Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[KEVIN_224]

I only know that, at present, Exit 45 for Flatbush Avenue, is westbound off and eastbound on only. The ramp does look a bit long for that area.

[Mergingtraffic]

I forget the extent to which it's been mentioned here....but the powers-that-be have been in the process of realigning SSR 401, as part of slowly moving forward with the Bradley Airport master plan, in which the main parking garage will be extended westward and gain a centralized rental car facility, and then a new Terminal B will (supposedly/eventually) be built to replace the demolished Murphy Terminal and the current IAB.

The Bradley Connector freeway has been shortened by about 2000 feet or so, and the old Hamilton Road North demolished.   The freeway now ends at a funky semi-roundabout (it's not possible to drive the full circle).   I have no clue if the definitions of SSR 401 and 403 have been updated.

Also, in the past couple of days, I installed a dashcam in my car.  I went through the semi-roundabout when running an errand this afternoon...so I thought I'd share the video.

Terminal B is technically the IAB now.  So Aer Lingus gets dropped off there.  I don't think they do pre-clearence in Dublin.

At least they're finally done with that mess.  The Schoepster Rd. connector was falling apart as it was.

I don't get why the end of the connector has been reduced from two-to-one lane NB?  After the circle it opens up to 2-lanes again.  What is it with this DOT with removing lanes and/or free movements etc. Why would you ever remove a lane?

[Alps]

What's the story re the ghost ramps at the 4-level I-84/CT 9 interchange in Farmington?  (Sorry if this has been broached before but I just discovered this interchange on Google Sat while looking up something else, and this thread *is* 152 pages long.)

Those ghost ramps are still there.  The interchange w/I-84 was originally planned to be a 4-way interchange with I-291 but only the northeastern leg between I-91 and I-84 was actually built (as I-291).  The remaining pieces of the proposed I-291, aside from the above and the piece that's currently CT 9 south of I-84, were ultimately dropped from ConnDOT's plans.

To my knowledge, there's no known plans for those unused ghost ramps... connections or removals.

There is a recent plan to bring those stubs up to CT 4 within already purchased ROW.

[jp the roadgeek]

I only know that, at present, Exit 45 for Flatbush Avenue, is westbound off and eastbound on only. The ramp does look a bit long for that area.

It was originally to be the north end of a CT 9 expressway that would have connected to the top end of the Berlin Turnpike where 5/15 leaves the turnpike.  CT 9 would have duplexed with I-84 to Sisson Ave, where it would have exited on the Woods River Expressway; the only remnants of which are the middle of nowhere 187/189 expressway and a couple of ghost cuts on the Sisson Ave ramps.

[MikeTheActuary]

I don't get why the end of the connector has been reduced from two-to-one lane NB?  After the circle it opens up to 2-lanes again.  What is it with this DOT with removing lanes and/or free movements etc. Why would you ever remove a lane?

I think the CAA might be the correct agency to blame here.  Bradley is no longer under ConnDOT jurisdiction.

Keep in mind too that the freeway section of (former?) CT 401 is now mostly one lane northbound, with the second lane being dropped essentially where the ramp from EB CT 20 merges in.  The traffic volume is low enough for this to not be a problem.

I assume that this is partly a traffic-calming measure and partly an attempt to eliminate weaving.  In the prior configuration, traffic arriving from the Connector tended not to slow down very much (despite the speed limit drop), and there could be some hair-raising merges and weaving with various shuttles and other airport-circulating traffic.

I did also notice that the current BDL Master Plan calls for putting in two more roundabouts on SSR 401 (one of which would replace the jughandle to access the arrival/departure roadways).  I have no idea if/when those will be installed.

[RobbieL2415]

What's the story re the ghost ramps at the 4-level I-84/CT 9 interchange in Farmington?  (Sorry if this has been broached before but I just discovered this interchange on Google Sat while looking up something else, and this thread *is* 152 pages long.)

Those ghost ramps are still there.  The interchange w/I-84 was originally planned to be a 4-way interchange with I-291 but only the northeastern leg between I-91 and I-84 was actually built (as I-291).  The remaining pieces of the proposed I-291, aside from the above and the piece that's currently CT 9 south of I-84, were ultimately dropped from ConnDOT's plans.

From the first of Magical Trevor's links, it appears ConnDOT couldn't get around the reservoirs north of the stack.

ixnay

Why couldn't they use eminent domain?

[shadyjay]

For anyone curious on the Flatbush Freeway, or Trout Brook Freeway, or others, consult Kurumi's excellent resource:
https://www.kurumi.com/roads/ct/hfd-fwy-60s.html

And definitely check out the larger map for a view of the whole area for what could've been:
https://www.kurumi.com/roads/ct/pics/art-hfd-fwy-60s.png

Basically, all the left exits from I-84 were intended for something more.  Flatbush Freeway from Exit 45, a freeway from the Exit 46 ramps, heading north, I-291 north of CT 9 at Exit 39A, and even down in the Southington area at Exit 29 (part of a planned CT 10 freeway).  Today, all we're left with is some stub ramps, buried pavement, and a legacy of what "could've been".  Had many of these roads been built, especially I-291 north/west of Hartford, it would've taken pressure off I-84.  But then again, all these freeways leading into I-84 from points north or south (Bloomfield, Newington, etc) would've added more fuel to the fire.  The goals back then were get all the people into the city, where the jobs were at.  This isn't 100% true anymore.

[Alps]

What's the story re the ghost ramps at the 4-level I-84/CT 9 interchange in Farmington?  (Sorry if this has been broached before but I just discovered this interchange on Google Sat while looking up something else, and this thread *is* 152 pages long.)

Those ghost ramps are still there.  The interchange w/I-84 was originally planned to be a 4-way interchange with I-291 but only the northeastern leg between I-91 and I-84 was actually built (as I-291).  The remaining pieces of the proposed I-291, aside from the above and the piece that's currently CT 9 south of I-84, were ultimately dropped from ConnDOT's plans.

From the first of Magical Trevor's links, it appears ConnDOT couldn't get around the reservoirs north of the stack.

ixnay

Why couldn't they use eminent domain?

Because lawsuits.

[zzyzx]

I just noticed Historic Aerials has some new imagery from 1971 (in color too!)  You can see parts of Route 11 and Route 9 under construction:



Unfortunately, it doesn't cover much of the state (only northern parts of New London & Middlesex counties) but still nice to see some higher quality color imagery from that time.

[RobbieL2415]

What's the story re the ghost ramps at the 4-level I-84/CT 9 interchange in Farmington?  (Sorry if this has been broached before but I just discovered this interchange on Google Sat while looking up something else, and this thread *is* 152 pages long.)

Those ghost ramps are still there.  The interchange w/I-84 was originally planned to be a 4-way interchange with I-291 but only the northeastern leg between I-91 and I-84 was actually built (as I-291).  The remaining pieces of the proposed I-291, aside from the above and the piece that's currently CT 9 south of I-84, were ultimately dropped from ConnDOT's plans.

From the first of Magical Trevor's links, it appears ConnDOT couldn't get around the reservoirs north of the stack.

ixnay

Why couldn't they use eminent domain?

Because lawsuits.

Maybe then, but ever since Keto v. New London they could do it.

[MikeTheActuary]

Because lawsuits.

Maybe then, but ever since Keto v. New London they could do it.

The problem wasn't that they couldn't do it with eminent domain.  (And, actually, much of the land in question was nominally owned by the state or a quasi-government entity, reducing the need for eminent domain.)

The problem was that the alignment for the mountain leg of 291 passed by the homes of (and through the recreational areas preferred by) some of the wealthiest folks the Hartford metro area.   The land in question is environmentally sensitive and has potential archaeological significance, giving a basis for those wealthy folks to sue the state to block the highway.

Lawsuits can be expensive and time-consuming.

[The Ghostbuster]

I think Connecticut's road-building days are long over. If another new freeway or expressway building project is ever approved in the state, I will be shocked.

[Mergingtraffic]

I think Connecticut's road-building days are long over. If another new freeway or expressway building project is ever approved in the state, I will be shocked.

The last was CT-72 bypass, which wasn't even a compromise. Half of those cross streets could've been dead ends but they all cross thru with a stop light.
https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOT/documents/deng/17_137/Route72Overviewpdf.pdf?la=en

US-7 was the last expressway to be built and that opened in 2009. 

[shadyjay]

Sign update:

Appears that the contractor for the 2017 version of the statewide spot overhead sign project is finally making some progress.  Observed a new monotube bridge gantry on I-691 East at Exit 10 in Meriden. Just the support is up, no signs yet.  Also as part of this project is the gantry at Exit 11, one just south of I-691 on CT 15 South at Exit 67W, a few on CT 9 South in New Britain, among other locations statewide.  I'll get an update later this week on whether or not there is a new gantry up at Exit 11.  I recently drove past 3 or 4 other work sites in this project and observed no work started. 

Then there's still the several gantries needing replacement on I-84 in the Southington to Farmington contract, which has a completion date of June 2020.  Seems to me that project should've been completed already, as there's only 2 or 3 supports left to install. 

[jp the roadgeek]

Sign update:

Appears that the contractor for the 2017 version of the statewide spot overhead sign project is finally making some progress.  Observed a new monotube bridge gantry on I-691 East at Exit 10 in Meriden. Just the support is up, no signs yet.  Also as part of this project is the gantry at Exit 11, one just south of I-691 on CT 15 South at Exit 67W, a few on CT 9 South in New Britain, among other locations statewide.  I'll get an update later this week on whether or not there is a new gantry up at Exit 11.  I recently drove past 3 or 4 other work sites in this project and observed no work started. 

Then there's still the several gantries needing replacement on I-84 in the Southington to Farmington contract, which has a completion date of June 2020.  Seems to me that project should've been completed already, as there's only 2 or 3 supports left to install.

My guess is the ones on the EB 84/72 concurrency are part of the 72 sign replacement project.  The rest of the project is sign removals (mostly off of overpasses) and the enhanced milepost placement. 

[PHLBOS]

My guess is the ones on the EB 84/72 concurrency are part of the 72 sign replacement project.  The rest of the project is sign removals (mostly off of overpasses) and the enhanced milepost placement.

Until the recent sign replacement project along I-84 in that area came about; those eastbound signs were the newest ones along that concurrency & are still in decent condition reflectivity-wise.  IMHO, the only BGS' in that area that need changing as a result of the exit renumbering would be the left-lane ramp exit signs for CT 72 eastbound (current Exit 35).  Obviously, the new signs would feature the current MUTCD standard for left-exit tabs as well as being wider to incorporate a suffixed-exit (Exit 50 B(?)).

[jp the roadgeek]

My guess is the ones on the EB 84/72 concurrency are part of the 72 sign replacement project.  The rest of the project is sign removals (mostly off of overpasses) and the enhanced milepost placement.

Until the recent sign replacement project along I-84 in that area came about; those eastbound signs were the newest ones along that concurrency & are still in decent condition reflectivity-wise.  IMHO, the only BGS' in that area that need changing as a result of the exit renumbering would be the left-lane ramp exit signs for CT 72 eastbound (current Exit 35).  Obviously, the new signs would feature the current MUTCD standard for left-exit tabs as well as being wider to incorporate a suffixed-exit (Exit 50 B(?)).

Don't think you'd need suffixes for the 72 East or Slater Rd exits.  EB on 84, I have 72 West at 49A, Crooked St as 49B, 72 East as 50, and Slater Rd as 51 (rounded up for simplicity).  The new signage for 72 West and Crooked St (overhead, and gore signs) are wide enough to accommodate suffixes.  As for the existing signage that hasn't been replaced, the WB signage that was replaced was of the same vintage.  What I don't like in the 72 renumbering project is that the New Britain Ave exit WB on 72 gets an 84 exit number (33B) instead of Exit 4.  It may correct itself in the future by becoming 49B to match Crooked St so that 72 West  matches the EB exit number instead of being plain Exit 49. 

[shadyjay]

I-84 East Exit 35 signs are all part of the Southington to Farmington project.  This includes replacement of existing pipe gantries for the 1/2 mile and "exit now" Exit 35 assemblies.  It also includes adding a 1/4 mile assembly.  Also, I have yet to see replacement signs for the Exit 36 "exit now" and Exit 39A "exit now". 

Westbound, at last check a month or so ago, the Exit 39 "exit now" sign was still mounted on the bridge, with its successor on a new monotube bridge in front.  Recent traffic cam footage shows the Exit 36 1/2 mile overhead not replaced yet.  As for Exit 33, the Route 9/72 sign replacement project will change out the exit tab to an EXIT 33 B-A instead, so that what is now 72WB Exit 2 will become Exit 33B.  This would most likely be the equivalent to the eastbound direction, with the "33" being replaced with the mileage-based number, retaining the "A" and "B" suffixes.

[jp the roadgeek]

A couple of other older signs that still exist: the EB ground mounted 1/2 mile sign for Exit 34, the EB bridge mounted 1/4 mile sign for Slater Rd (immediately behind a new 1/4 mile sign on a chorded truss gantry), the EB bridge mounted 1 mile sign for Exit 39, and the bridge mounted 1 1/2 mile sign for Exit 33 WB.  I traveled Exit 32-39A going eastbound this afternoon.   I believe that I also saw there is still an erroneous white WEST banner on one of the I-84 reassurance shields between Exit 31 and 30.   

One other thing I did notice: a Clearview looking sign on CT 9 North for the Exit 29 exit now sign.   

[PHLBOS]

One other thing I did notice: a Clearview looking sign on CT 9 North for the Exit 29 exit now sign.

That one's been mentioned before in either this thread (many pages back) or in The Clearview Thread.  Such was either a rogue install or the designer/fabricator not being aware that CT never allowed the use of the Clearview font. 

Circa 2012, this rogue Clearview install was along I-84 westbound in Waterbury from about 2011 through mid-2013.  It was probably installed around the same time that BGS and its siblings along CT 9 were installed.

[DJ Particle]

Circa 2012, this rogue Clearview install was along I-84 westbound in Waterbury from about 2011 through mid-2013.  It was probably installed around the same time that BGS and its siblings along CT 9 were installed.

It's on the 2009 images too...

[PHLBOS]

Circa 2012, this rogue Clearview install was along I-84 westbound in Waterbury from about 2011 through mid-2013.  It was probably installed around the same time that BGS and its siblings along CT 9 were installed.

It's on the 2009 images too...

Maybe, but the given the very grainy image for that 2009 GSV; it's a little tough to tell at first glance.  Initially, I thought it was the pre-Clearview install.

[Mergingtraffic]

Before, the current style of signage on the Merritt Pkwy with the odd font were these 1970's non-reflective button copy signs that actually had the outline shields and hung over the highway.  This was also before Exit 44 was simplified.
(Contributed Photo to CTPost of unknown photographer)

[ipeters61]

Circa 2012, this rogue Clearview install was along I-84 westbound in Waterbury from about 2011 through mid-2013.  It was probably installed around the same time that BGS and its siblings along CT 9 were installed.

It's on the 2009 images too...

I remember seeing some Clearview-looking street blades on Burnside Avenue in East Hartford a few years ago.

Before, the current style of signage on the Merritt Pkwy with the odd font were these 1970's non-reflective button copy signs that actually had the outline shields and hung over the highway.  This was also before Exit 44 was simplified.
(Contributed Photo to CTPost of unknown photographer)

Nice find!

[PHLBOS]

I remember seeing some Clearview-looking street blades on Burnside Avenue in East Hartford a few years ago.

From my experience/observations, the fonts on streetblade signs vary a lot, even along state-owned/maintained roadways; so seeing one in Clearview in a state that does normally use Clearview on their highway signs doesn't surprise me or is that unusual.