Connecticut News

[Alps]

I can tell you that progressing from Concept Development (the level shown here) to construction, for a project like this, 3 years is totally normal and reasonable, so if it's going to enter design in 2024, it's not going to be ready for a shovel until at least late 2027. That's not Connecticut or this project, that's the reality of engineering.

I just hope that whoever wins the next stages of design convinces CT of a way to eliminate the NB weave.

[abqtraveler]

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/

It would make more sense to extend the Rocky Neck Connector as a 2-lane road northwest from I-95 to Fourmile River Road. Then convert Exit 72 to a diamond interchange and eliminate Exit 71 entirely. I would sure hope that when they reconstruct these interchanges, they do so in a way it can easily be expanded to three travel lanes with minimal work, as CTDOT has been discussing for at least the past 20 years, widening I-95 to 3 lanes from Branford to Rhode Island.

[RobbieL2415]

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.

Just because they didn't fix the issues going southbound with the I-91 Exit 29 project doesn't mean they won't address it in the future.

Widening Exit 86 on CT 15 would require additional retrofitting of the deck of the Charter Oak Bridge and a realignment of I-91 SB to at least Exit 28.
Until that happens, they really should do a better job at emphasizing on signage that if Exit 86 is backed up, use Exit 87. There should really be additional signage for that.

[Rothman]

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.

Just because they didn't fix the issues going southbound with the I-91 Exit 29 project doesn't mean they won't address it in the future.

Dude...this is CT.  Maybe 100 years from now...

[Mergingtraffic]

https://hartfordmobility.com/ghms/PEL/Appendix%20L%20-%20Implementation%20Plan.pdf

Hartford Mobility study is complete.

They propose extending the I-284 stub up to I-91. Page 8 of the link I provided. It actually makes sense as there's not much development in their alignment.

[Alps]

https://hartfordmobility.com/ghms/PEL/Appendix%20L%20-%20Implementation%20Plan.pdf

Hartford Mobility study is complete.

They propose extending the I-284 stub up to I-91. Page 8 of the link I provided. It actually makes sense as there's not much development in their alignment.

*They propose routing I-84 northward at the I-284 stub and then west to I-91

[MikeTheActuary]

https://hartfordmobility.com/ghms/PEL/Appendix%20L%20-%20Implementation%20Plan.pdf

Hartford Mobility study is complete.

They propose extending the I-284 stub up to I-91. Page 8 of the link I provided. It actually makes sense as there's not much development in their alignment.

RIP Xfinity Theater.

[RobbieL2415]

The railroad and CTfastrak would be reconstructed from approximately Sigourney Street to Albany/Main Street. New platforms
would be provided to access the rail service approximately 800 feet west of the existing Union Station with the possibility
for a new or improved Union Station.

WTF does that even mean?
See, this is why I don't like these "studies". All they do is promote concepts without actually looking into the intricacies of the existing infrastructure.

[The Ghostbuster]

I doubt the relocated Interstate 84/Interstate 91 interchange via CT 500 will be built for the same reason Interstate 284 wasn't built: environmental concerns. In fact, I doubt any of these projects will proceed to construction. This is Connecticut, after all.

[MikeTheActuary]

The railroad and CTfastrak would be reconstructed from approximately Sigourney Street to Albany/Main Street. New platforms
would be provided to access the rail service approximately 800 feet west of the existing Union Station with the possibility
for a new or improved Union Station.

That's the consultant-speak for "we want to realign I-84, but Union Station (specifically, the rail and bus platforms) is in the way.  So we're going to move Union Station too."

I doubt the relocated Interstate 84/Interstate 91 interchange via CT 500 will be built for the same reason Interstate 284 wasn't built: environmental concerns. In fact, I doubt any of these projects will proceed to construction. This is Connecticut, after all.

The condition of the Aetna viaduct means that something is going to eventually happen.   The question is whether it will be an intentional ConnDOT project, or an expected but unscheduled tragedy.

That being said, they've been talking for, what, over 20 years about what they're going to do, and this is the second or third time a discrete plan has been presented?

[RobbieL2415]

I doubt the relocated Interstate 84/Interstate 91 interchange via CT 500 will be built for the same reason Interstate 284 wasn't built: environmental concerns. In fact, I doubt any of these projects will proceed to construction. This is Connecticut, after all.

IIRC it was the wetlands and farmlands in South Windsor and East Windsor that were of greatest concern when I-284 was proposed.

[Mergingtraffic]

The railroad and CTfastrak would be reconstructed from approximately Sigourney Street to Albany/Main Street. New platforms
would be provided to access the rail service approximately 800 feet west of the existing Union Station with the possibility
for a new or improved Union Station.

That's the consultant-speak for "we want to realign I-84, but Union Station (specifically, the rail and bus platforms) is in the way.  So we're going to move Union Station too."

I doubt the relocated Interstate 84/Interstate 91 interchange via CT 500 will be built for the same reason Interstate 284 wasn't built: environmental concerns. In fact, I doubt any of these projects will proceed to construction. This is Connecticut, after all.

The condition of the Aetna viaduct means that something is going to eventually happen.   The question is whether it will be an intentional ConnDOT project, or an expected but unscheduled tragedy.

That being said, they've been talking for, what, over 20 years about what they're going to do, and this is the second or third time a discrete plan has been presented?

They study and then nothing happens then they study it again.

Look at the Waterbury I-84 Mixmaster.  It was studied in 2007, I even went to a meeting and here they are again studying it again.

[Alps]

I doubt the relocated Interstate 84/Interstate 91 interchange via CT 500 will be built for the same reason Interstate 284 wasn't built: environmental concerns. In fact, I doubt any of these projects will proceed to construction. This is Connecticut, after all.

IIRC it was the wetlands and farmlands in South Windsor and East Windsor that were of greatest concern when I-284 was proposed.

This, and they really want to reconstruct existing I-84, which is easier with a new alignment and demo the old. It'll restore and beautify downtown. Etc.

[abqtraveler]

I doubt the relocated Interstate 84/Interstate 91 interchange via CT 500 will be built for the same reason Interstate 284 wasn't built: environmental concerns. In fact, I doubt any of these projects will proceed to construction. This is Connecticut, after all.

IIRC it was the wetlands and farmlands in South Windsor and East Windsor that were of greatest concern when I-284 was proposed.

Those concerns would still hold true, but unlike the original I-284 proposal that would have run up along the east bank of the Connecticut River to I-291, the relocation of I-84 would be a shorter routing along the east bank to a new crossing a couple miles north of the current one. Still to be determined is if I-91 would remain on its existing alignment through downtown Hartford or rerouted over the same proposed crossing for I-84, then diverge from I-84 roughly where the current interchange with Route 2 is today, then follow Route 2 to the Charter Oak Bridge, the cross back over the Connecticut River via the COB.

That would open up a lot of land along the west bank of the river through downtown Hartford to be reclaimed, and potentially provides and opportunity to fix the mess of freeways and ramps in East Hartford, if it is planned, designed and implemented properly.

[Alps]

I doubt the relocated Interstate 84/Interstate 91 interchange via CT 500 will be built for the same reason Interstate 284 wasn't built: environmental concerns. In fact, I doubt any of these projects will proceed to construction. This is Connecticut, after all.

IIRC it was the wetlands and farmlands in South Windsor and East Windsor that were of greatest concern when I-284 was proposed.

Those concerns would still hold true, but unlike the original I-284 proposal that would have run up along the east bank of the Connecticut River to I-291, the relocation of I-84 would be a shorter routing along the east bank to a new crossing a couple miles north of the current one. Still to be determined is if I-91 would remain on its existing alignment through downtown Hartford or rerouted over the same proposed crossing for I-84, then diverge from I-84 roughly where the current interchange with Route 2 is today, then follow Route 2 to the Charter Oak Bridge, the cross back over the Connecticut River via the COB.

That would open up a lot of land along the west bank of the river through downtown Hartford to be reclaimed, and potentially provides and opportunity to fix the mess of freeways and ramps in East Hartford, if it is planned, designed and implemented properly.

That would be a nightmare to implement properly. You'd still need approaches into downtown from north and south to handle all of the local traffic, plus widen 2 for the through traffic. I-91 is actually a good ride on the west shore and I think it should stay.

[SectorZ]

I doubt the relocated Interstate 84/Interstate 91 interchange via CT 500 will be built for the same reason Interstate 284 wasn't built: environmental concerns. In fact, I doubt any of these projects will proceed to construction. This is Connecticut, after all.

IIRC it was the wetlands and farmlands in South Windsor and East Windsor that were of greatest concern when I-284 was proposed.

Those concerns would still hold true, but unlike the original I-284 proposal that would have run up along the east bank of the Connecticut River to I-291, the relocation of I-84 would be a shorter routing along the east bank to a new crossing a couple miles north of the current one. Still to be determined is if I-91 would remain on its existing alignment through downtown Hartford or rerouted over the same proposed crossing for I-84, then diverge from I-84 roughly where the current interchange with Route 2 is today, then follow Route 2 to the Charter Oak Bridge, the cross back over the Connecticut River via the COB.

That would open up a lot of land along the west bank of the river through downtown Hartford to be reclaimed, and potentially provides and opportunity to fix the mess of freeways and ramps in East Hartford, if it is planned, designed and implemented properly.

That would be a nightmare to implement properly. You'd still need approaches into downtown from north and south to handle all of the local traffic, plus widen 2 for the through traffic. I-91 is actually a good ride on the west shore and I think it should stay.

That and the money to reconstruct the 91/5/15 interchange south of the Charter Oak would literally be money set on fire if they just kill off 91 west of the river in Hartford.

[shadyjay]

Actually the latest study released keeps I-91 on the west side of the river... just caps it.  Its I-84 that gets the major reroute.  So you're looking at a few miles of relocated I-84 and a new bridge over the river north of the Bulkeley.  And they want to add another "local" crossing, roughly in line with the Whitehead Highway into East Hartford.  Not sure why that is needed, as the Founders could serve that role just fine and without any major capacity issues. 

If everything gets capped, is there going to be a route for Hazmats to get around?  I-93's tunnels in Boston (and I-90 east of 128) are blocked for Hazmats.   

And is the existing Aetna viaduct going to stay up long enough for all this to be done?  Get through the permits?  Environmental?  And I'm sure there will be NIMBYs.  And curious to see what the new I-84/I-91 interchange will look like.  The North Meadows does have a fair bit of room to make it happen. 

If this does get built, great.  It frees up the Mixmaster area in East Hartford.  It reverts the Bulkeley back to a local street, Connecticut Boulevard, as it should be.  And "MOST" construction could be done without terribly impacting existing traffic (except at either end).  Still, it would be nice to have I-291 to get around the whole mess (and I-491 as well).  But.... you know.... CT...   

[kurumi]

I like the CT 2 extension to I-91 at Jennings Road, which would decouple the Bulkeley Bridge from I-91 (replacing the two ramps that remain there now).

The proposed additional bridge at the Whitehead Highway (SR 598) is interesting. They mention converting SR 598 into a boulevard (which makes sense; the existing freeway is outdated). It sits on top of the Park River. How would this be done?

* lift its grade to the existing street network (the public library sits over a tunnel at Main Street)?
* leave as is but with signalized connectors to adjacent streets?
* or, uncap the river and let traffic use Arch Street and Sheldon Street instead?

The 3-way interchange with I-91 would disappear (since I-91 would be buried). Then the new bridge would connect with East River Drive, sort of a continuous connector to Silver Lane. Maybe the whole thing would become extended SR 502. I'd be surprised if it got a signed route number.

Originally, the 1950s Hartford Bridge Commission called for 7 bridges over the CT River in the Hartford area. Five were built (3, 5/15, 2, 84, 291).

[SectorZ]

I like the CT 2 extension to I-91 at Jennings Road, which would decouple the Bulkeley Bridge from I-91 (replacing the two ramps that remain there now).

The proposed additional bridge at the Whitehead Highway (SR 598) is interesting. They mention converting SR 598 into a boulevard (which makes sense; the existing freeway is outdated). It sits on top of the Park River. How would this be done?

* lift its grade to the existing street network (the public library sits over a tunnel at Main Street)?
* leave as is but with signalized connectors to adjacent streets?
* or, uncap the river and let traffic use Arch Street and Sheldon Street instead?

The 3-way interchange with I-91 would disappear (since I-91 would be buried). Then the new bridge would connect with East River Drive, sort of a continuous connector to Silver Lane. Maybe the whole thing would become extended SR 502. I'd be surprised if it got a signed route number.

Originally, the 1950s Hartford Bridge Commission called for 7 bridges over the CT River in the Hartford area. Five were built (3, 5/15, 2, 84, 291).

I'm curious as to how they plan to get 91 under the Park River.

[MikeTheActuary]

I'd think that any new crossing at the Whitehead would be contingent on getting the feds to change the regulatory status of the Connecticut River.   It's currently considered "navigable" to the Founders Bridge.  Barring a change in status, a new crossing would either need significant height (c.f. the Charter Oak US 5/CT 15 bridge), or would need to be a draw bridge.

I'm curious as to how they plan to get 91 under the Park River.

If the Ted Williams tunnel can get the MassPike under a channel in Boston Harbor, I imagine a Geno Auriemma tunnel can take I-91 beneath the Park River.

Personally, I think the depression of I-91 south of the Founders Bridge and the new CT River Crossing are the parts of the plan least likely to occur.

[Ted$8roadFan]

I'd think that any new crossing at the Whitehead would be contingent on getting the feds to change the regulatory status of the Connecticut River.   It's currently considered "navigable" to the Founders Bridge.  Barring a change in status, a new crossing would either need significant height (c.f. the Charter Oak US 5/CT 15 bridge), or would need to be a draw bridge.

I'm curious as to how they plan to get 91 under the Park River.

If the Ted Williams tunnel can get the MassPike under a channel in Boston Harbor, I imagine a Geno Auriemma tunnel can take I-91 beneath the Park River.

Personally, I think the depression of I-91 south of the Founders Bridge and the new CT River Crossing are the parts of the plan least likely to occur.

The Connecticut River is navigable and/or tidal from Long Island Sound to Hartford, so I'm not sure how the feds would change its status.

[MikeTheActuary]

The Connecticut River is navigable and/or tidal from Long Island Sound to Hartford, so I'm not sure how the feds would change its status.

If the Army Corps of Engineers were to recommend to a federal court that the Connecticut River between the Founders Bridge and the proposed new bridge was not "navigable", and the court agreed, then the legal status of the river would change, reducing the need for a high or movable bridge.

Admittedly, this is probably one of those "easier said than done" things.

[SectorZ]

The Connecticut River is navigable and/or tidal from Long Island Sound to Hartford, so I'm not sure how the feds would change its status.

If the Army Corps of Engineers were to recommend to a federal court that the Connecticut River between the Founders Bridge and the proposed new bridge was not "navigable", and the court agreed, then the legal status of the river would change, reducing the need for a high or movable bridge.

Admittedly, this is probably one of those "easier said than done" things.

I think the last thing upstream they go to is the Covanta Electric Station just east of the Charter Oak Bridge. If not, then the Buckeye Terminal in Wethersfield a couple of miles south is.

[Mergingtraffic]

New signage on I-84 WB at Waterbury Mixmaster.  Note the signs are on a new gantry that was never there before...ever.  Before the rehab project this is not where the signs were.  They moved them forward to this location.  The result, the drivers really never get a chance to see the tops of the signs between the beams.  Signs were previously on a beam that had extra space ahead of it so drivers could see the whole sign.

[connroadgeek]

Weird seeing a gantry like that in what is essentially a tunnel. Should have used horizontal oriented signs mounted to the beams.