Connecticut News

[Alps]

I always found that strange, although not as strange as the CT 15 Merritt Parkway starting at Exit 27 (although I do know why it did, though I still think it should have started as Exit 1).

I mean, Interchanges 1, 6, 14C, 18W, and 18E on the NJ Turnpike are all toll plazas on the mainline. So CT wouldn't be alone in this.

[shadyjay]

I always found that strange, although not as strange as the CT 15 Merritt Parkway starting at Exit 27 (although I do know why it did, though I still think it should have started as Exit 1).

CT 15's exit numbers end at 91, at least until mile-based exits come to the route.
And I-84 (old I-86) used to end at 105 before the CT 15 concurrency was removed.
The idea was to have a continuous set of exit numbers starting at the interchange at the Cross Bronx and I-678.

CT 15's exit numbers end twice... first at I-91 in Meriden, then restart in Wethersfield and end at I-84.  But back when I-84 from East Hartford to Mass was I-86, it was also cosigned as part of CT 15, and hence the exit numbering sequence of CT 15 continued.  That portion of I-84 is still called the "Wilbur Cross Highway", though you won't find signs in the field referencing it.  Pre-interstate, it was the Wilbur Cross Parkway, complete with the same style wooden/shingle signs like on the Merritt, and at least one set of service areas (gas stations) in Vernon, I believe.  When I-84 to Providence was cancelled, it was rerouted back onto its present route and the exit numbers were changed to I-84's series.  The CT 15 multiplex was removed at that time.  And sometime around then as well, it was decided to reroute US 44 back onto surface roads from Vernon to Willington. 

I-95 Exit 1 would NOT have been the toll plaza, as the toll plaza location was after today's Exit 2 (where the weigh station is now).  Unless, what is now Exit 2 was Exit 1 back then, but I've seen old turnpike maps and no exit 1 is shown.

[jp the roadgeek]

CT 15 was truncated to its current end in 1980.  However, the exit numbers remained on then I-86 until 1984 or so when the I-84 designation was restored to its current route and the exit numbers changed to I-84 numbers.  It had been on the Sturbridge route prior to the introduction of I-86, which was supposed to continue west to I-91 in Wethersfield as a re-designation of what was supposed to be I-491 (but remains the CT 3 expressway only completed to CT 2).  The Providence route was originally supposed to be I-82.  The exit numbers on the Sturbridge route went up to 106, and for some reason skipped 103.  The removal of US 44 from Manchester to Wilington (and the related cancelation of US 44A and extension of CT 74) happened in 1982.

Don't think I ever remember seeing I-84 related numbers on what is now I-384 or on the US 6 Willimantic bypass when they carried the I-84 designation.   

[kurumi]

Interesting proposals for CT 25/111 area in Trumbull, for Metro COG, 2019, include a New Jersey-style quadrant roadway (sort of a jughandle, but not exactly) and a SPUI: https://metrocog-website.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/Website+Content/Corridor+Studies/25+%2B+111/Routes+25-111+Executive+Summary.pdf

[abqtraveler]

Interesting proposals for CT 25/111 area in Trumbull, for Metro COG, 2019, include a New Jersey-style quadrant roadway (sort of a jughandle, but not exactly) and a SPUI: https://metrocog-website.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/Website+Content/Corridor+Studies/25+%2B+111/Routes+25-111+Executive+Summary.pdf

Sounds like another waste of money on a study that will only be put on a shelf to collect dust. I don't expect anything to be done with Route 25 within my lifetime.

[Mergingtraffic]

Is there a reason why there is no "exit 1" on I-95?  When the exit numbers switch to a mile-based system exit 2 will become exit 1 but right now I find it really weird that the sequential numbers start at 2.

Supposedly, the old Greenwich toll plaza was considered "Exit 1".

I noticed the first few gantries in CT on I-95 are NY State gantries with CT owned signs on them.  Any idea why?

[abqtraveler]

Is there a reason why there is no "exit 1" on I-95?  When the exit numbers switch to a mile-based system exit 2 will become exit 1 but right now I find it really weird that the sequential numbers start at 2.

Supposedly, the old Greenwich toll plaza was considered "Exit 1".

I noticed the first few gantries in CT on I-95 are NY State gantries with CT owned signs on them.  Any idea why?

I think those gantries date back to when I-95 was originally built in that area. When the Connecticut Turnpike opened in 1958, it temporarily ended at Exit 2, as the bridge over the Byram River and the New England Thruway in New York were not yet built. The New England Thruway, the Byram River Bridge at the state line, and the small stretch of turnpike between the Byram River and Exit 2 were completed and opened in 1961. You'll also notice that things like catch basins in the highway median between the state line at the Delevan Avenue underpass (Exit 2) are to New York design specifications, whereas the roadway from exit 2 onward was built to Connecticut design specifications.

I suspect all of that work was completed under one construction contract awarded by the State of New York (probably under some arrangement with Connecticut, with Connecticut transferring to New York the money needed to build the section between the state line and Exit 2), thus the New York-style sign structures between the state line and Exit 2.

As for why I-95 in Connecticut starts as Exit 2 and not Exit 1, it was typical at the time for toll roads to number their exits in a way where the first and last exit were for through traffic headed toward the state line or the toll road's terminus, so "Exit 1" on the Connecticut Turnpike would have been continuing on the mainline towards New York.  I do recall the Ohio Turnpike had an identical situation where the first numbered exit was Exit 2 (before renumbering to mileage-based numbers), and through traffic headed west toward the Indiana Toll Road was considered "Exit 1." 

[DJStephens]

Interesting proposals for CT 25/111 area in Trumbull, for Metro COG, 2019, include a New Jersey-style quadrant roadway (sort of a jughandle, but not exactly) and a SPUI: https://metrocog-website.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/Website+Content/Corridor+Studies/25+%2B+111/Routes+25-111+Executive+Summary.pdf

First few pages of the document indicates scoping and public meetings all occurred over five years ago.   Anything ever come of it?  Would suspect politics, wealth, and NIMBYism would make something of this project's magnitude, in this particular area extremely difficult.   As for Connecticut as a whole, is it slowly depopulating, mainly due to taxes and extreme costs of living there?

[The Ghostbuster]

I like the idea of replacing the CT 25/CT 111 signaled intersection with an interchange. However, I doubt any of the improvements listed in the document will ever be implemented. This is Connecticut after all.

[connroadgeek]

First few pages of the document indicates scoping and public meetings all occurred over five years ago.   Anything ever come of it?  Would suspect politics, wealth, and NIMBYism would make something of this project's magnitude, in this particular area extremely difficult.   As for Connecticut as a whole, is it slowly depopulating, mainly due to taxes and extreme costs of living there?

Connecticut population by Census...

1980: 3.113m
1990: 3.289m
2000: 3.412m
2010: 3.579m
2020: 3.597m
2021: 3.623m (est.)
2022: 3.626m (est.)

[abqtraveler]

First few pages of the document indicates scoping and public meetings all occurred over five years ago.   Anything ever come of it?  Would suspect politics, wealth, and NIMBYism would make something of this project's magnitude, in this particular area extremely difficult.   As for Connecticut as a whole, is it slowly depopulating, mainly due to taxes and extreme costs of living there?

Connecticut population by Census...

1980: 3.113m
1990: 3.289m
2000: 3.412m
2010: 3.579m
2020: 3.597m
2021: 3.623m (est.)
2022: 3.626m (est.)

The mass migration of New Yorkers into Connecticut to escape that state's even harsher tax and regulatory environment outpaces the rate of Connecticut residents leaving to find places with lower taxes and better cost of living...but not by much.

[Pete from Boston]

The mass migration of New Yorkers into Connecticut to escape that state's even harsher tax and regulatory environment outpaces the rate of Connecticut residents leaving to find places with lower taxes and better cost of living...but not by much.

What specifically indicates that's the primary motivation for in-migration of New Yorkers to Connecticut? NYC folks have been decamping in all directions to suburbia for longer than I've been alive in search of more space at lower housing costs (driven in NYC by supply and demand more than anything), with a steady stream of newcomers ready to take their place. Is there data to indicate taxes and "regulatory environment" are the culprits?

[Ted$8roadFan]

I don't think it was just because of housing costs and taxes. At least in the first year of the pandemic, higher density living became synonymous with higher risks of infections, and the popularity of the ability to work from anywhere (for some) made places like Connecticut more attractive.

[connroadgeek]

First few pages of the document indicates scoping and public meetings all occurred over five years ago.   Anything ever come of it?  Would suspect politics, wealth, and NIMBYism would make something of this project's magnitude, in this particular area extremely difficult.   As for Connecticut as a whole, is it slowly depopulating, mainly due to taxes and extreme costs of living there?

Connecticut population by Census...

1980: 3.113m
1990: 3.289m
2000: 3.412m
2010: 3.579m
2020: 3.597m
2021: 3.623m (est.)
2022: 3.626m (est.)

The mass migration of New Yorkers into Connecticut to escape that state's even harsher tax and regulatory environment outpaces the rate of Connecticut residents leaving to find places with lower taxes and better cost of living...but not by much.

The population has been pretty stable for nearly half a century. City dwellers looking for a suburban lifestyle and people leaving for warmer climates and lower cost of living as they retire has always been a thing. Turns out 5-6 decades of cold and shoveling snow is more than enough for those that can afford to retire south, and the lower taxes and cost of living is the cherry on top though that financial advantage has shrunk considerably post-Covid. In looking at the data, the population bounces around a little +/- a few tens of thousands each year, but it looks more like a steady state to me.

[Alps]

Is there a reason why there is no "exit 1" on I-95?  When the exit numbers switch to a mile-based system exit 2 will become exit 1 but right now I find it really weird that the sequential numbers start at 2.

Supposedly, the old Greenwich toll plaza was considered "Exit 1".

I noticed the first few gantries in CT on I-95 are NY State gantries with CT owned signs on them.  Any idea why?

I think those gantries date back to when I-95 was originally built in that area. When the Connecticut Turnpike opened in 1958, it temporarily ended at Exit 2, as the bridge over the Byram River and the New England Thruway in New York were not yet built. The New England Thruway, the Byram River Bridge at the state line, and the small stretch of turnpike between the Byram River and Exit 2 were completed and opened in 1961. You'll also notice that things like catch basins in the highway median between the state line at the Delevan Avenue underpass (Exit 2) are to New York design specifications, whereas the roadway from exit 2 onward was built to Connecticut design specifications.

I suspect all of that work was completed under one construction contract awarded by the State of New York (probably under some arrangement with Connecticut, with Connecticut transferring to New York the money needed to build the section between the state line and Exit 2), thus the New York-style sign structures between the state line and Exit 2.

As for why I-95 in Connecticut starts as Exit 2 and not Exit 1, it was typical at the time for toll roads to number their exits in a way where the first and last exit were for through traffic headed toward the state line or the toll road's terminus, so "Exit 1" on the Connecticut Turnpike would have been continuing on the mainline towards New York.  I do recall the Ohio Turnpike had an identical situation where the first numbered exit was Exit 2 (before renumbering to mileage-based numbers), and through traffic headed west toward the Indiana Toll Road was considered "Exit 1." 

I would just like to acknowledge your brilliance in assembling this reply.

[roadman65]

https://maps.app.goo.gl/vKd49HejNmz2XXkQ6
Aren't the new mile based supposed to be installed on I-84? This should be Exit 63.

Also considering exit numbers on I-84 in the Hartford area are high, this means that I-84 ain't far behind I-95 in a race for closest interchanges on a freeway.

[vdeane]

https://maps.app.goo.gl/vKd49HejNmz2XXkQ6
Aren't the new mile based supposed to be installed on I-84? This should be Exit 63.

Not for a while yet.  The long-distance interstates will the the last routes in CT to be converted.

[The Ghostbuster]

Actually, that exit will probably be numbered Exit 66 (or 67) in the future. It has been predicted that Interstate 84 will get new numbers in 2028, but actual exit renumbering haven't exactly occurred on the predetermined dates, but it probably will be a few years from now.

[Mergingtraffic]

The I-84 WB aux lane between Exit 22 and Exit 21 is now open.

Here's a pic from a year ago.  Yes, in this pic it was almost complete, yet it took about a year to open it.


Drivers around here are upset, the ramp from CT-8 NB to I-84 EB is closed long-term for the third time.  This time was supposed to be only 6 weeks starting in August and it is closed b/c they have to pave the I-84 mainline.  The ramp itself is fine.  Why it can't be open until the final repaving is beyond me. When people comment on the rehab project FB page asking questions, some admin of the page deletes them.

Then, they said there would be 2 weekend closures of all but one lane on two weekends for waterproofing and final repaving.  They said it had to be done in the daylight hours b/c of dew points and the material setting right.  They did the first weekend fine and abruptly cancelled the second scheduled weekend. They say it'll just be done during night construction hours. 

Sooooooooooooo, what about the dew point explanation?  Did the work really had to be done during the day? or are they just not doing the waterproofing part and doing it at night?  (this is also why the ramp is closed between all this, although the ramp is fine and the mainline is driven over even though the pavement is uneven)

[MikeTheActuary]

West Hartford would, of course, be one of the first towns to jump on Connecticut's legalization of photo enforcement.

https://www.fox61.com/article/news/local/hartford-county/west-hartford/major-changes-coming-west-hartfords-traffic-lights-improve-driving/520-86c39579-ffe9-4ddb-bb71-d5d0fed6aa9b

tl;dr: West Hartford, arguably the most car-hostile town in the Hartford metro area, has filed the paperwork to introduce 15 red-light and speed cameras.

I'm not necessarily opposed to photo enforcement when proper safeguards are in place...and it looks like CT's trying to pursue those safeguards (proper signage, only in areas with demonstrated need, human review before tickets issued, not recorded on MVR, steps taken to protect privacy).   But West Hartford has annoyed me since I moved to the area.  I respect their efforts to be more bike- and pedestrian-friendly, but given the town's location and the issues with crossing the metro area in a car....

[RobbieL2415]

WeHa has bad traffic due to a lack of arterial surface streets. The Trout Brook Connector and the US 44 freeway would have alleviated a lot of it, but NIMBYs won that battle and now everyone getting off I-84 at Exit 43 is shoehorn onto Park Rd., Ttout Brook Dr., and Raymond Rd.

[mariethefoxy]

West Hartford would, of course, be one of the first towns to jump on Connecticut's legalization of photo enforcement.

https://www.fox61.com/article/news/local/hartford-county/west-hartford/major-changes-coming-west-hartfords-traffic-lights-improve-driving/520-86c39579-ffe9-4ddb-bb71-d5d0fed6aa9b

tl;dr: West Hartford, arguably the most car-hostile town in the Hartford metro area, has filed the paperwork to introduce 15 red-light and speed cameras.

I'm not necessarily opposed to photo enforcement when proper safeguards are in place...and it looks like CT's trying to pursue those safeguards (proper signage, only in areas with demonstrated need, human review before tickets issued, not recorded on MVR, steps taken to protect privacy).   But West Hartford has annoyed me since I moved to the area.  I respect their efforts to be more bike- and pedestrian-friendly, but given the town's location and the issues with crossing the metro area in a car....

if NYC is any indication, it starts as oh we need it by the school zones, then suddenly you have random cameras everywhere that operate 24/7, once they get addicted to the extra revenue, all "Safeguards" go out the window.

[MikeCL]

Took a drive around this morning before (and during) the rain to check on sign replacement and exit renumbering projects in southwest CT.  Drove I-91 up to Exit 10 and the length of CT 40.  I was hoping to find progress on CT 40's sign replacement (lumped in with I-91 Exits 9-18), but outside of new mile markers and some new sheets, there's little visible progress.  Also travelled more of CT 8 from Bridgeport to Ansonia (and last weekend from Winsted down to Waterbury).  In both trips, again, no visible progress on sign replacement, exit renumbering, etc.  There are a few scattered gantries in Derby and Bridgeport being replaced and saw no evidence of any excavation for new foundations or such.

I returned home via I-95, and stopped at the Milford-NB service plaza for lunch, where I caught this being built behind me in the parking lot:
95NB-MilfordPlaza-NewBldg by Jay Hogan, on Flickr

Similar structures are going up at other plazas, including Madison-SB.  I'm not sure what they'll be... it does remind me of a stand-alone Dunkin'.... perhaps either a "second prescence" at the plaza, or to replace their spot inside to make room for other tenants.  Madison-SB is "at capacity" but Milford-NB still has a vendor area available inside.  If these are going to be Dunkin' standalones, I suspect a lot of traffic around them, especially in the AM. 

And further up I-95, I stopped at the "Conn. Welcome Center" in Westbrook, NB.  It's still open, and the info center attendant said they'll probably stay open until the end of October/beginning of November, "same as last year" as he said.

I asked the same question a few pages back and no one knew anything I'm curious too.. Maybe a stand alone welcome center? I mean Darien already has dunkin inside.

I even tried to look on the DOT website and I don't see anything showing.

From the colors they're using on the building exterior, I would guess it's a Starbucks they're building.

Yep been doing long truck driving and can confirm it's going to be starbucks.. it kinda seems pointless  is this some type of long term contract to build all of that?

[zzyzx]

I did not have this on my CTDOT reconstruction calendar...

CTDOT is planning on combining Exits 71 and 72 Southbound in Old Lyme into one interchange, with a frontage road and traffic signal.

Is this the new CTDOT method, removing trumpet interchanges and replacing them with ramps and traffic signals? While it's a good start, it does nothing to address widening I-95 in the area, nor does it look like the Northbound ramps will be combined, which also has a short weave.

This plan is a significant change to the one in the 2004 Branford to RI state line widening plans for I-95, which included 2 separate exits in a sort of "scissor weave" with the Exit 71 deceleration ramps crossing over the Exit 72 acceleration ramps.

They're planning on starting this project in 2028, which is right after the Exit 74 project in East Lyme is set to be complete.

Article with rendering linked below from the CT Examiner (no paywall)

https://ctexaminer.com/2023/12/13/i-95-exits-71-and-72-southbound-will-be-combined-in-2028-plan/

[shadyjay]

Saw this too, and was a little disappointed for many of the reasons already stated (lack of mainline widening, no changes NB, etc). 

While eliminating the trumpet ramps to the north and replacing them with a light is not ideal, it does address the crossing traffic issue.  Maine recently converted one of its turnpike interchanges from a trumpet to a diamond, with no road heading west (similar to this case in CT).

I was not a fan of the former proposal in the old I-95 widening study that retained the present Exit 71 / 72 on/off ramps but had bridges in place instead of ramp changes.  So in that regard, this seems better, and cheaper.  Just wished they'd combine it into a consolidated Exit 71/72 NB/SB project with a little bit of widening and overpass replacement, and fast track the thing.  The proposal here isn't supposed to be a shovel until 2028... at the earliest!

But, alas, ConnDOT doing projects "half-ass" seems to be a thing lately.  I-95 Exit 74-75 project seems great, but doesn't widen out to Exit 76.  I-91 NB Exit 29/Charter Oak Bridge alleviated the congestion NB, but didn't do anything to fix the problem SB.  The Route 9/Middletown project is creating a NB acceleration lane from Route 17, but isn't touching SB.  And back in the 1990s, the Merritt Parkway/US 7 got half an interchange, with the other half in study ever since.