Connecticut News

[yakra]

CT 2 Exit 5B is going away forever on Thursday. CT 2 and 3 are getting IMS upgrades, among other things.
https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/Construction-News-from-the-Connecticut-Department-of-Transportation/2021/Intermittent-Nightly-Lane-Closures-on-Route-2-in-East-Hartford-Hartford-and-Glastonbury

Or not? Jan 2022 GMSV shows it alive and kicking.

This has had a couple other mentions on the forum before...

in the future when Sutton Ave closes

* exit 5B (Sutton Ave) slated to be removed

Anybody know what's the craic?



Edit: Speaking of CT2 exits, does anyone know what the exit numbers will be after the mileage-based conversion?
Actual planned numbers, not speculative or fictional?
I'm curious about current Exit 27 & environs.

[The Ghostbuster]

See this page for a listing of the new exit numbers for CT 2 on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Route_2. Some of the other pages for individual Connecticut State Highways Wikipedia pages also have the old/new numbers posted.

[jp the roadgeek]

See this page for a listing of the new exit numbers for CT 2 on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Route_2. Some of the other pages for individual Connecticut State Highways Wikipedia pages also have the old/new numbers posted.

Some creative geniuses in the past jumped the gun and put future exit numbers even for highways that have no finalized plans like I-84.  I updated the CT 9 page a few weeks ago based on field observations from the installation of the OLD/NEW exit signage north of I-91.

Took a ride on I-291 today and apparently they've started putting enhanced mile markers on there, but only up until the Bissell Bridge.  Probably part of the I-91 signage project, which has started southbound and has made it down to I-84.  Also, it looked like the 2nd lane on the new I-91 to the Charter Oak Bridge ramp has opened.   

[shadyjay]

Some of the new sheet aluminum signs on Route 9 for exit services have not survived the high winds of the past week.  If they can't survive that, how does ConnDOT expect them to survive for the next 20 years?  Yet another reason why they should've kept the "service bar" (such as on I-84 west of Southington, all of I-395). 

[Alps]

Some of the new sheet aluminum signs on Route 9 for exit services have not survived the high winds of the past week.  If they can't survive that, how does ConnDOT expect them to survive for the next 20 years?  Yet another reason why they should've kept the "service bar" (such as on I-84 west of Southington, all of I-395). 

Or engineer signs for the design wind load.

[bob7374]

See this page for a listing of the new exit numbers for CT 2 on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Route_2. Some of the other pages for individual Connecticut State Highways Wikipedia pages also have the old/new numbers posted.

Some creative geniuses in the past jumped the gun and put future exit numbers even for highways that have no finalized plans like I-84.  I updated the CT 9 page a few weeks ago based on field observations from the installation of the OLD/NEW exit signage north of I-91.

Took a ride on I-291 today and apparently they've started putting enhanced mile markers on there, but only up until the Bissell Bridge.  Probably part of the I-91 signage project, which has started southbound and has made it down to I-84.  Also, it looked like the 2nd lane on the new I-91 to the Charter Oak Bridge ramp has opened. 

CTDOT put out a press release back in August 2020 that listed the tentative new numbers at that time, some may have changed since:
https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/Construction-News-from-the-Connecticut-Department-of-Transportation/2020/Replacement-of-Highway-Signs-and-Sign-Supports-on-Routes-2-3-11and-17-Mileage-Based-Exit-Numbering

[dgolub]

See this page for a listing of the new exit numbers for CT 2 on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Route_2. Some of the other pages for individual Connecticut State Highways Wikipedia pages also have the old/new numbers posted.

Some creative geniuses in the past jumped the gun and put future exit numbers even for highways that have no finalized plans like I-84.  I updated the CT 9 page a few weeks ago based on field observations from the installation of the OLD/NEW exit signage north of I-91.

Took a ride on I-291 today and apparently they've started putting enhanced mile markers on there, but only up until the Bissell Bridge.  Probably part of the I-91 signage project, which has started southbound and has made it down to I-84.  Also, it looked like the 2nd lane on the new I-91 to the Charter Oak Bridge ramp has opened. 

CTDOT put out a press release back in August 2020 that listed the tentative new numbers at that time, some may have changed since:
https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/Construction-News-from-the-Connecticut-Department-of-Transportation/2020/Replacement-of-Highway-Signs-and-Sign-Supports-on-Routes-2-3-11and-17-Mileage-Based-Exit-Numbering

It looks like CT 11 will be getting milepost exits based on the mileage including the unbuilt section.

[MATraveler128]

It looks like CT 11 will be getting milepost exits based on the mileage including the unbuilt section.

The exit numbers should really start at mile 0 at CT 82. Because there is zero chance of CT 11 being extended to New London, they really should start at 0. Unless Connecticut has some crazy plan to try again with CT 11.

[Ted$8roadFan]

It looks like CT 11 will be getting milepost exits based on the mileage including the unbuilt section.

The exit numbers should really start at mile 0 at CT 82. Because there is zero chance of CT 11 being extended to New London, they really should start at 0. Unless Connecticut has some crazy plan to try again with CT 11.

They've talked about it forever. Maybe this is a tacit acknowledgement of their intent to try again.

[Rothman]

It looks like CT 11 will be getting milepost exits based on the mileage including the unbuilt section.

The exit numbers should really start at mile 0 at CT 82. Because there is zero chance of CT 11 being extended to New London, they really should start at 0. Unless Connecticut has some crazy plan to try again with CT 11.

They've talked about it forever. Maybe this is a tacit acknowledgement of their intent to try again.

That's just it: Every couple of years or so, there's a flurry of discussion...and nothing comes of it. 

[yakra]

I'll hold the football, Charlie Brown

[kernals12]

Why does travel between Hartford and New London warrant its own controlled access highway? It might have made sense during the Cold War, but now New London is just another town with only 27,000 people.

Now, extending 384 to the Rhode Island Border makes a lot more sense.

[Ted$8roadFan]

It looks like CT 11 will be getting milepost exits based on the mileage including the unbuilt section.

The exit numbers should really start at mile 0 at CT 82. Because there is zero chance of CT 11 being extended to New London, they really should start at 0. Unless Connecticut has some crazy plan to try again with CT 11.

They've talked about it forever. Maybe this is a tacit acknowledgement of their intent to try again.

That's just it: Every couple of years or so, there's a flurry of discussion...and nothing comes of it.

True enough. So why is the state start exit numbers from where Route 11 was to meet 95/395?

[jp the roadgeek]

It looks like CT 11 will be getting milepost exits based on the mileage including the unbuilt section.

The exit numbers should really start at mile 0 at CT 82. Because there is zero chance of CT 11 being extended to New London, they really should start at 0. Unless Connecticut has some crazy plan to try again with CT 11.

They've talked about it forever. Maybe this is a tacit acknowledgement of their intent to try again.

That's just it: Every couple of years or so, there's a flurry of discussion...and nothing comes of it.

True enough. So why is the state start exit numbers from where Route 11 was to meet 95/395?

Because they're too lazy to update the CT Highway Log, which lists CT 11 as starting at the I-95/I-395 junction ( See pp. 64-65)

[shadyjay]

Because they're too lazy to update the CT Highway Log, which lists CT 11 as starting at the I-95/I-395 junction ( See pp. 64-65)

Not necessarily.... CT 11 was originally supposed to terminate at I-95 in Waterford in the vicinity of the Cross Road interchange (and some maps before then show it terminating at the turnpike/I-395 between I-95 and CT 85).  Given the fact that the route log says I-95 in Waterford leads me to believe that it could still be mile-referenced from that point, vs terminating at the I-95/I-395 interchange. 

[shadyjay]

Took a ride on I-291 today and apparently they've started putting enhanced mile markers on there, but only up until the Bissell Bridge.  Probably part of the I-91 signage project, which has started southbound and has made it down to I-84.  Also, it looked like the 2nd lane on the new I-91 to the Charter Oak Bridge ramp has opened.   

The replacement of sheet signs on I-91 is part of a larger project that is also covering I-84, I-95, I-384, CT 15, US 6 & US 7.  Today I observed southbound the new sheets down to the Rocky Hill area.  Also travelled I-84 today from the Mass line down to East Hartford and the whole stretch has the new sheets as well.  It appears, given from what I've seen so far on I-84 and I-91, that it will make CT essentially a "neutered" state, as far as reassurance shields go (or as ConnDOT calls them, "route confirmation signs"). 
If I held onto the contract plans I downloaded, I could shed more light on that.

RE:  the second lane on Exit 29... that's been open for a few months now, but only on the ramp itself.  I-91 remains 3 lanes going into Exit 29.  The 4th lane remains under construction.

[shadyjay]

CT 2 Exit 5B is going away forever on Thursday. CT 2 and 3 are getting IMS upgrades, among other things.
https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/Construction-News-from-the-Connecticut-Department-of-Transportation/2021/Intermittent-Nightly-Lane-Closures-on-Route-2-in-East-Hartford-Hartford-and-Glastonbury

Or not? Jan 2022 GMSV shows it alive and kicking.

This has had a couple other mentions on the forum before...

in the future when Sutton Ave closes

* exit 5B (Sutton Ave) slated to be removed

Anybody know what's the craic?

Rescheduled for March 13, per this press release:
https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/Construction-News-from-the-Connecticut-Department-of-Transportation/2022/Ramp-Closure-in-East-Hartford-2022

[JJBers]

This one I hadn't seen yet: a 2020 River Cog (Middletown area) study that includes a Route 66 bypass of Portland, meeting Route 17A at a new interchange near the Arrigoni Bridge: https://www.rivercog.org/wp-content/uploads/reports-and-studies/2020-10-05-Route-66-Draft-Final-Reportred3.pdf  (scroll to page 97)

The proposal seems interesting, but I'm not sure if it's that bad of a traffic issue to warrant a whole bypass. Plus I know Portland also has plans on using RR ROW for the Airline Trail at some later future point.

US 6/384 ... most likely this means all of I-384 along with the Willimantic Bypass.  That's not much of a contract.  I would have thrown in I-291 as well. 

So they're adding exit numbers to US 6 in Willimantic? Are they gonna label the two ends as exits as well?

[jp the roadgeek]

This one I hadn't seen yet: a 2020 River Cog (Middletown area) study that includes a Route 66 bypass of Portland, meeting Route 17A at a new interchange near the Arrigoni Bridge: https://www.rivercog.org/wp-content/uploads/reports-and-studies/2020-10-05-Route-66-Draft-Final-Reportred3.pdf  (scroll to page 97)

The proposal seems interesting, but I'm not sure if it's that bad of a traffic issue to warrant a whole bypass. Plus I know Portland also has plans on using RR ROW for the Airline Trail at some later future point.

US 6/384 ... most likely this means all of I-384 along with the Willimantic Bypass.  That's not much of a contract.  I would have thrown in I-291 as well. 

So they're adding exit numbers to US 6 in Willimantic? Are they gonna label the two ends as exits as well?

I wouldn't think the endpoints of the bypass would be numbered, seeing they are part of the mainline.  You could make a case for the signalized portion of the western end that grants access to CT 66 (just not the slip ramp that is mainline 6 west), but I don't think they would.  The 32 exits would be 89 and the 195 exits 91.

Oh, and welcome back.

[JJBers]

This one I hadn't seen yet: a 2020 River Cog (Middletown area) study that includes a Route 66 bypass of Portland, meeting Route 17A at a new interchange near the Arrigoni Bridge: https://www.rivercog.org/wp-content/uploads/reports-and-studies/2020-10-05-Route-66-Draft-Final-Reportred3.pdf  (scroll to page 97)

The proposal seems interesting, but I'm not sure if it's that bad of a traffic issue to warrant a whole bypass. Plus I know Portland also has plans on using RR ROW for the Airline Trail at some later future point.

US 6/384 ... most likely this means all of I-384 along with the Willimantic Bypass.  That's not much of a contract.  I would have thrown in I-291 as well. 

So they're adding exit numbers to US 6 in Willimantic? Are they gonna label the two ends as exits as well?

I wouldn't think the endpoints of the bypass would be numbered, seeing they are part of the mainline.  You could make a case for the signalized portion of the western end that grants access to CT 66 (just not the slip ramp that is mainline 6 west), but I don't think they would.  The 32 exits would be 89 and the 195 exits 91.

Oh, and welcome back.

That's what I was thinking, but the North Windham end does somewhat resemble a exit.
Also, I go on this forum periodically , but yeah I rarely post.

[Alps]

This one I hadn't seen yet: a 2020 River Cog (Middletown area) study that includes a Route 66 bypass of Portland, meeting Route 17A at a new interchange near the Arrigoni Bridge: https://www.rivercog.org/wp-content/uploads/reports-and-studies/2020-10-05-Route-66-Draft-Final-Reportred3.pdf  (scroll to page 97)

The proposal seems interesting, but I'm not sure if it's that bad of a traffic issue to warrant a whole bypass. Plus I know Portland also has plans on using RR ROW for the Airline Trail at some later future point.

US 6/384 ... most likely this means all of I-384 along with the Willimantic Bypass.  That's not much of a contract.  I would have thrown in I-291 as well. 

So they're adding exit numbers to US 6 in Willimantic? Are they gonna label the two ends as exits as well?

I wouldn't think the endpoints of the bypass would be numbered, seeing they are part of the mainline.  You could make a case for the signalized portion of the western end that grants access to CT 66 (just not the slip ramp that is mainline 6 west), but I don't think they would.  The 32 exits would be 89 and the 195 exits 91.

Oh, and welcome back.

That's what I was thinking, but the North Windham end does somewhat resemble a exit.
Also, I go on this forum periodically , but yeah I rarely post.

I like how your tagline is "middle of nowhere" but you're between NY and Boston and Hartford and Providence

[Old Dominionite]

Because they're too lazy to update the CT Highway Log, which lists CT 11 as starting at the I-95/I-395 junction ( See pp. 64-65)

Not necessarily.... CT 11 was originally supposed to terminate at I-95 in Waterford in the vicinity of the Cross Road interchange (and some maps before then show it terminating at the turnpike/I-395 between I-95 and CT 85).  Given the fact that the route log says I-95 in Waterford leads me to believe that it could still be mile-referenced from that point, vs terminating at the I-95/I-395 interchange.

Yes. And the Highway Log still includes the cumulative mile points where the Route 11 expressway was intended to cross from Waterford into Montville, and from Montville into Salem. I assume the state still owns the right-of-way? This would also explain why the Highway Log hasn't been updated.

At this point ConnDOT should just sign CT 11 along CT 82 and then down CT 85 to New London. At least there would be one number connecting greater Hartford with greater New London.

[jp the roadgeek]

Because they're too lazy to update the CT Highway Log, which lists CT 11 as starting at the I-95/I-395 junction ( See pp. 64-65)

Not necessarily.... CT 11 was originally supposed to terminate at I-95 in Waterford in the vicinity of the Cross Road interchange (and some maps before then show it terminating at the turnpike/I-395 between I-95 and CT 85).  Given the fact that the route log says I-95 in Waterford leads me to believe that it could still be mile-referenced from that point, vs terminating at the I-95/I-395 interchange.

Yes. And the Highway Log still includes the cumulative mile points where the Route 11 expressway was intended to cross from Waterford into Montville, and from Montville into Salem. I assume the state still owns the right-of-way? This would also explain why the Highway Log hasn't been updated.

At this point ConnDOT should just sign CT 11 along CT 82 and then down CT 85 to New London. At least there would be one number connecting greater Hartford with greater New London.

Not really.  CT 11 ends at CT 2 in Colchester, which is still in New London County.  If anything, CTDOT should just sign CT 11 with Salem as a control and point travelers to CT 2 to I-395 South to CT 32 South (via SR 693) to get to New London.   

[shadyjay]

If anything, CTDOT should just sign CT 11 with Salem as a control and point travelers to CT 2 to I-395 South to CT 32 South (via SR 693) to get to New London.   

Yes, yes they should.  Then, see about abandoning the whole route.  Start by "Super 2"'ing it and see what traffic does. 

[kurumi]

Probably veering too much into fictional, but: redesignate CT 11 as CT 85A. A short overlap with 82 that ends at the roundabout and that's that.

"It is what it is now. We tried. We're moving on."