Connecticut News

[Mergingtraffic]

The preferred alt is.....stoplights. F-ing amazing. I can't believe it made it to the top.
http://7-15norwalk.com/documents/Route-7-15-Norwalk-Summer-2023-Newsletter.pdf

[shadyjay]

Well, in all honesty, if it gets the project built, sure, why not, go with the stoplight alternative.  With the expressway ending a mile north of the interchange at a traffic light, its not the end of the world.  Its not like we're redoing an interchange in the middle of an expressway and putting in lights, with 65 MPH traffic extending on either side for 10-20+ miles (like Rt 9). 

And this alternative should keep the MPC happy.... no flyovers.  No wide spanning bridges like the Rt 8 or Rt 25 interchange.  And it will be a heck of a lot safer than what we have today, with those ancient Main Ave ramps. 

The Super 7 is never going to Danbury.  But, if we could only get it extended to the CT 33 jct and not end at that rock wall, then I'd call it progress.

[The Ghostbuster]

The redesign chosen for the US 7/CT 15 interchange confirms that the US 7 roadway will terminate at Grist Mill Rd. for all eternity (as if any more proof was needed for that). I doubt it would be possible to widen the two-lane segments of US 7 into four-lane undivided roadways between Grist Mill Rd. and Wooster Heights Rd.

[abqtraveler]

The redesign chosen for the US 7/CT 15 interchange confirms that the US 7 roadway will terminate at Grist Mill Rd. for all eternity (as if any more proof was needed for that). I doubt it would be possible to widen the two-lane segments of US 7 into four-lane undivided roadways between Grist Mill Rd. and Wooster Heights Rd.

That was a known fact 20 years ago. After CTDOT decided to 4-lane the existing road through Wilton and from Route 35 to Danbury, that was the final nail in the coffin for any hopes of completing the freeway from Norwalk to Danbury. With CTDOT's plan to eventually eliminate the T-intersection at Gristmill road and soften the transition from Super 7 to the old alignment on Main Avenue, the traffic light option at Route 15 makes a little bit of sense.

[vdeane]

Well, in all honesty, if it gets the project built, sure, why not, go with the stoplight alternative.  With the expressway ending a mile north of the interchange at a traffic light, its not the end of the world.  Its not like we're redoing an interchange in the middle of an expressway and putting in lights, with 65 MPH traffic extending on either side for 10-20+ miles (like Rt 9). 

And this alternative should keep the MPC happy.... no flyovers.  No wide spanning bridges like the Rt 8 or Rt 25 interchange.  And it will be a heck of a lot safer than what we have today, with those ancient Main Ave ramps. 

The Super 7 is never going to Danbury.  But, if we could only get it extended to the CT 33 jct and not end at that rock wall, then I'd call it progress.

You still have two freeways intersecting at less than a freeway-freeway interchange, though.

[Duke87]

The preferred alt is.....stoplights. F-ing amazing. I can't believe it made it to the top.
http://7-15norwalk.com/documents/Route-7-15-Norwalk-Summer-2023-Newsletter.pdf

I can because the unfortunate reality is your feasible options are this or no build. The state has tried everything to get a proper freeway-freeway interchange to work and nothing does within the bounds of what is acceptable to construct. It would require either having flyovers, which you can't do because it is not in line with the historic character of the parkway; or having ramps come a lot closer to the backyards of the wealthy homeowners in the SW and NW quadrants than they already do, which you can't do because if you try to substantially impact the property values of anyone wealthy you will be stopped.

There also is the matter that some people in Wilton feel threatened by the idea of a full freeway-freeway interchange because they worry about it creating pressure to revive the idea of a northward extension of the freeway. They'll like this plan specifically because it precludes that.


That said it's important to not forget here that this is still Connecticut - the state has looked into doing something with the Merritt/7 interchange multiple times before and ended up going with the no build option every time. I am not convinced this time will be any different.

[Mergingtraffic]

The redesign chosen for the US 7/CT 15 interchange confirms that the US 7 roadway will terminate at Grist Mill Rd. for all eternity (as if any more proof was needed for that). I doubt it would be possible to widen the two-lane segments of US 7 into four-lane undivided roadways between Grist Mill Rd. and Wooster Heights Rd.

That was a known fact 20 years ago. After CTDOT decided to 4-lane the existing road through Wilton and from Route 35 to Danbury, that was the final nail in the coffin for any hopes of completing the freeway from Norwalk to Danbury. With CTDOT's plan to eventually eliminate the T-intersection at Gristmill road and soften the transition from Super 7 to the old alignment on Main Avenue, the traffic light option at Route 15 makes a little bit of sense.

What's their plan to soften the T at Grist Mill Rd?

[abqtraveler]

The redesign chosen for the US 7/CT 15 interchange confirms that the US 7 roadway will terminate at Grist Mill Rd. for all eternity (as if any more proof was needed for that). I doubt it would be possible to widen the two-lane segments of US 7 into four-lane undivided roadways between Grist Mill Rd. and Wooster Heights Rd.

That was a known fact 20 years ago. After CTDOT decided to 4-lane the existing road through Wilton and from Route 35 to Danbury, that was the final nail in the coffin for any hopes of completing the freeway from Norwalk to Danbury. With CTDOT's plan to eventually eliminate the T-intersection at Gristmill road and soften the transition from Super 7 to the old alignment on Main Avenue, the traffic light option at Route 15 makes a little bit of sense.

What's their plan to soften the T at Grist Mill Rd?

The plan would realign Route 7 so that it curves to the right (east) at the present freeway terminus, crosses the Norwalk River, then curves to the left (north) as it joins Main Avenue heading north. Gristmill Road and Glover Avenue would be realigned to a new 4-way signalized intersection where the present T-intersection is located. One would have to turn to access Main Avenue heading south; thus, making the transition from Super 7 (south) to Route 7/Main Avenue (north) the through movement, and access to Main Avenue heading south and Gristmill Road/Glover Avenue requiring turn movements.

Right now there's no funding for the project, so I have no idea how long it will be until this becomes a reality.

https://www.norwalkct.gov/DocumentCenter/View/21710/North7-Traffic-Impact-Study-Feb-2021

[The Ghostbuster]

I know when it will become a reality. When hell freezes over!

[Duke87]

The plan would realign Route 7 so that it curves to the right (east) at the present freeway terminus, crosses the Norwalk River, then curves to the left (north) as it joins Main Avenue heading north. Gristmill Road and Glover Avenue would be realigned to a new 4-way signalized intersection where the present T-intersection is located. One would have to turn to access Main Avenue heading south; thus, making the transition from Super 7 (south) to Route 7/Main Avenue (north) the through movement, and access to Main Avenue heading south and Gristmill Road/Glover Avenue requiring turn movements.

The plan in your link only actually realigns the north end of the freeway to make heading east on Grist Mill Rd the thru movement. You would still have to turn left at Main Ave to continue following Route 7.

Also informative in there is it shows the other now-eliminated alternative to build a free-flowing interchange between 7 and the Merritt... which, well, you can see why they crossed that off. It manages to avoid using flyovers and bringing ramps any closer to the homeoweners to the west than they already are, but it's janky as fuck with a bunch of tight curves and multiple weaves - and thus not really a great idea either.


At any rate, once again, this is Connecticut - pay no mind to the plans to realign the north end of the freeway, they're nothing more than a "what if" that the state is highly unlikely to ever follow through on.

[vdeane]

^ I think a modified version of that alternative could have worked.  Given that the freeway will never go north of Grist Mill, IMO there isn't a need for direct CT 15 SB to US 7 NB and US 7 SB to CT 15 NB movements.  Eliminating those two movements also gets rid of many of the bridges and weaves in that design.  If you further allow the US 7 NB to CT 15 NB movement to stop at the light for Main and the CT 15 SB to US 7 SB movement to have a light for a left turn, you'd still keep all existing movements except the US 7 through movements free-flow, and it's not like there's a freeway continuing north of there, so that would make a very nice compromise between the downgrade that got designated a preferred alternative and something that would inevitably piss off the NIMBYs.

[Alps]

Well, in all honesty, if it gets the project built, sure, why not, go with the stoplight alternative.  With the expressway ending a mile north of the interchange at a traffic light, its not the end of the world.  Its not like we're redoing an interchange in the middle of an expressway and putting in lights, with 65 MPH traffic extending on either side for 10-20+ miles (like Rt 9). 

And this alternative should keep the MPC happy.... no flyovers.  No wide spanning bridges like the Rt 8 or Rt 25 interchange.  And it will be a heck of a lot safer than what we have today, with those ancient Main Ave ramps. 

The Super 7 is never going to Danbury.  But, if we could only get it extended to the CT 33 jct and not end at that rock wall, then I'd call it progress.

I have commented to pretty much that effect

[robby2161]

In other news, the portion of US-7 that was widened and rebuilt through Wilton in 2008 saw it's first resurfacing.  And in typical (these days) CT fashion, they completely cheaped out on the lane markings.  The dashed line is crooked in many spots, and several intersections they screwed up the spacing.  Feels really awkward to drive, as do many other recent CT repave jobs. 

Pic is US-7 southbound at CT-106 (Wolfpit Road) junction, the southern limit of the resurfacing project  It's like they didn't even bother to look at the lanes of US-7 on the opposite side of the intersection

https://yourimageshare.com/ib/47LINncX0m

[RobbieL2415]

They typically don't used bonded epoxy lane markings on surface streets.

[Rothman]

They typically don't used bonded epoxy lane markings on surface streets.

This is true in CT?  Interesting.  In NY, entities will spray down "temporary" striping and markings and then come back with the epoxy later.

That said, epoxy costs have gone through the roof in recent years.

[bing101]

Here is a segment on the Merritt Parkway.

[shadyjay]

The 2023 edition of ConnDOT's spot overhead sign replacement project is out.  Just head over to the "Bid Board" (via the ConnDOT page) and search for "  0170-5025  "

Among this year's highlights include basically replacing all approach I-95 signage on I-91 South in New Haven with APLs (and giving those I-95 ramps exit numbers), replacing some damaged signs/gantries with new ones (I-91 South Exit 47E, I-95 NB Exit 43, I-95 NB Exit 71), and finally giving a proper sign for I-395 North Exit 35 in Plainfield.  This is where I-395 North takes a hard left turn, and prior to the project to convert to mile-based exits, there was an overhead here.  The new overhead will have an "almost straight, but up/right arrow" for Exit 35 traffic and two up/left arrows for I-395 North.

As standard practice with these projects, the new signs essentially retain the "status quo" (with the exception of aligning exit tabs, LEFT exit tabs, etc).  One site is confusing on the contract plans, however... an advance for Exits 30-31-32 on I-91 South is showing a sign replacement on existing support, but the signs shown are the existing signs, complete with centered exit tabs, full length LEFT EXIT at the bottom of the Exit 30 sign, and the odd "84 EAST 2" placement, not to mention the "New London" control city remaining.

[RobbieL2415]

The 2023 edition of ConnDOT's spot overhead sign replacement project is out.  Just head over to the "Bid Board" (via the ConnDOT page) and search for "  0170-5025  "

Among this year's highlights include basically replacing all approach I-95 signage on I-91 South in New Haven with APLs (and giving those I-95 ramps exit numbers), replacing some damaged signs/gantries with new ones (I-91 South Exit 47E, I-95 NB Exit 43, I-95 NB Exit 71), and finally giving a proper sign for I-395 North Exit 35 in Plainfield.  This is where I-395 North takes a hard left turn, and prior to the project to convert to mile-based exits, there was an overhead here.  The new overhead will have an "almost straight, but up/right arrow" for Exit 35 traffic and two up/left arrows for I-395 North. 

As standard practice with these projects, the new signs essentially retain the "status quo" (with the exception of aligning exit tabs, LEFT exit tabs, etc).  One site is confusing on the contract plans, however... an advance for Exits 30-31-32 on I-91 South is showing a sign replacement on existing support, but the signs shown are the existing signs, complete with centered exit tabs, full length LEFT EXIT at the bottom of the Exit 30 sign, and the odd "84 EAST 2" placement, not to mention the "New London" control city remaining.

I wonder if they're going to do an sheet aluminum patch job like they did on I-84 EB just after the Bulkeley Bridge.

[shadyjay]

A few new signs on I-691 East and CT 66 West:

Eastbound, Exit 7 (old Exit 3):
691EB-Exit07-3 by Jay Hogan, on Flickr

Eastbound, Exit 3 (old Exit 5):
691EB-Exit03-3 by Jay Hogan, on Flickr

Eastbound, Exit 2A (old Exit 8):
691EB-Exit2A-4 by Jay Hogan, on Flickr

Eastbound, Exit 1B (old Exit 10) advance:
691EB-Exit1B-1 by Jay Hogan, on Flickr
(a work in progress)

Westbound, Exit 1A
CT66WB-691WB-Exit1A by Jay Hogan, on Flickr

Essentially all the new gantries are up in the eastbound direction, and almost all the new signs (except one for Exit 1-A).  Its unclear whether the two gantries replaced during the "spot replacement" project last year will be modified (removal of the second control points for I-91 South and North (W Cross Pkwy and Springfield).  Given this whole area is going to get a remake as part of the I-91/CT 15/I-691 interchange project, it would be a waste.  The eastbound ramp to I-91 North will become 2 lanes as part of that project.

Westbound, there are still a few gantries left to replace.  These include Exits 1A/1B advance, Exit 1B, Exit 1C, Exit 2A all gantries, and Exit 7 1 mile. 

More recent I-691 photos - https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/

[shadyjay]

Also drove CT 11 NB and CT 2 WB from Salem to East Hartford this past weekend to check on sign replacement there:

CT 82 at CT 11, former Exit 4 onramp, Salem:
CT82atCT11 by Jay Hogan, on Flickr

CT 11 NB, Exit 5:
CT11NB-Exit05-1 by Jay Hogan, on Flickr

CT11NB-Exit05-2 by Jay Hogan, on Flickr

CT 2 WB, Exit 16:
CT2WB-Exit16-3 by Jay Hogan, on Flickr

No new overheads yet anywhere on CT 11 NB or CT 2 WB.  Thats probably why CT 11 hasn't gotten its new numbers yet, and they're keeping them well-wrapped until reveal day.  I find it interesting they recycled the old button copy exit tabs from the old signs and placed them on top of the new signs.  I would think overlays would be easier.  Most sheet aluminum signs have been replaced, including all new single-posted reassurance shields, town line signs (which omit the "INCORPORATED ####" middle line), and most MUTCD-compliant mile markers.  Most entrance extruded signs have been replaced, at least up to Marlborough, which all feature the thick state shield border. 

[The Ghostbuster]

Hopefully, the new exit numbers will be uncovered soon. I must admit, I've never seen a sign with two exit tabs on top of each other.

[RobbieL2415]

- The old Exit 59 1/4mi diagramatic BGS on I-84 EB is now gone. Was replaced with a new ground mounted version, which is IMO too easy to miss with five lanes of freeway. It really should be overhead.

- There are FINALLY ground-mounted APLs at the end of the Exit 62 on I-84 EB. Not sure if it will fix the issue of cars choosing the wrong lane for Pavillions Drive, towards the Buckland Hills Mall.

- Signal replacement has begun on CT 30 in Vernon Center.

[shadyjay]

- The old Exit 59 1/4mi diagramatic BGS on I-84 EB is now gone. Was replaced with a new ground mounted version, which is IMO too easy to miss with five lanes of freeway. It really should be overhead.

Oh I agree.  I think it was a stopgap solution until there's a blanket sign replacement project to come in and replace all the signs and gantries.  There's an I-84 sign project from Vernon to Union set to go out to bid IIRC this fall, but still doesn't touch East Hartford-Manchester, whose signs date back to shortly after the days of the I-86 to I-84 conversion back in the 80s. 

There's a similar ground-mounted sign on I-91 South in Meriden just after Exit 18 that's a diagrammatic.  That one will become an overhead, but will only be a sign for Exit 17/Rt 15 SB and not a diagrammatic.  Then it will be replaced again as part of the I-91/I-691/Rt 15 interchange project. 

[MikeCL]

I'm actually in the Darien Rest Area at the moment, I notice they have traffic map displays on the TVs, is this a standard for CT, I haven't seen this at rest areas in other states?

They put those in when they revamped all of the rest areas about 5-10 years ago. The McDonalds at the Darien rest area is supposedly one of the ten busiest in the world or was before they added more food options as part of the renovations.

I tried searching but does anyone have old photos before they redid the rest stations? They are beyond hard to find.. I just wanted to show someone.

[MikeCL]

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.

Oh yes I saw so many flashes going off that one night no workers at all