Connecticut News

[pderocco]

I'm wondering if widening I-95 is too hard, a sufficient effect could be obtained by widening 15. Trucks would be stuck with I-95, along with local traffic, but anyone driving a car more than 15 miles or so might be motivated to take 15 instead if it was widened. There are probably reasons why that can't happen, and more why that won't happen, but there looks like there's room for an eight-lane road along that corridor, because the houses along it aren't right up against it.

[SectorZ]

I'm wondering if widening I-95 is too hard, a sufficient effect could be obtained by widening 15. Trucks would be stuck with I-95, along with local traffic, but anyone driving a car more than 15 miles or so might be motivated to take 15 instead if it was widened. There are probably reasons why that can't happen, and more why that won't happen, but there looks like there's room for an eight-lane road along that corridor, because the houses along it aren't right up against it.

The first person from SW Connecticut that sees this will now attempt to DDOS the forum for speaking of improvements to their sacred parkway.

[shadyjay]

I can tell you right now, the Merritt would NEVER be widened. Hell, they can't even figure out how to complete an interchange without everyone freaking out (US 7/CT 15, Norwalk). 

[RobbieL2415]

I'm wondering if widening I-95 is too hard, a sufficient effect could be obtained by widening 15. Trucks would be stuck with I-95, along with local traffic, but anyone driving a car more than 15 miles or so might be motivated to take 15 instead if it was widened. There are probably reasons why that can't happen, and more why that won't happen, but there looks like there's room for an eight-lane road along that corridor, because the houses along it aren't right up against it.

-Close close-spaced exits

-Remove weaves and left-hand exits

-Improve sight lines and geometry

-Reversable tolled express lanes

That's my approach to I-95.

[bmitchelf]

I can tell you right now, the Merritt would NEVER be widened. Hell, they can't even figure out how to complete an interchange without everyone freaking out (US 7/CT 15, Norwalk). 

The best would be to close some interchanges and extend merge lanes since those are big causes of slowdowns.

[The Ghostbuster]

Would the citizens and politicians of Connecticut allow tolled express lanes to be constructed within their state? As far as I know, there haven't been any tolls on any road in the state since the Merritt and Wilbur Cross Parkways had their tolls removed in 1988.

[shadyjay]

Several administrations over the past 20 years or so have proposed adding tolls to existing expressways, and its gotten nowhere.  Most CT residents respond with "we're taxed enough".  The fear with tolls in CT is that, just like in the CT Turnpike toll days, that the money collected would go into the state's general fund and not a dedicated road fund.  Any toll revenue collected should go into a dedicated road fund, or transit.  It should not be used to pay pensions on state employees for the next 40 years.

Now a separate roadway designed as an express roadway, direction dependent on traffic demand, you'd have a better chance of seeing that tolled.  Don't want to pay the toll?  Go into the existing 3 lane I-95 and sit in traffic. 

Another option would be to make the HOV lanes on I-84 and I-91 outside of Hartford toll lanes.  Put up a jersey barrier so that you don't get the cross traffic over the divider.  And for the love of god, extend that HOV lane on I-91 South another mile or so into an operational lane for Exit 30... that would help greatly with the "merge" at Jennings Road.

[bmitchelf]

The most recent proposal has been to set up the tolls on interstates for trucks only, but residents see how that cost will be passed onto them, and then the tolls could easily be expanded in the future. There was also discussion of the toll money replacing the tax on car ownership to make it more palatable, as surrounding states are collecting tolls from CT residents but CT gets nothing from other states' drivers.

So it might just be introduced on current roadways rather than new express lanes.

[SectorZ]

The most recent proposal has been to set up the tolls on interstates for trucks only, but residents see how that cost will be passed onto them, and then the tolls could easily be expanded in the future. There was also discussion of the toll money replacing the tax on car ownership to make it more palatable, as surrounding states are collecting tolls from CT residents but CT gets nothing from other states' drivers.

CT does not share its plate data with other states. Massachusetts has been complaining ever since it went to ORT that CT drivers don't have to pay to drive the Mass Pike anymore. Maybe they share with other states but not with mine.

[shadyjay]

The most recent proposal has been to set up the tolls on interstates for trucks only, but residents see how that cost will be passed onto them, and then the tolls could easily be expanded in the future. There was also discussion of the toll money replacing the tax on car ownership to make it more palatable, as surrounding states are collecting tolls from CT residents but CT gets nothing from other states' drivers.

So it might just be introduced on current roadways rather than new express lanes.

Just for the record, there is no proposal for express lanes on I-95.  Its just a thought I had that might help with traffic.  Just don't want others mislead.

[vdeane]

CT does not share its plate data with other states. Massachusetts has been complaining ever since it went to ORT that CT drivers don't have to pay to drive the Mass Pike anymore. Maybe they share with other states but not with mine.

That makes it easy for other states to retaliate - "since you don't share with us, we won't share with you, good luck collecting from non-residents without a mounted transponder".

[bmitchelf]

The most recent proposal has been to set up the tolls on interstates for trucks only, but residents see how that cost will be passed onto them, and then the tolls could easily be expanded in the future. There was also discussion of the toll money replacing the tax on car ownership to make it more palatable, as surrounding states are collecting tolls from CT residents but CT gets nothing from other states' drivers.

CT does not share its plate data with other states. Massachusetts has been complaining ever since it went to ORT that CT drivers don't have to pay to drive the Mass Pike anymore. Maybe they share with other states but not with mine.

They have an agreement to share (as of 2019) but no action is taken on unpaid tolls, although there are articles from May 2019 that say it was being discussed. https://www.wbur.org/news/2019/02/03/massachusetts-will-likely-wait-to-recoup-unpaid-conn-tolls

[Mergingtraffic]

According to this that was posted in August, looks like the stoplight alternative was selected for the US-7/15 interchange.

https://7-15norwalk.com/documents/FONSI.pdf

Amazing isn't it?  A poster child project for what's wrong with transportation today.

[bmitchelf]

According to this that was posted in August, looks like the stoplight alternative was selected for the US-7/15 interchange.

https://7-15norwalk.com/documents/FONSI.pdf

Amazing isn't it?  A poster child project for what's wrong with transportation today.

It's not ideal, but it's just kicking the end of the expressway down the road, so to speak, since there's another traffic light just north of there. Might as well get it done the easiest way. It would be a problem if super 7 had ever been completed.

[The Ghostbuster]

Since the US 7 Freeway will never be extended north of Grist Mill Rd., and Connecticut is so anti-freeway, maybe Alternative 26 was a sufficient choice for the interchange with CT 15.

[vdeane]

It's not ideal, but it's just kicking the end of the expressway down the road, so to speak, since there's another traffic light just north of there. Might as well get it done the easiest way. It would be a problem if super 7 had ever been completed.

Since the US 7 Freeway will never be extended north of Grist Mill Rd., and Connecticut is so anti-freeway, maybe Alternative 26 was a sufficient choice for the interchange with CT 15.

It's still having two freeways meet at an interchange that isn't free-flow and taking away free-flow movement between the Merritt and I-95.

[bmitchelf]

Only taking away free-flow movement to the southbound Merritt. From the northbound Merritt to 95 will not require going through a signal. The truly ugly portion is having traffic from 7 to the northbound Merritt having to go through an additional signal on Main Avenue (Exit 40) before joining the parkway. I'm not sure why there needs to be a second signal on the north side of Exit 40, also. (plan is on page 26 of the PDF)

[abqtraveler]

Since the US 7 Freeway will never be extended north of Grist Mill Rd., and Connecticut is so anti-freeway, maybe Alternative 26 was a sufficient choice for the interchange with CT 15.

And this is the only reason why Alternative 26 makes any sense. CTDOT would never move Alternative 26 forward if there were any intent of extending Super 7 north of Gristmill Road. I wonder how loud the call will get to "downgrade" the remainder of Super 7 from a freeway to a surface road all the way to I-95.   

[Rothman]

Oof.  Been to Norwalk a bunch of times.  I mean, anyone thinking US 7's limited access would be extended northward is just folly -- not really needed.

But plopping two signals where indicated in that file is just going to tick off already impatient Connecticut drivers, which I consider the worst in the country.  My kids both lived in Norwalk for a bit and they both were almost hit by cars not obeying signals in the area.  There won't be pedestrians at these signals, but just saying that the mentality of drivers down there is already strained by the traffic demands.  These signals certainly won't help matters.

[vdeane]

The worst part is, the signals aren't needed.  Here's what I'd change:
-No left turns would be allowed from CT 15 north to US 7 north; that traffic would be directed to Main Avenue.
-No left turns would be allowed from US 7 south to CT 15 north; that traffic would be directed to Main Avenue.

These changes would preserve the existing free-flow movements and keep traffic lights off the existing free-flow movements.  But, with just a more couple changes, we can actually have full free-flow movements for the freeway to the south:
-Eliminate the ramp from US 7 south to CT 15 south (that traffic would be directed to Main Avenue) and modify the ramp from CT 15 south to US 7 south into a loop (traffic to US 7 north would be directed to Main Avenue).
-Fold the NB half of the interchange with Main Avenue using the existing loop so that the ramp from US 7 north to CT 15 north can go directly to CT 15.

That said, those latter two changes do introduce some weaving, but the former two changes preserving the existing free-flow movements don't, and I don't really see what the big deal with those is.  As people point out, the US 7 freeway ends shortly to the north anyways; does there really need to be direct access to/from it?  Providing for good access to/from the south should be the MUCH higher priority.

[RobbieL2415]

FWIW the interchange between the Cross-Westchester Expressway and the Hutch are not free-flowing. There's a signal governing the EB to SB ramp as another ramp enters from the right side. And that interchange predates this design by decades.

[vdeane]

FWIW the interchange between the Cross-Westchester Expressway and the Hutch are not free-flowing. There's a signal governing the EB to SB ramp as another ramp enters from the right side. And that interchange predates this design by decades.

So just because there are examples of roads with sub-standard infrastructure, we should build more?

[RobbieL2415]

FWIW the interchange between the Cross-Westchester Expressway and the Hutch are not free-flowing. There's a signal governing the EB to SB ramp as another ramp enters from the right side. And that interchange predates this design by decades.

So just because there are examples of roads with sub-standard infrastructure, we should build more?

I'm just saying they exist.

[abqtraveler]

FWIW the interchange between the Cross-Westchester Expressway and the Hutch are not free-flowing. There's a signal governing the EB to SB ramp as another ramp enters from the right side. And that interchange predates this design by decades.

Yes, but that's not the same as what's being proposed for the Route 7/15 interchange. For the CWE/Hutch situation, the EB to SB ramp (and also the NB to EB ramp) have signalized intersections with adjacent surface roads, but there are no traffic signals on either freeway mainline. Alternative 26 for the 7/15 interchange will place two traffic signals on the Route 7 mainline. So that's an apples to oranges comparison IMHO.

[bmitchelf]

The worst part is, the signals aren't needed.  Here's what I'd change:
-No left turns would be allowed from CT 15 north to US 7 north; that traffic would be directed to Main Avenue.
-No left turns would be allowed from US 7 south to CT 15 north; that traffic would be directed to Main Avenue.

These changes would preserve the existing free-flow movements and keep traffic lights off the existing free-flow movements.  But, with just a more couple changes, we can actually have full free-flow movements for the freeway to the south:
-Eliminate the ramp from US 7 south to CT 15 south (that traffic would be directed to Main Avenue) and modify the ramp from CT 15 south to US 7 south into a loop (traffic to US 7 north would be directed to Main Avenue).
-Fold the NB half of the interchange with Main Avenue using the existing loop so that the ramp from US 7 north to CT 15 north can go directly to CT 15.

That said, those latter two changes do introduce some weaving, but the former two changes preserving the existing free-flow movements don't, and I don't really see what the big deal with those is.  As people point out, the US 7 freeway ends shortly to the north anyways; does there really need to be direct access to/from it?  Providing for good access to/from the south should be the MUCH higher priority.

That actually makes a ton of sense if the goal is to provide connection between 95 and the Merritt like they have to the east (north) with the Milford connector.