Connecticut News

[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.

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.

I'm not concerned with urban renewal, I'm concerned with traffic flow.

[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.

I'm not concerned with urban renewal, I'm concerned with traffic flow.

Um.  Ok.

[The Ghostbuster]

Maybe an underground tunnel along the old Interstate 491/Interstate 86 alignment would be more practical. In the unlikely event that one were built, it could serve as a good bypass of downtown Hartford. Back in reality, I have a feeling any tunnels within the Hartford area will have as difficult of a time being constructed as converting existing Interstate 84 into a tunnel, as has been previously proposed.

[Rothman]

Maybe an underground tunnel along the old Interstate 491/Interstate 86 alignment would be more practical.

What the...

We've drifted too far into Fictional here.

[shadyjay]

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.

Get rid of all the ramps to/from Governor St for starters!  That gets rid of a bunch of left hand exits and entrances.  Then you could move I-84 West over and get rid of the left exits for CT 2 and the Founders, replacing them with flyovers.  That keeps I-84 traffic all on the left, as it should be, in both directions.

Other news...

Now that I've been out of town all this week and most of next week (Tennessee), I'm guessing there will be some good progress to report on CT 9 resigning when I get back (I would think).  As of last week, there was the appearance of new support posts for extruded signs on the highway itself (not just the onramps). 

For the drive from CT to TN last Saturday, the only spot where we encountered any traffic was in... you guess it... CT.  Random slowdowns in the Newtown and Danbury areas, and from Exit 2 to I-684 (technically NY, but it started in CT).  That could be solved with a widening (in conjunction with NY) from Exit 1 west to I-684 to 3 lanes, with the I-684 ramp becoming an option lane.  Eastbound, some improved ramp geometry from I-684N to I-84E, along with 3-laning to Exit 1 would (at least) help the situation.

[Rothman]

NYSDOT doesn't do widenings.

[Alps]

Maybe an underground tunnel along the old Interstate 491/Interstate 86 alignment would be more practical.

What the...

We've drifted too far into Fictional here.

False, it's discussing what may be considered going forward.

[Rothman]

Maybe an underground tunnel along the old Interstate 491/Interstate 86 alignment would be more practical.

What the...

We've drifted too far into Fictional here.

False, it's discussing what may be considered going forward.

Nah.  It's us making up our own proposals without founding in reality.

[Alps]

Maybe an underground tunnel along the old Interstate 491/Interstate 86 alignment would be more practical.

What the...

We've drifted too far into Fictional here.

False, it's discussing what may be considered going forward.

Nah.  It's us making up our own proposals without founding in reality.

I would argue a tunnel in Hartford is a likely best option for maintaining or improving traffic flow as viaducts come of age.

[Ted$8roadFan]

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.

I'm not concerned with urban renewal, I'm concerned with traffic flow.

Historically, Connecticut has failed on both counts.

[Rothman]

Maybe an underground tunnel along the old Interstate 491/Interstate 86 alignment would be more practical.

What the...

We've drifted too far into Fictional here.

False, it's discussing what may be considered going forward.

Nah.  It's us making up our own proposals without founding in reality.

I would argue a tunnel in Hartford is a likely best option for maintaining or improving traffic flow as viaducts come of age.

It's still fictional shot-in-the-dark speculation that it would ever be considered, let alone built...and we're talking East Hartford.

Remember that this thread is for Connecticut News.

[Alps]

Maybe an underground tunnel along the old Interstate 491/Interstate 86 alignment would be more practical.

What the...

We've drifted too far into Fictional here.

False, it's discussing what may be considered going forward.

Nah.  It's us making up our own proposals without founding in reality.

I would argue a tunnel in Hartford is a likely best option for maintaining or improving traffic flow as viaducts come of age.

It's still fictional shot-in-the-dark speculation that it would ever be considered, let alone built...and we're talking East Hartford.

Remember that this thread is for Connecticut News.

As a moderator I will say please stop interjecting. You've said your piece multiple times.

[DrSmith]

Looks like some of the overhead sign work is starting on I-84 in East Hartford. A new 1/2 mile sign for Governor's St on I-84 West is up and another cantilever on the left side of the highway probably for Route 2 and the Founder's Bridge.

[jp the roadgeek]

Looks like some of the overhead sign work is starting on I-84 in East Hartford. A new 1/2 mile sign for Governor's St on I-84 West is up and another cantilever on the left side of the highway probably for Route 2 and the Founder's Bridge.

There's some west of Hartford as well.  New 1/2 mile advance and Exit Now signage EB for Prospect Ave which contains New Park Ave (a WB Exit Now sign also does).  Also see some piers up near the Park Rd exit for a new gantry. The Exit Now is on a cantilever rather than bridge mounted.

[Mergingtraffic]

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.

Get rid of all the ramps to/from Governor St for starters!  That gets rid of a bunch of left hand exits and entrances.  Then you could move I-84 West over and get rid of the left exits for CT 2 and the Founders, replacing them with flyovers.  That keeps I-84 traffic all on the left, as it should be, in both directions.

Other news...

Now that I've been out of town all this week and most of next week (Tennessee), I'm guessing there will be some good progress to report on CT 9 resigning when I get back (I would think).  As of last week, there was the appearance of new support posts for extruded signs on the highway itself (not just the onramps). 

For the drive from CT to TN last Saturday, the only spot where we encountered any traffic was in... you guess it... CT.  Random slowdowns in the Newtown and Danbury areas, and from Exit 2 to I-684 (technically NY, but it started in CT).  That could be solved with a widening (in conjunction with NY) from Exit 1 west to I-684 to 3 lanes, with the I-684 ramp becoming an option lane.  Eastbound, some improved ramp geometry from I-684N to I-84E, along with 3-laning to Exit 1 would (at least) help the situation.

Yes I drove CT-72 to 9 to I-84 to Fartford and back and new signs on all routes. I-84 had quite a few overheads up.
CT-8 almost done except exit 13 1/2 Mile advance signage is still not up. But it's at their construction area off exit 11 where's it's been for a month and a half

[kernals12]

If I-95 can't be widened, they should at least remove some of the interchanges. It's amazing how many that a former toll road can have.

[RobbieL2415]

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.

Frankly, I think ConnDOT could save money in the long-term on CT 11 by removing one carriageway.

[RobbieL2415]

Maybe an underground tunnel along the old Interstate 491/Interstate 86 alignment would be more practical. In the unlikely event that one were built, it could serve as a good bypass of downtown Hartford. Back in reality, I have a feeling any tunnels within the Hartford area will have as difficult of a time being constructed as converting existing Interstate 84 into a tunnel, as has been previously proposed.

I-284 would have solved most of those problems.

[Alps]

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.

Frankly, I think ConnDOT could save money in the long-term on CT 11 by removing one carriageway.

That would only really make sense if structures need to be rebuilt - that's when you would save money by only rebuilding one and filling in the other. Until then, the marginal cost of maintaining a dual carriageway is offset by the benefit of not having to build crossovers and new ramps etc. plus the safety of no opposing traffic.

[cl94]

If I-95 can't be widened, they should at least remove some of the interchanges. It's amazing how many that a former toll road can have.

Well, barrier system as opposed to ticket system. See how many interchanges the Garden State Parkway has.

Re: Route 11, as mentioned previously, the economic benefit of removal is only significant when structures are due for replacement. There's a reason that virtually all freeway removals/downgrades/relocations happen when bridges need to be replaced. See New York and the Niagara Scenic Parkway, which had a segment fully removed only when a long bridge needed replacement.

[bob7374]

The latest 12-month list of CTDOT projects scheduled to be advertised, dated 6/9/22, is available at:
https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOT/documents/dfiscalprojects/advschedule11-2021.pdf

[tsmatt13]

Re: Route 11, as mentioned previously, the economic benefit of removal is only significant when structures are due for replacement. There's a reason that virtually all freeway removals/downgrades/relocations happen when bridges need to be replaced. See New York and the Niagara Scenic Parkway, which had a segment fully removed only when a long bridge needed replacement.

IN-912 (Cline Ave) is also an example of that.

In addition, CT-11's pavement seems to be in decent quality as of the latest GSV images, so I doubt removal would benefit the route much.

[SectorZ]

The latest 12-month list of CTDOT projects scheduled to be advertised, dated 6/9/22, is available at:
https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOT/documents/dfiscalprojects/advschedule11-2021.pdf

"Install Curve Warning Signs at Various Location" costs $200K to $500K? How many unannounced curves they got out there, and there's more than one district that needs it done!

[Rothman]

The latest 12-month list of CTDOT projects scheduled to be advertised, dated 6/9/22, is available at:
https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOT/documents/dfiscalprojects/advschedule11-2021.pdf

"Install Curve Warning Signs at Various Location" costs $200K to $500K? How many unannounced curves they got out there, and there's more than one district that needs it done!

It's not only about new signage, but replacing old signage.  Costs seem appropriate to me, if it's statewide.

[Mergingtraffic]

I-84 signing Vernon to Union will be advertised soon.  That leaves only I-91 left.  CT is acting like it was 1985-1990 when they replaced all their signs basically in a few years.
There seems to be quite a few signing projects currently or just finished across the state.