Connecticut News

[Rothman]

New update on the I-84 Danbury study. It looks like the working group is pretty enthusiastic about converting the inside shoulder between exits 4 and 7 into a part-time travel lane, saying they could open it in 2028.
https://www.i84danbury.com/course_cat/public-advisory-committee/

Five years to put up a few gantries with some arrow indicators?

And a DDI with through movements at Exit 8?

In China they'd start work on a project this small after the morning rush and have it in place by the afternoon rush.

Feel free to move there, then.

[abqtraveler]

New update on the I-84 Danbury study. It looks like the working group is pretty enthusiastic about converting the inside shoulder between exits 4 and 7 into a part-time travel lane, saying they could open it in 2028.
https://www.i84danbury.com/course_cat/public-advisory-committee/

That's not a good idea. All it takes is someone to break down and they have nowhere to go and you have a huge wreck, a miles-long traffic jam, or both.
I remember this was talked about for I-95 from Bridgeport to Stamford many years ago and the same concern was brought up. Ultimately, using one of the shoulders as a travel lane on I-95 was a non-starter.

[Mergingtraffic]

New update on the I-84 Danbury study. It looks like the working group is pretty enthusiastic about converting the inside shoulder between exits 4 and 7 into a part-time travel lane, saying they could open it in 2028.
https://www.i84danbury.com/course_cat/public-advisory-committee/

That's not a good idea. All it takes is someone to break down and they have nowhere to go and you have a huge wreck, a miles-long traffic jam, or both.
I remember this was talked about for I-95 from Bridgeport to Stamford many years ago and the same concern was brought up. Ultimately, using one of the shoulders as a travel lane on I-95 was a non-starter.

To me it seems like a good idea, however, with the shoulder use it looks like they will take away the option lane at both Exit 7 EB and Exit 3 WB even when the shoulder is not in use.  That would be a step backwards as they just put that in after the recent signing project came through.

5 years does seem like a long time but this is CT and they seem to can't get their stuff together.  They built the entire I-95 in 3-4 years but it takes 5 years to up gantries and wiring etc.

The Exit 7 on-ramp WB needs something done as that backs up a lot to Federal Rd on US-7 and even causes the backup on I-84 WB back to Exit 11 at times.  I'd say extend the extra lane down to Exit 6 or 5.  The mainline backs up because people from Exit 7 merge over right away to another lane even though they don't have to.  Technically, there shouldn't be any backup on the mainline from the Exit 7 on-ramp b/c technically there is no merge.  You have 3 miles to merge over as an additional lane develops at that on-ramp.  But people merge over right away causing mainline traffic to slow.   Rinse and repeat and I-84 backs up to Exit 11 at times.

[kernals12]

New update on the I-84 Danbury study. It looks like the working group is pretty enthusiastic about converting the inside shoulder between exits 4 and 7 into a part-time travel lane, saying they could open it in 2028.
https://www.i84danbury.com/course_cat/public-advisory-committee/

That's not a good idea. All it takes is someone to break down and they have nowhere to go and you have a huge wreck, a miles-long traffic jam, or both.
I remember this was talked about for I-95 from Bridgeport to Stamford many years ago and the same concern was brought up. Ultimately, using one of the shoulders as a travel lane on I-95 was a non-starter.

They do it here on I-93 in Andover and Tewksbury and it doesn't seem to cause major problems.

Also, Stamford to Bridgeport is 23 miles, Exit 7 to Exit 3 on I-84 is less than 4 miles.

[shadyjay]

I've been away in Northern New England since 8/12... looks like I haven't missed much here!

Anyways...

A press release turned me on to a little lane alteration project on Route 2, proposed to start in 2025.
http://portal.ct.gov/DOTGlastonbury53-196

Basically, on Route 2 East, the present left lane becomes an exit only lane for Route 17 South.  This means that thru traffic has to shift right one lane, and gets a 2nd lane at the merge in from Route 3.  This project will convert that lane from Route 3 into an operational lane and extend it to the Route 94/Hebron Ave exit, while the left 2 lanes become Route 2 East thru lanes.  The exit for Route 17 South gets a "decelleration lane" only.  Estimated cost:  $12 million, which in reality doesn't seem to be THAT bad.  Granted they only have to widen a small section, but they do have to do some bridge work to make it happen. 

The exit from Route 2 East to Route 17 South is a remnant of when the Glastonbury Expressway was first constructed.  That's why there's a left exit for New London Turnpike on Route 17 just after leaving Route 2.  This would've been surface road Route 2, pre-expressway. 

I still think more operational lanes are needed statewide, especially on I-91.  I think one in Cromwell between Exits 21 & 22 in both directions would be perfect and could be done with "minimal" effort.

[Ted$8roadFan]

I've been away in Northern New England since 8/12... looks like I haven't missed much here!

Anyways...

A press release turned me on to a little lane alteration project on Route 2, proposed to start in 2025.
http://portal.ct.gov/DOTGlastonbury53-196

Basically, on Route 2 East, the present left lane becomes an exit only lane for Route 17 South.  This means that thru traffic has to shift right one lane, and gets a 2nd lane at the merge in from Route 3.  This project will convert that lane from Route 3 into an operational lane and extend it to the Route 94/Hebron Ave exit, while the left 2 lanes become Route 2 East thru lanes.  The exit for Route 17 South gets a "decelleration lane" only.  Estimated cost:  $12 million, which in reality doesn't seem to be THAT bad.  Granted they only have to widen a small section, but they do have to do some bridge work to make it happen. 

The exit from Route 2 East to Route 17 South is a remnant of when the Glastonbury Expressway was first constructed.  That's why there's a left exit for New London Turnpike on Route 17 just after leaving Route 2.  This would've been surface road Route 2, pre-expressway. 

I still think more operational lanes are needed statewide, especially on I-91.  I think one in Cromwell between Exits 21 & 22 in both directions would be perfect and could be done with "minimal" effort.

Glad to see this will happen. It can be confusing for the unfamiliar. That area was actually worse when there was an on ramp to CT-2 eastbound from Griswold Street, and some drivers had to cut over two lanes to access CT-17. I was with my late grandmother when she tried that, and it was a white knuckle experience. I imagine the exit from CT-2 west to House Street was also nerve-wracking. Those exits were eliminated when the current configuration was implemented in the late 80s.

[Alps]

I've been away in Northern New England since 8/12... looks like I haven't missed much here!

Anyways...

A press release turned me on to a little lane alteration project on Route 2, proposed to start in 2025.
http://portal.ct.gov/DOTGlastonbury53-196

Basically, on Route 2 East, the present left lane becomes an exit only lane for Route 17 South.  This means that thru traffic has to shift right one lane, and gets a 2nd lane at the merge in from Route 3.  This project will convert that lane from Route 3 into an operational lane and extend it to the Route 94/Hebron Ave exit, while the left 2 lanes become Route 2 East thru lanes.  The exit for Route 17 South gets a "decelleration lane" only.  Estimated cost:  $12 million, which in reality doesn't seem to be THAT bad.  Granted they only have to widen a small section, but they do have to do some bridge work to make it happen. 

The exit from Route 2 East to Route 17 South is a remnant of when the Glastonbury Expressway was first constructed.  That's why there's a left exit for New London Turnpike on Route 17 just after leaving Route 2.  This would've been surface road Route 2, pre-expressway. 

I still think more operational lanes are needed statewide, especially on I-91.  I think one in Cromwell between Exits 21 & 22 in both directions would be perfect and could be done with "minimal" effort.

Glad to see this will happen. It can be confusing for the unfamiliar. That area was actually worse when there was an on ramp to CT-2 eastbound from Griswold Street, and some drivers had to cut over two lanes to access CT-17. I was with my late grandmother tried that, and it was a white knuckle experience. I imagine the exit from CT-2 west to House Street was also nerve-wracking. Those exits were eliminated when the current configuration was implemented in the late 80s.

Fascinating. I looked at Historic Aerials. That onramp wasn't from Griswold, it was all the way down Bantle Road! It seems that at some point they made that entrance a solid white line (1985 aerial) to outlaw crossovers, not that some people wouldn't try to do it anyway. Same may have been done for the WB exit although there was somewhat more room from the 17 merge to that ramp.

[Mergingtraffic]

Didn't they just remove an on-ramp from Route 2?

[jp the roadgeek]

Didn't they just remove an on-ramp from Route 2?

That was a little farther up at Sutton Ave (Exit 5B).  They removed the EB exit and WB entrance.

[Ted$8roadFan]

I've been away in Northern New England since 8/12... looks like I haven't missed much here!

Anyways...

A press release turned me on to a little lane alteration project on Route 2, proposed to start in 2025.
http://portal.ct.gov/DOTGlastonbury53-196

Basically, on Route 2 East, the present left lane becomes an exit only lane for Route 17 South.  This means that thru traffic has to shift right one lane, and gets a 2nd lane at the merge in from Route 3.  This project will convert that lane from Route 3 into an operational lane and extend it to the Route 94/Hebron Ave exit, while the left 2 lanes become Route 2 East thru lanes.  The exit for Route 17 South gets a "decelleration lane" only.  Estimated cost:  $12 million, which in reality doesn't seem to be THAT bad.  Granted they only have to widen a small section, but they do have to do some bridge work to make it happen. 

The exit from Route 2 East to Route 17 South is a remnant of when the Glastonbury Expressway was first constructed.  That's why there's a left exit for New London Turnpike on Route 17 just after leaving Route 2.  This would've been surface road Route 2, pre-expressway. 

I still think more operational lanes are needed statewide, especially on I-91.  I think one in Cromwell between Exits 21 & 22 in both directions would be perfect and could be done with "minimal" effort.

Glad to see this will happen. It can be confusing for the unfamiliar. That area was actually worse when there was an on ramp to CT-2 eastbound from Griswold Street, and some drivers had to cut over two lanes to access CT-17. I was with my late grandmother tried that, and it was a white knuckle experience. I imagine the exit from CT-2 west to House Street was also nerve-wracking. Those exits were eliminated when the current configuration was implemented in the late 80s.

Fascinating. I looked at Historic Aerials. That onramp wasn't from Griswold, it was all the way down Bantle Road! It seems that at some point they made that entrance a solid white line (1985 aerial) to outlaw crossovers, not that some people wouldn't try to do it anyway. Same may have been done for the WB exit although there was somewhat more room from the 17 merge to that ramp.

It was Bantle Road. I'm sure many saw the white line but did it anyway, which probably figured into the state's decision to remove it. As for WB, I'm not sure how many went from CT-17 over two lanes to the House Street Exit. It just seemed sort of dangerous to exit from highway speed on to a (present) cul-de-sac.

[shadyjay]

I-84 resigning plans came out this morning.  This project goes from Vernon/vic Exit 65 to the Mass state line. 

Looks like most of the existing ground-mounted signs from Exits 65-71 are going all overhead, mostly on new 4-chord cantilevers, while Exits 72-73-74 (and some of Exit 70 WB) are remaining ground-mounts.  The onramp signage appears to be a mix of extruded aluminum (in more western sections) and sheet aluminum (booo...).  As far as changes, for the most part the control cities for each sign are remaining the same, including WB Exits 65 & 64 having "Vernon Center" and "Vernon Business District".  Exit 69-WB is having "Willington" replace "Putnam", while Exit 70-WB is "Stafford Springs", with Exit 73 becoming just "Union" in both directions.  For Exit 66, "Tunnel Road" is going on an auxiliary extruded sign.  "Uconn/Storrs" gets an aux sign as well.  No "ATTRACTIONS" logo signs are going up, but some "Food" / "Gas" / "Lodging" logo signs are getting replaced.  Didn't see any file for sheet aluminum signs, but I would assume it would be limited to town line signs or some sheets for exit services and park & ride.  All reassurance shields/ mileposts/speed limit signs were replaced a couple years ago.   

A new overhead will be going up WB just before the start of the HOV lane giving distances to HOV Exits, "15 to 91 SOUTH" / "Silver Lane" / "Hartford".  Gone is the "Restricted Lane" and we now get "HOV LANE" or "HOV RESTRICTION'.

NOTE Exit renumbering is not part of the sign plans.  My guess is we won't see that happen until the last of the old signage is replaced, from East Hartford to Vernon. 

[RobbieL2415]

I-84 resigning plans came out this morning.  This project goes from Vernon/vic Exit 65 to the Mass state line. 

Looks like most of the existing ground-mounted signs from Exits 65-71 are going all overhead, mostly on new 4-chord cantilevers, while Exits 72-73-74 (and some of Exit 70 WB) are remaining ground-mounts.  The onramp signage appears to be a mix of extruded aluminum (in more western sections) and sheet aluminum (booo...).  As far as changes, for the most part the control cities for each sign are remaining the same, including WB Exits 65 & 64 having "Vernon Center" and "Vernon Business District".  Exit 69-WB is having "Willington" replace "Putnam", while Exit 70-WB is "Stafford Springs", with Exit 73 becoming just "Union" in both directions.  For Exit 66, "Tunnel Road" is going on an auxiliary extruded sign.  "Uconn/Storrs" gets an aux sign as well.  No "ATTRACTIONS" logo signs are going up, but some "Food" / "Gas" / "Lodging" logo signs are getting replaced.  Didn't see any file for sheet aluminum signs, but I would assume it would be limited to town line signs or some sheets for exit services and park & ride.  All reassurance shields/ mileposts/speed limit signs were replaced a couple years ago.   

A new overhead will be going up WB just before the start of the HOV lane giving distances to HOV Exits, "15 to 91 SOUTH" / "Silver Lane" / "Hartford".  Gone is the "Restricted Lane" and we now get "HOV LANE" or "HOV RESTRICTION'.

NOTE Exit renumbering is not part of the sign plans.  My guess is we won't see that happen until the last of the old signage is replaced, from East Hartford to Vernon.

Most of the sheet metal signs were replaced last year.

I'm honestly not sure why they didn't do EH to Vernon first. I find the signage from Vernon to Union to still be readable. The signs on the former stretch are older and way more worn out/faded.

[jp the roadgeek]

You won't see exit renumbering on I-84 until the Southbury-Southington section is completed.  Many of those signs are Phase IV 2000's vintage, plus there is quite a few curved tube gantries, and the mileposts are spotty west of MP 42 (Exit 30; no enhanced mile markers till you cross the Rochambeau bridge). 

That being said, thank God Putnam is being replaced WB for Exit 69.  Most Putnam bound traffic would have either exited at Exit 74 (CT 171), taken MA/CT 131 from Sturbridge,  or taken Exit 90 on the Mass Pike for I-395. Putnam (or Providence) is fine EB.

[The Ghostbuster]

It seems to be a case of replace-signs-now, renumber-exits-later. Interstate 84 is said to be getting mileage-based exit numbers in 2028, and there probably won't be a need for extra-wide exit tabs since the final exit on 84, Exit 74, will in the future become Exit 97.

[shadyjay]

Yes, thank god Putnam is going away.  Looks like CT exit signage is standardizing control points on guide signs, regardless of whether taking an earlier exit "cuts out the hypotenus".  Its like the MassPike Eastbound exit to I-84 West being signed "New York City".   With that being said, it makes me wonder what the Exit 59/I-84 signage will say when that signage finally gets replaced... will "Providence" be retained eastbound?  Will "Providence" rear its ugly unnecessary head westbound? 

[Mergingtraffic]

I-84 resigning plans came out this morning.  This project goes from Vernon/vic Exit 65 to the Mass state line. 

Looks like most of the existing ground-mounted signs from Exits 65-71 are going all overhead, mostly on new 4-chord cantilevers, while Exits 72-73-74 (and some of Exit 70 WB) are remaining ground-mounts.  The onramp signage appears to be a mix of extruded aluminum (in more western sections) and sheet aluminum (booo...).  As far as changes, for the most part the control cities for each sign are remaining the same, including WB Exits 65 & 64 having "Vernon Center" and "Vernon Business District".  Exit 69-WB is having "Willington" replace "Putnam", while Exit 70-WB is "Stafford Springs", with Exit 73 becoming just "Union" in both directions.  For Exit 66, "Tunnel Road" is going on an auxiliary extruded sign.  "Uconn/Storrs" gets an aux sign as well.  No "ATTRACTIONS" logo signs are going up, but some "Food" / "Gas" / "Lodging" logo signs are getting replaced.  Didn't see any file for sheet aluminum signs, but I would assume it would be limited to town line signs or some sheets for exit services and park & ride.  All reassurance shields/ mileposts/speed limit signs were replaced a couple years ago.   

A new overhead will be going up WB just before the start of the HOV lane giving distances to HOV Exits, "15 to 91 SOUTH" / "Silver Lane" / "Hartford".  Gone is the "Restricted Lane" and we now get "HOV LANE" or "HOV RESTRICTION'.

NOTE Exit renumbering is not part of the sign plans.  My guess is we won't see that happen until the last of the old signage is replaced, from East Hartford to Vernon. 

Interesting about the LOGO signs, as they're usually independently owned and most are outdated and button copy.

I was wondering will CT DOT require a blanket updating of those?

Ground mounted going to overhead? Which seems to be opposite of what they've been doing lately.

[shadyjay]

Ground mounted going to overhead? Which seems to be opposite of what they've been doing lately.

I know, right?  Maybe its a visibility issue on I-84 with the roadway's geometry (hills and curves) between Vernon and Willington.   All the truck traffic doesn't help seeing signs, either.

Interesting I thought that the new logo signs are going up.  I'm not positive if these are new installs or direct replacements.  You don't usually see replacements of logo signs.  Some of the ones on Route 9 in Cromwell are still button copy, with an overlayed number.

Also interesting about the contract plans, the state route shields appear to be just a white square/rectangle, vs those with the thick black border on I-395 and southern Route 9.  Again, we'll just have to see when the installs go in. 

[Alps]

Ground mounted going to overhead? Which seems to be opposite of what they've been doing lately.

I know, right?  Maybe its a visibility issue on I-84 with the roadway's geometry (hills and curves) between Vernon and Willington.   All the truck traffic doesn't help seeing signs, either.

Interesting I thought that the new logo signs are going up.  I'm not positive if these are new installs or direct replacements.  You don't usually see replacements of logo signs.  Some of the ones on Route 9 in Cromwell are still button copy, with an overlayed number.

Also interesting about the contract plans, the state route shields appear to be just a white square/rectangle, vs those with the thick black border on I-395 and southern Route 9.  Again, we'll just have to see when the installs go in. 

Border's not supposed to appear on overhead signs unless it's inset from the edge. Plain square is just fine - I'm thinking the late 90s signs along I-84 east of Hartford.

[kernals12]

New update on the I-84 Danbury study. It looks like the working group is pretty enthusiastic about converting the inside shoulder between exits 4 and 7 into a part-time travel lane, saying they could open it in 2028.
https://www.i84danbury.com/course_cat/public-advisory-committee/

That's not a good idea. All it takes is someone to break down and they have nowhere to go and you have a huge wreck, a miles-long traffic jam, or both.
I remember this was talked about for I-95 from Bridgeport to Stamford many years ago and the same concern was brought up. Ultimately, using one of the shoulders as a travel lane on I-95 was a non-starter.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=33756.0

The rest of the world gets by without inside shoulders on freeways.

[abqtraveler]

New update on the I-84 Danbury study. It looks like the working group is pretty enthusiastic about converting the inside shoulder between exits 4 and 7 into a part-time travel lane, saying they could open it in 2028.
https://www.i84danbury.com/course_cat/public-advisory-committee/

That's not a good idea. All it takes is someone to break down and they have nowhere to go and you have a huge wreck, a miles-long traffic jam, or both.
I remember this was talked about for I-95 from Bridgeport to Stamford many years ago and the same concern was brought up. Ultimately, using one of the shoulders as a travel lane on I-95 was a non-starter.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=33756.0

The rest of the world gets by without inside shoulders on freeways.

Just because they do doesn't mean those freeways without inside shoulders are superior in design to ours with inside shoulders. I've seen my fair share of pileups caused by folks who have broken down in the left lane on a stretch of highway with no inside shoulder.

[Mergingtraffic]

Anybody notice the new way CT DOT are striping the end of a slow vehicle lane?

The 10' broken dash line seems to end early and then they paint 3 big "merge left" arrows without the 10" broken line, so truckers or cars in the slow vehicle lane drift over sooner than they have to.  And with some of these aux/slow vehicle lanes trucks need as much as they can in that lane.

For awhile, they'd go from 10' to 4' dashes towards the end of the lane until the solid white line met up with it.  It seemed cleaner that way and you knew exactly how much time you had left.

Here's one example:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4149919,-73.2675884,3a,75y,255.7h,61.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQhDymSeJe8teoYQ4wWvp1g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

[kurumi]

ConnDOT seems to start the short dashed line for exit-only lanes early compared to other states. For CT 17 SB from CT 2 EB, it starts 1/2 mile in advance. (the project ShadyJay mentioned on 22 August will remove the exit-only lane for 17).

In the same area westbound, CT 2 has two rows of short dashed lines: one for a lane merging in from Griswold Street, and the other for the CT 3 exit-only lane: https://goo.gl/maps/ShDhPRbL4QibT6mx6

[Alps]

ConnDOT seems to start the short dashed line for exit-only lanes early compared to other states. For CT 17 SB from CT 2 EB, it starts 1/2 mile in advance. (the project ShadyJay mentioned on 22 August will remove the exit-only lane for 17).

In the same area westbound, CT 2 has two rows of short dashed lines: one for a lane merging in from Griswold Street, and the other for the CT 3 exit-only lane: https://goo.gl/maps/ShDhPRbL4QibT6mx6

It's supposed to start at the first Exit Only sign.

[Alps]

Anybody notice the new way CT DOT are striping the end of a slow vehicle lane?

The 10' broken dash line seems to end early and then they paint 3 big "merge left" arrows without the 10" broken line, so truckers or cars in the slow vehicle lane drift over sooner than they have to.  And with some of these aux/slow vehicle lanes trucks need as much as they can in that lane.

For awhile, they'd go from 10' to 4' dashes towards the end of the lane until the solid white line met up with it.  It seemed cleaner that way and you knew exactly how much time you had left.

Here's one example:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4149919,-73.2675884,3a,75y,255.7h,61.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQhDymSeJe8teoYQ4wWvp1g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

The aerial view that goes with that same Street View is older and shows the dashed line.

[D-Dey65]

A few minutes ago, I was looking through GSV of US 1 in the Greenwich/Cos Cob area, and I didn't see a single sign telling motorists how they can get to any of the Metro-North stations there.


Now why is that? In neighboring Westchester County, they're in every city and village along US 1 that has a station.