Connecticut News

[RobbieL2415]

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 They mention converting SR 598 into a boulevard (which makes sense; the existing freeway is outdated).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.

- If Whitehead Hwy becomes Whitehead Ave., then Exit 29A is almost certainly getting reconfigured. The I-91 SB flyover of the NB on ramp goes away, as well. Assuming it crosses at grade with Commerce St., there's enough height for a new bridge over the river. Exit 29A could be relocated to serve Van Dyke Ave. and the Colt Building area.

- A northward CT 2 extension should end at at US 5 near the E. Hartford/S. Windsor line, IMHO, with an extension of Jennings Rd. east of the river to US 5. Doing this would allow for an additional surface streets connection to Hartford and relieve traffic at the Exit 3 ramps on I-291 by giving an alternate route to/from downtown.

[Duke87]

But, alas, ConnDOT doing projects "half-ass" seems to be a thing lately.

In many cases this is due to NIMBYs killing any proper solution, though in the case of exits 71-72 I imagine it's mostly a question of that what's now proposed is less expensive to build than any alternative that eliminates the weave but maintains free-flow. Also less impervious surface / smaller footprint, which is seen as a plus in its own right.

And, well, the traffic counts between Rocky Neck Connector and SB I-95 do not necessitate free-flow be maintained, so it's totally acceptable to kill it if something else worthwhile can be gained as a result. The traffic signal will probably result in fewer crashes than the weave does.

[kernals12]

Given its relevance regarding blocking construction of I-291, why does Hartford need reservoirs? Why can't they just draw water from the Connecticut River? Is it too salty and/or polluted?

[SectorZ]

Given its relevance regarding blocking construction of I-291, why does Hartford need reservoirs? Why can't they just draw water from the Connecticut River? Is it too salty and/or polluted?

My town gets water from the Merrimack River without issue, I can't see the Connecticut River being worse than the Merrimack for water quality.

Connecticut has come a long way from doing things like dumping raw sewage from the old prison in Wethersfield (now the DMV) into the Wethersfield Cove right next to the river.

[Rothman]

How does Bundy's Island, or whatever it's called, work for Springfield, MA?  Do they use river water there?

Connecticut River was infamous for having syringes pop up on shore, so...yuk.

[SectorZ]

How does Bundy's Island, or whatever it's called, work for Springfield, MA?  Do they use river water there?

Connecticut River was infamous for having syringes pop up on shore, so...yuk.

https://waterandsewer.org/about-the-commission/system-description/

Appears all the water comes from reservoirs, primary is Cobble Mountain in Granville and backup is Ludlow Reservoir (labeled as Springfield Reservoir on Google Maps) in Ludlow.

[shadyjay]

Back to CT news...

In the struggle to figure out how to get rid of the lights on Route 9 in Middletown, there's now "Alternative 11".  This alternative gets rid of both traffic lights (at Washington St and Hartford Ave) and constructs a new exit to downtown just before the current Route 17 North overpass on Route 9 North, which would lead to a roundabout and pass beneath Route 9 to existing Union Street.  Much of the area this traverses east of Route 9 is vacant land.  While it would be a good access to downtown, it does not provide easy access to the Arrigoni Bridge to Portland.  One would either have to make their way to Main St and slog through several lights, or take deKoven Drive and make their way to the bridge. 

Alternative 1 is still on the table, which would elevate Route 9 South so that the existing access from Route 9 North to Washington St could be maintained.

Both Alternative 1 & 11 have the same solution for the Hartford Ave light (beneath the Arrigoni itself), in regards to elevating Route 9 South so that traffic from Hartford Ave can proceed non-stop onto Route 9 North.   Added for both alternatives, the acceleration lane (entering on the left) from Hartford Ave to Route 9 North would have its own lane, extended up to Route 99 in Cromwell.  There's plenty of room to accomodate this lane in the wide variable median.

Now if Alternative 11 does go through, it would require a rerouting of Route 17, as the next exit on Route 9 North after the merge would be Route 99/Cromwell.  I would think Alternative 1 would also force a relocation of Route 17 North, as traffic would have less than 1/4 mile to merge left to get off onto Washington/deKoven. 

There was a good alternative floating around, which would have had a Route 9 North exit to Rapallo Ave flyover Route 9 South.  This would have put you one light away from the entrance to the Arrigoni.  But apparently it was shot down. 

Here are the links:

Project site:  https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/Projects/0082-0318-Route-9-Middletown-Home

Alternative 1 map:  https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOT/documents/dprojects/Project0082-0318/0082-0318-Alt-1-Plan.jpg?sc_lang=en&hash=DCD4B3BBF4A659BCDA5E9CA0C6C95B9F

Alternative 11 map:  https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOT/documents/dprojects/Project0082-0318/0082-0318-Alt-11-Plan.jpg?sc_lang=en&hash=3BB4430FF54767B2F6A0782BEBED4C26


Honestly, the way to do it the right way would be to construct a new interchange north of the Arrigoni, looping around to meet the bridge.  Or, send Route 9 to Portland (via two bridges) and retain existing Route 9 as a boulevard.  But those ideas probably won't happen (let's see if what they're planning for Hartford actually happens).

[The Ghostbuster]

I like Alternative 1 better than Alternative 11. Or rather, I would if either of these alternatives had any chance of being implemented, which I doubt will ever happen. It seems like Connecticut's DOT is too scared of politicians, NIMBYS, and special interest groups (probably all three) to ever make any kind of road improvements to the state's highway system. All the power seems to be in the hands of the Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone (BANANA) groups.

[RobbieL2415]

Was their ever an alternative drawn that is a reroute of CT 9 through Portland?

[Alps]

I like that Alt. 11 is all right hand exits. To me that is the safest traffic flow, plus it puts more traffic into Middletown which is most of the time a good thing for commerce (outside of college weekends).

[Ted$8roadFan]

Was their ever an alternative drawn that is a reroute of CT 9 through Portland?

I recall a proposal from back in the 1980s or so which would have routed CT-9 across the River naar the southeast bend and to follow Portland's riverfront before crossing back over around the Arrigoni Bridge. I think the idea is that it would free up the Middletown riverfront for more recreational uses, while Portland's riverfront is mostly industrial.

[shadyjay]

I don't think it was a proposal that got anywhere... it was more of a "hey, wouldn't this be nice?" idea. 

But what a reliever it would be for the Arrigoni Bridge... for Middletown's waterfront... for thru traffic on Route 9... for those traveling between Portland and Hartford... etc.
I used to take Route 9 to the Hartford area each morning and would see the huge lines of cars coming off the Arrigoni onto Route 9, and then see the reverse in the evening, sometimes backing up to Cromwell/Rt 372.  It still backs up that far, definitely on summer weekends. 

As I was on Route 9 North tonight heading to Portland, I wondered about how much longer the drive would take if I had to get off either on Alt 1 or 11 and sit through more traffic lights just to get to the bridge. 

[kurumi]

There's a recent thread about California "S" routes in its GIS database.

It turns out Connecticut has similar datasets online: https://geodata.ct.gov/maps/CTDOT::ctdot-historical-state-routes-and-local-roads/about

Unfortunately, "State Route Network Historical" which looked really tantalizing (I mean, year by year from 1922 onward would be the holy grail), has no rows (yet).

But State Routes (https://connecticut-ctdot.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/CTDOT::state-routes-3/explore?location=41.521780%2C-72.757055%2C10.31) has signed routes, and unsigned (including the 900s) and some networks that typically aren't numbered on other maps.

There's a (State Institution) Route 359 at UConn in Mansfield. There's a (State Forest) Route 108 in East Hampton. (Like Texas, some of the different designations use duplicate numbers. But these are not signed.) Play with the filters to see more.

There are a few other interesting datasets (local roads, etc.)

[cockroachking]

This map is my personal favorite from CTDOT, mostly because of the color coding for the different types of state routes.

[dgolub]

With Alternative 11, it looks like there would be no way for traffic from CT 17 to reach the Arrigoni Bridge without making a U-turn somewhere.

[Ted$8roadFan]

With Alternative 11, it looks like there would be no way for traffic from CT 17 to reach the Arrigoni Bridge without making a U-turn somewhere.

I'm also not seeing a way from CT-9/17 N to exit at Washington Street (CT-66) which can be done now. I know someone who has used that exit driving from southern New England to Pennsylvania.

[Ted$8roadFan]

I don't think it was a proposal that got anywhere... it was more of a "hey, wouldn't this be nice?" idea. 

But what a reliever it would be for the Arrigoni Bridge... for Middletown's waterfront... for thru traffic on Route 9... for those traveling between Portland and Hartford... etc.
I used to take Route 9 to the Hartford area each morning and would see the huge lines of cars coming off the Arrigoni onto Route 9, and then see the reverse in the evening, sometimes backing up to Cromwell/Rt 372.  It still backs up that far, definitely on summer weekends. 

As I was on Route 9 North tonight heading to Portland, I wondered about how much longer the drive would take if I had to get off either on Alt 1 or 11 and sit through more traffic lights just to get to the bridge.

Not sure where Portland would stand on this. On the one hand the waterfront in the immediate area is industrial (mostly tankers), so there wouldn't be much public access to be lost. Plus, it could relieve traffic on the Arrigoni Bridge itself, which can be dangerous (a good friend once had a head-on accident there) On the other hand, it would create a ton of traffic in the area while arguably impacting its small-town character (which of course will become an issue, if nothing else).

[Alps]

This map is my personal favorite from CTDOT, mostly because of the color coding for the different types of state routes.

zoomed in on some pink and found State Institution Routes 314-315. most interesting.

[shadyjay]

With Alternative 11, it looks like there would be no way for traffic from CT 17 to reach the Arrigoni Bridge without making a U-turn somewhere.

Alt 1 isn't much better for traffic continuing on CT 17 NB, either.  The proposed acceleration lane from Rt 17 North and the proposed decelleraton lane to Washington St overlap each other.   I would hope ConnDOT decides to route 17 via Main St and sign that as the way to Portland.  This would have to be a requirement for Alt 11, and should be STRONGLY suggested for Alt 1. 

Southbound, there's no impact as both plans retain the present CT 17 South to CT 9 South onramp.  Just wish they'd extend that 3rd lane on Route 9 South another 1/4 mile to end at the Rt 17 South exit, instead of just a hundred or so feet shy of the deKoven drive exit.

[Mergingtraffic]

I think in regards to CT-9, there shouldn't be any left exits or entrances at all.  Currently, we will say it's so great b/c the stoplights will be gone.  Traffic will improve hopefully.

But eventually as the memory of the stoplights fade into history, people will forget about them, this section will blend in with the other freeway sections of Route 9 and it'll be a nuisance left exit or entrance. 

I still don't know why they can't swap the NB mainline with the ramps, it would make the curve of the ramps wider rather than that tight hook they are proposed to have. But the NB mainline next to the SB lanes and have the ramps enter on the right.

[Mergingtraffic]

This sign still hangs on in Shelton, but not for long.

[shadyjay]

And since we were talking 'bout Middletown, I found this:
https://middletownct.gov/DocumentCenter/View/750/Riverfront-Presentation-2012-PDF

Yes, over 10 years old, but its got some interesting proposals in there.  Not sure what proposal the black & white image of a sprawling ramp structure where Rt 17 meets Rt 9 at (former Exit 13) and where the road disappearing at bottom right goes... perhaps it was an I-691 expressway proposal with new bridge across the CT River?  That would explain why a full interchange is shown here. 

Two images down shows a much more scaled down approach, converting the exit to a SPUI and converting the short Rt 17 expressway into a boulevard. 

The next image down is more likely to happen, once the sites get cleaned up enviornmentally.  That whole area of River Rd is ripe for redevelopment. 

[kurumi]

The 4-way freeway interchange is part of the (IIRC) 1965 POCD for Middletown, and it was a priority to bring US 6A (now CT 66) as close as possible to the CBD.

The small CT 17 interchange with Main St Extension would have been part of the Ring Road.

Here's a planning map with more context, click for larger pic:

[The Ghostbuster]

Why do I have the feeling that the traffic signals in Middletown will never be eliminated? Connecticut seems like a do-nothing, keep-everything-the-same-as-it-currently-is state. At least from a transportation perspective.

[connroadgeek]

Why do I have the feeling that the traffic signals in Middletown will never be eliminated? Connecticut seems like a do-nothing, keep-everything-the-same-as-it-currently-is state. At least from a transportation perspective.

It's not called the land of steady habits for nothing.