Connecticut News

[mariethefoxy]

I have a question with CT 34, does it still go all the way to I-95 on the service roads they built when they took out the little freeway spur in New Haven or was it truncated since the signs from 95 and 91 dont have 34 shields anymore.

[MikeTheActuary]

This was approved by the legislature over a year ago and had seemingly been quietly forgotten about since, but...

https://www.wtnh.com/news/connecticut/connecticut-dot-placing-cameras-in-construction-zones-to-crack-down-on-speeding/?fbclid=IwAR2Qo9Q4GT5qf1MaEPmxBkMoSBuzk4fV_4OiX7WfyTYs94C2cwEgdI3be3Y

Looks like Connecticut will be placing revenue generation cameras in a few freeway work zones after all.

I have to assume someone in a position of power got to nagging since I doubt ConnDOT actually wanted to do this, and the state police are on the record as being in opposition (because they see it as their jobs being automated away).

I wonder -- in areas that are rabid with speed cameras, what is the speed tolerance?

The CT program authorization specifies a 15 mph tolerance, and that they be used only in work zones with speed limits of at least 45.   That doesn't seem unreasonable, although there is, of course, the concern of the slippery slope if the program evolves.

Here's the ConnDOT webpage on the speed cameras: https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/Know-the-Zone/About-Program

[SectorZ]

This was approved by the legislature over a year ago and had seemingly been quietly forgotten about since, but...

https://www.wtnh.com/news/connecticut/connecticut-dot-placing-cameras-in-construction-zones-to-crack-down-on-speeding/?fbclid=IwAR2Qo9Q4GT5qf1MaEPmxBkMoSBuzk4fV_4OiX7WfyTYs94C2cwEgdI3be3Y

Looks like Connecticut will be placing revenue generation cameras in a few freeway work zones after all.

I have to assume someone in a position of power got to nagging since I doubt ConnDOT actually wanted to do this, and the state police are on the record as being in opposition (because they see it as their jobs being automated away).

I wonder -- in areas that are rabid with speed cameras, what is the speed tolerance?

The CT program authorization specifies a 15 mph tolerance, and that they be used only in work zones with speed limits of at least 45.   That doesn't seem unreasonable, although there is, of course, the concern of the slippery slope if the program evolves.

Here's the ConnDOT webpage on the speed cameras: https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/Know-the-Zone/About-Program

I hope my state doesn't share registration info with them for revenue purposes given Connecticut won't for Massachusetts tolls.

[abqtraveler]

I have a question with CT 34, does it still go all the way to I-95 on the service roads they built when they took out the little freeway spur in New Haven or was it truncated since the signs from 95 and 91 dont have 34 shields anymore.

I've never seen anything official from CTDOT about removing the Route 34 designation from the frontage roads in New Haven, and turning ownership of the frontage roads over to the City of New Haven. Looking at GSV imagery from November 2021, there appears to no longer be Route 34 signage on the frontage roads, but a sign at the intersection of Route 10 and Legion Avenue suggests that the Route 34 designation hasn't been officially removed from the frontage roads. My theory would be is that you still have the freeway stub that the frontage roads tie into at the bridge crossing the railyard, which is still--and will be--state maintained. Maintaining state ownership of the frontage roads as a logical connection between the I-95/I-91 interchange and Route 10 would make sense IMHO.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3065956,-72.9527205,3a,15y,182.67h,89.7t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1soL6dhkRDJmPe3srTDcFVQQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

My guess is that the City of New Haven has worked with CTDOT to de-emphasize Route 34 along the frontage roads so that through-traffic (particularly trucks) use I-95 and Route 10 instead of going through downtown to get to Route 34 heading west toward Derby. Signage on I-95 approaching the Route 10 interchange would suggest this.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.2859394,-72.9263807,3a,75y,240.33h,80.7t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suomFLII1BMeyd34cD8-IAQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

[dgolub]

Article about the delays of Route 11 Expressway & widening of I-95 and the prioritized list of projects b/c of low funding:

http://www.theday.com/article/20100122/NWS12/301229849/1019&town=

Alos a list of prioritized projects in CT:
http://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/documents/dcommunications/misc/TICP2010_2014.pdf

Letter to FWHA, related to the above list:
http://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/documents/dcommunications/misc/Letter_to_Federal_Partners.pdf

These all seem to be broken links.

[dgolub]

I have a question with CT 34, does it still go all the way to I-95 on the service roads they built when they took out the little freeway spur in New Haven or was it truncated since the signs from 95 and 91 dont have 34 shields anymore.

I've never seen anything official from CTDOT about removing the Route 34 designation from the frontage roads in New Haven, and turning ownership of the frontage roads over to the City of New Haven. Looking at GSV imagery from November 2021, there appears to no longer be Route 34 signage on the frontage roads, but a sign at the intersection of Route 10 and Legion Avenue suggests that the Route 34 designation hasn't been officially removed from the frontage roads. My theory would be is that you still have the freeway stub that the frontage roads tie into at the bridge crossing the railyard, which is still--and will be--state maintained. Maintaining state ownership of the frontage roads as a logical connection between the I-95/I-91 interchange and Route 10 would make sense IMHO.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3065956,-72.9527205,3a,15y,182.67h,89.7t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1soL6dhkRDJmPe3srTDcFVQQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

My guess is that the City of New Haven has worked with CTDOT to de-emphasize Route 34 along the frontage roads so that through-traffic (particularly trucks) use I-95 and Route 10 instead of going through downtown to get to Route 34 heading west toward Derby. Signage on I-95 approaching the Route 10 interchange would suggest this.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.2859394,-72.9263807,3a,75y,240.33h,80.7t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suomFLII1BMeyd34cD8-IAQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

This.  The latest Highway Log still has the designation in there, but it's now (largely) unsigned.  We'll see if it's still there in the next publication of the Highway Log.

[kurumi]

I have a question with CT 34, does it still go all the way to I-95 on the service roads they built when they took out the little freeway spur in New Haven or was it truncated since the signs from 95 and 91 dont have 34 shields anymore.

I've never seen anything official from CTDOT about removing the Route 34 designation from the frontage roads in New Haven, and turning ownership of the frontage roads over to the City of New Haven. Looking at GSV imagery from November 2021, there appears to no longer be Route 34 signage on the frontage roads, but a sign at the intersection of Route 10 and Legion Avenue suggests that the Route 34 designation hasn't been officially removed from the frontage roads. My theory would be is that you still have the freeway stub that the frontage roads tie into at the bridge crossing the railyard, which is still--and will be--state maintained. Maintaining state ownership of the frontage roads as a logical connection between the I-95/I-91 interchange and Route 10 would make sense IMHO.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3065956,-72.9527205,3a,15y,182.67h,89.7t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1soL6dhkRDJmPe3srTDcFVQQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

My guess is that the City of New Haven has worked with CTDOT to de-emphasize Route 34 along the frontage roads so that through-traffic (particularly trucks) use I-95 and Route 10 instead of going through downtown to get to Route 34 heading west toward Derby. Signage on I-95 approaching the Route 10 interchange would suggest this.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.2859394,-72.9263807,3a,75y,240.33h,80.7t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suomFLII1BMeyd34cD8-IAQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

This.  The latest Highway Log still has the designation in there, but it's now (largely) unsigned.  We'll see if it's still there in the next publication of the Highway Log.

I'd expect an eventual SR number for that route. SR 706 could be extended east from the northern frontage road it's on now. (SR 734 is currently in use.) Or give it a new number, like SR 795, and enjoy the confusion when it gets the occasional "I-695" treatment that SR 695 gets in the news.

[Alps]

I have a question with CT 34, does it still go all the way to I-95 on the service roads they built when they took out the little freeway spur in New Haven or was it truncated since the signs from 95 and 91 dont have 34 shields anymore.

I believe the answer is 34 exists up to the west side of town and exists for the I-95 interchange, but no longer exists on the two one-way roads connecting those.

[MASTERNC]

This was approved by the legislature over a year ago and had seemingly been quietly forgotten about since, but...

https://www.wtnh.com/news/connecticut/connecticut-dot-placing-cameras-in-construction-zones-to-crack-down-on-speeding/?fbclid=IwAR2Qo9Q4GT5qf1MaEPmxBkMoSBuzk4fV_4OiX7WfyTYs94C2cwEgdI3be3Y

Looks like Connecticut will be placing revenue generation cameras in a few freeway work zones after all.

I have to assume someone in a position of power got to nagging since I doubt ConnDOT actually wanted to do this, and the state police are on the record as being in opposition (because they see it as their jobs being automated away).

I'm not sure revenue is the primary motivation when the cameras won't ticket vehicles going less than 15 over the limit, and the first violation is a written warning.  If they ran the cameras 24/7 and gave out $40 tickets to any offender like Maryland, I would say otherwise.

[Plutonic Panda]

This was approved by the legislature over a year ago and had seemingly been quietly forgotten about since, but...

https://www.wtnh.com/news/connecticut/connecticut-dot-placing-cameras-in-construction-zones-to-crack-down-on-speeding/?fbclid=IwAR2Qo9Q4GT5qf1MaEPmxBkMoSBuzk4fV_4OiX7WfyTYs94C2cwEgdI3be3Y

Looks like Connecticut will be placing revenue generation cameras in a few freeway work zones after all.

I have to assume someone in a position of power got to nagging since I doubt ConnDOT actually wanted to do this, and the state police are on the record as being in opposition (because they see it as their jobs being automated away).

I'm not sure revenue is the primary motivation when the cameras won't ticket vehicles going less than 15 over the limit, and the first violation is a written warning.  If they ran the cameras 24/7 and gave out $40 tickets to any offender like Maryland, I would say otherwise.

That only shows it isn't about safety and only about revenue generation. Automated traffic needs to be federally banned except for school and work zones.

[RobbieL2415]

This was approved by the legislature over a year ago and had seemingly been quietly forgotten about since, but...

https://www.wtnh.com/news/connecticut/connecticut-dot-placing-cameras-in-construction-zones-to-crack-down-on-speeding/?fbclid=IwAR2Qo9Q4GT5qf1MaEPmxBkMoSBuzk4fV_4OiX7WfyTYs94C2cwEgdI3be3Y

Looks like Connecticut will be placing revenue generation cameras in a few freeway work zones after all.

I have to assume someone in a position of power got to nagging since I doubt ConnDOT actually wanted to do this, and the state police are on the record as being in opposition (because they see it as their jobs being automated away).

I'm not sure revenue is the primary motivation when the cameras won't ticket vehicles going less than 15 over the limit, and the first violation is a written warning.  If they ran the cameras 24/7 and gave out $40 tickets to any offender like Maryland, I would say otherwise.

Maryland is ridiculous to enforce work zone speed limits even when no workers are present.

[MASTERNC]

This was approved by the legislature over a year ago and had seemingly been quietly forgotten about since, but...

https://www.wtnh.com/news/connecticut/connecticut-dot-placing-cameras-in-construction-zones-to-crack-down-on-speeding/?fbclid=IwAR2Qo9Q4GT5qf1MaEPmxBkMoSBuzk4fV_4OiX7WfyTYs94C2cwEgdI3be3Y

Looks like Connecticut will be placing revenue generation cameras in a few freeway work zones after all.

I have to assume someone in a position of power got to nagging since I doubt ConnDOT actually wanted to do this, and the state police are on the record as being in opposition (because they see it as their jobs being automated away).

I'm not sure revenue is the primary motivation when the cameras won't ticket vehicles going less than 15 over the limit, and the first violation is a written warning.  If they ran the cameras 24/7 and gave out $40 tickets to any offender like Maryland, I would say otherwise.

Maryland is ridiculous to enforce work zone speed limits even when no workers are present.

Delaware enforced 24/7 in a pilot program (using fixed cameras), and Pennsylvania's annual reports seem to advocate for enforcement when workers aren't present.  Hopefully that doesn't happen (or is very limited in scope).

[RobbieL2415]

This was approved by the legislature over a year ago and had seemingly been quietly forgotten about since, but...

https://www.wtnh.com/news/connecticut/connecticut-dot-placing-cameras-in-construction-zones-to-crack-down-on-speeding/?fbclid=IwAR2Qo9Q4GT5qf1MaEPmxBkMoSBuzk4fV_4OiX7WfyTYs94C2cwEgdI3be3Y

Looks like Connecticut will be placing revenue generation cameras in a few freeway work zones after all.

I have to assume someone in a position of power got to nagging since I doubt ConnDOT actually wanted to do this, and the state police are on the record as being in opposition (because they see it as their jobs being automated away).

I'm not sure revenue is the primary motivation when the cameras won't ticket vehicles going less than 15 over the limit, and the first violation is a written warning.  If they ran the cameras 24/7 and gave out $40 tickets to any offender like Maryland, I would say otherwise.

Maryland is ridiculous to enforce work zone speed limits even when no workers are present.

Delaware enforced 24/7 in a pilot program (using fixed cameras), and Pennsylvania's annual reports seem to advocate for enforcement when workers aren't present.  Hopefully that doesn't happen (or is very limited in scope).

I mean, I guess the only time you would want 24/7 enforcement if there's narrow lanes or a significant lane shift.

[kurumi]

Connecticut is getting another Exit 89 and 91: https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/CTDOT-Press-Releases/2023/Replacement-of-Highway-Signs-along-Route-6-and-Interstate-384

The existing signs have exceeded their useful service life and are in need of replacement...

To be in conformance with Federal standards, exit numbers on I-384 are required to be revised from the existing sequential numbering to mileage-based numbering.  Additionally, mileage-based exit numbers will be added to U.S. Route 6 signs...

The design plans for the project are expected to be completed in the summer of 2023 with construction commencing in 2024.

I-384's exit numbers will be adjusted slightly. The US 6 freeway near Willimantic will get new exit numbers for CT 32 and CT 195 (exit 89 and 91), but not its termini (both at CT 66).

[Ted$8roadFan]

Work is beginning to remove the stop sign from the on-ramp from CT-17 to CT-9 in Middletown:

https://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/construction-begins-to-upgrade-dangerous-route-9-on-ramp-in-middletown/3011626/

[jp the roadgeek]

Connecticut is getting another Exit 89 and 91: https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/CTDOT-Press-Releases/2023/Replacement-of-Highway-Signs-along-Route-6-and-Interstate-384

The existing signs have exceeded their useful service life and are in need of replacement...

To be in conformance with Federal standards, exit numbers on I-384 are required to be revised from the existing sequential numbering to mileage-based numbering.  Additionally, mileage-based exit numbers will be added to U.S. Route 6 signs...

The design plans for the project are expected to be completed in the summer of 2023 with construction commencing in 2024.

I-384's exit numbers will be adjusted slightly. The US 6 freeway near Willimantic will get new exit numbers for CT 32 and CT 195 (exit 89 and 91), but not its termini (both at CT 66).

Nor will the western terminus of I-384 as it flows into I-84.  Yet, the western terminus of I-691 does as it does so similarly.  It's understandable that the 66 connections don't, as it's mainline US 6. 

[bob7374]

Connecticut is getting another Exit 89 and 91: https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/CTDOT-Press-Releases/2023/Replacement-of-Highway-Signs-along-Route-6-and-Interstate-384

The existing signs have exceeded their useful service life and are in need of replacement...

To be in conformance with Federal standards, exit numbers on I-384 are required to be revised from the existing sequential numbering to mileage-based numbering.  Additionally, mileage-based exit numbers will be added to U.S. Route 6 signs...

The design plans for the project are expected to be completed in the summer of 2023 with construction commencing in 2024.

I-384's exit numbers will be adjusted slightly. The US 6 freeway near Willimantic will get new exit numbers for CT 32 and CT 195 (exit 89 and 91), but not its termini (both at CT 66).

Nor will the western terminus of I-384 as it flows into I-84.  Yet, the western terminus of I-691 does as it does so similarly.  It's understandable that the 66 connections don't, as it's mainline US 6. 

Those who jumped to the FAQ link saw that the CT 15 exit renumbering that was to be advertised this summer is now not taking place until 2025. The FAQ also says the I-384 exit renumbering won't happen until 2026. I guess I shouldn't be surprised with that date even if, as the press release says, work is to start in 2024. After all, they do have signs to replace  for all of 7 exits.

[abqtraveler]

Just realized CTDOT picked the worst week of the year to renumber I-691's exits.  Out of towners going to the Daffodil Festival at Hubbard Park on 4/29 and 4/30 are going to have fun when their GPS tells them to get off Exit 4, and they end up getting off the new exit 4.

Just looking at traffic cams this morning, and I see no sign of exit renumbering taking place yet on I-691. Has anyone been on I-691 within the past couple of weeks to confirm whether or not exit renumbering is actually taking place?

[shadyjay]

Just realized CTDOT picked the worst week of the year to renumber I-691's exits.  Out of towners going to the Daffodil Festival at Hubbard Park on 4/29 and 4/30 are going to have fun when their GPS tells them to get off Exit 4, and they end up getting off the new exit 4.

Just looking at traffic cams this morning, and I see no sign of exit renumbering taking place yet on I-691. Has anyone been on I-691 within the past couple of weeks to confirm whether or not exit renumbering is actually taking place?

Was on it last week and saw nothing yet, except a VMS saying the conversion was starting 4/24. 
Lots of new foundations in espec on the west end for new signs, though no supports up yet.  We may see the numbers changed on the existing signs before the new signs appear. 

[jp the roadgeek]

Just realized CTDOT picked the worst week of the year to renumber I-691's exits.  Out of towners going to the Daffodil Festival at Hubbard Park on 4/29 and 4/30 are going to have fun when their GPS tells them to get off Exit 4, and they end up getting off the new exit 4.

Just looking at traffic cams this morning, and I see no sign of exit renumbering taking place yet on I-691. Has anyone been on I-691 within the past couple of weeks to confirm whether or not exit renumbering is actually taking place?

Was on it last week and saw nothing yet, except a VMS saying the conversion was starting 4/24. 
Lots of new foundations in espec on the west end for new signs, though no supports up yet.  We may see the numbers changed on the existing signs before the new signs appear.

Was on it tonight between current Exits 4 and 10.  No new OLD/NEW exit LGS's are even up yet, so I have a feeling the 4/24 date may be the date that they start erecting the LGS's, with the actual conversion taking place after that.  The only thing that was noticeable were the new light poles that are replacing the poles that have been there since the US 6A days, plus the east side has been resurfaced and is much smoother.  I also drove 72 West today and can confirm that there are mileposts from MP 0.4 to 1.4, then they suddenly stop.  Nothing eastbound yet.  Also, mileposts are up on 9 South all the way up to 84. 

[Alex]

I have a question with CT 34, does it still go all the way to I-95 on the service roads they built when they took out the little freeway spur in New Haven or was it truncated since the signs from 95 and 91 dont have 34 shields anymore.

Took the freeway stub into New Haven last month and the only reference of Route 34 was a shield for a detour on an intersecting street for the service roads.

Would anyone be opposed if the Connecticut exit renumbering discussion moves onto a separate thread? Non exit number news/posts get lost in the numerous exit number updates.

[The Ghostbuster]

If you think a separate thread for the Connecticut Exit Renumbering plan would be best, by all means create a new thread. After all, if the Massachusetts Exit Renumbering plan had its own thread, Connecticut's should have one too.

[Ted$8roadFan]

A separate thread makes sense, especially since the ConnDOT is (like so many other things) hell-bent on dragging out the renumbering process for as long as possible.

[abqtraveler]

If you think a separate thread for the Connecticut Exit Renumbering plan would be best, by all means create a new thread. After all, if the Massachusetts Exit Renumbering plan had its own thread, Connecticut's should have one too.

Concur.

[SectorZ]

I fourth breaking out the exit numbering to its own thread, especially with Massachusetts having its own the standard exists.