Connecticut News

[shadyjay]

Basically, the access road they built between Rt 161 and Costco/ramps to-from I-95 South, will be shifted north to the other side of the power substation, giving proper length on/off ramps to/from I-95 South.  The present acceleration lane there is a joke... very similar to the Merritt Parkway.  The new one will be proper length.  On the northbound side, the new offramp will start 1/4 mile further to the west and will take over the former Mobil gas station and Starlight Motel properties.  This will also accommodate a loop ramp from Rt 161 South to I-95 North.  The present onramp to I-95 North will be for Rt 161 North traffic.  There will also be 3 lanes between Exits 74 & 75, more like operational lanes.  I believe the actual bridge carrying I-95 over Rt 161 will be wide enough to accommodate future 3 lanes in each direction (they'd be stupid not to make this happen).  The two northbound onramps will come together before entering the I-95 North mainline. 

The map at this link should explain things better:
https://ctexaminer.com/2021/06/14/142-million-east-lyme-exit-74-project-delayed-two-years/

[abqtraveler]

Basically, the access road they built between Rt 161 and Costco/ramps to-from I-95 South, will be shifted north to the other side of the power substation, giving proper length on/off ramps to/from I-95 South.  The present acceleration lane there is a joke... very similar to the Merritt Parkway.  The new one will be proper length.  On the northbound side, the new offramp will start 1/4 mile further to the west and will take over the former Mobil gas station and Starlight Motel properties.  This will also accommodate a loop ramp from Rt 161 South to I-95 North.  The present onramp to I-95 North will be for Rt 161 North traffic.  There will also be 3 lanes between Exits 74 & 75, more like operational lanes.  I believe the actual bridge carrying I-95 over Rt 161 will be wide enough to accommodate future 3 lanes in each direction (they'd be stupid not to make this happen).  The two northbound onramps will come together before entering the I-95 North mainline. 

The map at this link should explain things better:
https://ctexaminer.com/2021/06/14/142-million-east-lyme-exit-74-project-delayed-two-years/

It's also important to note why the geometry of this interchange is so obsolete is that this section of the Connecticut Turnpike that runs from the Baldwin Bridge to the I-95/395 split was originally constructed in the late 1940s as a bypass for Route 1. This bypass was incorporated into the Connecticut Turnpike when it opened approximately 10 years later in 1958. You'll notice that Exits 73 though 70 have a lot of the same geometric issues as Exit 74, as they were all constructed as part of this bypass.

[shadyjay]

Yes, while this is true, the geometry of the Exit 74 southbound onramp was greatly altered by construction of COSTCO.  An extra curve was thrown in, which further slows traffic trying to speed up to highway speeds, coupled with a short merge area.

For reference, see the street view image here of the old ramp...
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3605337,-72.211446,3a,75y,159.04h,79.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3wDJxzaGcEPpfwX6d5NFkA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

...and to see the change, just move over to the southbound offramp.


Was the pre-turnpike section of Exits 70-76 built as a super 2 or 4 lanes divided? 
It's really in dire need of an upgrade, the entire way, to 3 lanes each way, with the Exits 71-72 mess reconfigured (I'd close Exit 71, personally). 

Perhaps it just hasn't been a priority since its cause of congestion is less "commuter" and more "seasonal tourist".  Regardless, during the summer, its virtually impassable. 

[abqtraveler]

Yes, while this is true, the geometry of the Exit 74 southbound onramp was greatly altered by construction of COSTCO.  An extra curve was thrown in, which further slows traffic trying to speed up to highway speeds, coupled with a short merge area.

For reference, see the street view image here of the old ramp...
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3605337,-72.211446,3a,75y,159.04h,79.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3wDJxzaGcEPpfwX6d5NFkA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

...and to see the change, just move over to the southbound offramp.


Was the pre-turnpike section of Exits 70-76 built as a super 2 or 4 lanes divided? 
It's really in dire need of an upgrade, the entire way, to 3 lanes each way, with the Exits 71-72 mess reconfigured (I'd close Exit 71, personally). 

Perhaps it just hasn't been a priority since its cause of congestion is less "commuter" and more "seasonal tourist".  Regardless, during the summer, its virtually impassable.

My understanding is that it was built in stages, 4 lanes over the Baldwin Bridge to Exit 70, and from Exit 74 to 76, and 2 lanes in between. The second set of lanes were added between Exit 70 and 74 in the 1950s before the bypass was incorporated into the Connecticut Turnpike.

[Ted$8roadFan]

Good info.  I had always wondered why the section of the Turnpike from CT-9 to the I-95/395 split is so substandard beyond the typical reasons of voluminous traffic and lack of funding to fix it.

[abqtraveler]

Good info.  I had always wondered why the section of the Turnpike from CT-9 to the I-95/395 split is so substandard beyond the typical reasons of voluminous traffic and lack of funding to fix it.

Years ago, CTDOT performed a study (they waste a lot of money on studies from which nothing comes out of) about adding a third lane on I-95 from Branford to Rhode Island. That study estimated the cost to add a third lane in each direction would be well over a billion dollars, back in the early 2000s, so probably 2 or 3 billion now. Regardless, I would nominate the stretch from Route 9 to the I-95/395 split to be the first section to be reconstructed and widened because it's probably the most substandard section of I-95 through Connecticut.

[shadyjay]

I believe it was in the most recent 10-year plan, but only as far as the Rocky Neck Connector. 

Maybe they're still trying to figure out what to do at the I-95/I-395 interchange.  If Route 11 is indeed dead, that should shave off a billion right there from construction costs.  And the upcoming bridge over Rt 161 project should shave off another good chunk of change.   The biggest "issue" I forsee (for a Baldwin to Rocky Neck project) is the Lieutenant River wetlands between the Exit 70s.  With Rt 1 so close to I-95 right there as well, you've got a really tight spot.  Other than that, its pretty straight forward to get to the connector... about 2 or 3 overhead bridges to be replaced, two interchanges to modify/combine, and how to reconfigure the Exit 70s (I say consolidate at the westernmost one).  Still probably a 'Bil in today's funds, but definitely needed... 20 years ago!

[kurumi]

More old CT stuff: the CT Digital Archive has scanned "Cuts and Fills", the Highway Dept. newsletter that ran from 1941 to 1959: https://collections.ctdigitalarchive.org/islandora/object/30002%3Ao51579237

There's a lot of "who got promoted / married / shipped off to war / won the softball game" material, but also some neat (B+W) construction photos from the area, and a few maps.

[sharkyfour]

Looks like someone put the "u" in Flatbush Ave on a new sign upside down, and nobody caught it until after it was already up...

https://www.wtnh.com/news/connecticut/hartford/grammar-error-hartford-exit-misspelled-on-i-84-west/

[Alps]

Looks like someone put the "u" in Flatbush Ave on a new sign upside down, and nobody caught it until after it was already up...

https://www.wtnh.com/news/connecticut/hartford/grammar-error-hartford-exit-misspelled-on-i-84-west/

And they're replacing the sign instead of just patching over the n!?

[jp the roadgeek]

Looks like someone put the "u" in Flatbush Ave on a new sign upside down, and nobody caught it until after it was already up...

https://www.wtnh.com/news/connecticut/hartford/grammar-error-hartford-exit-misspelled-on-i-84-west/

And they're replacing the sign instead of just patching over the n!?

That's 7 exits before the Framington exit

[storm2k]

Looks like someone put the "u" in Flatbush Ave on a new sign upside down, and nobody caught it until after it was already up...

https://www.wtnh.com/news/connecticut/hartford/grammar-error-hartford-exit-misspelled-on-i-84-west/

Spending the money needed for a whole new sign instead of a greenout to fix the name seems excessive.

[RobbieL2415]

Looks like someone put the "u" in Flatbush Ave on a new sign upside down, and nobody caught it until after it was already up...

https://www.wtnh.com/news/connecticut/hartford/grammar-error-hartford-exit-misspelled-on-i-84-west/

Spending the money needed for a whole new sign instead of a greenout to fix the name seems excessive.

Literally all they have to do is flip the "n" upsidedown

[DrSmith]

Looks like someone put the "u" in Flatbush Ave on a new sign upside down, and nobody caught it until after it was already up...

https://www.wtnh.com/news/connecticut/hartford/grammar-error-hartford-exit-misspelled-on-i-84-west/

Spending the money needed for a whole new sign instead of a greenout to fix the name seems excessive.

Literally all they have to do is flip the "n" upsidedown

In general for contracting, the buyer can refuse acceptance of a non-conforming item and it would be on the seller to eat the cost of rework. Alternatively they can accept the non-conforming item for a reduced price if the defect is correctable or acceptable.

And non-conformance means it did not meet the specifications, not necessarily that it is acceptable. If the buyer specifies something be 12" +/- 0.1" and you provide 13", even if that size works, it's non conforming and can be refused.

Unless the plans spelled it as "Flatbnsh" then it is the contractor's mistake and cost.

[Alps]

Looks like someone put the "u" in Flatbush Ave on a new sign upside down, and nobody caught it until after it was already up...

https://www.wtnh.com/news/connecticut/hartford/grammar-error-hartford-exit-misspelled-on-i-84-west/

Spending the money needed for a whole new sign instead of a greenout to fix the name seems excessive.

Literally all they have to do is flip the "n" upsidedown

In general for contracting, the buyer can refuse acceptance of a non-conforming item and it would be on the seller to eat the cost of rework. Alternatively they can accept the non-conforming item for a reduced price if the defect is correctable or acceptable.

And non-conformance means it did not meet the specifications, not necessarily that it is acceptable. If the buyer specifies something be 12" +/- 0.1" and you provide 13", even if that size works, it's non conforming and can be refused.

Unless the plans spelled it as "Flatbnsh" then it is the contractor's mistake and cost.

Not guaranteed this was done by a contractor vs. the state's own office...

[Alps]

Looks like someone put the "u" in Flatbush Ave on a new sign upside down, and nobody caught it until after it was already up...

https://www.wtnh.com/news/connecticut/hartford/grammar-error-hartford-exit-misspelled-on-i-84-west/

Spending the money needed for a whole new sign instead of a greenout to fix the name seems excessive.

Literally all they have to do is flip the "n" upsidedown

I looked at the sign and I'm not sure the letters are applied in such a way this is feasible

[jp the roadgeek]

Still a long way to go on CT 9 north of I-91, but we get this nice new APL at the northbound split to CT 72

[RobbieL2415]

Still a long way to go on CT 9 north of I-91, but we get this nice new APL at the northbound split to CT 72

You know what pisses me off? The new APLs on I-91 for Exit 29 are two pieces and the seam is visible in daylight and they were obviously installed misaligned.

[connroadgeek]

I'd shorten the arrows on those APL signs. You could save 1/3rd of the height.

[Alps]

I'd shorten the arrows on those APL signs. You could save 1/3rd of the height.

The straight+left arrow is what interferes with that idea. But I've seen it and hopefully makes the next MUTCD.

[RyanB06]

I don't have a photo of it, but I saw a new sign posted on CT-9 South as you head into Middletown yesterday. It's a California-style 'exits ahead' sign that reads more or less like this:

EXIT [covered, probably 24] Portland 1/4
EXIT [covered, probably 23B] Middletown 1/2
EXIT [covered, probably 23A] Harbor Area 3/4

I might be wrong on the distances but if I am I'm probably off a quarter mile.

Also, I noticed that while the advance sign for Exit 16/24 reads "Portland/Willimantic" (like the old sign it replaced), the sign at the exit reads simply "Portland". I'm wondering if that's a goof?

[shadyjay]

Saw both of those last night.  The distances shoulde be "1", "1 1/4" and "1 1/2".  distance is "1".  I did notice the new (former)Exit 16 1/2 mile advance with "Willimantic".  As far as whether its a goof or not... one contract shows that sign as "NIC" (meaning not in contract), and the next shows it as "replace exit crown only".  Now I don't know if there were any addendums that reflected any changes... obviously there was, as the new exit numbers have changed a couple times, "NEW EXIT ##" signs have been put in, and "replace exit tab" was replaced with overlays. 

Meanwhile, northbound...

CT9NB-Exit15-new by Jay Hogan, on Flickr

CT9NB-Exit16-2 by Jay Hogan, on Flickr

That last sign looks a little stubby without Willimantic.  Maybe the posts should have been a bit longer... or the spacing made a little "looser". 

All northbound fraction/mile posts are now up from I-95 to the Middletown/Cromwell line.  Southbound mileposts have been corrected.  And it appears MP 0.0 is the start of the I-95 Northbound Exit 69 offramp. 

[Alps]

Meanwhile, northbound...

CT9NB-Exit16-2 by Jay Hogan, on Flickr

That last sign looks a little stubby without Willimantic.  Maybe the posts should have been a bit longer... or the spacing made a little "looser". 

No, you'd have to have a wider sign, and median width is limited. That's my guess. I've seen agencies put the longer name in smaller text. CT won't do that.

[jp the roadgeek]

Another thing about that sign: why does 66 come before 17?  Once again, like on I-95 at the 8/25 exit, CTDOT puts the higher route number first, which is wrong according to MUTCD.  And the turnoff is mainline CT 17 to boot; CT 66 doesn't join until the next intersection

[kurumi]

The unique 5-ramp interchange at CT 17 and New London Turnpike ("NLT") in Glastonbury may lose the direct left exit ramp from 17 southbound to NLT eastbound. The ramp was there to support CT 2 traffic for the 12 years between the old expressway opening (1952) and the newer CT 2 expressway to the east (1964). It's not as useful now. The fact that it's really cool doesn't outweigh its disadvantages.

The state is planning to have everyone use the right-side ramp for both directions on NLT, accommodating this with... a roundabout.

Project page: https://portal.ct.gov/DOTGlastonbury53-189
Roundabout diagram: https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOT/documents/denviro/EnvMonitor/Glastonbury-53-189-Scoping/April2022Pavement-Limits80sc.pdf
Project map: https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOT/documents/denviro/EnvMonitor/Glastonbury-53-189-Scoping/Project-Map-Glastonbury-53-189.pdf
Meeting recording: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcIYDsTFJG4

The project appears to leave the 17 NB entrance ramp unchanged, though that could be reconfigured to a T-intersection (combined with 17 NB exit) and reclaim more land along NLT.

They will also remove a thru lane on 17 NB, but leave an auxiliary lane between Williams St entrance and NLT exit. 17 has not really been a real 4-lane freeway in this area for years.