Connecticut News

[jp the roadgeek]

Drove 72 west of I-84 this morning.  The Old Exit signs are up, new gore signs are up and blacked out, and the only gantries that need replacing are both westbound: the single tube exit now for current exit 2, and the 1 mile advance/lane ends for Exit 1.  There is a new empty chorded truss just west of Exit 1 for the expressway ends sign.  I'd expect the big reveal sometime in the next month or two, but exit tabs have yet to be added to the APL's for the EB terminus.

[RyanB06]

I did the same today and can confirm. The numbers were supposed to change over on 72 today, so I'd expect any missing signage to go up tonight if at all. (This is Connecticut we're talking about, so....)

[kernals12]

ConnDOT is narrowing down the alternatives for rebuilding the Mixmaster in Waterbury. And they have dismissed the idea of turning Route 8 into a boulevard

[shadyjay]

I did the same today and can confirm. The numbers were supposed to change over on 72 today, so I'd expect any missing signage to go up tonight if at all. (This is Connecticut we're talking about, so....)

Ha!  Thought that with CT 9, and yet, we still have button copy signage up with mile-based exits... so.... yeah.... CT

[SectorZ]

ConnDOT is narrowing down the alternatives for rebuilding the Mixmaster in Waterbury. And they have dismissed the idea of turning Route 8 into a boulevard

I like the South City Bypass idea, so it will be interesting to see how much further consideration that will get.

I know it's standard, but the "failure is always an option" no build scenario moving forward amazes me.

[jp the roadgeek]

The CT 72 exit number change is either underway, or already complete.  Saw the new WB Exit 4 (former 2) and EB Exit 2 (former 7) signage as I drove by on 84 East this morning. 

[abqtraveler]

ConnDOT is narrowing down the alternatives for rebuilding the Mixmaster in Waterbury. And they have dismissed the idea of turning Route 8 into a boulevard

I like the South City Bypass idea, so it will be interesting to see how much further consideration that will get.

I know it's standard, but the "failure is always an option" no build scenario moving forward amazes me.

They have to include the "No Build" option in the preparation of the EIS/EIE to meet the requirements of NEPA. The "No Build" is used to establish a baseline against which to compare all of the "Build" alternatives that will be considered in the EIS/EIE.

If you look at it from the scientist's perspective, when performing an experiment, there will be a Control Group and an Experimental Group. The Control Group is the baseline against which the various Experimental Groups will be analyzed and compared.  The Control Group typically consists of things that are well known and established, where the Experimental Groups are the things that are unknown and we're trying to find out. In that context, you can think of the No-Build option as the Control group, and each of the various Build options as the Experimental Groups. 

[kurumi]

Continuing the clinical analogy, which alternative would be the placebo? :-)

I'm happy to see the south bypass alternative advancing. That's one that occurred to me from looking at aerial photos (though without any diligence at all) where there's a corridor of less-developed land leading from I-84/CT 63 to I-84 east of CT 69. Whether that's due to terrain or other reasons, I don't know.

Have there been other CT projects besides I-84 Danbury where 10 to 20 alternatives have come up in brainstorming (and put online) before they get culled?

[abqtraveler]

Continuing the clinical analogy, which alternative would be the placebo? :-)

I'm happy to see the south bypass alternative advancing. That's one that occurred to me from looking at aerial photos (though without any diligence at all) where there's a corridor of less-developed land leading from I-84/CT 63 to I-84 east of CT 69. Whether that's due to terrain or other reasons, I don't know.

Have there been other CT projects besides I-84 Danbury where 10 to 20 alternatives have come up in brainstorming (and put online) before they get culled?

There's the saga about what to do with I-84, I-91, and just about every other freeway in and around Hartford. That originally started with replacing the I-84 viaduct through downtown Hartford, but that project's scope was expanded to include options for reconfiguring the highways in and around the capital city to better circulate traffic and undo some of the damage to Hartford and East Hartford that was caused with the construction of I-84 and I-91 back in the '05s and '60s.

[abqtraveler]

This is the only instance of the Clearview font being used on a highway sign that I know of in Connecticut.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3607316,-72.0536236,3a,41.8y,283.04h,88.51t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1shr6FO6_Rj4OI0UgezOpgyQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3Dhr6FO6_Rj4OI0UgezOpgyQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D307.63434%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192

[shadyjay]

^^ If that exit gore sign is Clearview, it doesn't look half bad.

There used to be a couple guide sign examples... CT 9 NB at (former) Exit 30 and I-84 West at Exits 22-21 in Waterbury... both examples no longer exist.

CV only seems to have caught on in Vermont, where there's some 130 continuous miles of it on I-89 and a good 1/2 of I-91 of it.  Its not terrible... not a fan of the tail on the lowercase "l" but I guess it distinguishes it from the lowercase "i". 

[Mergingtraffic]

ConnDOT is narrowing down the alternatives for rebuilding the Mixmaster in Waterbury. And they have dismissed the idea of turning Route 8 into a boulevard

I like the South City Bypass idea, so it will be interesting to see how much further consideration that will get.

I know it's standard, but the "failure is always an option" no build scenario moving forward amazes me.

They have to include the "No Build" option in the preparation of the EIS/EIE to meet the requirements of NEPA. The "No Build" is used to establish a baseline against which to compare all of the "Build" alternatives that will be considered in the EIS/EIE.

If you look at it from the scientist's perspective, when performing an experiment, there will be a Control Group and an Experimental Group. The Control Group is the baseline against which the various Experimental Groups will be analyzed and compared.  The Control Group typically consists of things that are well known and established, where the Experimental Groups are the things that are unknown and we're trying to find out. In that context, you can think of the No-Build option as the Control group, and each of the various Build options as the Experimental Groups. 

But will all of this be for nothing???  This is the second time we are doing this.  It was done in 2007, I even went to a meeting about it.  It's amazing how mny times things are repeated.  So will the state actually be able to keep the ball going with this.

A lot of alternatives still have some left exits and entrances, boy CT just can't let go of that.

CT-9

And I still say the CT-9 stoplight project is wrong, by having NB having a left exit and entrance.  I don't see why they can't just reverse it and put the ramps on the right side, it would make the ramp curvatures not as sharp.  It would still take up the same footprint.

CT-15 SB ramp to US-7
The decelleration lane was finally finished and open, makes a huge difference  It's Exit 40B.  Something simple that should've been done years ago.

Logo Signs and randome BGS
Noticed on I-84 WB, there's a new extruded aluminum Southbury Training School, State Police Exit 14 BGS that was put up a couple years ago that wasn't in a spot improvement project.  So, does CT DOT replace BGS signs outside of one of those 20 sign spot replacement contracts?

Does CT DOT plan to replace th button copy logo service signs?  Some of them are hard to read at night. I know they aren't owned by the state but they are maintained by the state.

[MikeTheActuary]

And I still say the CT-9 stoplight project is wrong, by having NB having a left exit and entrance.  I don't see why they can't just reverse it and put the ramps on the right side, it would make the ramp curvatures not as sharp.  It would still take up the same footprint.

Assuming the illustrations in https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOT/documents/dprojects/Project0082-0318/0082-0318-Public-Info-Handout-2018.pdf represent the current plan, I think that shifting the onramp to enter Route 9 northbound from the right would have a somewhat bigger footprint.

I wouldn't be surprised if the left exit is driven by some combination of environmental concerns due to the proximity to the river, aesthetic concerns, and awareness that the left lane northbound is already going to be disrupted by the left entrance ramp.

[cockroachking]

And I still say the CT-9 stoplight project is wrong, by having NB having a left exit and entrance.  I don't see why they can't just reverse it and put the ramps on the right side, it would make the ramp curvatures not as sharp.  It would still take up the same footprint.

Assuming the illustrations in https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOT/documents/dprojects/Project0082-0318/0082-0318-Public-Info-Handout-2018.pdf represent the current plan, I think that shifting the onramp to enter Route 9 northbound from the right would have a somewhat bigger footprint.

I wouldn't be surprised if the left exit is driven by some combination of environmental concerns due to the proximity to the river, aesthetic concerns, and awareness that the left lane northbound is already going to be disrupted by the left entrance ramp.

The left side ramps are obviously not ideal from an operational standpoint, but at this point they are still much better than signalized intersections.

[Ted$8roadFan]

And I still say the CT-9 stoplight project is wrong, by having NB having a left exit and entrance.  I don't see why they can't just reverse it and put the ramps on the right side, it would make the ramp curvatures not as sharp.  It would still take up the same footprint.

Assuming the illustrations in https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOT/documents/dprojects/Project0082-0318/0082-0318-Public-Info-Handout-2018.pdf represent the current plan, I think that shifting the onramp to enter Route 9 northbound from the right would have a somewhat bigger footprint.

I wouldn't be surprised if the left exit is driven by some combination of environmental concerns due to the proximity to the river, aesthetic concerns, and awareness that the left lane northbound is already going to be disrupted by the left entrance ramp.

The left side ramps are obviously not ideal from an operational standpoint, but at this point they are still much better than signalized intersections.

IMO the left lane on ramp from CT-17 to CT-9 north (Figure 6 in the CDOT plan) could be more problematic due to the high speed merge, even without the traffic signals. I have less of an issue with the left-lane off-ramp to Rapallo Avenue, although I can easily see traffic backing up on to CT-9 during busy times. This is probably the best of a not ideal situation. I think any alternative would involve impact to the river, and even more $$ than the current plan will cost.

[connroadgeek]

But will all of this be for nothing???  This is the second time we are doing this.  It was done in 2007, I even went to a meeting about it.  It's amazing how mny times things are repeated.

We'll do this dance every 10-15 years. How many times did we do this for the completion of route 11? The legislative branch needs to tell the executive they will not fund million dollar study after study for no reason. New rule is you get one bite at that apple, and then you need to s*it or get off the pot instead of kicking the can down the road so that your buddy's "consulting company" can rake in another $5 million to regurgitate the same environmental or transportation alternative study.

[abqtraveler]

But will all of this be for nothing???  This is the second time we are doing this.  It was done in 2007, I even went to a meeting about it.  It's amazing how mny times things are repeated.

We'll do this dance every 10-15 years. How many times did we do this for the completion of route 11? The legislative branch needs to tell the executive they will not fund million dollar study after study for no reason. New rule is you get one bite at that apple, and then you need to s*it or get off the pot instead of kicking the can down the road so that your buddy's "consulting company" can rake in another $5 million to regurgitate the same environmental or transportation alternative study.

After how many studies, CTDOT finally gave up on trying to extend it to the I-95/395 interchange in Waterford. Up until about 10 years ago they were still thinking they could get it done, but once they uncovered Native American artifacts from the colonial and pre-colonial eras along the route during the last environmental study, that was the final nail in the coffin for that project.

[kernals12]

But will all of this be for nothing???  This is the second time we are doing this.  It was done in 2007, I even went to a meeting about it.  It's amazing how mny times things are repeated.

We'll do this dance every 10-15 years. How many times did we do this for the completion of route 11? The legislative branch needs to tell the executive they will not fund million dollar study after study for no reason. New rule is you get one bite at that apple, and then you need to s*it or get off the pot instead of kicking the can down the road so that your buddy's "consulting company" can rake in another $5 million to regurgitate the same environmental or transportation alternative study.

The good news is Connecticut has seemed to stop being a fiscal basket case.

[abqtraveler]

But will all of this be for nothing???  This is the second time we are doing this.  It was done in 2007, I even went to a meeting about it.  It's amazing how mny times things are repeated.

We'll do this dance every 10-15 years. How many times did we do this for the completion of route 11? The legislative branch needs to tell the executive they will not fund million dollar study after study for no reason. New rule is you get one bite at that apple, and then you need to s*it or get off the pot instead of kicking the can down the road so that your buddy's "consulting company" can rake in another $5 million to regurgitate the same environmental or transportation alternative study.

The good news is Connecticut has seemed to stop being a fiscal basket case.

For now, until the money from Biden's "Blue State Bailout"...err...American Rescue Plan...and IIJA...run out.

[RobbieL2415]

So, I don't know if it's poor road geometry or just heavy volume in general, but there's always a slowdown on I-84 EB from after Exit 62 to Exit 64-65. Traffic always has difficulty maintaining a consistent speed through that stretch.

[Mergingtraffic]

The left side ramps are obviously not ideal from an operational standpoint, but at this point they are still much better than signalized intersections.

I agree with that, but after awhile the memoryof the stoplights will fade and they'll want to realign in with right side ramps in the future.  So, I say just do it right from the get go.

[Mergingtraffic]

So, I don't know if it's poor road geometry or just heavy volume in general, but there's always a slowdown on I-84 EB from after Exit 62 to Exit 64-65. Traffic always has difficulty maintaining a consistent speed through that stretch.

and that's a well designed road (especially for CT Standards lol)

[Ted$8roadFan]

So, I don't know if it's poor road geometry or just heavy volume in general, but there's always a slowdown on I-84 EB from after Exit 62 to Exit 64-65. Traffic always has difficulty maintaining a consistent speed through that stretch.

and that's a well designed road (especially for CT Standards lol)

It could be a number of things, such as usual volume, Boston-New York traffic (and Northeast Corridor traffic in general), traffic from 384 and 291, mall traffic, and the lane drop after the HOV merge east of Exit 66

[Mergingtraffic]

https://www.ctinsider.com/politics/article/lawmakers-critical-dot-clear-cutting-trees-along-17810156.php

I'm with the DOT on this one.  Fairfield neighbors complaining about tree cutting along I-95 and Merritt.  They were upset about it being done at 2am.  As someone who's sat in traffic for tree cutting on I-95 on Saturday mornings at 10am, I'm glad to see the DOT trying to lessen traffic impacts.

[MikeTheActuary]

I usually attribute the slower traffic through that stretch to the relatively heavy volume of traffic entering at 62 and 63, and the heavy volume of traffic exiting at 63 and 64.   Lots of movement into/out of the right lane.