Connecticut News

[jp the roadgeek]

UPDATE:
Rumors of CT 72 having mileage-based exits already are FALSE... drove it from Rt 9 to I-84 today and the sequential numbers are still up.  New gore signs are up with the new numbers tarped/taped, however.  Maybe the one for Exit 2/Old Exit 7 posted above "fell off". 

No mile markers observed yet on Rt 72 and no new enhanced markers still north of Middletown.  They are making progress with the new "sheets", however, and saw a new overhead SB near (former) Exit 23 that will replace two existing overheads.  No signs on the new one yet.  In Middletown, the (former) Exit 16 sign I posted earlier still does not have an exit tab, and advance (former) Exit 12 signs SB still haven't been replaced yet. 

And the "sideways lodging" sign is still sideways.

I happened to snap the pic before the tarps went up.  Haven't seen any OLD EXIT signage west of 84 yet (at least for soon to be former Exit 2 WB).

[MikeCL]

I wanted to ask what's going on 95 NB at 27A?

Edit is this what I think it is?? Something I have been saying for YEARS! You gotta widen the ramp for 27A

Who wants to sit in a 27 mile delay from Greenwich.

https://portal.ct.gov/CEQ/DOT/Scoping-Notice/Ramp-Widening-I-95-NB-Exit-27A-Bridgeport

[abqtraveler]

I wanted to ask what's going on 95 NB at 27A?

Edit is this what I think it is?? Something I have been saying for YEARS! You gotta widen the ramp for 27A

Who wants to sit in a 27 mile delay from Greenwich.

https://portal.ct.gov/CEQ/DOT/Scoping-Notice/Ramp-Widening-I-95-NB-Exit-27A-Bridgeport

They are widening the NB I-95 ramp to Route 8/25 from one lane to two. When they reconstructed the section of I-95 through Bridgeport in the early 2000s, they made the mistake of keeping the loop ramp going from I-95 NB to Route 8/25. At the time I knew a DOT engineer and I asked him about why they didn't make the ramp from I-95 NB to Route 8/25 a flyover. He said to me that they thought about building a flyover, but decided to keep the loop ramp as it is to "save money."

[connroadgeek]

Even with two lanes, that 27A ramp will still be a bottleneck. It's a 270 degree loop ramp with odd elevation changes. You'll have the two rightmost lanes of 95 sitting still or going under 20 mph to enter the tight ramp which means everyone in the rest of the lanes is going to slow down because that's human nature. I guess this is better than doing nothing, but I don't see it fixing anything. You need a flyover like they did with the rt 34 left exit replacement in New Haven to make a significant improvement.

[The Ghostbuster]

Would it be possible to combine Exits 27 and 27A into one continuous exit, or is there too little right-of-way to accomplish this?

[abqtraveler]

Would it be possible to combine Exits 27 and 27A into one continuous exit, or is there too little right-of-way to accomplish this?

I think combining Exits 27 (B-C) and 27-A on the SB side would not be too hard. The NB side would be a bit more challenging, given the proximity of the tracks for the New Haven Line running right next to the current interchange.

[MikeCL]

I wanted to ask what's going on 95 NB at 27A?

Edit is this what I think it is?? Something I have been saying for YEARS! You gotta widen the ramp for 27A

Who wants to sit in a 27 mile delay from Greenwich.

https://portal.ct.gov/CEQ/DOT/Scoping-Notice/Ramp-Widening-I-95-NB-Exit-27A-Bridgeport

They are widening the NB I-95 ramp to Route 8/25 from one lane to two. When they reconstructed the section of I-95 through Bridgeport in the early 2000s, they made the mistake of keeping the loop ramp going from I-95 NB to Route 8/25. At the time I knew a DOT engineer and I asked him about why they didn't make the ramp from I-95 NB to Route 8/25 a flyover. He said to me that they thought about building a flyover, but decided to keep the loop ramp as it is to "save money."

As soon as you said "they made the mistake"  I knew they screwed up.. and I forgot this state likes to spend money.. I understand the curve is tight but when you say a flyover pretty much over the NB & SB lanes? Tbh I could see how that would cost more money but look how much more traffic they have now.


And you said the current way it is now was done in the 2000's? So how was it before?

[abqtraveler]

I wanted to ask what's going on 95 NB at 27A?

Edit is this what I think it is?? Something I have been saying for YEARS! You gotta widen the ramp for 27A

Who wants to sit in a 27 mile delay from Greenwich.

https://portal.ct.gov/CEQ/DOT/Scoping-Notice/Ramp-Widening-I-95-NB-Exit-27A-Bridgeport

They are widening the NB I-95 ramp to Route 8/25 from one lane to two. When they reconstructed the section of I-95 through Bridgeport in the early 2000s, they made the mistake of keeping the loop ramp going from I-95 NB to Route 8/25. At the time I knew a DOT engineer and I asked him about why they didn't make the ramp from I-95 NB to Route 8/25 a flyover. He said to me that they thought about building a flyover, but decided to keep the loop ramp as it is to "save money."

As soon as you said "they made the mistake"  I knew they screwed up.. and I forgot this state likes to spend money.. I understand the curve is tight but when you say a flyover pretty much over the NB & SB lanes? Tbh I could see how that would cost more money but look how much more traffic they have now.


And you said the current way it is now was done in the 2000's? So how was it before?

The tight trumpet interchange between I-95 and Route 8/25 was originally built with Route 8/25 in 1968. When I-95 was reconstructed in the early 2000s, the bridges on the loop ramp were replaced, but the ramp itself was not changed from its original configuration.

[Mergingtraffic]

I wanted to ask what's going on 95 NB at 27A?

Edit is this what I think it is?? Something I have been saying for YEARS! You gotta widen the ramp for 27A

Who wants to sit in a 27 mile delay from Greenwich.

https://portal.ct.gov/CEQ/DOT/Scoping-Notice/Ramp-Widening-I-95-NB-Exit-27A-Bridgeport

They are widening the NB I-95 ramp to Route 8/25 from one lane to two. When they reconstructed the section of I-95 through Bridgeport in the early 2000s, they made the mistake of keeping the loop ramp going from I-95 NB to Route 8/25. At the time I knew a DOT engineer and I asked him about why they didn't make the ramp from I-95 NB to Route 8/25 a flyover. He said to me that they thought about building a flyover, but decided to keep the loop ramp as it is to "save money."

Whenever that happens (to save money), it bites us in the ass.  That loop ramp is terrible.  It's almost a 360.  You curve, you go down, then up, then down again.
They're still being cheap by adding a second lane. It should be a flyover.

[Mergingtraffic]

Is the i-84 Fartford signing contrat done? I still see several button copy signs up

[jp the roadgeek]

Is the i-84 Fartford signing contrat done? I still see several button copy signs up

West of the river is pretty much done save for a couple of bridge mounts near the Hartford tunnel.  The one immediately east of the Bulkeley is definitely not done.  All of the new mile markers are up, with a couple of them in the tunnel placed in the middle rather than on the side of the road.  Did see that CT 15 has been upgraded to a US route, according to a new Quebec style sign (direction flag on the bottom) just past the split from I-84 West.  Unfortunately it was raining and I couldn't snap a decent pic.   

[MikeCL]

I wanted to ask what's going on 95 NB at 27A?

Edit is this what I think it is?? Something I have been saying for YEARS! You gotta widen the ramp for 27A

Who wants to sit in a 27 mile delay from Greenwich.

https://portal.ct.gov/CEQ/DOT/Scoping-Notice/Ramp-Widening-I-95-NB-Exit-27A-Bridgeport

They are widening the NB I-95 ramp to Route 8/25 from one lane to two. When they reconstructed the section of I-95 through Bridgeport in the early 2000s, they made the mistake of keeping the loop ramp going from I-95 NB to Route 8/25. At the time I knew a DOT engineer and I asked him about why they didn't make the ramp from I-95 NB to Route 8/25 a flyover. He said to me that they thought about building a flyover, but decided to keep the loop ramp as it is to "save money."

Whenever that happens (to save money), it bites us in the ass.  That loop ramp is terrible.  It's almost a 360.  You curve, you go down, then up, then down again.
They're still being cheap by adding a second lane. It should be a flyover.

Maybe they need to talk to the contractors that did the work at the state border in port Chester.. they smoothed out the curve nicely and didn't BS around.

[abqtraveler]

I wanted to ask what's going on 95 NB at 27A?

Edit is this what I think it is?? Something I have been saying for YEARS! You gotta widen the ramp for 27A

Who wants to sit in a 27 mile delay from Greenwich.

https://portal.ct.gov/CEQ/DOT/Scoping-Notice/Ramp-Widening-I-95-NB-Exit-27A-Bridgeport

They are widening the NB I-95 ramp to Route 8/25 from one lane to two. When they reconstructed the section of I-95 through Bridgeport in the early 2000s, they made the mistake of keeping the loop ramp going from I-95 NB to Route 8/25. At the time I knew a DOT engineer and I asked him about why they didn't make the ramp from I-95 NB to Route 8/25 a flyover. He said to me that they thought about building a flyover, but decided to keep the loop ramp as it is to "save money."

Whenever that happens (to save money), it bites us in the ass.  That loop ramp is terrible.  It's almost a 360.  You curve, you go down, then up, then down again.
They're still being cheap by adding a second lane. It should be a flyover.

Maybe they need to talk to the contractors that did the work at the state border in port Chester.. they smoothed out the curve nicely and didn't BS around.

That's one thing I noticed about New York. They can take forever to plan out a project, but once they put shovels in the ground, they get it done quick. In Connecticut, there is nothing quick about either the planning or the execution of a highway project. It's been like that for as long as I can remember.

[shadyjay]

Is the i-84 Fartford signing contrat done? I still see several button copy signs up

West of the river is pretty much done save for a couple of bridge mounts near the Hartford tunnel.  The one immediately east of the Bulkeley is definitely not done.  All of the new mile markers are up, with a couple of them in the tunnel placed in the middle rather than on the side of the road.  Did see that CT 15 has been upgraded to a US route, according to a new Quebec style sign (direction flag on the bottom) just past the split from I-84 West.  Unfortunately it was raining and I couldn't snap a decent pic.   

Eastbound, the Exit 53 "exit now" gantry is awaiting replacement.  Westbound, the Exit 54 gantry and an advance for Exits 51-50 just past it (on the Bulkley's east approach) were still awaiting replacement.  This was as of a couple weeks ago, in addition to the two existing bridge mounts for Exit 49/Asylum St. 

Meanwhile...

Portable VMSs on Rt 72 today said "NEW EXIT NUMBERS BEGIN 2/26".  There is still one gantry/WB and a couple/EB not yet replaced, and still no mile markers posted. 

I-691 has got a lot of new foundations for signs being replaced this year.  No new signs in the ground yet... probably later this summer.  Its to get new exit #s as well.

[connroadgeek]

That's one thing I noticed about New York. They can take forever to plan out a project, but once they put shovels in the ground, they get it done quick. In Connecticut, there is nothing quick about either the planning or the execution of a highway project. It's been like that for as long as I can remember.

Before we get to patting NYS on the back, the redo of that interchange took 4 years. And the 684 to 84 east interchange got the 27A treatment when they redid it some years back.

[abqtraveler]

That's one thing I noticed about New York. They can take forever to plan out a project, but once they put shovels in the ground, they get it done quick. In Connecticut, there is nothing quick about either the planning or the execution of a highway project. It's been like that for as long as I can remember.

Before we get to patting NYS on the back, the redo of that interchange took 4 years. And the 684 to 84 east interchange got the 27A treatment when they redid it some years back.

The curve on the 684N to 84E ramp needs to be softened, but to do so would require replacing the bridge that carries Starr Ridge Road over I-84 to eliminate the bridge pier that currently constrains the geometry of the ramp. Looks like from a time lapse of GSV images, it looks like they replaced the metal guardrail with concrete barrier and resurfaced the ramp. A cheap solution that kicks the can down the road on softening the curve on the ramp before it merges into 84 E.

[RobbieL2415]

I wanted to ask what's going on 95 NB at 27A?

Edit is this what I think it is?? Something I have been saying for YEARS! You gotta widen the ramp for 27A

Who wants to sit in a 27 mile delay from Greenwich.

https://portal.ct.gov/CEQ/DOT/Scoping-Notice/Ramp-Widening-I-95-NB-Exit-27A-Bridgeport

They are widening the NB I-95 ramp to Route 8/25 from one lane to two. When they reconstructed the section of I-95 through Bridgeport in the early 2000s, they made the mistake of keeping the loop ramp going from I-95 NB to Route 8/25. At the time I knew a DOT engineer and I asked him about why they didn't make the ramp from I-95 NB to Route 8/25 a flyover. He said to me that they thought about building a flyover, but decided to keep the loop ramp as it is to "save money."

Will there be an option lane?

[abqtraveler]

I wanted to ask what’s going on 95 NB at 27A?

Edit is this what I think it is?? Something I have been saying for YEARS! You gotta widen the ramp for 27A

Who wants to sit in a 27 mile delay from Greenwich.

https://portal.ct.gov/CEQ/DOT/Scoping-Notice/Ramp-Widening-I-95-NB-Exit-27A-Bridgeport

They are widening the NB I-95 ramp to Route 8/25 from one lane to two. When they reconstructed the section of I-95 through Bridgeport in the early 2000s, they made the mistake of keeping the loop ramp going from I-95 NB to Route 8/25. At the time I knew a DOT engineer and I asked him about why they didn't make the ramp from I-95 NB to Route 8/25 a flyover. He said to me that they thought about building a flyover, but decided to keep the loop ramp as it is to "save money."

Will there be an option lane?

Yes, the far right lane on I-95 NB will drop to Rt 8/25 NB and the second-from-right lane will be an option lane. There will be APL signs on I-95 NB approaching the interchange indicating this.

[shadyjay]

That's one thing I noticed about New York. They can take forever to plan out a project, but once they put shovels in the ground, they get it done quick. In Connecticut, there is nothing quick about either the planning or the execution of a highway project. It's been like that for as long as I can remember.

Before we get to patting NYS on the back, the redo of that interchange took 4 years. And the 684 to 84 east interchange got the 27A treatment when they redid it some years back.

The curve on the 684N to 84E ramp needs to be softened, but to do so would require replacing the bridge that carries Starr Ridge Road over I-84 to eliminate the bridge pier that currently constrains the geometry of the ramp. Looks like from a time lapse of GSV images, it looks like they replaced the metal guardrail with concrete barrier and resurfaced the ramp. A cheap solution that kicks the can down the road on softening the curve on the ramp before it merges into 84 E.

The further solution for I-684/I-84 is to widen I-84 to 3 lanes to the CT state line.  That would help in both directions.  And the ramp from 84WB->684 should be 2 lanes.

[abqtraveler]

That's one thing I noticed about New York. They can take forever to plan out a project, but once they put shovels in the ground, they get it done quick. In Connecticut, there is nothing quick about either the planning or the execution of a highway project. It's been like that for as long as I can remember.

Before we get to patting NYS on the back, the redo of that interchange took 4 years. And the 684 to 84 east interchange got the 27A treatment when they redid it some years back.

The curve on the 684N to 84E ramp needs to be softened, but to do so would require replacing the bridge that carries Starr Ridge Road over I-84 to eliminate the bridge pier that currently constrains the geometry of the ramp. Looks like from a time lapse of GSV images, it looks like they replaced the metal guardrail with concrete barrier and resurfaced the ramp. A cheap solution that kicks the can down the road on softening the curve on the ramp before it merges into 84 E.

The further solution for I-684/I-84 is to widen I-84 to 3 lanes to the CT state line.  That would help in both directions.  And the ramp from 84WB->684 should be 2 lanes.

I think New York plans to eventually widen I-84 from I-684 to the CT state line, as evidenced by the new bridges that carry I-84 over Dingle Ridge Road. In both directions, those bridges are wide enough to accommodate a third travel lane. The would still need to replace the bridges that carry I-84 over NY-121 with wider structures before they could start work to add the third lane.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3848581,-73.559502,132m/data=!3m1!1e3

[shadyjay]

While that's all well and good, it doesn't necessarily mean widening is "right around the corner". 

CT isn't that proactive in replacing bridges... except when they replaced Society Rd on I-95 in East Lyme.  They clearly made it wide enough to support 3 lanes in each direction, but it's the oddball... other bridge replacements in the area have been done "in kind", without any future-proofing.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3448723,-72.2288388,3a,83.5y,206.42h,81.9t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4bMfZlbvpDXBtqt-6nWUHw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

[Mergingtraffic]

That's one thing I noticed about New York. They can take forever to plan out a project, but once they put shovels in the ground, they get it done quick. In Connecticut, there is nothing quick about either the planning or the execution of a highway project. It's been like that for as long as I can remember.

The curve on the 684N to 84E ramp needs to be softened, but to do so would require replacing the bridge that carries Starr Ridge Road over I-84 to eliminate the bridge pier that currently constrains the geometry of the ramp. Looks like from a time lapse of GSV images, it looks like they replaced the metal guardrail with concrete barrier and resurfaced the ramp. A cheap solution that kicks the can down the road on softening the curve on the ramp before it merges into 84 E.

I believe they did soften the ramp, I remember seeing plans for it.  The ramp is softer now than it was. I remember work in this area a few years ago, it's the same time they replaced the button copy signs. Is it 100% better, no
Before we get to patting NYS on the back, the redo of that interchange took 4 years. And the 684 to 84 east interchange got the 27A treatment when they redid it some years back.

[Mergingtraffic]

I'm also waiting to see how many button copy signs CTDOT leaves behind with the I-84 Fartford signing contract.  Or, how many surface street BGSs will be replaced with just shields and arrows.  I'm talking about the US-44/I-84 BGSs under the I-84/I-91 ramps on the surface streets.

I don't get the small control city fonting on the BGSs at the on-ramps?!?! They look like crap. Highway Gothic but too small and narrow with no spacing between the letters.

[Mergingtraffic]

That's one thing I noticed about New York. They can take forever to plan out a project, but once they put shovels in the ground, they get it done quick. In Connecticut, there is nothing quick about either the planning or the execution of a highway project. It's been like that for as long as I can remember.

Before we get to patting NYS on the back, the redo of that interchange took 4 years. And the 684 to 84 east interchange got the 27A treatment when they redid it some years back.

The curve on the 684N to 84E ramp needs to be softened, but to do so would require replacing the bridge that carries Starr Ridge Road over I-84 to eliminate the bridge pier that currently constrains the geometry of the ramp. Looks like from a time lapse of GSV images, it looks like they replaced the metal guardrail with concrete barrier and resurfaced the ramp. A cheap solution that kicks the can down the road on softening the curve on the ramp before it merges into 84 E.

The further solution for I-684/I-84 is to widen I-84 to 3 lanes to the CT state line.  That would help in both directions.  And the ramp from 84WB->684 should be 2 lanes.

Speaking of NYS, the Cross County/Saw Mill/Yonkers Ave interchange has CTDOT written all over it.  Done on the cheap years ago and just utterly awful.  lol

[shadyjay]

I'm also waiting to see how many button copy signs CTDOT leaves behind with the I-84 Fartford signing contract.  Or, how many surface street BGSs will be replaced with just shields and arrows.  I'm talking about the US-44/I-84 BGSs under the I-84/I-91 ramps on the surface streets.

They're all supposed to be replaced, I believe.  The ones around Route 9/372/5-15 in Berlin are in the process of being replaced, but with sheet aluminum standard signs (individual route markers, arrows, directions).  The older extruded and sheet aluminum signs, as seen below in the link, are still present for now.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6253381,-72.743629,3a,48y,81.57h,83.27t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sawp_rEG2smx3eWuK8b-fhQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

I don't get the small control city fonting on the BGSs at the on-ramps?!?! They look like crap. Highway Gothic but too small and narrow with no spacing between the letters.

Yeah, not a huge fan of that, either, but better than the sheet aluminums that were tried on CT 8 "in the valley".