Connecticut News

[shadyjay]

A couple of locations in the state's 2018 version of spot sign replacements have been completed...

The 3 overheads on I-91 SB that were on the SR 3/Cromwell Ave overpass just south of Rocky Hill are now gone, replaced with a new monotube structure holding new signs for Exits 22S and 22N.  No pull-through.  Signs on the overpass have been removed. 
** NO PHOTO AS I WAS TRAVELING NORTHBOUND AND RETURNED HOME A DIFFERENT WAY.  WILL GET A PHOTO SOON, THOUGH **

One of the 3 signs mounted on the SR 190 overpass at Exit 47 in Enfield on I-91 NB has been removed...  the damaged Exit 48 1/4 mile sign.  The pull-through and Exit 47W "exit now" signs remain on the overpass and have not been replaced. 

91NB-Exit47W by Jay Hogan, on Flickr

[Duke87]

Looks like ConnDOT is holding out hope for CT 11, given the mile-based exits retain existing mile markers, which count up from the non-existent connection with I-95/I-395. 

I wouldn't read too much into this. They're changing the exit numbers because of a federal mandate that they match the mile markers. There's no reason for them to also, at extra expense and headache, change the mile markers and have to reinventory everything on the road to match - even if they've firmly decided that the southern half of CT 11 is cancelled forever. There is, after all, no requirement that mile markers on a road start at 0.

[Roadsguy]

Looks like ConnDOT is holding out hope for CT 11, given the mile-based exits retain existing mile markers, which count up from the non-existent connection with I-95/I-395. 

I wouldn't read too much into this. They're changing the exit numbers because of a federal mandate that they match the mile markers. There's no reason for them to also, at extra expense and headache, change the mile markers and have to reinventory everything on the road to match - even if they've firmly decided that the southern half of CT 11 is cancelled forever. There is, after all, no requirement that mile markers on a road start at 0.

Funny how this can be interpreted in opposite ways: either ConnDOT still cares a little bit about CT 11, or they care so little that they can't even be bothered to remove the cancelled section from the route log.

[kurumi]

George R. R. Martin is going to tackle CT 11 right after he finishes Winds of Winter.

[RobbieL2415]

Looks like ConnDOT is holding out hope for CT 11, given the mile-based exits retain existing mile markers, which count up from the non-existent connection with I-95/I-395. 

I wouldn't read too much into this. They're changing the exit numbers because of a federal mandate that they match the mile markers. There's no reason for them to also, at extra expense and headache, change the mile markers and have to reinventory everything on the road to match - even if they've firmly decided that the southern half of CT 11 is cancelled forever. There is, after all, no requirement that mile markers on a road start at 0.

Funny how this can be interpreted in opposite ways: either ConnDOT still cares a little bit about CT 11, or they care so little that they can't even be bothered to remove the cancelled section from the route log.

Without getting too fictional, there's no reason that they couldn't converted CT 11 into a Super-2 and have it taper back onto CT 85 a little further south. That at least keeps thru traffic away from the rotary.

[shadyjay]

Yup, that would work, and for a few years that was a proposal on some maps (Rand McNally I believe).  If you can't have the full-build to I-95/I-395, then do this, extend south to a point south of the rotary along Rt 85.  Think like what ConnDOT did to US 7 around Brookfield.  Then you could sign CT 11 all the way to I-95, perhaps have it replace CT 85.  Then the existing mileage would be close. 

Wait... did we ever determine where in fact MP 0 on Rt 11 would be?  Remember, at one point it was proposed to end at I-395 somewhere near MP 1, then was extended to meet I-95 at some point near Exit 81.  Only much later was it proposed to end right at the I-95/I-395 interchange.

Or... the ultimate Rt 11 shaft... convert the entire expressway to a Super 2.  Or, remove the whole thing.  Maybe try a trial "Super 2".  Make it safer by throwing up a jersey barrier. 

[Alps]

Looks like ConnDOT is holding out hope for CT 11, given the mile-based exits retain existing mile markers, which count up from the non-existent connection with I-95/I-395. 

I wouldn't read too much into this. They're changing the exit numbers because of a federal mandate that they match the mile markers. There's no reason for them to also, at extra expense and headache, change the mile markers and have to reinventory everything on the road to match - even if they've firmly decided that the southern half of CT 11 is cancelled forever. There is, after all, no requirement that mile markers on a road start at 0.

Funny how this can be interpreted in opposite ways: either ConnDOT still cares a little bit about CT 11, or they care so little that they can't even be bothered to remove the cancelled section from the route log.

Without getting too fictional, there's no reason that they couldn't converted CT 11 into a Super-2 and have it taper back onto CT 85 a little further south. That at least keeps thru traffic away from the rotary.

If they do that, they've given up! No giving up!

[RobbieL2415]

Does anyone have any photos of the alleged ramp meter from the CT 17 to CT 9 ramp in Middletown?

[The Ghostbuster]

Speaking of Middletown, is CT 9 doomed to forever have at-grade intersections at Washington St., St. Johns Square (CT 17), and Miller St.? If the locals won't let any ramps and bridges replace those intersections, I would say cul-de-sac all three of them. I realize that would cause a lot of problems (and probably much opposition), though it might be the only way to make CT 9 completely freeway between Interstate 95 and Interstate 84. I am open to other suggestions.

[sharkyfour]

Does anyone have any photos of the alleged ramp meter from the CT 17 to CT 9 ramp in Middletown?

No photos, but I do remember it back in the late 90's/early 2000's.  I remember a period of just some inoperative remnants sitting there for a while, too.  Not really too keen on exact dates, though.

[shadyjay]

Speaking of Middletown, is CT 9 doomed to forever have at-grade intersections at Washington St., St. Johns Square (CT 17), and Miller St.? If the locals won't let any ramps and bridges replace those intersections, I would say cul-de-sac all three of them. I realize that would cause a lot of problems (and probably much opposition), though it might be the only way to make CT 9 completely freeway between Interstate 95 and Interstate 84. I am open to other suggestions.

If you look back a page or two (or three) in this thread you'll find we answered those questions.  Projects pending by ConnDOT to remove Washington St & Hartford Ave (not St Johns Sq) lights and a project going out to bid soon to close off Miller St. 

[Alps]

Hartford Ave (not St Johns Sq)

I take it you're referring to Google's map-o, since there are only two lights.

[shadyjay]

I would've referred to it as Exit 15 and 16 but the OP referenced the local streets. 

Now I am looking at Google Maps and see they have incorrectly labelled Hartford Ave as St John Square, where the "square" is only the area around the intersection of Main St and St John St at the top of the hill, just before turning onto the Arrigoni.

[shadyjay]

Released today, the 2020 version of the state's spot overhead sign replacement project.  Sites are scattered throughout mostly central and southwestern CT.  A couple of them are unique, placing "diagrammatics" on ground-mounts, including one on I-84 East for Exit 59/I-384.  Also, one bridge-mount and one old cantilever on I-691 West in Meriden are being replaced with one new monotube bridge, with mileage-based exit numbers, Exits 1A-B-C for I-91 North/South/Berlin Tpke.  This leads me to believe (unfortunately) that there will be a second Exit 1 for present Exits 12 & 13.  Too bad ConnDOT just doesn't redo I-691 mileage so that Mile 0 is at the *western* terminus (at I-84).  Then, if the exits had to reset at the start of CT 66, there wouldn't be two Exit 1s next to each other.

For those who want to have a gander at the contract plans, consult:
https://biznet.ct.gov/scp_search/BidDetail.aspx?CID=54862

[southshore720]

And Providence is still the control city for I-384 EB.  I guess the dream for extension to RI will never die!

[shadyjay]

And Providence is still the control city for I-384 EB.  I guess the dream for extension to RI will never die!

Typically, these "spot replacement" projects maintain the "status-quo" as far as control cities, destinations, etc, go.  The signs on I-691 West in Meriden are the only ones in these projects that have had different control cities, if only slightly (W. Cross Pkwy doesn't show up for new Exit 1B).  I am pretty sure a blanket I-691/CT 66 sign replacement project is coming within the next year, hence why the change here.  But look at I-91 South Exit 14 which continues to use "150/E Center St/Wallingford".  Most likely it'll become "150/Wallingford" under a blanket project.  Same for "384 East/Providence".  I'm sure it'll become "384 East/Willimantic".  Or I could be wrong. 

I think the more unique thing with the replacement of that sign is that it is becoming a ground-mount.  On the widest highway in the state.  Most likely, though, only temporary, until a "blanket" project comes through there.  Signs in E. Hartford/Manchester are getting up there in years.

[Alps]

Released today, the 2020 version of the state's spot overhead sign replacement project.  Sites are scattered throughout mostly central and southwestern CT.  A couple of them are unique, placing "diagrammatics" on ground-mounts, including one on I-84 East for Exit 59/I-384.  Also, one bridge-mount and one old cantilever on I-691 West in Meriden are being replaced with one new monotube bridge, with mileage-based exit numbers, Exits 1A-B-C for I-91 North/South/Berlin Tpke.  This leads me to believe (unfortunately) that there will be a second Exit 1 for present Exits 12 & 13.  Too bad ConnDOT just doesn't redo I-691 mileage so that Mile 0 is at the eastern terminus.  Then, if the exits had to reset at the start of CT 66, there wouldn't be two Exit 1s next to each other.

For those who want to have a gander at the contract plans, consult:
https://biznet.ct.gov/scp_search/BidDetail.aspx?CID=54862

Pardon? If Mile 0 was at I-91, you would absolutely have two Exit 1s next to each other. What CTDOT really should do is keep the current system of using I-691's exit numbers even after CT 66 begins.

[shadyjay]

Whoops, meant western terminus at I-84.  Corrected.

[RobbieL2415]

And Providence is still the control city for I-384 EB.  I guess the dream for extension to RI will never die!

It still should be. That's the fastest way there from that exit.
I would prefer that they decommission I-384 and put US 6 there instead; trade in the Interstate miles for another project.

[mrsman]

And Providence is still the control city for I-384 EB.  I guess the dream for extension to RI will never die!

It still should be. That's the fastest way there from that exit.
I would prefer that they decommission I-384 and put US 6 there instead; trade in the Interstate miles for another project.

I don't think that simply decommissioning the highway would cause the feds to release more funds.  The highway was already built and the funds were already spent.

That being said, there are a number of short 3di freeways out there that are entirely part of a longer us highway corridor.  I-384/US 6 , I-580/US 395 in Reno, NV also comes to mind.  I agree that the interstate designation is not necessarily helpful and the US highway designation would be preferred.  Another tactic is to only have a secret designation, such as I-595 in the DC area.  The highway is only known as being part of US 50, but the interstate designation lives on secretly for funding purposes and the like.  Another example exists at the opposite end of US 50 with secret I-305 in Sacramento.

So they should remove the 384 shields, keep it as a secret designation, and just let the highway be known as US 6.

[shadyjay]

Or you could just cosign US 6 with I-384.  It seems odd that US 6/44 are paired for a short distance across the CT River, then US 44 exits at the first possible chance (at Exit 53/Conn Blvd) while US 6 stays with I-84 until Exit 60 in Manchester, where it joins up with US 44.  But I'm guessing that arrangement is done since US 6's pre-I-84 route took it through the south end of Hartford, crossing with the Charter Oak Bridge.  Back then, the only logical way to get onto a surface road was to exit at what is now Exit 60.  And back then, US 44 got back on what is now I-84 for the run out to Willington, while US 6 got off. 

I really hate unnecessary US routes multiplexed with an interstate, when there are plenty of surface roads around that could give the US route a route of its own.  See:  US 6 in Danbury, US 6 east of Farmington, etc. 


Back to the 2020 overhead support project, there is one sign proposed that contradicts one previously replaced.  The "Lane Ends 1/2 mile" for I-91 North Exit 11 1 mile advance, which is just north of a previously-installed monotube bridge gantry that includes the Exit 10 "exit now" sign and a "Lane Ends 1500 Feet" sign.  Maybe a "blanket" project would replace the Exit 10 monotube with a 4-chord side cantilever, eliminating that particular "1500 Ft" lane end advisory, but seems kind of a waste.

[RobbieL2415]

Or you could just cosign US 6 with I-384.  It seems odd that US 6/44 are paired for a short distance across the CT River, then US 44 exits at the first possible chance (at Exit 53/Conn Blvd) while US 6 stays with I-84 until Exit 60 in Manchester, where it joins up with US 44.  But I'm guessing that arrangement is done since US 6's pre-I-84 route took it through the south end of Hartford, crossing with the Charter Oak Bridge.  Back then, the only logical way to get onto a surface road was to exit at what is now Exit 60.  And back then, US 44 got back on what is now I-84 for the run out to Willington, while US 6 got off. 

I really hate unnecessary US routes multiplexed with an interstate, when there are plenty of surface roads around that could give the US route a route of its own.  See:  US 6 in Danbury, US 6 east of Farmington, etc. 

US 6 has historically been the route to Providence. Most of US 44's alignment east of the river was former CT 101. I don't see any reason why you shouldn't put US 6 on i-384 if US 44 parallels it through Manchester. Though, I doubt very much that anyone really notices the US 6/I-84 concurrency anymore; CONNDOT doesn't make it prominent aside from obligatory shields.

[jp the roadgeek]

Wouldn't it just be easier to decommission I-384 altogether  and slap US 6 on it if there are no plans to EVER extend it to Willimantic or put US 6 on local streets like Silver Lane?

CTDOT's numbering scheme for 691, as evidenced in the illustrations, is to follow the state highway log a la CT 72.  Yes, the exits for 691/66 will probably go 7-5-3-2B-2A-1B-1A-1 eastbound and 1-1A-1B-1C-2A-2B-3-5-7 (unnumbered for the I-84 ramps) westbound.  You could make Preston and East Main both Exit 0, but that isn't kosher in CTDOT circles (the only one that could and really should be Exit 0 in the future is current Exit 1 on I-91 South (the artist formerly known as CT 34)

[STLmapboy]

Two ignorant questions:

Why is most CT signage so old compared to surrounding states?
The traffic signals are also pretty bad. Why are they so old as well? And would CT get some damn FYAs?

[jp the roadgeek]

Two ignorant questions:

Why is most CT signage so old compared to surrounding states?
The traffic signals are also pretty bad. Why are they so old as well? And would CT get some damn FYAs?

<Gets up on soapbox>

Because Connecticut is last to the party on everything unless it involves raising taxes.  Last in the northeast to raise the speed limit above 55.  Last in the region to allow Sunday liquor sales.  Dragging its feet on converting to mileage based exits.  When they replaced signage the last time around in the late 80's, they decided to go to reflective button copy that was typical of the type of signage used in the 1960's because they got a sweetheart deal from 3M.  They somehow find money to pay their state labor unions handsomely but let everything else go to h-e-double hockey sticks in a handbasket.  And some of the speed limits are extremely draconian for the roads they are on (25 MPH zones on roads that would be 40-45 in most other states).  And so many of the state roads are extremely lacking in left turn lanes, let alone left turn arrows.  Plus whoever timed the lights on many roads was either high on something, had a deal with Monro or Exxon-Mobil, or all of the above.  It took us 40 years to fix the I-84/I-91 interchange, and NIMBYism has stopped the construction of pretty much every major highway since 1970.

<Steps down from soapbox>