Connecticut News

[MikeTheActuary]

I dunno, I don't see the appeal of Concept 4. You're not only adding curves to I-84, you're making it longer, so even if traffic continues flowing at the same speeds you're increasing travel times.

Meanwhile this allows a few blocks' worth of I-84 immediately adjacent to downtown to be removed, but at the expense of creating new neighborhood disruption to the north... and part of the section which could be removed already has a cap on it.

Seems to me the degree to which this concept is actually a net improvement is overstated.


Concept 5 looks more worthwhile in terms of improving downtown Hartford while also keeping traffic flowing along smooth paths. The report claims "impacts to East Hartford would be considerable" but the realigned I-91 in this concept would involve less new ROW than the realigned I-84 in Concept 4...

One of the less-than-obvious bits of Concept 4 is that the realigned 84 would generally follow an existing rail corridor.  The neighborhood disruption that would be created by realigning 84 has, in one sense, already happened.  You also pick up a new bridge across the river, and give the city a few more options to redevelop the wasteland north of downtown.

Concept 5...you're just shifting I-91 across the river, and replacing the existing mess of the 84/91 interchange with an addition to the mess in East Hartford.

[abqtraveler]

How about my option #7:  Construct I-291 from Farmington to Windsor for all thru traffic.  Existing I-84 would be downgraded to a surface route/boulevard from Sisson Ave to East Hartford.  As part of the plan, the existing I-91/I-291 interchange would be rebuilt to include all movements between the two interstates.  The Bissel Bridge would be widened and existing I-291 from I-91 to I-84 would be widened.  Straight-line the east end of I-291 to enter existing I-84 at Buckland Street.  Potential straight-line I-84 at present CT 4/Exit 38. 

Odds of happening:  1 in 1 billion (or so).  But still, too bad it wasn't an option.  If I-291 had been built when it was intended, it could have served as a good alternate route to thru traffic, and also to mitigate traffic delays during construction of a new route, the replacing of the Aetna viaduct, etc.

Completing I-291 fron I-91 to the I-84/Route 9 stack interchange would go over like a lead brick. That section was cancelled in the 1970s because it would have cut through the reservoirs that supply the region with its drinking water. The courts blocked the northwest leg of I-291 from being built for that reason, and there is no feasible alternative that avoids the reservoirs without taking a lot of existing development.

[vdeane]

I'm guessing the main appeal of option 4 isn't anything related to making traffic flow better but rather providing an additional option for pedestrians and cyclists to cross the river.

[MikeTheActuary]

I'm guessing the main appeal of option 4 isn't anything related to making traffic flow better but rather providing an additional option for pedestrians and cyclists to cross the river.

While that is mentioned in the document, the Founders Bridge (CT 2) is already a viable pedestrian/bike crossing.

The big attraction for #4 is the development opportunity from removing I-84 as a perceived barrier to integrating the near-wasteland north of 84 to downtown, without having the expense or ancillary headaches from putting 84 underground.

I still think that while the urban planners want 4, the state is going to go with option 1 or 2.

[kefkafloyd]

Rerouting 84 will also allow them to cap off I-91 in that area and eliminate all that complex ramps and such from the current 91/84 interchange. Making a larger (but simpler to maintain) interchange north of downtown is a big part of it. Not just the wasteland north of 84 but the actual riverfront area would get a big boost from 4.

In terms of a cost/benefit ratio 4 is the absolute winner, but it remains to be seen whether it'll get built.

[PHLBOS]

Over the years, I've become of the opinion that everyone should just "get over it" when it comes to tolls.  The arguments for and against are tiresome. Let's see some actual highway and public transit improvements, please.

I agree.  The focus of discussion should be on where the money is going, not how it is raised.

I would suggest asking the CT politicians regarding what/which projects would funded by this "new" revenue.  They're the ones that are talking more about tolls and/or raising gas prices rather than the actual projects themselves.  Given CT's past history regarding how previous revenue has been spent/allocated; the fore-mentioned arguments regarding tolls & taxes are warranted regardless of how repetitive it seems.

Simply put: if you give your kids school lunch money and they spend it on something else instead (for sake of argument, let's assume the diverted spending was not for a necessary item); are you going to give them additional money to compensate for such?  I don't think so.

[Ben114]

With option 4, the former 84 could be an extension of CT 15.

[DJStephens]

I-84 Hartford Project published a few alternatives for 84/91 interchange construction:
http://i84hartford.com/documents/newsletters/I-84%20Newsletter_Print_FINAL_English_ADA_121918.pdf

1. No-build (leave as is)
2. Modernize in-place: no left exits; additional ramps and widened Bulkeley Bridge
3. Southern tunnel across Hartford; 84 uses COB across river; CT 2 shifted eastward
4. I-84 realigned to the north; Bulkeley Bridge reverts to US 6/44 boulevard
5. I-91 uses COB to hop across river. New interchanges at 84/91 and 91/2/15.
6. John Larson's $50 billion double tunnel with new 84/91 interchange underground

What about trench in place?  Recall there was a section - downtown that was already depressed / and or decked over.   Seems possible? that depressed/cut and cover alignment could be extended to the W.  Maybe no room?, or more possibly - political climate to reroute alongside while trench is dug.   

[RobbieL2415]

Option 7: build every planned secondary Interstate and SR and you wouldn't have had this problem to begin with.

[Ben114]

Option 7: build every planned secondary Interstate and SR and you wouldn't have had this problem to begin with.

Let's try and get I-184 to Providence.

[jp the roadgeek]

Option 7: build every planned secondary Interstate and SR and you wouldn't have had this problem to begin with.

Let's try and get I-184 to Providence.

I'd make it an eastern I-82, which would start at the I-84/I-691 junction, take over I-691 and follow the formerly proposed CT 66 expressway to Willimantic and take the old I-84 to Providence path.  It would then take over I-195 and MA 25, with a new section to end at the US 6/MA 3 junction near the Sagamore Bridge.  I-384 would be extended to meet it near the Columbia/Mansfield line.

[AMLNet49]

Option 7: build every planned secondary Interstate and SR and you wouldn't have had this problem to begin with.

Let's try and get I-184 to Providence.

I'd make it an eastern I-82, which would start at the I-84/I-691 junction, take over I-691 and follow the formerly proposed CT 66 expressway to Willimantic and take the old I-84 to Providence path.  It would then take over I-195 and MA 25, with a new section to end at the US 6/MA 3 junction near the Sagamore Bridge.  I-384 would be extended to meet it near the Columbia/Mansfield line.

Yea let's add another confusing double interstate to the bunch we already have. And others (69 and 74) that are effectively that way. Same line of thought that got us a southern I-87 and could be getting us a "western"  I-66. These segments are much closer together than any of the original double interstates.

[Roadsguy]

Option 7: build every planned secondary Interstate and SR and you wouldn't have had this problem to begin with.

Let's try and get I-184 to Providence.

I'd make it an eastern I-82, which would start at the I-84/I-691 junction, take over I-691 and follow the formerly proposed CT 66 expressway to Willimantic and take the old I-84 to Providence path.  It would then take over I-195 and MA 25, with a new section to end at the US 6/MA 3 junction near the Sagamore Bridge.  I-384 would be extended to meet it near the Columbia/Mansfield line.

Yea let's add another confusing double interstate to the bunch we already have. And others (69 and 74) that are effectively that way. Same line of thought that got us a southern I-87 and could be getting us a "western"  I-66. These segments are much closer together than any of the original double interstates.

Except this second I-82 is more than 2000 miles from the existing one, which is already a shorter and less important Interstate like this one will be. I definitely agree that the southern I-87 is a stupid number when not only would an east-west number make more sense, but there are loads of unused even numbers between 40 and 64 to use there.

[jp the roadgeek]

Option 7: build every planned secondary Interstate and SR and you wouldn't have had this problem to begin with.

Let's try and get I-184 to Providence.

I'd make it an eastern I-82, which would start at the I-84/I-691 junction, take over I-691 and follow the formerly proposed CT 66 expressway to Willimantic and take the old I-84 to Providence path.  It would then take over I-195 and MA 25, with a new section to end at the US 6/MA 3 junction near the Sagamore Bridge.  I-384 would be extended to meet it near the Columbia/Mansfield line.

Yea let's add another confusing double interstate to the bunch we already have. And others (69 and 74) that are effectively that way. Same line of thought that got us a southern I-87 and could be getting us a "western"  I-66. These segments are much closer together than any of the original double interstates.

Except this second I-82 is more than 2000 miles from the existing one, which is already a shorter and less important Interstate like this one will be. I definitely agree that the southern I-87 is a stupid number when not only would an east-west number make more sense, but there are loads of unused even numbers between 40 and 64 to use there.

This would give an incentive to switch the western I-82 to an odd north-south interstate like it should be (I-7, I-9, or I-13).  This one would be a little under 140 miles (67 in CT, 27 in RI, and 54 in MA), which makes it longer than quite a few 2DI's.

[Alps]

This is an incentive to stop straying into Fictional, non-Connecticut territory.

[MikeTheActuary]

What about trench in place?  Recall there was a section - downtown that was already depressed / and or decked over.   Seems possible? that depressed/cut and cover alignment could be extended to the W.  Maybe no room?, or more possibly - political climate to reroute alongside while trench is dug.

In an earlier incarnation of the big project plan, they examined different variations of maintaining the same/similar alignment, including a tunnel-in-place.   The tunnel was rejected, mostly due to cost; while there was local appeal to getting 84 out of sight, the details of how to handle the magnitude of traffic originating from / destined to downtown Hartford were a problem.  (It's a problem for all of the current concepts, tbh).  Also, I recall that most of the viable same-alignment options involved significant impacts to Union Station and/or the busway.

If there were the political appetite for the expense of a tunnel, concepts 3 and 6 are probably the better underground options.  They'd cost more, but probably not a huge amount more than tunnel-in-place, and they'd open the door to less disruptive answers to the questions of how to handle traffic during construction, how to reduce/avoid the complication of tunneling around the (buried) Park River, etc.

[mroad860]

I think option 3 would be best, I've thought of an option 3-like idea before these options came out. The tunnel could short enough to just go under Trinity college to save costs. Outside of the tunnel, you can place an exit to the west, an exit or two to the east before the Charter Oak Bridge. Charter Oak Bridge could be widened to fit 10-12 lanes. Bulkeley Bridge could be turned into a boulevard type road. The current 84 viaduct could then be dismantled with no rush after the realignment is finished.

Positives: Construction could happen with little impact to current I-84 traffic. It would be a straight, direct route with less curves.  It would make it easier for ambulances to get to Hartford Hospital. Space where 84 was would be freed up.

Negative: Cost, issues with tunneling, many houses would be demolished.

[The Ghostbuster]

I have a prediction: The DOT will pick an option. The locals will howl and protest the option picked. Nothing will be done, and the existing viaduct will stay up until it collapses.

[RobbieL2415]

I have a prediction: The DOT will pick an option. The locals will howl and protest the option picked. Nothing will be done, and the existing viaduct will stay up until it collapses.

It's all such a stupid argument to begin with. DPT is full of smart engineers. You are not one of them. Take their advice.

And I'll say it again, the same NIMBYS who stopped the freeway boom are the same ones who constantly complain about traffic.  Get over it.

[ipeters61]

I have a prediction: The DOT will pick an option. The locals will howl and protest the option picked. Nothing will be done, and the existing viaduct will stay up until it collapses.

It's all such a stupid argument to begin with. DPT is full of smart engineers. You are not one of them. Take their advice.

And I'll say it again, the same NIMBYS who stopped the freeway boom are the same ones who constantly complain about traffic.  Get over it.

And the same ones who complain that roadway construction takes too long.

[MikeTheActuary]

I have a prediction: The DOT will pick an option. The locals will howl and protest the option picked. Nothing will be done, and the existing viaduct will stay up until it collapses.

This does seem to be the  most likely outcome.

[kefkafloyd]

To be clear, these options are about replacing the I-91/I-84 interchange, not about what to do with the Aetna viaduct. They are two separate, concurrent projects. One can be completed without the other (though both need to be done).

[KEVIN_224]

I couldn't readily find any pictures, so I will ask:

Did the original Charter Oak Bridge stand immediately north or south of the current one? I seem to think there was an off ramp from the COB South to I-91 North. Also...was CT Route 15 always intended to be the movement from I-91 North to I-84 East and vice versa?

[Alps]

I couldn't readily find any pictures, so I will ask:

Did the original Charter Oak Bridge stand immediately north or south of the current one? I seem to think there was an off ramp from the COB South to I-91 North. Also...was CT Route 15 always intended to be the movement from I-91 North to I-84 East and vice versa?

I would say CT 3 was intended to be the movement as part of... check me on the number, but that may have been I-491.


EDIT: http://www.kurumi.com/roads/ct/i491.html

[jp the roadgeek]

I couldn't readily find any pictures, so I will ask:

Did the original Charter Oak Bridge stand immediately north or south of the current one? I seem to think there was an off ramp from the COB South to I-91 North. Also...was CT Route 15 always intended to be the movement from I-91 North to I-84 East and vice versa?

The old bridge was located to the north of the current bridge.  Indeed, there was an exit from 15 South to 91 North, and I seem to recall a left exit (29) from 91 South to the bridge. There also used to be ramps from 91 North to the Founders Bridge, as well as a ramp from the Founders Bridge WB to 91 SB.  The COB replaced these movements.  I-84 WB signage for Exit 54 used to say I-91 South/Downtown Hartford.  Even made it into a music video (look about a second in).