Connecticut News

[Alps]

Would someone mind explaining why so much of I-84 between Southington and Newtown has an odd number of lanes?

Climbing lanes.

Thank you

Connecticut has done a better than average job in implementing climbing lanes.

Pfft.  I think I-84 is one of the most miserable drives in the country because of all the merging back and forth with the climbing lanes.  CT needs to "connect" them -- keep that extra lane until the next climb.

West of Hartford, yes. I-84 needs to be 6 lanes throughout the state. The state could add signage indicating the length of the lane.

*6 lanes minimum. I can vouch for everything I've seen traffic-wise that would justify this. The ONLY exception might be the I-91 interchange with how much traffic moves around.

[shadyjay]

Connecting the climbing lanes isn't necessarily the best option.  I-84 needs a consistent third lane west of Waterbury to Danbury, but also needs the climbing lanes.  With the amount of truck traffic that I-84 gets in that area, plus the steepness of some of the grades, they would definitely be needed, in addition to the 3rd general purpose travel lane. 

[Rothman]

Connecting the climbing lanes isn't necessarily the best option.  I-84 needs a consistent third lane west of Waterbury to Danbury, but also needs the climbing lanes.  With the amount of truck traffic that I-84 gets in that area, plus the steepness of some of the grades, they would definitely be needed, in addition to the 3rd general purpose travel lane.

MOAR LANES!

[kernals12]

Connecting the climbing lanes isn't necessarily the best option.  I-84 needs a consistent third lane west of Waterbury to Danbury, but also needs the climbing lanes.  With the amount of truck traffic that I-84 gets in that area, plus the steepness of some of the grades, they would definitely be needed, in addition to the 3rd general purpose travel lane.

MOAR LANES!

When in doubt

[abqtraveler]

Connecting the climbing lanes isn't necessarily the best option.  I-84 needs a consistent third lane west of Waterbury to Danbury, but also needs the climbing lanes.  With the amount of truck traffic that I-84 gets in that area, plus the steepness of some of the grades, they would definitely be needed, in addition to the 3rd general purpose travel lane.

MOAR LANES!

When in doubt

While they're at it, they need to eliminate all of the left-hand exits on I-84 in Connecticut. But...I doubt you'll see any of that happening in the foreseeable future.

[kernals12]

Connecting the climbing lanes isn't necessarily the best option.  I-84 needs a consistent third lane west of Waterbury to Danbury, but also needs the climbing lanes.  With the amount of truck traffic that I-84 gets in that area, plus the steepness of some of the grades, they would definitely be needed, in addition to the 3rd general purpose travel lane.

MOAR LANES!

When in doubt

While they're at it, they need to eliminate all of the left-hand exits on I-84 in Connecticut. But...I doubt you'll see any of that happening in the foreseeable future.

They just built a new left hand exit on the Charter Oak Bridge

[Rothman]

Connecting the climbing lanes isn't necessarily the best option.  I-84 needs a consistent third lane west of Waterbury to Danbury, but also needs the climbing lanes.  With the amount of truck traffic that I-84 gets in that area, plus the steepness of some of the grades, they would definitely be needed, in addition to the 3rd general purpose travel lane.

MOAR LANES!

When in doubt

While they're at it, they need to eliminate all of the left-hand exits on I-84 in Connecticut. But...I doubt you'll see any of that happening in the foreseeable future.

They just built a new left hand exit on the Charter Oak Bridge

I really would have liked to have been a fly on the wall when FHWA reviewed their Nonstandard Feature Justification Form...

[kernals12]

Connecting the climbing lanes isn't necessarily the best option.  I-84 needs a consistent third lane west of Waterbury to Danbury, but also needs the climbing lanes.  With the amount of truck traffic that I-84 gets in that area, plus the steepness of some of the grades, they would definitely be needed, in addition to the 3rd general purpose travel lane.

MOAR LANES!

When in doubt

While they're at it, they need to eliminate all of the left-hand exits on I-84 in Connecticut. But...I doubt you'll see any of that happening in the foreseeable future.

They just built a new left hand exit on the Charter Oak Bridge

I really would have liked to have been a fly on the wall when FHWA reviewed their Nonstandard Feature Justification Form...

It's actually very simple


Widening the right hand ramp would've required a new costly overpass structure and ROW taking.

I'm pretty sure ConnDOT's representative just turned his pockets inside out during the FHWA review.

[RobbieL2415]

Connecting the climbing lanes isn't necessarily the best option.  I-84 needs a consistent third lane west of Waterbury to Danbury, but also needs the climbing lanes.  With the amount of truck traffic that I-84 gets in that area, plus the steepness of some of the grades, they would definitely be needed, in addition to the 3rd general purpose travel lane.

MOAR LANES!

When in doubt

While they're at it, they need to eliminate all of the left-hand exits on I-84 in Connecticut. But...I doubt you'll see any of that happening in the foreseeable future.

They just built a new left hand exit on the Charter Oak Bridge

But it's a high-speed two-lane flyover with an option lane. Traffic doesn't have to weave that much, if at all.

[kernals12]

Connecting the climbing lanes isn't necessarily the best option.  I-84 needs a consistent third lane west of Waterbury to Danbury, but also needs the climbing lanes.  With the amount of truck traffic that I-84 gets in that area, plus the steepness of some of the grades, they would definitely be needed, in addition to the 3rd general purpose travel lane.

MOAR LANES!

When in doubt

While they're at it, they need to eliminate all of the left-hand exits on I-84 in Connecticut. But...I doubt you'll see any of that happening in the foreseeable future.

They just built a new left hand exit on the Charter Oak Bridge

But it's a high-speed two-lane flyover with an option lane. Traffic doesn't have to weave that much, if at all.

You still have to merge right if you want to stay on I-91.

[cockroachking]

Connecting the climbing lanes isn't necessarily the best option.  I-84 needs a consistent third lane west of Waterbury to Danbury, but also needs the climbing lanes.  With the amount of truck traffic that I-84 gets in that area, plus the steepness of some of the grades, they would definitely be needed, in addition to the 3rd general purpose travel lane.

MOAR LANES!

When in doubt

While they're at it, they need to eliminate all of the left-hand exits on I-84 in Connecticut. But...I doubt you'll see any of that happening in the foreseeable future.

They just built a new left hand exit on the Charter Oak Bridge

But it's a high-speed two-lane flyover with an option lane. Traffic doesn't have to weave that much, if at all.

You still have to merge right if you want to stay on I-91.

IMO, if the volumes exiting exceeded the volume remaining on the mainline, I could justify a left exit. However, this is not the case here, with only 21700 cars exiting compared to 32800 staying on I-91.

[RobbieL2415]

Connecting the climbing lanes isn't necessarily the best option.  I-84 needs a consistent third lane west of Waterbury to Danbury, but also needs the climbing lanes.  With the amount of truck traffic that I-84 gets in that area, plus the steepness of some of the grades, they would definitely be needed, in addition to the 3rd general purpose travel lane.

MOAR LANES!

When in doubt

While they're at it, they need to eliminate all of the left-hand exits on I-84 in Connecticut. But...I doubt you'll see any of that happening in the foreseeable future.

They just built a new left hand exit on the Charter Oak Bridge

But it's a high-speed two-lane flyover with an option lane. Traffic doesn't have to weave that much, if at all.

You still have to merge right if you want to stay on I-91.

By ONE lane.
And the advance signage is plentiful. I don't see to many folks cutting over at the last minute. ConnDOT isn't stupid.

[DrSmith]

As a part of the resigning I-91, there must have been re-evaluation of ramp advisory speeds. With the new ramp signage going up, Bloomfield Av Exit 37 off I-91 south is now posted at 50 mph. Previously it was 35 mph.

[shadyjay]

So... there's this:

https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/Traffic-Engineering/Exit-Renumbering

The Google Maps with the new exit numbers for Route 9 show that present Exits 2 & 3 will not change their numbers.  This may explain why every other exit on Route 9 has had "OLD EXIT #" signs added below a new gore sign, except Exits 2 & 3. 

The FAQ section of that web site lists some information for CT's renumbering.  Here's the updated timeline:

CT-2:  2024 (Currently in Construction — State Project 0172-0490) -
CT-8:  2025 -
CT-9:  2022 (Currently in Construction — State Projects 0007-0189/0171-0425 & 0172-0473)
CT-15:  2025
I-84:  2028
I-91:  2027
I-95:  2029
I-291:  2025
I-384:  2026
I-395:  Completed 2015
I-691:  2023 (Currently in Construction — State Project 0079-0244)

[jp the roadgeek]

As a part of the resigning I-91, there must have been re-evaluation of ramp advisory speeds. With the new ramp signage going up, Bloomfield Av Exit 37 off I-91 south is now posted at 50 mph. Previously it was 35 mph.

Yet the northbound one remains at 35 MPH. 

Also saw a new overhead gantry at Exit 44 on I-84 that now lists New Park Ave instead of Oakwood Ave on the BGS.  No more calling the exit Prospect-Oakwood in local traffic reports (although most westbound traffic bound for New Park would have exited at Flatbush Ave).

[DrSmith]

So... there's this:

https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/Traffic-Engineering/Exit-Renumbering

The Google Maps with the new exit numbers for Route 9 show that present Exits 2 & 3 will not change their numbers.  This may explain why every other exit on Route 9 has had "OLD EXIT #" signs added below a new gore sign, except Exits 2 & 3. 

The FAQ section of that web site lists some information for CT's renumbering.  Here's the updated timeline:

CT-2:  2024 (Currently in Construction — State Project 0172-0490) -
CT-8:  2025 -
CT-9:  2022 (Currently in Construction — State Projects 0007-0189/0171-0425 & 0172-0473)
CT-15:  2025
I-84:  2028
I-91:  2027
I-95:  2029
I-291:  2025
I-384:  2026
I-395:  Completed 2015
I-691:  2023 (Currently in Construction — State Project 0079-0244)

Does this imply the old outline shields on the I-91 north of Hartford have about 5 more years of life left?

[mariethefoxy]

Connecting the climbing lanes isn't necessarily the best option.  I-84 needs a consistent third lane west of Waterbury to Danbury, but also needs the climbing lanes.  With the amount of truck traffic that I-84 gets in that area, plus the steepness of some of the grades, they would definitely be needed, in addition to the 3rd general purpose travel lane.

MOAR LANES!

When in doubt

While they're at it, they need to eliminate all of the left-hand exits on I-84 in Connecticut. But...I doubt you'll see any of that happening in the foreseeable future.

They just built a new left hand exit on the Charter Oak Bridge

But it's a high-speed two-lane flyover with an option lane. Traffic doesn't have to weave that much, if at all.

You still have to merge right if you want to stay on I-91.

How many people are staying on I-91 vs using the Charter Oak Bridge to get to 84 and then 90 en route to Boston from NYC area and Southern Connecticut.

[MikeTheActuary]

Remember also that there are three major left-exits and left-entrances in a row along that stretch of northbound I-91.

It's nonstandard design, but at least it's consistent.

[tsmatt13]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Route_11#:~:text=of%20the%20project.-,Exit%20list,-%5Bedit%5D

On Wikipedia it says that the exit numbers on CT-11 are "scheduled to be converted to mile-based numbering starting in 2022," starting from the originally-planned southern terminus at I-95 that includes the unbuilt section. However, this is unsourced as there no sources linked to this, and there are no recent news covering this also. Does it mean there may be a change of hope in CT-11's future, or does this not mean anything?

[The Ghostbuster]

I wish it were otherwise, but the CT 11 extension is likely dead for all time: https: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Route_11. The 2023 Rand McNally Road Atlas shows mileage-based exit number along CT 11 (and CT 9). I believe they are renumbering Exits 5 and 6 to 13 and 17 because that would have been the distance those two exits would have been from the Interstate 95/395 interchange. It is similar to NJ 18 starting at Exit 6 and NJ 55 starting at Exit 20. Both would have continued those distances to their planned but canceled terminuses.

[abqtraveler]

I wish it were otherwise, but the CT 11 extension is likely dead for all timehttps: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Route_11. The 2023 Rand McNally Road Atlas shows mileage-based exit number along CT 11 (and CT 9). I believe they are renumbering Exits 5 and 6 to 13 and 17 because that would have been the distance those two exits would have been from the Interstate 95/395 interchange. It is similar to NJ 18 starting at Exit 6 and NJ 55 starting at Exit 20. Both would have continued those distances to their planned but canceled terminuses.

For all intents and purposes, any extension of Route 11 to I-95/I-395 is effectively dead, as long as the EPA Region 1 maintains its opposition to pretty much any new-terrain roadbuilding in New England. Aside from the EPA's longstanding opposition to this project, Connecticut simply doesn't have the money to build the extension, and the project's cost would continue to grow the longer it sits idle. Since CTDOT abandoned environmental studies on the Route 11 extension about 10 years ago, they would have to restart the NEPA process from scratch. And unlike in times past where there was plenty of local support for completing Route 11, that support is no longer there as locals have grudgingly accepted spot improvements to Routes 82 and 85 that could be completed in a much shorter timeframe.  IMHO, Connecticut's roadbuilding days are over.

[kernals12]

Assuming that most of the traffic on I-91 in Hartford isn't stopping in Downtown, they should relocate it to a new route along CT 2 between the Charter Oak Bridge and I-291, along the lines of the old I-491 plan. Then the existing I-91 could be made into a 4 lane city boulevard, similar to what they did with I-40 in Oklahoma City.

[Rothman]

Assuming that most of the traffic on I-91 in Hartford isn't stopping in Downtown, they should relocate it to a new route along CT 2 between the Charter Oak Bridge and I-291, along the lines of the old I-491 plan.

So...build a new freeway through East Hartford?  Or go all the way out along I-84 to I-291?

I doubt even turning current I-91 into a boulevard could rejuvenate downtown Hartford.  It will always be MiniGotham that empties out at 5 pm.

[abqtraveler]

Assuming that most of the traffic on I-91 in Hartford isn't stopping in Downtown, they should relocate it to a new route along CT 2 between the Charter Oak Bridge and I-291, along the lines of the old I-491 plan. Then the existing I-91 could be made into a 4 lane city boulevard, similar to what they did with I-40 in Oklahoma City.

While they're at it, they can somehow figure out how to get rid of the giant mess of interchanges and ramps between Route 2, I-84 and the Founders Bridge. So much space could be freed up if they were to figure out how to better connect those highways.

[Rothman]

Assuming that most of the traffic on I-91 in Hartford isn't stopping in Downtown, they should relocate it to a new route along CT 2 between the Charter Oak Bridge and I-291, along the lines of the old I-491 plan. Then the existing I-91 could be made into a 4 lane city boulevard, similar to what they did with I-40 in Oklahoma City.

While they're at it, they can somehow figure out how to get rid of the giant mess of interchanges and ramps between Route 2, I-84 and the Founders Bridge. So much space could be freed up if they were to figure out how to better connect those highways.

I've thought this for years.  It's like someone had it out for East Hartford back in the day.  Now, East Hartford is something of a destination (i.e., it's considered where the good restaurants are and the like).