Connecticut News

[Alps]

Any idea when CT will replace their rest area signage?

As long as the buildings of their rest areas/welcome centers are on banker's hours; probably never.

This sign. I need to find this sign.

[KEVIN_224]

It's near Exit 29 in Southington, CT.

[RobbieL2415]

What with the "low bridge" VMS messages on I-91 and CT 15? Are they lowering a bridge to rehab it?

[jp the roadgeek]

What with the "low bridge" VMS messages on I-91 and CT 15? Are they lowering a bridge to rehab it?

They're rehabbing the Ridge Rd bridge over Route 15.  It's already advertised as a low clearance bridge; it's lower by a couple of inches as they rehab it.

[RobbieL2415]

What with the "low bridge" VMS messages on I-91 and CT 15? Are they lowering a bridge to rehab it?

They're rehabbing the Ridge Rd bridge over Route 15.  It's already advertised as a low clearance bridge; it's lower by a couple of inches as they rehab it.

It's actually Airport Road.  Just looked at it on the GIS Project map.

Rehab of Br. #00481. Remove existing bituminous, patch deck, construct link-slabs, intall membrane and bituminous overlay. Replace bearings. Repair and spot paint steel. Patch substructure

Also found out that bidding starts next July on a resurfacing project on CT 2 in East Hartford that includes the removal of Exit 5B EB and the Cambridge St. on-ramp.

[kurumi]

No online cite for this (saw it in a hardcopy of the Glastonbury Citizen), but the 2 bridges serving the CT 17 SB to New London Turnpike EB ramp in Glastonbury are nearing end-of-life (built c. 1952). In place of rehabilitating or replacing those bridges, ConnDOT is considering revising the interchange to a 4-ramp parclo and removing the direct ramp altogether.

The result would be a lot less interesting, and probably introduce yet another traffic light, but would free up some land and probably be safer.

[Mergingtraffic]

No online cite for this (saw it in a hardcopy of the Glastonbury Citizen), but the 2 bridges serving the CT 17 SB to New London Turnpike EB ramp in Glastonbury are nearing end-of-life (built c. 1952). In place of rehabilitating or replacing those bridges, ConnDOT is considering revising the interchange to a 4-ramp parclo and removing the direct ramp altogether.

The result would be a lot less interesting, and probably introduce yet another traffic light, but would free up some land and probably be safer.

That's what I don't get, since the CT DOT is hard up for money, instead of doing projects that can increase capacity, they do these projects that aren't really needed. I see nothing wrong with the CT-17 to New London Tpke interchange.  It's not perfect but I think dollars could be better spent elsewhere such as on turn-lanes for the many intersections in CT that have none.

As for Route 2 Exit 5B:
https://www.easthartfordct.gov/sites/easthartfordct/files/uploads/2017-05-11_public20hearing20notice20to20businesses20and20residents202822920-20tg.pdf



PS, I drove side streets of the Exit 44-45 combo on I-95 in West Haven.  Contrary to what they say, it now takes longer to get through the exit and interchange now that the free flow movements are gone.

[jp the roadgeek]

Route 2 Exit 5B is an exit that certainly can be eliminated.  Many of the same areas can be served just as easily by Exits 5A and 5C, which both serve Main St.  Head left from the 5B exit ramp, and you're in a residential area. 

[Alps]

No online cite for this (saw it in a hardcopy of the Glastonbury Citizen), but the 2 bridges serving the CT 17 SB to New London Turnpike EB ramp in Glastonbury are nearing end-of-life (built c. 1952). In place of rehabilitating or replacing those bridges, ConnDOT is considering revising the interchange to a 4-ramp parclo and removing the direct ramp altogether.

The result would be a lot less interesting, and probably introduce yet another traffic light, but would free up some land and probably be safer.

The current setup also really doesn't look necessary in the slightest. It's almost as if this was an interim configuration while they were extending CT 2, and then left it in place after that. With one EB lane on either side for New London Tpk., why do you need five EB approach lanes on two separate approaches? So a diamond/folded-diamond setup appears to work just fine by inspection.

[RobbieL2415]

No online cite for this (saw it in a hardcopy of the Glastonbury Citizen), but the 2 bridges serving the CT 17 SB to New London Turnpike EB ramp in Glastonbury are nearing end-of-life (built c. 1952). In place of rehabilitating or replacing those bridges, ConnDOT is considering revising the interchange to a 4-ramp parclo and removing the direct ramp altogether.

The result would be a lot less interesting, and probably introduce yet another traffic light, but would free up some land and probably be safer.

The current setup also really doesn't look necessary in the slightest. It's almost as if this was an interim configuration while they were extending CT 2, and then left it in place after that. With one EB lane on either side for New London Tpk., why do you need five EB approach lanes on two separate approaches? So a diamond/folded-diamond setup appears to work just fine by inspection.

It was probably the original end of the freeway alignment.  New London Tpke was old CT 2 before the bypass was completed.  Similar to how MA 25 ended at MA 28/US 6 before being completed in the late 80's.

[shadyjay]

It was probably the original end of the freeway alignment.  New London Tpke was old CT 2 before the bypass was completed.  Similar to how MA 25 ended at MA 28/US 6 before being completed in the late 80's.

That's exactly what it was. 

Kurumi's got more here:
http://kurumi.com/roads/ct/ehglast.html

And here, which shows CT 2 transitioning from the "East Hartford-Glastonbury Exp'y" to "New London Turnpike" at said interchange:
http://kurumi.com/roads/ct/pics/usgs-ehg.jpg

[Mergingtraffic]

I posted this in another thread.....look at the handwritten NORTH!

[Alps]

I posted this in another thread.....look at the handwritten NORTH!

No part of me believes that is real.

[KEVIN_224]

Looks like it's from I-84 East in Waterbury, in the area of the Brass Mill Center Mall, by the construction zone. I can't speak for the sign itself though!

[AMLNet49]

Nice

[PHLBOS]

Not very often something makes my day on the road, but it seems ConnDOT has FINALLY raised the speed limit to 65 on I-84 in Southington.  Saw new 65 MPH signs from Exit 31-33.  It's now 55 through the CT 72 interchange and I saw 65 signs between Exits 36 and 37.  Day=made

I forgot to mention this but as of this past Easter weekend; only the eastbound stretch of I-84 has a posted 65 mph limit from about Exit 26 to Exit 36 (excluding the CT 72 concurrency where it's still 55).  Upon my return trip on Monday April 2; the westbound stretch was still posted at 55.

It's seems kind of odd that only one direction got the increase (there were no construction/work zones in the westbound direction).  I'm assuming that the westbound stretch has since received the speed limit increase.  Can anyone confirm?

[jp the roadgeek]

Not very often something makes my day on the road, but it seems ConnDOT has FINALLY raised the speed limit to 65 on I-84 in Southington.  Saw new 65 MPH signs from Exit 31-33.  It's now 55 through the CT 72 interchange and I saw 65 signs between Exits 36 and 37.  Day=made

I forgot to mention this but as of this past Easter weekend; only the eastbound stretch of I-84 has a posted 65 mph limit from about Exit 26 to Exit 36 (excluding the CT 72 concurrency where it's still 55).  Upon my return trip on Monday April 2; the westbound stretch was still posted at 55.

It's seems kind of odd that only one direction got the increase (there were no construction/work zones in the westbound direction).  I'm assuming that the westbound stretch has since received the speed limit increase.  Can anyone confirm?

I can confirm that Westbound signage changes are done from Exits 39A-31 as of about a week ago.   And it will be both sides.

http://www.rep-am.com/news/news-local/2018/03/30/i-84-speed-limit-change-creates-uniform-65-mph-from-waterbury-to-plainville/

Looks like SR 508 is part of the project despite not being listed.  Most of the ground mount signage is new, but like the rest of the project, overhead signage has not been swapped out/taken down.

[RobbieL2415]

Not very often something makes my day on the road, but it seems ConnDOT has FINALLY raised the speed limit to 65 on I-84 in Southington.  Saw new 65 MPH signs from Exit 31-33.  It's now 55 through the CT 72 interchange and I saw 65 signs between Exits 36 and 37.  Day=made

I forgot to mention this but as of this past Easter weekend; only the eastbound stretch of I-84 has a posted 65 mph limit from about Exit 26 to Exit 36 (excluding the CT 72 concurrency where it's still 55).  Upon my return trip on Monday April 2; the westbound stretch was still posted at 55.

It's seems kind of odd that only one direction got the increase (there were no construction/work zones in the westbound direction).  I'm assuming that the westbound stretch has since received the speed limit increase.  Can anyone confirm?

They are legally both 65 now.  Speed limit registry comfirms it.

[shadyjay]

Drove westbound on I-84 through the Plainville-Southington portion of the resigning project.  Every reassurance shield I saw had a white "WEST" banner.  Here's one in Southington:

DSC09681 by Jay Hogan, on Flickr

And the speed limit 65 signs start right at Exit 39A, westbound.  The last one I saw was right around Exit 29.  Speed limit signs to the west of there to Waterbury all were 55 MPH.  And there was no "REDUCE SPEED AHEAD" sign when it dropped from 65 to 55.  The only such sign observed was near Exit 25A, approaching the construction zone.

Old sign on a new gantry (but for how much longer?)...
DSC09700 by Jay Hogan, on Flickr

Complete album here:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/albums/72157667598103346/with/41673178621/

[RobbieL2415]

Geezer Marie, people on Reddit are so uptight about the toll debate.  As if they have a better solution.

[jp the roadgeek]

Geezer Marie, people on Reddit are so uptight about the toll debate.  As if they have a better solution.

I can think of many.  I just won't present them here.

[RobbieL2415]

Geezer Marie, people on Reddit are so uptight about the toll debate.  As if they have a better solution.

I can think of many.  I just won't present them here.

I'm admittedly heartless on the issue.  Don't want to pay a toll?  You don't have to use that road.  Go use a US route.  I really don't care for people patronizing, making it a "woe is me" sort of thing.  Get over it and live your life.  That's all I'm going to say before I go off the deep end.

[jp the roadgeek]

Geezer Marie, people on Reddit are so uptight about the toll debate.  As if they have a better solution.

I can think of many.  I just won't present them here.

I'm admittedly heartless on the issue.  Don't want to pay a toll?  You don't have to use that road.  Go use a US route.  I really don't care for people patronizing, making it a "woe is me" sort of thing.  Get over it and live your life.  That's all I'm going to say before I go off the deep end.

Since the door is open a crack, I will present the arguments against tolls. 

First, adding tolls to an existing non-tolled facility means a loss in federal highway funding.  It would be ok if it were a new road, or a newly constructed HOT lane, but tolls are being proposed for almost every limited access highway in the state, none of which are currently tolled.  I-95, CT 15, and other toll bridges lost their "grandfathered in" status when tolls were eliminated in the 1980's.

Second, the cost to implement tolls is expansive.  In addition to the cost of installation, you're creating more government and spending more to run it when the state is already in a gigantic deficit.

Third, tolls are a form of triple taxation to citizens.  The money that CT citizens would pay in tolls has already been taxed as income at both the federal and state level.  Figuring an average $60,000 after tax salary and tolls amounting to about $2000 a year, that would mean a 3.3% pay cut.  In addition, CT already has one of the highest gas taxes in the country.  And even more income would need to be spent when the cost of tolls are added to the price of goods being shipped in trucks using CT roadways (someone has to absorb the increased shipping costs, and it won't be the retailer).

Fourth, CT has a major problem as to where money allocated to transportation goes.  It does not go to a dedicated fund, but rather the general fund, where it gets pooled in with funding for other often controversial projects and programs.  Because CT has spent more in other areas, transportation is dangerously underfunded and infrastructure has suffered.  Rather than make adjustments and cuts to unnecessary spending (DOT administrative costs are 5 times the national average), many in power would rather put the burden on the citizens and maintain the status quo.

I won't go any further or offer any opinion, lest I get the dreaded purple font from a mod, but these are the arguments against tolls in CT.

[southshore720]

Some progress to report on the I-95 Signage Replacement project between Exits 85-93.  Many new BGSs have been erected Southbound and are identical to the signs used on I-395.  Most of the new signage appears between Exits 93-88 at the moment, including a very large, impressive Welcome to CT sign.  Northbound, no new signage yet, but most of the sign supports are in place.

[jp the roadgeek]

Some progress to report on the I-95 Signage Replacement project between Exits 85-93.  Many new BGSs have been erected Southbound and are identical to the signs used on I-395.  Most of the new signage appears between Exits 93-88 at the moment, including a very large, impressive Welcome to CT sign.  Northbound, no new signage yet, but most of the sign supports are in place.

Do the state shields have black borders on them?  If so, that seems to be a District 2 and District 4 thing.  The new ones on I-84 (mostly) in District 1 do not, but the CT 8 ones in Litchfield County and I-395 do.