Connecticut News

[shadyjay]

Saw that today... a section of the HOV lane's shoulder is blocked off and a chunk of the bridge railing missing.  There's been a lot of accidents in that stretch this winter so I'm guessing this was the result of one of them.

We have new overheads now EB on I-84 at Exit 67 and (most of) the old ones for Exits 66 & 67 EB have been removed.  That's as far as I went, so its possible they made more progress heading east.  Also the new ground-mounts on I-291 are in, along with 1 new overhead (so far).  No pictures to share this time around.

[RobbieL2415]

Saw that today... a section of the HOV lane's shoulder is blocked off and a chunk of the bridge railing missing.  There's been a lot of accidents in that stretch this winter so I'm guessing this was the result of one of them.

We have new overheads now EB on I-84 at Exit 67 and (most of) the old ones for Exits 66 & 67 EB have been removed.  That's as far as I went, so its possible they made more progress heading east.  Also the new ground-mounts on I-291 are in, along with 1 new overhead (so far).  No pictures to share this time around.

Exit 68 overheads are up as of last week.

291 signage is noticably larger. No more abbreviations for East and South.

[The Ghostbuster]

Has anyone seen this story?: Danbury I-84 rush hour shoulder lane plan aims to put 'time back in the hands' of drivers.

[kurumi]

Has anyone seen this story?: Danbury I-84 rush hour shoulder lane plan aims to put 'time back in the hands' of drivers.

I guess that could be a quick and dirty, inexpensive, temporary solution; main concern might be safety

expected to cost $250 million... could be complete by the early 2030's

I'm not in the industry, but that seems like (or used to be) in the area of "add a regular lane" time and money

[shadyjay]

The shoulder lane usage may solve a mile or two of traffic, but you're literally kicking the can down the road.  The problem is the I-84/US 7 North interchange where I-84 narrows down to 2 lanes.  And one of those 2 lanes ends a mile after that, so there's a lot of weaving traffic through the whole Exits 6-8 corridor.  And we all know how well people obey traffic signs... I can just see this creating a whole new slew of problems than it will solve.

Now, something that should be done is some restriping of the lanes on I-91 South in Hartford to give the HOV lane somewhere to go when it ends at Jennings Rd.  Every time I come through when there's noone in the HOV lane, you can sail right through at 65 MPH.  But when there's any traffic in the HOV lane, it has to merge in to the regular lanes.  Restripe so that traffic entering from Exit 33 has to merge, then shift the other lanes over to the right.  Bam, now the HOV lane traffic doesn't have to merge and has a thru lane.  Granted, that whole area is congested because of the 1 lane exit to I-84 West (among other problems in this area), but restriping seems to be a quick and easy way to at least alleviate some of the congestion.  CTDOT would find a way to make that a 3 year 100 million project that could be done in a few months with a few gallons of paint (you would have to create an acceleration lane for traffic entering from Exit 33, but that's about it!

[RobbieL2415]

The shoulder lane usage may solve a mile or two of traffic, but you're literally kicking the can down the road.  The problem is the I-84/US 7 North interchange where I-84 narrows down to 2 lanes.  And one of those 2 lanes ends a mile after that, so there's a lot of weaving traffic through the whole Exits 6-8 corridor.  And we all know how well people obey traffic signs... I can just see this creating a whole new slew of problems than it will solve.

Now, something that should be done is some restriping of the lanes on I-91 South in Hartford to give the HOV lane somewhere to go when it ends at Jennings Rd.  Every time I come through when there's noone in the HOV lane, you can sail right through at 65 MPH.  But when there's any traffic in the HOV lane, it has to merge in to the regular lanes.  Restripe so that traffic entering from Exit 33 has to merge, then shift the other lanes over to the right.  Bam, now the HOV lane traffic doesn't have to merge and has a thru lane.  Granted, that whole area is congested because of the 1 lane exit to I-84 West (among other problems in this area), but restriping seems to be a quick and easy way to at least alleviate some of the congestion.  CTDOT would find a way to make that a 3 year 100 million project that could be done in a few months with a few gallons of paint (you would have to create an acceleration lane for traffic entering from Exit 33, but that's about it!

It's fictional, but

The shoulder lane usage may solve a mile or two of traffic, but you're literally kicking the can down the road.  The problem is the I-84/US 7 North interchange where I-84 narrows down to 2 lanes.  And one of those 2 lanes ends a mile after that, so there's a lot of weaving traffic through the whole Exits 6-8 corridor.  And we all know how well people obey traffic signs... I can just see this creating a whole new slew of problems than it will solve.

Now, something that should be done is some restriping of the lanes on I-91 South in Hartford to give the HOV lane somewhere to go when it ends at Jennings Rd.  Every time I come through when there's noone in the HOV lane, you can sail right through at 65 MPH.  But when there's any traffic in the HOV lane, it has to merge in to the regular lanes.  Restripe so that traffic entering from Exit 33 has to merge, then shift the other lanes over to the right.  Bam, now the HOV lane traffic doesn't have to merge and has a thru lane.  Granted, that whole area is congested because of the 1 lane exit to I-84 West (among other problems in this area), but restriping seems to be a quick and easy way to at least alleviate some of the congestion.  CTDOT would find a way to make that a 3 year 100 million project that could be done in a few months with a few gallons of paint (you would have to create an acceleration lane for traffic entering from Exit 33, but that's about it!

For $100M I'd rather they make the HOV lanes reversible.

[abqtraveler]

Has anyone seen this story?: Danbury I-84 rush hour shoulder lane plan aims to put 'time back in the hands' of drivers.

I guess that could be a quick and dirty, inexpensive, temporary solution; main concern might be safety

expected to cost $250 million... could be complete by the early 2030's

I'm not in the industry, but that seems like (or used to be) in the area of "add a regular lane" time and money

For $250 million, I'd rather they eliminate the left-hand exits at both I-84 interchanges with Route 7. That alone will eliminate a lot of the congestion caused by the weaving conditions near those interchanges.

[Mergingtraffic]

The I-84 flex lane is temp along with that will be the addition of a second lane merging from US-7 south to I-84 WB.
It'll take 3 years to design, kind of long considering most of it is there already.

I have asked several times how will the flex lane help because now it'll be 4-lanes going to 2.  They never respond.  Most traffic stays on I-84 rather than exit onto Exit 7/US-7. 

I can see traffic merging over 2-lanes from the left to the right to stay on I-84 EB. 

Don't forget this is a state that since 2000, couldn't get the widening from the NY state line to Waterbury off the ground.  26 years.  Now all we have is the Exit 3-8 widening, the climbling lane project and Exit 9 EB and the Exit 17-18 EB widening.

Also of note: staging has started for the removal of Exit 21 EB in Waterbury.  The 2 button copy signs for Bank and Meadow St will be gone soon that currently serve no traffic

[MattCollopy]

The I-84 flex lane is temp along with that will be the addition of a second lane merging from US-7 south to I-84 WB.
It'll take 3 years to design, kind of long considering most of it is there already.

I have asked several times how will the flex lane help because now it'll be 4-lanes going to 2.  They never respond.  Most traffic stays on I-84 rather than exit onto Exit 7/US-7. 

I can see traffic merging over 2-lanes from the left to the right to stay on I-84 EB. 

Don't forget this is a state that since 2000, couldn't get the widening from the NY state line to Waterbury off the ground.  26 years.  Now all we have is the Exit 3-8 widening, the climbling lane project and Exit 9 EB and the Exit 17-18 EB widening.

Also of note: staging has started for the removal of Exit 21 EB in Waterbury.  The 2 button copy signs for Bank and Meadow St will be gone soon that currently serve no traffic

I think that the flex lane idea is a short term solution to a long-term problem. But I'm gonna be optimistic because they need all the help they can get. But not to mention exit 7-17 on I-84 are a nightmare as well. During the holidays whenever I would have to get from Newburgh to Worcester, I would sometimes just 87-90 because it was a genuinely faster somehow.

[MikeTheActuary]

https://www.ctinsider.com/connecticut/article/ct-bill-speed-cameras-highways-legislature-pilot-22079258.php

One bill that the committee advanced in a unanimous vote Monday would allow the state Department of Transportation to operate speed cameras on major highways as part of a pilot program, as long as it works with the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection and picks the locations based on a history of excessive speeding and fatal or serious traffic crashes.

Under the bill, if a camera captures a car traveling 15 mph or more over the speed limit, the owner would receive a $75 ticket for a first violation and tickets of up to $200 for additional violations.

[jp the roadgeek]

https://www.ctinsider.com/connecticut/article/ct-bill-speed-cameras-highways-legislature-pilot-22079258.php

One bill that the committee advanced in a unanimous vote Monday would allow the state Department of Transportation to operate speed cameras on major highways as part of a pilot program, as long as it works with the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection and picks the locations based on a history of excessive speeding and fatal or serious traffic crashes.

Under the bill, if a camera captures a car traveling 15 mph or more over the speed limit, the owner would receive a $75 ticket for a first violation and tickets of up to $200 for additional violations.

You just KNOW that they will place them right at spots where the speed limit drops from 65 to 55 to catch people who are still doing 70 and above. 

[shadyjay]

Some signing updates...


Most (but not all) of the new overheads on I-84 from Vernon to Willington have had signs installed and the old ones removed.  The only ones not yet installed are a couple cantilevers for the HOV lane WB and 2 or 3 full span monotube bridge structures. 

The 2023 spot replacement contract is finally making some worthy progress.  Last Sunday (3/29), I got stuck in traffic at 5am while crews were installing one location in Windsor on I-91 Northbound.  There's progress being made on the I-95 locations, with 2 remaining to be put up in West Haven.  Nothing but a couple vertical supports at one location in New Haven on I-91. 

No progress seen yet on the Connecticut Turnpike service plaza sign project (at least from Milford to Plainfield). 

Some guardrail work in Enfield and East Windsor on I-91 leads me to believe its early work for new overhead support structures in the area. 

Haven't been on I-291 in a few weeks, so can't vouch for any progress on the overheads there.

No work observed yet on the I-95 resigning from Clinton to New London.


And on a non-sign front, it looks like the Gold Star Memorial Bridge (I-95) project is about to really ramp up, with 2 lanes of I-95 NB being rerouted onto the SB span (which is geographically the northern span) and 2 lanes of the existing 5-lane bridge NB to remain open.  Its gonna be a few years until that project is complete. 

[kurumi]

CTDOT has a PDF of project pages for more than 100 major projects (FFY 2026 – FFY 2030 Transportation Infrastructure Capital Plan). There's a lot of bridge rehab/repair, some "new DOT buildings" etc., but also some interesting improvements for road and rail. It's nice to have maps, some context, and project numbers for further research.

https://portal.ct.gov/dot/-/media/dot/capital-plan/capital-plan---project-information-sheets-ffy-2026-2030.pdf

[Ted$8roadFan]

I'm impressed. Even if some of these are pie-in-the-sky, it's good to see the state thinking far ahead into the future.

[MikeTheActuary]

I'm impressed with the Route 2 / new bridge project in the deck.   That'll be interesting to watch over the long term, especially as I assume they'll design it to support potential future realignment of I-84.

[dgolub]

CTDOT has a PDF of project pages for more than 100 major projects (FFY 2026 – FFY 2030 Transportation Infrastructure Capital Plan). There's a lot of bridge rehab/repair, some "new DOT buildings" etc., but also some interesting improvements for road and rail. It's nice to have maps, some context, and project numbers for further research.

https://portal.ct.gov/dot/-/media/dot/capital-plan/capital-plan---project-information-sheets-ffy-2026-2030.pdf

Most interesting stuff:
* New bridge over the Connecticut River to connect CT 2 to I-91
* Removal of the traffic lights on CT 9 in Middletown
* Missing moves on the Merritt Parkway (CT 15) at US 7
* Flex lane on I-84 in Danbury

[abqtraveler]

CTDOT has a PDF of project pages for more than 100 major projects (FFY 2026 – FFY 2030 Transportation Infrastructure Capital Plan). There's a lot of bridge rehab/repair, some "new DOT buildings" etc., but also some interesting improvements for road and rail. It's nice to have maps, some context, and project numbers for further research.

https://portal.ct.gov/dot/-/media/dot/capital-plan/capital-plan---project-information-sheets-ffy-2026-2030.pdf

Most interesting stuff:
* New bridge over the Connecticut River to connect CT 2 to I-91
* Removal of the traffic lights on CT 9 in Middletown
* Missing moves on the Merritt Parkway (CT 15) at US 7
* Flex lane on I-84 in Danbury

What blows my mind is they plan to spend nearly $1 BILLION to rehabilitate the Gold Star Bridge, particularly the older northbound span, built in 1943.  If they're spending that much money to squeeze, say another 20 or so years of life out of that bridge, would it make more sense just to replace the older span with a new bridge designed for a 75-100 service life?  I can't imagine it would be that much more.

Another thing I noticed is CTDOT made no mention of a new bridge for Route 34 at Stevenson Dam. This is something that's been discussed for 40+ years. Has CTDOT completely given up on trying to build a new bridge at Stevenson Dam between Oxford and Monroe, and now just plans to keep hobbling the existing structure until it can no longer be fixed?  The current bridge has deteriorated to the point where it now has a posted 15-ton weight limit. Trucks that used to cross the Stevenson Dam bridge now have to detour via Routes 8, 110, and 111 through Shelton and Monroe to get from New Haven and The Valley to I-84.

[shadyjay]

And now, presenting new I-84 overhead sign photos from the "Vernon to Union" contract...


I-84 EB at Exit 68:
84EB-Exit68-> by Jay Hogan, on Flickr

I-84 EB at Exit 69:
84EB-Exit69-> by Jay Hogan, on Flickr

I-84 EB at Willington Rest Area:
84EB-Exit70-3/4mi by Jay Hogan, on Flickr

I-84 WB at Exit 71:
84WB-Exit71-> by Jay Hogan, on Flickr

I-84 WB at Exit 65:
84WB-Exit65-> by Jay Hogan, on Flickr


Complete set is here:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/

Looks like they've got 1 more dual-span overhead to go up at Exit 70, 1 side cant, and 1 monotube bridge to go up.  And a few old signs and gantries to remove, but not many.  And I like how we've got properly sized numerals on the signs.  And that horrible "Putnam" destination on Exit 69-WB is gone. 

[shadyjay]

Bids for sign replacement and exit renumbering on I-91 have opened, so that means the contract plans for this project are accessible on CTDOT's Bid Board site.  Once again, the state has changed the format of the contract plans... now the signs are shown in text form only on the plans (if you want to see the signs themselves, you have to go to Contract Special Provisions). 

Not one overhead support structure is to be replaced as part of this project.  This is shocking, considering the "date of install" shown on the plans on some of the overheads dates back to the 1980s.  As a result, it seems like the vertical attachments on the overheads are not being altered.  This appears to mean that the exit tabs will be centered (ughh), and no "LEFT" banners installed.  Even on the ground mounts, the "existing supports will remain".  However, ground mounts appear to have exit tabs aligned.  Now, this could have been a formatting error in the plans, but the signs shown in the "Special Provisions" (which are in full color) show mostly centered exit tabs. 

We have the return of more extruded signs, including for some attractions (not all), and most of the exit service signs (general symbols).  Sheets will replace town line signs, some secondary attractions, memorial highway designations, etc. 

The new signs basically replicate the existing signs.  That means no loss of any pull-thrus, but also means the "FOG AREA" sign in New Haven NB will be replaced.  On the same 1980s-style gantry.  A few changes can be observed, such as "CAPITOL AREA" and "OLD WETHERSFIELD" all on one line, and the combination pull-thru/Bradley Airport 13 miles sign becomes just a Bradley Airport 13 Miles sign.  Also, it appears no signs are being replaced at the I-91/I-84 interchange southbound.  I get it... CTDOT wants to modify the whole area, but we all know that won't break ground for at least another 10-20 years, if we're lucky.  HOV signs see the biggest change, with "RESTRICTED LANE" becoming "HOV LANE" and the color changed to green, with a top "HOV EXIT" tab centered for exits from that lane.  Again, this is probably done to maintain the vertical attachments on the existing support structures. 

The project will renumber all exits on I-91 to the mileage-based system.  This means those ramps that split after they leave the mainline will not have separate designations (examples:  I-91 NB Exit 22, I-91 NB Exit 32A-B).  The project also calls for the removal of the "OLD EXIT #" signs on CT 2, CT 9, I-291, I-384, and I-691. 

So there's that!

[MikeTheActuary]

So....no exit numbers for Route 20?

I didn't think they were in the plans for the signage replacement (despite TMMs getting installed).   If they aren't being added with I-91's renumbering....

[RobbieL2415]

What's the status of the bidding for the I-84 sign replacement project From East Hartford to Vernon?

[RobbieL2415]

Bids for sign replacement and exit renumbering on I-91 have opened, so that means the contract plans for this project are accessible on CTDOT's Bid Board site.  Once again, the state has changed the format of the contract plans... now the signs are shown in text form only on the plans (if you want to see the signs themselves, you have to go to Contract Special Provisions). 

Not one overhead support structure is to be replaced as part of this project.  This is shocking, considering the "date of install" shown on the plans on some of the overheads dates back to the 1980s.  As a result, it seems like the vertical attachments on the overheads are not being altered.  This appears to mean that the exit tabs will be centered (ughh), and no "LEFT" banners installed.  Even on the ground mounts, the "existing supports will remain".  However, ground mounts appear to have exit tabs aligned.  Now, this could have been a formatting error in the plans, but the signs shown in the "Special Provisions" (which are in full color) show mostly centered exit tabs. 

We have the return of more extruded signs, including for some attractions (not all), and most of the exit service signs (general symbols).  Sheets will replace town line signs, some secondary attractions, memorial highway designations, etc. 

The new signs basically replicate the existing signs.  That means no loss of any pull-thrus, but also means the "FOG AREA" sign in New Haven NB will be replaced.  On the same 1980s-style gantry.  A few changes can be observed, such as "CAPITOL AREA" and "OLD WETHERSFIELD" all on one line, and the combination pull-thru/Bradley Airport 13 miles sign becomes just a Bradley Airport 13 Miles sign.  Also, it appears no signs are being replaced at the I-91/I-84 interchange southbound.  I get it... CTDOT wants to modify the whole area, but we all know that won't break ground for at least another 10-20 years, if we're lucky.  HOV signs see the biggest change, with "RESTRICTED LANE" becoming "HOV LANE" and the color changed to green, with a top "HOV EXIT" tab centered for exits from that lane.  Again, this is probably done to maintain the vertical attachments on the existing support structures. 

The project will renumber all exits on I-91 to the mileage-based system.  This means those ramps that split after they leave the mainline will not have separate designations (examples:  I-91 NB Exit 22, I-91 NB Exit 32A-B).  The project also calls for the removal of the "OLD EXIT #" signs on CT 2, CT 9, I-291, I-384, and I-691. 

So there's that!

Have to wonder if saving the supports is a cost-saving measure.
The I-84 Vernon to Union replacement didn't save any supports.

[cockroachking]

Took a look through the sign face layouts. Some thoughts:
-CTDOT seems to hate margins on signs installed on new overhead sign structures. Replacing signs on existing structures while keeping panel area the same? Oh dear!***
-I definitely did not have a partial-width APL with a centered exit tab on my 2026 bingo card.

***And this is coming from someone who thinks full MUTCD margins are slightly overkill...

[shadyjay]

I 100% agree the decision to reuse the existing supports was to save money.  But, according to the "contract special provisions", where there is a list of ages of the supports being reused... one dates back to 1965!  Its a truss structure in New Haven, northbound.  I'm not saying that date is 100% positively accurate, but the majority of the other supports on I-91 are between the 1980s and 2000s.  Most from Hartford to Windsor Locks are 1993.  Now eventually those old supports will need replacement.  And with replacement will most likely come new sign panels.  The present I-91 contract from Windsor Locks to Enfield is replacing all supports not previously replaced.

I would've thought the contract would have replaced supports not already replaced, New Haven to Wethersfield and Windsor up to Windsor Locks.  Then you can replace the signs on existing supports if you're thinking something's going to happen in Hartford.  On I-84, they did just that, but at least the exit tabs are aligned with proper LEFT banners if necessary.  They also removed several pull-thrus.


Still no word yet on the I-84 contract and exactly what it will replace.  Exit renumbering is to be part of it, and at least the signs from East Hartford out to Vernon (Exits 57-64).  It may include the early 2000s signs from Southbury to Waterbury and in Chesire/Southington.  It may not.  It was removed from the list of upcoming projects out to bid, and even with the most updated one, it still isn't on there. 

[RobbieL2415]

Still no word yet on the I-84 contract and exactly what it will replace.  Exit renumbering is to be part of it, and at least the signs from East Hartford out to Vernon (Exits 57-64).  It may include the early 2000s signs from Southbury to Waterbury and in Chesire/Southington.  It may not.  It was removed from the list of upcoming projects out to bid, and even with the most updated one, it still isn't on there. 

I'm betting they're putting it off until a full rehab of the 59-64 stretch is planned. Probably going to have to replace drain culverts, guide rails and do a full mill and pave.

It's probably the most derelict stretch of freeway in the state, now.