Connecticut News

[jp the roadgeek]

Question: is there a place one can check up on the current status of construction projects in CT and related closures?  I was going to clinch CT 9, part of US 1, and part of US 6 on Sunday, but noticed on Google Maps that the ramps carrying US 6 on the south end of the CT 8 overlap are closed, aparrantly for a bridge project.  However, NY's 511 (which includes info on CT) doesn't show it in either the construction or closure layers, and CT's 511 is WAY out of date (the construction project shown in the area is from last year).  If this was NY, I could just go on NYSDOT's website, look up the project, and check the status - projected end date, whether it's on time/early/late/etc.  I couldn't find an equivalent resource from CT's DOT.  Is there one?  I'm wondering if I have to scrap this trip on account of the closure (if Google Maps is 100% accurate, one of the ramps would reopen by Sunday... but the one going in the other direction to what I'd be going, and I don't know if flipping directions would change my travel time, and since it's Sunday, don't have time to check since I don't know how to get an empirical time with Google's "depart at" feature, necessitating that I spec out trips on the same day of the week as the planned travel; plus changing direction is less idea for a multitude of reasons).

You know a state has failed when a neighboring state does a better job detailing their own construction events.

CT doesn't even advertise its 511 program.  Most people don't even know it exists.  They still rely on short wave AM radio messages for travel advisories other than what is posted on VMS's. 

[Old Dominionite]

The most ridiculous install: a new West Hartford town line LGS that is typically found on local roads in front of the existing one at Prospect Ave.  Blink and you miss it. 

We better start getting used to those!  Though we have been in the minority for so long, as many adjacent states (MA, VT, NH, ME) use small town line signs that are usually also just sheet aluminum, vs extruded. 

Lets not forget this one on I-95 NB in Guilford that has been there for many years, at least since the 1990s.  What was once the oddity will now be the standard.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.2970152,-72.7440725,3a,75y,103.39h,83.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spbf3MaVY1jW2L7i9Iw-CSg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Growing up in Connecticut, I never liked the BGS "Town Line"  signs on the state's expressways. I didn't think the information was important enough, especially given how small the towns are geographically. I have no problem with using the LGS signs instead. For some cities with multiple exits along a route, a BGS sign at the municipal boundary indicating how many upcoming exits serve the city makes sense, but that's about it.

Perhaps ConnDOT could use some of the money currently earmarked for BGS "Town Line"  signs for a few more BGS distance signs... 

[shadyjay]

If anything you're going to be seeing less distance signs.  The two on Route 9 are going away soon.  Honestly, in a small state where the exits are so close together, they don't really serve that much of a purpose.  In VT, you'll see distance signs after most exits which list the distance to the next exit's town and to the primary control city. 

I would be a fan of distance signs at the start of an expressway.  Maybe on CT 9 before Exit 2, that say "Essex #/Middletown ##/Hartford ##".  Same for CT 2... "Colchester ##/Hartford ##".  And more on I-95:  Greenwich, Old Saybrook area, New London, for example. 

[shadyjay]

Drove 3 sign replacement project lengths today... I-84 from East Hartford to West Hartford, CT 9 from Farmington to New Britain, and CT 9 from Berlin to Cromwell. 

I-84:
As posted previously, a couple of the new, small town line signs are up, for Hartford and West Hartford.  Also some new "ATTRACTIONS" signs up, all sheet aluminum.  New regulatory signage (merge, speed limits, etc) are also up, potentially some exit gore signs, and a reassurance shield or two.  Didn't observe any progress with new sign support foundations, and no extruded aluminum signs up yet.

CT 9, both projects:
A few new foundations are up, for both ground-mount and overhead sign supports.  No sheet aluminum signs up of any kind.  Usually these are first to go up in a project. 

Next week, potentially an update on the CT 8 project from Bridgeport to Shelton.

[dkblake]

If anything you're going to be seeing less distance signs.  The two on Route 9 are going away soon.  Honestly, in a small state where the exits are so close together, they don't really serve that much of a purpose.  In VT, you'll see distance signs after most exits which list the distance to the next exit's town and to the primary control city. 

I would be a fan of distance signs at the start of an expressway.  Maybe on CT 9 before Exit 2, that say "Essex #/Middletown ##/Hartford ##".  Same for CT 2... "Colchester ##/Hartford ##".  And more on I-95:  Greenwich, Old Saybrook area, New London, for example. 

Yes to more on I-95, especially given the, er, creative exit numbering and, um, variable traffic. 

[jp the roadgeek]

Had the occasion to exit on SR 508 (I-84 Exit 39) today.  The center mounted light poles have been replaced by side mounted LED's a la the new lighting put up on the I-84 mainline in the area.  Also, one of the overhead gantries was replaced in-kind with a newer 4 WEST Farmington/Torrington sign on the off ramp and new directional I-84 signage on the on-ramp (never understood the need for Farmington as a control when you're IN Farmington; really should be Farmington Center or Unionville).  The remaining gantry is the old signage, as is the BGS at the beginning of the on-ramp side of the connector. 

[Pete from Boston]

What's going on with the Rochambeau Bridge on I-84 over the Housatonic? Crossed it twice in the dark so I couldn't see what was happening. Re-decking? Something more?

[Pete from Boston]

What's going on with the Rochambeau Bridge on I-84 over the Housatonic? Crossed it twice in the dark so I couldn't see what was happening. Re-decking? Something more?

Answered my own question.

https://www.newtownbee.com/08172020/rochambeau-bridge-rehabilitation-underway/

[shadyjay]

I got to give ConnDOT credit for making that bridge that wide when it was rehabbed/rebuilt in the (1980s?)  That was some nice forward thinking.  This one, the Saltonstall Bridge on I-95, and the Society Rd bridge on I-95 were built for "future lanes".  The Saltonstall Bridge got its extra lanes during the early stage of the "Q" Bridge project.  Now we're waiting on the others to get their lanes, but I'm not holding my breath at this point.

[noelbotevera]

I just noticed I-91 stays on the west side of the Connecticut River except between Windsor Locks and Chicopee, MA. Is there a reason for this shuffle?

I know it's meant to serve Springfield, but couldn't US 5 be upgraded while keeping I-91 on the west side of the river? And why cross it at Windsor Locks when it could cross quickly to serve Springfield (say, cross at Longmeadow from Agawam)?

[shadyjay]

I'm guessing the terrain made it easier to cross at Windsor Locks and pass through Enfield which is relatively flat.  I'm sure Mass. pushed to get I-91 to run through Springfield, as US 5 was running already on the west side of the river.  It was probably thought, in those expressway-gun-ho days, that an interstate would help the city a'la urban renewal.
Steve Anderson has some more info over on his site for I-91 in Mass:  http://www.bostonroads.com/roads/I-91_MA/

And now, decades later, there is some talk of moving I-91 over to the west side of the river allowing Springfield to reclaim access to its riverfront. 

Earlier this fall, I traversed CT 159 for the first time in many years from Windsor Locks up to Agawam.  Passing through Windsor Locks downtown is pretty tight knit and developed, and also a narrow profile with the river and canal and former factories.  Sure, north of downtown up in Suffield it gets more "open" so I'm sure the path of least resistance was taken, whenever possible.  Maybe the town of Enfield was all for I-91 and would later have the areas surrounding Exits 47-48 extensively developed.

[RobbieL2415]

I just noticed I-91 stays on the west side of the Connecticut River except between Windsor Locks and Chicopee, MA. Is there a reason for this shuffle?

I know it's meant to serve Springfield, but couldn't US 5 be upgraded while keeping I-91 on the west side of the river? And why cross it at Windsor Locks when it could cross quickly to serve Springfield (say, cross at Longmeadow from Agawam)?

CT 159 was former US 5A, and there were weak plans to four-lane it north of Windsor.
There were also plans for a CT 9 freeway extending to MA 57 in South wick, and CT 20 would have reached out there too.

[MikeTheActuary]

I thought that I-91 being located on the eastern side of the CT River was usually attributed to "urban renewal" goals in Springfield.

The subject is discussed in Wikipedia (I know; take it with grains of salt) here and here.

On a related note, a roundabout is supposed to be going in at the northern intersection of CT140/CT159 in Windsor Locks, in conjunction with the conversion of one of the riverside factories into apartments, as well as in association with a new transit-oriented development effort triggered by the start of CT Rail service and the supposed-upgrade/relocation of the Windsor Locks rail stop.

(It wouldn't be hard to upgrade the current WNL station; but I'll be disappointed if it becomes even more challenging to park there, as that's my launch point for trips into NYC, and hopefully eventually for my commute into Montréal.)

[RobbieL2415]

I thought that I-91 being located on the eastern side of the CT River was usually attributed to "urban renewal" goals in Springfield.

The subject is discussed in Wikipedia (I know; take it with grains of salt) here and here.

On a related note, a roundabout is supposed to be going in at the northern intersection of CT140/CT159 in Windsor Locks, in conjunction with the conversion of one of the riverside factories into apartments, as well as in association with a new transit-oriented development effort triggered by the start of CT Rail service and the supposed-upgrade/relocation of the Windsor Locks rail stop.

(It wouldn't be hard to upgrade the current WNL station; but I'll be disappointed if it becomes even more challenging to park there, as that's my launch point for trips into NYC, and hopefully eventually for my commute into Montréal.)

Urban renewal makes no sense because of the US 5 freeway through West Springfield.

The Windsor Locks train station is being moved back to its original headhouse eventually. But I've heard nothing about that intersection being converted to a roundabout. I feel like that would be tricky because of the grade crossing, unless they are going to eliminate it.

[MikeTheActuary]

I thought that I-91 being located on the eastern side of the CT River was usually attributed to "urban renewal" goals in Springfield.

The subject is discussed in Wikipedia (I know; take it with grains of salt) here and here.

On a related note, a roundabout is supposed to be going in at the northern intersection of CT140/CT159 in Windsor Locks, in conjunction with the conversion of one of the riverside factories into apartments, as well as in association with a new transit-oriented development effort triggered by the start of CT Rail service and the supposed-upgrade/relocation of the Windsor Locks rail stop.

(It wouldn't be hard to upgrade the current WNL station; but I'll be disappointed if it becomes even more challenging to park there, as that's my launch point for trips into NYC, and hopefully eventually for my commute into Montréal.)

Urban renewal makes no sense because of the US 5 freeway through West Springfield.

The Windsor Locks train station is being moved back to its original headhouse eventually. But I've heard nothing about that intersection being converted to a roundabout. I feel like that would be tricky because of the grade crossing, unless they are going to eliminate it.

Re urban renewal in Springfield -- remember that the US5 highway in West Springfield predates I-91.  I understood that the debate was whether to upgrade US5, or to build a new alignment through Springfield.  The latter won due to Springfield's claim of being more important, and having goals of new development brought about by the highway and clearing out the local version of slums.   The latter goals obviously never materialized.

Re the WNL station relocation: Technically, it'll be a new station, as I understand the historic station is destined for other use, but the new station is to be located very close to the historic station.

Re the roundabout:  I might be incorrect on the location.  A presentation deck on Phase One of the Windsor Locks TOD project can be found here; I could have sworn remembering reading about a roundabout at the CT159/CT140 intersection, but that's not mentioned here.   Either I was mistaken, or it's buried in a document somewhere on either the ConnDOT or town of Windsor Locks websites.  (I remember seeing more recent plans than the above-linked deck, but I can't find them now.)

[Mergingtraffic]

I believe there's a signing project out next year which will redo I-91 and CT-40.

So this will be gone:


and two remaining non-reflective button copy signs SB will also be gone:
[url=https://flic.kr/p/2gd9p3h]

[url=https://flic.kr/p/XyNpEB]

[RobbieL2415]

I thought that I-91 being located on the eastern side of the CT River was usually attributed to "urban renewal" goals in Springfield.

The subject is discussed in Wikipedia (I know; take it with grains of salt) here and here.

On a related note, a roundabout is supposed to be going in at the northern intersection of CT140/CT159 in Windsor Locks, in conjunction with the conversion of one of the riverside factories into apartments, as well as in association with a new transit-oriented development effort triggered by the start of CT Rail service and the supposed-upgrade/relocation of the Windsor Locks rail stop.

(It wouldn't be hard to upgrade the current WNL station; but I'll be disappointed if it becomes even more challenging to park there, as that's my launch point for trips into NYC, and hopefully eventually for my commute into Montréal.)

Urban renewal makes no sense because of the US 5 freeway through West Springfield.

The Windsor Locks train station is being moved back to its original headhouse eventually. But I've heard nothing about that intersection being converted to a roundabout. I feel like that would be tricky because of the grade crossing, unless they are going to eliminate it.

Re the roundabout:  I might be incorrect on the location.  A presentation deck on Phase One of the Windsor Locks TOD project can be found here; I could have sworn remembering reading about a roundabout at the CT159/CT140 intersection, but that's not mentioned here.   Either I was mistaken, or it's buried in a document somewhere on either the ConnDOT or town of Windsor Locks websites.  (I remember seeing more recent plans than the above-linked deck, but I can't find them now.)

Oh, this intersection. I fully support a roundabout there. My car got hit while parked on Main St. by some jackass going 40 through that stretch. Anything to slow traffic down to 25 helps.

[jp the roadgeek]

I believe there's a signing project out next year which will redo I-91 and CT-40.

Well, the good news is no exit renumbering for CT 40 unless CTDOT either decides to give a number to the Bailey Rd ramp or make Bailey Rd the thru route and give numbers to the 91 ramps.  The former scenario would make State St 1B and Bailey 1A, while the latter would make State St 1C and I-91 1 A/B.

[KEVIN_224]

Several signs are about to be replaced, mostly in Berlin. Cement foundations are up everywhere on sections of CT routes 372, 9 and the Berlin Turnpike (US 5/CT 15). A new sign is up on the Turnpike south in Berlin. It's for the CT Route 9 off ramp, near the Mickey Finn's store at the bridge carrying CT Route 372.

[shadyjay]

The new sign on the Berlin Tpke SB at CT 9 South was not replaced as part of the present sign replacement project, but instead was replaced as part of the state's spot overhead sign replacement project.  I got a shot of it a couple months ago and either posted it here (above, somewhere) and its also on my FLICKR page.

ConnDOT put out a press release about the upcoming replacement of I-91/CT 40 signage, which lists the new numbers for CT 40.  Press release is here:
https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/Construction-News-from-the-Connecticut-Department-of-Transportation/2020/Highway-Signs-and-Sign-Supports-on-Interstate-91-from-North-Haven-to-Meriden-and-on-Route-40

The #s for Route 40 won't change NB, but SB, the exits become 1D/State St, 1C/I-91 South, 1B/Bailey Rd, and 1A/I-91 North.  Alphabet soup for such a short highway.  I wouldn't have even bothered with it... just keep present Exit 1 as Exit 1, both North and South.  No new #s for I-91, most likely will wait for the rest of the signs to be replaced north of Meriden. 

[jp the roadgeek]

Several signs are about to be replaced, mostly in Berlin. Cement foundations are up everywhere on sections of CT routes 372, 9 and the Berlin Turnpike (US 5/CT 15). A new sign is up on the Turnpike south in Berlin. It's for the CT Route 9 off ramp, near the Mickey Finn's store at the bridge carrying CT Route 372.

Sounds like they are finally getting ready to start the first part of the CT 72/ north end of CT 9 signing project, which means the new numbers for CT 72 are coming soon.

As for CT 40: CTDOT inconsistency at its best.  Eliminate the endpoint numbers on CT 9 for I-84 but add them on CT 40 for I-91 and Bailey Rd?!?  Just like the proposed numbers on CT 9 round down even if the overpass is at MP xx.98 but on CT 2 the numbers are rounded up from MP xx.5 and above.

[shadyjay]

Drove the length of the CT 8 and CT 9 sign replacement projects today.  Not much to report on either project.  For CT 8, new mile markers and reassurance shields are up along with some new offramp signs, but that's it.  For CT 9, no progress on sign replacement, except some new foundations.  No ground aluminum signs up yet... no mile markers, speed limits, nothing.   

Hopefully spring will yield some more visible progress.

[abqtraveler]

Drove the length of the CT 8 and CT 9 sign replacement projects today.  Not much to report on either project.  For CT 8, new mile markers and reassurance shields are up along with some new offramp signs, but that's it.  For CT 9, no progress on sign replacement, except some new foundations.  No ground aluminum signs up yet... no mile markers, speed limits, nothing.   

Hopefully spring will yield some more visible progress.

Given that construction projects in Connecticut typically shut down between the end of November and the end of March, I wouldn't expect much progress between now and spring.

[MikeTheActuary]

https://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/exit-numbers-changing-on-route-9-other-connecticut-roadways/2373442/

Supposedly the re-signing (and exit number changes) start on Monday, 7 December for Routes 9, 17, and 82.

[jp the roadgeek]

https://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/exit-numbers-changing-on-route-9-other-connecticut-roadways/2373442/

Supposedly the re-signing (and exit number changes) start on Monday, 7 December for Routes 9, 17, and 82.

Surprised Route 72 wasn't mentioned, seeing that project was actually released first.  In the case of 17 and 82, it's just a case of learning that the exits will have numbers.