Connecticut News

Started by Mergingtraffic, October 28, 2009, 08:39:49 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

shadyjay

ConnDOT has released its 5 year Capital Plan, which runs 2014-2018...

http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?A=1373&Q=538426

Projects of note:
2014 -- I-84 Waterbury reconstruction, continue I-95 Moses Wheeler & Q Bridge projects, I-95 median safety improvement
            from Baldwin Bridge to Rocky Neck
2015 -- I-95 Yankee Doodle Bridge rehab, West River Bridge, I-84 sign replacement Exit 30-52, CT 8 sign replacement Shelton   
           to Winchester (Winsted)
2016 -- I-95 sign replacement Exit 85 to RI, CT 8 sign replacement I-95 to Shelton
2017 -- I-95 sign replacement Exit 54 to 85

Also the list of major long term unfunded initiatives includes:
I-84 - Hartford viaduct
Rt 9 - Middletown improvements (int. w/ CT 66, 17)
Rt 11 - expressway completion from Salem to Waterford/East Lyme
I-84 - expansion west of Waterbury to NY line
I-95 - expansion Old Lyme to RI line
Rt 3 - Putnam Bridge rehab or replacement
Rt 8 - interchange with I-84

There's no mention of any mileage-based exit conversion, though I'd assume I-95 would get converted following the replacement of signs from Exit 54-85.  Much of that section has already had signs replaced (most recently, 2000) so unsure if it would just mean a signage improvement or full replacement.  Button copy only remains on that stretch from Exit 54-59 (installed 1992) and from Exits 68-70 (installed 1993). 

Also interesting to note that I-95 widening is not mentioned from Branford to Old Saybrook.  Guess it makes sense to work on the section east of Old Lyme first as its shorter and "less developed" than the western counterpart.

Still no large-scale sign replacement for I-84 between Exit 54 and 64, some of which holds the title to the oldest signage in the state (after I-84 in Waterbury area).  And no mention of any sign replacement for CT 2, CT 9, or I-91.  So looks like button copy will remain at least through the 2020 timeframe.  Unless something pops up between now and then.


vdeane

Is it even known if CT will convert anything beyond CT 2 and I-395 yet?
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

shadyjay

Quote from: vdeane on January 24, 2014, 04:35:30 PM
Is it even known if CT will convert anything beyond CT 2 and I-395 yet?

Seems kind of pointless to convert i395 and ct 2a and not do the whole state.  Then again.... signs are being replaced from end to end on these two routes at the same time, albeit under 2 contracts.   

Perhaps, with the upcoming I95 signing projects, exits will be renumbered from Branford, east.  Perhaps not. 

If ConnDOT was smart, they'd renumber CT 15 next.   After i395, that's the route to gain most with the mile-based system. 

spmkam

I'd agree with that for the Merritt. Some exits skip numbers anyway, so the sequential system can be somewhat confusing for locals. (I personally am used to it)

Alps

Quote from: spmkam on January 24, 2014, 06:33:32 PM
I'd agree with that for the Merritt. Some exits skip numbers anyway, so the sequential system can be somewhat confusing for locals. (I personally am used to it)
Oh, but the exit numbering is part of the historic resource of the Parkway that would be compromised by changing it.

(Note: Sarcasm)

jp the roadgeek

Would be smart to convert 84 when the Waterbury widening project is done.  When they do the Exit 30-52 signage replacement (except that 33-35 is already done), they ought to put temporary tabs over the exit signs with the mileage based exits underneath.
Interstates I've clinched: 97, 290 (MA), 291 (CT), 291 (MA), 293, 295 (DE-NJ-PA), 295 (RI-MA), 384, 391, 395 (CT-MA), 395 (MD), 495 (DE), 610 (LA), 684, 691, 695 (MD), 695 (NY), 795 (MD)

connroadgeek

There will be no conversion to mileage based exit numbers any time soon. Get over it guys. Also, the federal government is not going to suspend federal funding because Connecticut refuses to switch to a mileage based exit system. Those hoping for a change can go cry in their wheaties now. Some of you dream in black and white, but the rest of us live in the real world where shades of gray rule the day.

Alps

Quote from: connroadgeek on January 24, 2014, 09:30:31 PM
There will be no conversion to mileage based exit numbers any time soon. Get over it guys. Also, the federal government is not going to suspend federal funding because Connecticut refuses to switch to a mileage based exit system. Those hoping for a change can go cry in their wheaties now. Some of you dream in black and white, but the rest of us live in the real world where shades of gray rule the day.
Bravo, sir. Bravo.

Duke87

Quote from: Steve on January 24, 2014, 08:48:54 PM
Quote from: spmkam on January 24, 2014, 06:33:32 PM
I'd agree with that for the Merritt. Some exits skip numbers anyway, so the sequential system can be somewhat confusing for locals. (I personally am used to it)
Oh, but the exit numbering is part of the historic resource of the Parkway that would be compromised by changing it.

On a more serious note, you have the issue that locals mostly refer to exits off the Parkway by number, not by destination. So if the numbers changed you'd have a lot of people going "WTF?"

We did have an amusing incident once, though, where someone unfamiliar with the area arrived early because they assumed the exit numbers would start over at 1 once they crossed into Connecticut and thus thought their destination was a lot further away than it actually was. :P
If you always take the same road, you will never see anything new.

Mergingtraffic

Quote from: shadyjay on January 24, 2014, 03:52:33 PM
ConnDOT has released its 5 year Capital Plan, which runs 2014-2018...

http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?A=1373&Q=538426

Projects of note:
2014 -- I-84 Waterbury reconstruction, continue I-95 Moses Wheeler & Q Bridge projects, I-95 median safety improvement
            from Baldwin Bridge to Rocky Neck
2015 -- I-95 Yankee Doodle Bridge rehab, West River Bridge, I-84 sign replacement Exit 30-52, CT 8 sign replacement Shelton   
           to Winchester (Winsted)
2016 -- I-95 sign replacement Exit 85 to RI, CT 8 sign replacement I-95 to Shelton
2017 -- I-95 sign replacement Exit 54 to 85

Also the list of major long term unfunded initiatives includes:
I-84 - Hartford viaduct
Rt 9 - Middletown improvements (int. w/ CT 66, 17)
Rt 11 - expressway completion from Salem to Waterford/East Lyme
I-84 - expansion west of Waterbury to NY line
I-95 - expansion Old Lyme to RI line
Rt 3 - Putnam Bridge rehab or replacement
Rt 8 - interchange with I-84



Also interesting to note that I-95 widening is not mentioned from Branford to Old Saybrook.  Guess it makes sense to work on the section east of Old Lyme first as its shorter and "less developed" than the western counterpart.

Still no large-scale sign replacement for I-84 between Exit 54 and 64, some of which holds the title to the oldest signage in the state (after I-84 in Waterbury area).  And no mention of any sign replacement for CT 2, CT 9, or I-91.  So looks like button copy will remain at least through the 2020 timeframe.  Unless something pops up between now and then.

CT-8 has the most non-reflective button copy in the state.  I counted 11 NRBC signs between Shelton and Waterbury.  Their days are numbered.

Also, the CT-2A Thames River bridge has moved up from the Major Long-Range Unfunded list to the Unfunded List.  I guess that's a step up?!  but no mention of the CT-2A/Route 2 bypass that was talked about a few years ago. 
I only take pics of good looking signs. Long live non-reflective button copy!
MergingTraffic https://www.flickr.com/photos/98731835@N05/

southshore720

CT 2 and CT 9 are in dire need of sign replacements...it's too bad they are left out.  Also, no mention of I-384.

shadyjay

Not just CT 2 & 9, but also surprised I-84 in East Hartford-Vernon got left out.  Some of this signage dates back to the mid 80s, when I-384 was connected to I-84.  Still some huge route markers on the BGSs in this area, though many have been replaced in recent years.


connroadgeek

Quote from: shadyjay on January 24, 2014, 03:52:33 PM
Also interesting to note that I-95 widening is not mentioned from Branford to Old Saybrook.  Guess it makes sense to work on the section east of Old Lyme first as its shorter and "less developed" than the western counterpart.

Branford to Saybrook has six towns as well as Old Lyme to the RI border. The Branford to Saybrook segment passes through a combined population of 99k while the Old Lyme to RI border section covers 130k. There are no cities on I-95 east of New Haven as the largest town is Groton, and even that only has a population <40k. The plan to widen that section goes back at least a decade and they were targeting having it done by the 2020-2025 time frame, and here we are a mere six years now away from that. I thought it was actually going to happen when the DOT started aggressively pushing the brush back along the Old Lyme and east section a while back. I-95 is going to always suck at least while we are alive since not much can be done with it. I'm jealous of places like Texas where if they run into capacity issues they just double or triple the lane-miles simply by getting some dump trucks and pavers together. If one were a conspiracy nut, one might think I-95 is the way it is on purpose to keep property values high in the wealthy Fairfield County towns.

doogie1303

Quote from: connroadgeek on February 01, 2014, 07:36:23 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on January 24, 2014, 03:52:33 PM
Also interesting to note that I-95 widening is not mentioned from Branford to Old Saybrook.  Guess it makes sense to work on the section east of Old Lyme first as its shorter and "less developed" than the western counterpart.

Branford to Saybrook has six towns as well as Old Lyme to the RI border. The Branford to Saybrook segment passes through a combined population of 99k while the Old Lyme to RI border section covers 130k. There are no cities on I-95 east of New Haven as the largest town is Groton, and even that only has a population <40k. The plan to widen that section goes back at least a decade and they were targeting having it done by the 2020-2025 time frame, and here we are a mere six years now away from that. I thought it was actually going to happen when the DOT started aggressively pushing the brush back along the Old Lyme and east section a while back. I-95 is going to always suck at least while we are alive since not much can be done with it. I'm jealous of places like Texas where if they run into capacity issues they just double or triple the lane-miles simply by getting some dump trucks and pavers together. If one were a conspiracy nut, one might think I-95 is the way it is on purpose to keep property values high in the wealthy Fairfield County towns.

I'm not holding my breath on this one happening anytime soon, I've heard the widening of I-95 saga for most of my life as I originally grew up in Old Lyme. The problem with this section is how close properties are to the interstate as well as the topology. There were several hills they blasted thru when they built the highway, so you cant just regrade the sides and throw down another lane. Plus the other big issue is the swamplands and tidal marshlands the highway goes though. Back in the 50's when they built the Connecticut Turnpike, there was no EPA to tell the builders that you can't build through marshes. So to try to expand the highway in addition to a physical nightmare is also going to be a logistical nightmare.


Pete from Boston

Quote from: Alps on January 24, 2014, 08:48:54 PM
Quote from: spmkam on January 24, 2014, 06:33:32 PM
I'd agree with that for the Merritt. Some exits skip numbers anyway, so the sequential system can be somewhat confusing for locals. (I personally am used to it)
Oh, but the exit numbering is part of the historic resource of the Parkway that would be compromised by changing it.

(Note: Sarcasm)

They would start counting the miles at an arbitrary point in New York for historical consistency.

JakeFromNewEngland

Does anyone know about the Putnam Bridge reconstruction project? The last time I was in Hartford, I remember seeing a VMS sign about delays and such for construction. Also, what are they generally reconstructing on it?

kurumi

http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?A=2135&Q=521038

Putnam Bridge: rehab/repair/retrofit/repaint; replace barriers; and add a second span sidewalk on the south side.
My first SF/horror short story collection is available: "Young Man, Open Your Winter Eye"

JakeFromNewEngland

Quote from: kurumi on March 15, 2014, 04:52:29 PM
http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?A=2135&Q=521038

Putnam Bridge: rehab/repair/retrofit/repaint; replace barriers; and add a second span sidewalk on the south side.

Oh I see. Thanks!

Pete from Boston

I was back on 91 this weekend after a long absence, and noticed that a tremendous amount of tree clearing has occurred in Middletown, in places the whole width of the median.

Anyone know why?

Last year it was cut back somewhat -- more in line with the usual kind of clearance you find for sight lines, etc.  This round is on a scale I only recall seeing on Mass. Route 3 when they rebuilt the whole highway.

I am pretty surprised to see what a deep ravine exists between the north and southbound carriageways.  You'd never have known when the trees were in there.


KEVIN_224

I noticed that when I went to New York City on March 26th. Also, I noticed a couple of missing southbound mile markers (especially MM 25 in Middletown) were back.

roadman

Quote from: connroadgeek on January 24, 2014, 09:30:31 PM
There will be no conversion to mileage based exit numbers any time soon. Get over it guys. Also, the federal government is not going to suspend federal funding because Connecticut refuses to switch to a mileage based exit system. Those hoping for a change can go cry in their wheaties now. Some of you dream in black and white, but the rest of us live in the real world where shades of gray rule the day.
Regarding those states that will continue to use sequential numbering, the Feds have only themselves to blame by eliminating the compliance date for the changeover from the final version of the 2009 MUTCD.
"And ninety-five is the route you were on.  It was not the speed limit sign."  - Jim Croce (from Speedball Tucker)

"My life has been a tapestry
Of years of roads and highway signs" (with apologies to Carole King and Tom Rush)

Mergingtraffic

#596
Quote from: Pete from Boston on April 13, 2014, 10:50:45 PM
I was back on 91 this weekend after a long absence, and noticed that a tremendous amount of tree clearing has occurred in Middletown, in places the whole width of the median.

Anyone know why?

Last year it was cut back somewhat -- more in line with the usual kind of clearance you find for sight lines, etc.  This round is on a scale I only recall seeing on Mass. Route 3 when they rebuilt the whole highway.

I am pretty surprised to see what a deep ravine exists between the north and southbound carriageways.  You'd never have known when the trees were in there.



It goes back to the hurricane when people complained about too many trees causing power outages.  The DOT adapted it saying all trees must be clear 30FT from the road so cut down the possibility of trees falling into the road.

Of course on the Merritt they are planting NEW trees in the median, of course the Merritt is the one road in CT with the most tree falling deaths.   Blame the MPC
I only take pics of good looking signs. Long live non-reflective button copy!
MergingTraffic https://www.flickr.com/photos/98731835@N05/

Alps

Quote from: doofy103 on April 14, 2014, 09:20:05 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on April 13, 2014, 10:50:45 PM
I was back on 91 this weekend after a long absence, and noticed that a tremendous amount of tree clearing has occurred in Middletown, in places the whole width of the median.

Anyone know why?

Last year it was cut back somewhat -- more in line with the usual kind of clearance you find for sight lines, etc.  This round is on a scale I only recall seeing on Mass. Route 3 when they rebuilt the whole highway.

I am pretty surprised to see what a deep ravine exists between the north and southbound carriageways.  You'd never have known when the trees were in there.



It goes back to the hurricane when people complained about too many trees causing power outages.  The DOT adapted it saying all trees must be velar 30FT from the road so cut down the possibility of trees falling into the road.

Of course on the Merritt they are planting NEW trees in the median, of course the Merritt is the one road in CT with the most tree falling deaths.   Blame the MPC
a) velar 30FT? Typing from a phone with autocorrect?
b) Are they replanting on the Merritt? I haven't seen new growth in the median in a few years.

Mergingtraffic

Quote from: Alps on April 14, 2014, 10:31:50 PMb) Are they replanting on the Merritt? I haven't seen new growth in the median in a few years.

Yes as they are completing the revamp, new wooden guardrails, signage, culverts etc.  The project was done in Trumbull and Fairfield and now it's moved down to Stamford area.  Although the hideous BGS signs remain and are falling apart too.
I only take pics of good looking signs. Long live non-reflective button copy!
MergingTraffic https://www.flickr.com/photos/98731835@N05/

kurumi

Speaking of mileage-based exits: the signing revision on I-395 and CT 2A begins May 1, 2014.

http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?A=2135&Q=543260
http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?A=2135&Q=543258
My first SF/horror short story collection is available: "Young Man, Open Your Winter Eye"



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.