITY".

[JJBers]

Seems that most DOT's in the northeast have moved to using only 1 control city on new signage. ConnDOT now only uses New London as a control city on I-95 north in New Haven and eliminated Providence as a second control city. Personally, I think most BGS's and exits on the highway itself should post 2 control cities at major interchanges when it warrants, even if the second control city is quite a distance away.  When I went to Indianapolis, Indiana DOT used Chicago, Cincinnati, Peoria, and even St. Louis as control cities on their interstates.  In New Haven, I-95 should post Bridgeport/NYC southbound and New London/Providence northbound, while I-91 should post Hartford/Springfield.  Some new examples would be Hartford as a second control city after Danbury on I-84 East for interchanges on the Taconic Parkway and I-684; Philadelphia as a second control city after Trenton on I-95 junctions in NYC; Cleveland as a second control city after Erie for I-90 junctions in the Buffalo area, and Toronto as a second control city after Niagara Falls for I-190 and I-290 junctions in the Buffalo area.

Aren't I-384 and I-291 like this?

[shadyjay]

In the Meriden area, you do have an I-91 North pullthrough which says "HARTFORD/SPRINGFIELD". On CT Route 9 South in Cromwell, the I-91 signs say "NORTH- HARTFORD/SPRINGFIELD" and "SOUTH- NEW HAVEN/NY CITY".

While this is true, it seems as if signs are replaced, only one control city is being used.  The just-released spot sign replacement project has a couple signs being replaced on I-691 EB for Exit 11 which maintain the "Hartford/Springfield" usage, but a blanket replacement project for I-691 would probably replace them again.  Spot sign replacements seem to maintain the "status-quo", if all signs within an exit are not being replaced. 

And Bridgeport is still used as a control city for I-95 North on US 7 South in Norwalk.

[JakeFromNewEngland]

Bridgeport is also a control city on the Milford Connector for I-95 South. This became the control city after the sign replacement project in 2012(?) that added exit numbers to the connector. Before it used to be Bridgeport/N.Y. City going southbound.

[jp the roadgeek]

Bridgeport is also a control city on the Milford Connector for I-95 South. This became the control city after the sign replacement project in 2012(?) that added exit numbers to the connector. Before it used to be Bridgeport/N.Y. City going southbound.

Wouldn't be surprised if that is an exception because NYC is the control city for CT 15 South and all traffic using the connector is non-commercial and is coming from the area of CT 15. 

[RobbieL2415]

CT 9 has New Haven as the control city for US 5/CT 15 S.  At this point the duplex is still on the Berlin Turnpike.

This section of CT 9 didn't open until the early 90s, if that has any bearing.