Connecticut News

[vdeane]

Are you kidding me? The preferred option is the stoplight option for the CT15/US7 interchange?! This project is the poster child for what's wrong with CT Transportation.
https://connecticut.news12.com/ready-for-roadwork-ct-has-nearly-200-projects-planned?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR0JpU2hG782iKAboswxDrAAdsKShCA2AzhmHStfGIMRcVpiF5eVQcBkuJo_aem_AResvS5iFPJg23P-bqwPo4wd9BRQFLvT9d6xjpQApQgtWzr6mIRyhf7bNpxx88kF1kXVnyrDFE9W8prE7tM1q6sf

With no freeway extension happening on US 7 north of the Merritt Parkway, this is a much better solution than adding flyovers where the freeway ends at a traffic signal about 1/2 mile north of this interchange.

But it's a freeway south of there, and freeway/freeway interchanges should be free-flow.

[Plutonic Panda]

Seems like US-7 should be a freeway up to I-84.

[RobbieL2415]

Yes, well.... 

I-84 in East Hartford and Manchester has signage from the mid 1980s.  I can't imagine there's any reflectivity left in those signs, installed about the time I-84 got its current configuration in the area.

My thought is that their either planning on resurfacing and covering the concrete section first, or there's so many signs across the Exit 59-62 C/D that they want to treat it as a separate contract.

The project from Vernon to Union probably costs less, too.

Nearly all the signs from Vernon to the Massachusetts line are ground mounted, whereas there are a lot of overhead gantries on the East Hartford to Manchester stretch. Let's not forget too, there are even more signs and structures to replace, thanks to separate signage for the HOV lanes on that stretch.

Which makes me wonder if we're going to be looking at a multi-year reconstruction process for that stretch; Resurfacing,bridge maintenance and sign replacements.

[Duke87]

Are you kidding me? The preferred option is the stoplight option for the CT15/US7 interchange?! This project is the poster child for what's wrong with CT Transportation.
https://connecticut.news12.com/ready-for-roadwork-ct-has-nearly-200-projects-planned?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR0JpU2hG782iKAboswxDrAAdsKShCA2AzhmHStfGIMRcVpiF5eVQcBkuJo_aem_AResvS5iFPJg23P-bqwPo4wd9BRQFLvT9d6xjpQApQgtWzr6mIRyhf7bNpxx88kF1kXVnyrDFE9W8prE7tM1q6sf

With no freeway extension happening on US 7 north of the Merritt Parkway, this is a much better solution than adding flyovers where the freeway ends at a traffic signal about 1/2 mile north of this interchange.

No, see, the problem with this proposal is that it's worse than doing nothing. Sure, you can't get between the Merritt to the north and 7 directly, but existing traffic patterns already account for the fact that you can't do this. Movements to the south and thru traffic on 7, meanwhile, both of which are greater in volume, currently free flow and will if this is built no longer be able to.

I understand that NIMBY considerations make building anything else impossible, but I'd much prefer they go "no build" here. I use the free flow connections that exist routinely and do not want my movement hindered by downgrading the interchange, kthx.

[vdeane]

Seriously, someone needs to put the Conservancy in its place.  The 2005 plan would not have harmed the character of the parkway AT ALL.  The fact that they thought it would proves that they don't have a clue what they are talking about.  I can't even find what "historic bridges" they're even talking about on their analysis, and the ramp mileage doesn't affect the experience of driving by on the parkway.

https://www.merrittparkway.org/copy-of-route-7-interchange-litigation

As for those who thought that a freeway interchange would "open the door" for a northern extension, I don't know what they're smoking, but CT couldn't afford to do that even if they wanted to.

[kurumi]

You could have a SPUI along free-flowing US 7 and a traffic light on the Merritt Parkway. Let's think outside the box :-}

[Plutonic Panda]

Seriously, someone needs to put the Conservancy in its place.  The 2005 plan would not have harmed the character of the parkway AT ALL.  The fact that they thought it would proves that they don't have a clue what they are talking about.  I can't even find what "historic bridges" they're even talking about on their analysis, and the ramp mileage doesn't affect the experience of driving by on the parkway.

https://www.merrittparkway.org/copy-of-route-7-interchange-litigation

As for those who thought that a freeway interchange would "open the door" for a northern extension, I don't know what they're smoking, but CT couldn't afford to do that even if they wanted to.

I thought Connecticut was a fairly wealthy state.

[vdeane]

I thought Connecticut was a fairly wealthy state.

If CTDOT has a ton of cash, they sure have a hard time finding some for things like removing the lights on CT 9.

[Plutonic Panda]

I thought Connecticut was a fairly wealthy state.

If CTDOT has a ton of cash, they sure have a hard time finding some for things like removing the lights on CT 9.

Well I don't know how the financial structure in taxing set up in connecticut. Maybe the state needs to propose an increase in taxes, or they need to redistribute funds to give the department of transportation more money.

But even if they had the money, i'm sure an extension of this highway would be hard to construct nowadays being in the northeast. Just like IL 53 extension NIMBYland.

[Ted$8roadFan]

Re: CT-9 in Middletown, I don't think a lack of funding is the issue as much as it is a lack of consensus about how best to get rid of the signals at CT-17 and CT-66.

[shadyjay]

Looks like progress is being made on the I-84 Vernon-to-Union project.  Yup... that's right... visible progress... already!  Foundations for the new sign supports are already being dug.  A substantial amount of ground signage in this project is being elevated.  It does seem like its going against recent ConnDOT prescident, but this is a heavily trafficked trucking route and the trucks often obscure right side ground mounted signage.  Granted, most of the gantries will be single sided "4-chord cantilever", but that increases the cost of the contract.  Perhaps its mitigated by the mass "sheeting" of town lines, park & rides, exit services, and in some cases, onramp signage. 

[abqtraveler]

Are you kidding me? The preferred option is the stoplight option for the CT15/US7 interchange?! This project is the poster child for what's wrong with CT Transportation.
https://connecticut.news12.com/ready-for-roadwork-ct-has-nearly-200-projects-planned?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR0JpU2hG782iKAboswxDrAAdsKShCA2AzhmHStfGIMRcVpiF5eVQcBkuJo_aem_AResvS5iFPJg23P-bqwPo4wd9BRQFLvT9d6xjpQApQgtWzr6mIRyhf7bNpxx88kF1kXVnyrDFE9W8prE7tM1q6sf

With no freeway extension happening on US 7 north of the Merritt Parkway, this is a much better solution than adding flyovers where the freeway ends at a traffic signal about 1/2 mile north of this interchange.

Especially so, if CTDOT moves forward with their plan to reconfigure the T-intersection at Gristmill Road to smooth out the transition from the freeway to the surface road heading north. As long as they maintain controlled access from the Merritt Parkway to Gristmill Road (e.g., not adding driveways or new connections to other streets), everything should be fine with a signalized intersection at the Merritt Parkway.

[southshore720]

Are you kidding me? The preferred option is the stoplight option for the CT15/US7 interchange?! This project is the poster child for what's wrong with CT Transportation.
https://connecticut.news12.com/ready-for-roadwork-ct-has-nearly-200-projects-planned?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR0JpU2hG782iKAboswxDrAAdsKShCA2AzhmHStfGIMRcVpiF5eVQcBkuJo_aem_AResvS5iFPJg23P-bqwPo4wd9BRQFLvT9d6xjpQApQgtWzr6mIRyhf7bNpxx88kF1kXVnyrDFE9W8prE7tM1q6sf

With no freeway extension happening on US 7 north of the Merritt Parkway, this is a much better solution than adding flyovers where the freeway ends at a traffic signal about 1/2 mile north of this interchange.

Especially so, if CTDOT moves forward with their plan to reconfigure the T-intersection at Gristmill Road to smooth out the transition from the freeway to the surface road heading north. As long as they maintain controlled access from the Merritt Parkway to Gristmill Road (e.g., not adding driveways or new connections to other streets), everything should be fine with a signalized intersection at the Merritt Parkway.

It's a "we'll take whatever we can get" situation at this point.  US 7 being a complete highway is a pipe dream (along with Route 11).  Anything that diverts traffic off the congested Main Avenue is a plus.

[vdeane]

I feel like I'm one of the only people who thinks freeway/freeway interchanges shouldn't have stoplights even if the freeway only continues on one side.  There's currently a freeway/freeway link between the Merritt and I-95.  There won't be after this project is done.  What they're doing is, in effect, a freeway removal.

[bmitchelf]

Are you kidding me? The preferred option is the stoplight option for the CT15/US7 interchange?! This project is the poster child for what's wrong with CT Transportation.
https://connecticut.news12.com/ready-for-roadwork-ct-has-nearly-200-projects-planned?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR0JpU2hG782iKAboswxDrAAdsKShCA2AzhmHStfGIMRcVpiF5eVQcBkuJo_aem_AResvS5iFPJg23P-bqwPo4wd9BRQFLvT9d6xjpQApQgtWzr6mIRyhf7bNpxx88kF1kXVnyrDFE9W8prE7tM1q6sf

They really don't have room to make this a full cloverleaf? I would eliminate the exits to Main Ave north if it helped at all. Or just use the 40B side if they're going to add a traffic light south of the Merritt anyway.