Connecticut News

[Ted$8roadFan]

The 80s and 90s appear to be the last time that the state actually cared about improving its road infrastructure.

Traffic was growing rapidly in the 80s and 90s. It's been flat since the mid 2000s.

But that being said, it's absolutely not true that there have been *no* improvements. US 7 in Northern Ridgefield got widened to 4 lanes (I watched the construction project when I was a young child), Brookfield got a freeway bypass, The Quinnipiac River bridge in New Haven was widened to 10 lanes, auxiliary lanes were added to 95 between Stamford and Norwalk, and most recently, I-84 in Waterbury was widened to 6 lanes.

There have certainly been improvements. But the state keeps stumbling on many bigger picture items, such as I-95 between New Haven and the RI birderm and I-84 in Hartford and Danbury.

[RobbieL2415]

I sense something is afoot....
Here I present one gantry... two views... I-84 westbound and eastbound at Exit 53 in East Hartford.  Note the signs appear new, but their backs reveal otherwise. 


DSC04329 by Jay Hogan, on Flickr


84EB-Exit53 by Jay Hogan, on Flickr



So what's going on here?  Are these temporary overlays over the existing signs?  The gantry is supposed to be replaced (at least according to the contract plans).  So, why bother going through the trouble to do temporary overlays?  And please, tell me, this is not the latest round of ConnDOT cost savings... "Hey!  We can make every sign out of sheet aluminum, even the exit signs, and just staple them to whatever sign is there already!"


Also, travelled Route 2 from East Hartford down to Colchester, along with all of Route 11.  Outside of some new mile markers and some covered-over gore signs, there isn't anything new to speak of.  Seems like most activity is still concentrating east of Colchester (for now).  On Route 11, just the sheets are replaced, mostly.  No new extrudeds yet, except onramp signage.

I saw those too. My only thought is that the contractor for the project is delayed in producing the replacement signage so ConnDOT did an in-house fix to last until it can be permanently replaced. It could also be temporary in order to increase nighttime readability. I'll bet the button copy on the BGSs in both directions has completely lost its reflection.

Personally I think its more egregious that they resurfaced the end of Exit 62 EB and did a piss-poor Crayola crayon job with the lines.

[RobbieL2415]

I asked this question on this thread a while back but didn't get an answer:

Is there a particular reason why crosswalk signals in CT aren't timed with the phases of the traffic signals, like it is in NYC for example?

[Rothman]

I asked this question on this thread a while back but didn't get an answer:

Is there a particular reason why crosswalk signals in CT aren't timed with the phases of the traffic signals, like it is in NYC for example?

You probably didn't get an answer because it is most likely this blanket statement is untrue.

[Ted$8roadFan]

I sense something is afoot....
Here I present one gantry... two views... I-84 westbound and eastbound at Exit 53 in East Hartford.  Note the signs appear new, but their backs reveal otherwise. 


DSC04329 by Jay Hogan, on Flickr


84EB-Exit53 by Jay Hogan, on Flickr



So what's going on here?  Are these temporary overlays over the existing signs?  The gantry is supposed to be replaced (at least according to the contract plans).  So, why bother going through the trouble to do temporary overlays?  And please, tell me, this is not the latest round of ConnDOT cost savings... "Hey!  We can make every sign out of sheet aluminum, even the exit signs, and just staple them to whatever sign is there already!"


Also, travelled Route 2 from East Hartford down to Colchester, along with all of Route 11.  Outside of some new mile markers and some covered-over gore signs, there isn't anything new to speak of.  Seems like most activity is still concentrating east of Colchester (for now).  On Route 11, just the sheets are replaced, mostly.  No new extrudeds yet, except onramp signage.

I was kind of surprised to see I-91 South placed on the I-84 WB sign, although it looks easy enough from GSV. Besides the Charter Oak Bridge, there's no other access to I-91 south from that area of East Hartford.

[RobbieL2415]

I asked this question on this thread a while back but didn't get an answer:

Is there a particular reason why crosswalk signals in CT aren't timed with the phases of the traffic signals, like it is in NYC for example?

You probably didn't get an answer because it is most likely this blanket statement is untrue.

It's true at every intersection I've come across in this state, at least. It doesn't make sense to me, from a pedestrian safety standpoint. If peds are just going to cross and not obey the crossing signals, then what is the point of having them be push-to-activate?

[connroadgeek]

It's true at every intersection I've come across in this state, at least. It doesn't make sense to me, from a pedestrian safety standpoint. If peds are just going to cross and not obey the crossing signals, then what is the point of having them be push-to-activate?

Anecdotal, but it seems like CT prefers all-walk phases when the buttons are pushed, but people are impatient and don't wait for the signal timing so they just go when the coast is clear.

[shadyjay]

I was kind of surprised to see I-91 South placed on the I-84 WB sign, although it looks easy enough from GSV. Besides the Charter Oak Bridge, there's no other access to I-91 south from that area of East Hartford.

Its really only meant for traffic entering from either Conn Blvd (US 44) or Governor St.  Most traffic bound for I-91 South from I-84 West would've already exited at Exit 57 and taken the Charter Oak Bridge.  Traffic in East Hartford itself to I-91 South is directed typically down US 5 to the Charter Oak Bridge. 

[jp the roadgeek]

I was kind of surprised to see I-91 South placed on the I-84 WB sign, although it looks easy enough from GSV. Besides the Charter Oak Bridge, there's no other access to I-91 south from that area of East Hartford.

Its really only meant for traffic entering from either Conn Blvd (US 44) or Governor St.  Most traffic bound for I-91 South from I-84 West would've already exited at Exit 57 and taken the Charter Oak Bridge.  Traffic in East Hartford itself to I-91 South is directed typically down US 5 to the Charter Oak Bridge.

Those were "in-kind" replacements.  Really have to think the TO I-91 South thing is unnecessary; more of a leftover from when the ramp from the Founders Bridge to I-91 South was closed (the signage for Exit 54 used to read "I-91 South /Downtown Hartford, and even appeared in the Modern Lovers' Road Runner video).  That happened in 1990, so I think people have become accustomed to using the Charter Oak Bridge, and 90% of the traffic coming from Governor Street and Connecticut Boulevard is local traffic (plus 91 South traffic from Governor Street can always take CT 2 to CT 3 to access 91 South if they're headed to New Haven or points south of Wethersfield. 

[shadyjay]

Well... how do you like that!

Screenshot 2023-06-20 193029 by Jay Hogan, on Flickr

I like the "Groton" added to the Exit 55 sign.


I remember when the Founders Bridge served as the connection from 91N->84E and 84W->91S.  I only briefly ever remember the original Exit 29 left exit to the Charter Oak Bridge being open (that ramp basically being where the present 15N->91N ramp is).  The 15N->91N ramp left 15N before it crossed 91N and entered on the right side of 91N where the most-recent/now-closed Exit 29 was located.

[RobbieL2415]

It's true at every intersection I've come across in this state, at least. It doesn't make sense to me, from a pedestrian safety standpoint. If peds are just going to cross and not obey the crossing signals, then what is the point of having them be push-to-activate?

Anecdotal, but it seems like CT prefers all-walk phases when the buttons are pushed, but people are impatient and don't wait for the signal timing so they just go when the coast is clear.

Right, which is why I don't understand why they don't get rid of the push-buttons and go to timed signals.

[Rothman]

It's true at every intersection I've come across in this state, at least. It doesn't make sense to me, from a pedestrian safety standpoint. If peds are just going to cross and not obey the crossing signals, then what is the point of having them be push-to-activate?

Anecdotal, but it seems like CT prefers all-walk phases when the buttons are pushed, but people are impatient and don't wait for the signal timing so they just go when the coast is clear.

Right, which is why I don't understand why they don't get rid of the push-buttons and go to timed signals.

I don't see how just crossing when the coast is clear is unique to Connecticut.

Reminds me of the very old joke about UMass that you can't find any of their alumni since they all moved away and got hit by cars by assuming people everywhere stop for pedestrians.

Bill Pullman excluded...

[RobbieL2415]

I was kind of surprised to see I-91 South placed on the I-84 WB sign, although it looks easy enough from GSV. Besides the Charter Oak Bridge, there's no other access to I-91 south from that area of East Hartford.

Its really only meant for traffic entering from either Conn Blvd (US 44) or Governor St.  Most traffic bound for I-91 South from I-84 West would've already exited at Exit 57 and taken the Charter Oak Bridge.  Traffic in East Hartford itself to I-91 South is directed typically down US 5 to the Charter Oak Bridge.

Those were "in-kind" replacements.  Really have to think the TO I-91 South thing is unnecessary; more of a leftover from when the ramp from the Founders Bridge to I-91 South was closed (the signage for Exit 54 used to read "I-91 South /Downtown Hartford, and even appeared in the Modern Lovers' Road Runner video).  That happened in 1990, so I think people have become accustomed to using the Charter Oak Bridge, and 90% of the traffic coming from Governor Street and Connecticut Boulevard is local traffic (plus 91 South traffic from Governor Street can always take CT 2 to CT 3 to access 91 South if they're headed to New Haven or points south of Wethersfield.

I'll bet you a lot of people forget to take Exit 57 for 91 S and people complain to ConnDOT, so they added the additional destination.

[bob7374]

Looked at the latest CTDOT project advertising list updated through June 12. Three new sign contracts spotted for next year. They are also advertising a contract to replace aluminum signing along I-95 from Branford to Madison on March 27, 2024. The replacing of signs and supports along CT 15 between Milford and Meriden, perhaps to include exit renumbering, is to be advertised on May 8, 2024 while the replacing of signs and supports along I-95 between Clinton and New London, not to include new exit numbers is to be advertised on May 29, 2024.

The new schedule is at: https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOT/documents/dfiscalprojects/advschedule11-2021.pdf

[mariethefoxy]

Clinton to New London on 95 seems to be the last part of I-95 that consistently still has button copy. Same with I-91 from Hartford to Massachusetts.

[RobbieL2415]

Looked at the latest CTDOT project advertising list updated through June 12. Three new sign contracts spotted for next year. They are also advertising a contract to replace aluminum signing along I-95 from Branford to Madison on March 27, 2024. The replacing of signs and supports along CT 15 between Milford and Meriden, perhaps to include exit renumbering, is to be advertised on May 8, 2024 while the replacing of signs and supports along I-95 between Clinton and New London, not to include new exit numbers is to be advertised on May 29, 2024.

The new schedule is at: https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOT/documents/dfiscalprojects/advschedule11-2021.pdf

Didn't realize the bridges for I-684 in Greenwich were ConnDOT maintained.

The I-91/I-691-US 5/CT 15 interchange project goes out to big in late September.

I-291 and CT 189/CT 187 sign replacement goes out to bid in December.

The Heroes Tunnel Project goes out to bid in March, 2024.

Looks like the sign replacement for the Wilbur Cross Parkway goes out to bid next May.

[shadyjay]

Clinton to New London on 95 seems to be the last part of I-95 that consistently still has button copy. Same with I-91 from Hartford to Massachusetts.

Only part of "Clinton to New London" on I-95 that still has button copy is Exits 68-70, and that dates to 1993 as part of the Baldwin Bridge replacement.  The rest was installed in 2000 and is "Phase IV" (with service bars).  There are a handful of signs along the Frontage Roads in New London and at I-95 Exit 83 which never got replaced, so they're probably late 80s vintage.

The big stretch of button copy on I-95 is Branford/Exit 54 to Guilford/Exit 59.  This stretch was installed c 1992 and replaced the original turnpike signage dating back to 1958.  So right now, since 1958, that stretch is only on its 2nd generation of signage. 

Still kind of shocked about the WCP getting new signs already.  Again, they're 2001 vintage, which isn't old, considering there's a lot older signs out there.  Still nothing on I-91 from the border down to Hartford, where the oldest button copy there dates to at least 1989, if not earlier (in Enfield and East Windsor).  And then there's the mid 80s signs on I-84 in East Hartford and Manchester which seem to be escaping all the projects. 

[kernals12]

Glad to see the 91/691/15 interchange improvements are going ahead. It's a sign that Connecticut is still capable of undertaking major highway improvements. Hopefully that bodes well for improvements to I-84 in Danbury, Waterbury, and Hartford.

[jp the roadgeek]

Only thing that might preclude the CT 15 exit renumbering would be the fact that the Wethersfield/East Hartford section signage is still 1980's Phase III vintage much like I-91 from Hartford to the MA border.  That would probably become part of an I-91 project.  Overlays are always an option, but let's see if the Fairfield County Merritt preservationists can use it to buy more time.

Would CTDOT really add exit numbers to the 187/189 freeway?  If they were, they'd most likely be 8A and 8B based on CT 189 mileage (CTDOT recognizes the overlap as CT 189, but the mile markers are pretty close anyway).

[Ted$8roadFan]

Glad to see the 91/691/15 interchange improvements are going ahead. It's a sign that Connecticut is still capable of undertaking major highway improvements. Hopefully that bodes well for improvements to I-84 in Danbury, Waterbury, and Hartford.

It's dubbed the "Meriden Mix" .

https://meridenmix.com/

[RobbieL2415]

Glad to see the 91/691/15 interchange improvements are going ahead. It's a sign that Connecticut is still capable of undertaking major highway improvements. Hopefully that bodes well for improvements to I-84 in Danbury, Waterbury, and Hartford.

It's dubbed the "Meriden Mix" .

https://meridenmix.com/

I know that it would be more expensive, but I don't understand why they couldn't just reroute CT 15 east along these power lines (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4961674,-72.782372,1861m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu), have it join I-91 to the I-691 interchange and leave from there.

That would undo at least a portion of the can of worms and eliminate weaving.

[kernals12]

Glad to see the 91/691/15 interchange improvements are going ahead. It's a sign that Connecticut is still capable of undertaking major highway improvements. Hopefully that bodes well for improvements to I-84 in Danbury, Waterbury, and Hartford.

It's dubbed the "Meriden Mix" .

https://meridenmix.com/

I know that it would be more expensive, but I don't understand why they couldn't just reroute CT 15 east along these power lines (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4961674,-72.782372,1861m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu), have it join I-91 to the I-691 interchange and leave from there.

That would undo at least a portion of the can of worms and eliminate weaving.

You just answered your own question

[RobbieL2415]

Glad to see the 91/691/15 interchange improvements are going ahead. It's a sign that Connecticut is still capable of undertaking major highway improvements. Hopefully that bodes well for improvements to I-84 in Danbury, Waterbury, and Hartford.

It's dubbed the "Meriden Mix" .

https://meridenmix.com/

I know that it would be more expensive, but I don't understand why they couldn't just reroute CT 15 east along these power lines (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4961674,-72.782372,1861m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu), have it join I-91 to the I-691 interchange and leave from there.

That would undo at least a portion of the can of worms and eliminate weaving.

You just answered your own question

I mean aside from that.

[abqtraveler]

Looked at the latest CTDOT project advertising list updated through June 12. Three new sign contracts spotted for next year. They are also advertising a contract to replace aluminum signing along I-95 from Branford to Madison on March 27, 2024. The replacing of signs and supports along CT 15 between Milford and Meriden, perhaps to include exit renumbering, is to be advertised on May 8, 2024 while the replacing of signs and supports along I-95 between Clinton and New London, not to include new exit numbers is to be advertised on May 29, 2024.

The new schedule is at: https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOT/documents/dfiscalprojects/advschedule11-2021.pdf

Didn't realize the bridges for I-684 in Greenwich were ConnDOT maintained.

I think NYSDOT performs routine maintenance on the segment of I-684 that enters Connecticut, while CTDOT funds and performs capital improvements to that stretch.

[The Ghostbuster]

I tried opening the documents on the Merdian Mix website, but each time I got an "Internal Server Error" message. Is there an alternative way to view the documents?