AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules for political content in signatures and user profiles. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: Connecticut News  (Read 537714 times)

jp the roadgeek

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2339
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Outside the I-291 beltway
  • Last Login: Today at 07:40:17 PM
Re: Connecticut News
« Reply #2900 on: August 09, 2018, 04:07:27 PM »

I still can't believe when CT redid the service plazas on the Merritt and Wilbur Cross they didn't fix the on-off-ramps to them.  I heard the Pkwy Conservancy had a role in that as they didn't allow any changes to the footprints.

It seems to me if this were any other state the on-off-ramps would've been included and updated.
Some of the on ramps are so short it's crazy


Plus most don't have a dedicated acceleration lane so there are still stop signs at the top of the ramp and one has to go 0 to 60 in about 4 seconds to avoid getting run over.  At least some of the Wilbur Cross ramps have been fixed.
Logged
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

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 170
  • Last Login: August 19, 2018, 07:04:10 PM
Re: Connecticut News
« Reply #2901 on: August 09, 2018, 05:07:23 PM »

You guys don't find it fun exiting the parkway and having to go from 65 mph to a stop sign at the end of a 200 ft curvy off-ramp? If not then I'll bet you find the stop signs at the end of the on-ramps charming! Having to enter a highway from a dead stop is always a great time.
Logged

shadyjay

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1059
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Warren, VT
  • Last Login: August 19, 2018, 09:36:48 AM
Re: Connecticut News
« Reply #2902 on: August 09, 2018, 05:26:08 PM »

I stumbled upon another study of I-95, this one from the South Central Regional Council of Governments on Exit 53 (the Branford Connector).

It looks like they're trying to complete the interchange by adding a NB entrance ramp and a SB exit, but the nearby service plaza and ROW needed is posing a challenge.

This being CT, the preferred alternate is Option 2 from the presentation document, which will eliminate the trumpet interchange and replace it with a modified diamond interchange with 2 traffic signals.  It would combine traffic exiting to the Branford Connector as well as the service plaza.  Traffic exiting both service plazas would then merge back with the connector traffic and have to sit at one of the lights before re-entering I-95.

Confused? So am I. I'm hoping that more modifications are made if and when they decide to re-build this.  I'm sure one of us here can come up with some better ideas. ConnDOT could learn some things from TxDOT how to design efficient ramps without major environmental impacts. IMO, I prefer Option 1 without the traffic signals.

Here's a screenshot of Option 2:



This all seems like an incredible waste of money and I can think of 1000 more important construction projects to tackle across the state over this.  I mean, Exits 53 and 54 are, what, about a mile apart.  Improve Route 1 between them.  There's no reason why traffic wishing to reach the area of the Branford Connector can't take Exit 54 if heading on 95 SB. 

My solution?  Close the NB offramp and SB onramp at Exit 54.  This gives traffic better time to merge into two lanes.  I-95 should be widened to 3 lanes all the way to New London, but that project can be broken up into sections (start with widening Exit 54 to the Guilford town line, for example).  And I would close the Branford-SB service plaza and make it a weigh station (same with Madison NB).  Those two are the smallest plazas on I-95 and its not that far from other plazas. 

But if they really want to make Exit 53 a full interchange, then I like Option 1. 
Logged
"Thats my opinion... what's YOURS?"

Check out my FLICKR page for road photos throughout New England...
https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/collections/72157657234163953/

64CatalinaVentura

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3
  • Location: West Haven Connecticut
  • Last Login: August 10, 2018, 12:09:28 AM
Re: Connecticut News
« Reply #2903 on: August 09, 2018, 11:47:47 PM »

I stumbled upon another study of I-95, this one from the South Central Regional Council of Governments on Exit 53 (the Branford Connector).

It looks like they're trying to complete the interchange by adding a NB entrance ramp and a SB exit, but the nearby service plaza and ROW needed is posing a challenge.

This being CT, the preferred alternate is Option 2 from the presentation document, which will eliminate the trumpet interchange and replace it with a modified diamond interchange with 2 traffic signals.  It would combine traffic exiting to the Branford Connector as well as the service plaza.  Traffic exiting both service plazas would then merge back with the connector traffic and have to sit at one of the lights before re-entering I-95.

Confused? So am I. I'm hoping that more modifications are made if and when they decide to re-build this.  I'm sure one of us here can come up with some better ideas. ConnDOT could learn some things from TxDOT how to design efficient ramps without major environmental impacts. IMO, I prefer Option 1 without the traffic signals.

Here's a screenshot of Option 2:



This all seems like an incredible waste of money and I can think of 1000 more important construction projects to tackle across the state over this.  I mean, Exits 53 and 54 are, what, about a mile apart.  Improve Route 1 between them.  There's no reason why traffic wishing to reach the area of the Branford Connector can't take Exit 54 if heading on 95 SB. 

My solution?  Close the NB offramp and SB onramp at Exit 54.  This gives traffic better time to merge into two lanes.  I-95 should be widened to 3 lanes all the way to New London, but that project can be broken up into sections (start with widening Exit 54 to the Guilford town line, for example).  And I would close the Branford-SB service plaza and make it a weigh station (same with Madison NB).  Those two are the smallest plazas on I-95 and its not that far from other plazas. 

But if they really want to make Exit 53 a full interchange, then I like Option 1.

I live about two miles from this. Traffic in that area on 95 and route 1 is a total disaster. Route 1 needs to be totally reconfigured for better traffic flow due to the numerous stop lights within a short distance of one another, difficulty changing lanes in the area, with many out of area drivers being confused or stuck in the wrong lane, and difficulty getting in and out of some local business lots during peak traffic. Adding the other half of this exit makes sense. Remember that southern New England is very densely populated. Currently both exits 53 and 54 are very busy, especially during rush hour. This will help to reduce traffic in the area around exit 54 in Branford and exit 52 in East Haven.
Logged

Mergingtraffic

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1635
  • Location: NYC-CT
  • Last Login: Today at 06:52:36 PM
    • My Flickr alias: MergingTraffic
Re: Connecticut News
« Reply #2904 on: August 10, 2018, 10:45:34 AM »

I stumbled upon another study of I-95, this one from the South Central Regional Council of Governments on Exit 53 (the Branford Connector).

It looks like they're trying to complete the interchange by adding a NB entrance ramp and a SB exit, but the nearby service plaza and ROW needed is posing a challenge.

This being CT, the preferred alternate is Option 2 from the presentation document, which will eliminate the trumpet interchange and replace it with a modified diamond interchange with 2 traffic signals.  It would combine traffic exiting to the Branford Connector as well as the service plaza.  Traffic exiting both service plazas would then merge back with the connector traffic and have to sit at one of the lights before re-entering I-95.

Confused? So am I. I'm hoping that more modifications are made if and when they decide to re-build this.  I'm sure one of us here can come up with some better ideas. ConnDOT could learn some things from TxDOT how to design efficient ramps without major environmental impacts. IMO, I prefer Option 1 without the traffic signals.

Here's a screenshot of Option 2:



This all seems like an incredible waste of money and I can think of 1000 more important construction projects to tackle across the state over this.  I mean, Exits 53 and 54 are, what, about a mile apart.  Improve Route 1 between them.  There's no reason why traffic wishing to reach the area of the Branford Connector can't take Exit 54 if heading on 95 SB. 

My solution?  Close the NB offramp and SB onramp at Exit 54.  This gives traffic better time to merge into two lanes.  I-95 should be widened to 3 lanes all the way to New London, but that project can be broken up into sections (start with widening Exit 54 to the Guilford town line, for example).  And I would close the Branford-SB service plaza and make it a weigh station (same with Madison NB).  Those two are the smallest plazas on I-95 and its not that far from other plazas. 

But if they really want to make Exit 53 a full interchange, then I like Option 1.

I live about two miles from this. Traffic in that area on 95 and route 1 is a total disaster. Route 1 needs to be totally reconfigured for better traffic flow due to the numerous stop lights within a short distance of one another, difficulty changing lanes in the area, with many out of area drivers being confused or stuck in the wrong lane, and difficulty getting in and out of some local business lots during peak traffic. Adding the other half of this exit makes sense. Remember that southern New England is very densely populated. Currently both exits 53 and 54 are very busy, especially during rush hour. This will help to reduce traffic in the area around exit 54 in Branford and exit 52 in East Haven.


I'd say do a flyover and have the SB off-ramp start before the SB rest area and go behind it. But this is CT and people will freak over that.  So instead CT will downgrade another interchange and free flow movement.
Logged
I only take pics of good looking signs. Long live non-reflective button copy!
MergingTraffic https://www.flickr.com/photos/98731835@N05/

jon daly

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 452
  • I Clinched The DhahranĖJubail Highway!

  • Location: Southern New England
  • Last Login: Today at 08:31:22 PM
Re: Connecticut News
« Reply #2905 on: August 10, 2018, 11:18:37 AM »

You guys don't find it fun exiting the parkway and having to go from 65 mph to a stop sign at the end of a 200 ft curvy off-ramp? If not then I'll bet you find the stop signs at the end of the on-ramps charming! Having to enter a highway from a dead stop is always a great time.

When I was a kid, I-91 north of Hartford was sort of like that, IIRC. Wasn't there a link recently that mentioned that widening project?
Logged

Rothman

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3934
  • Last Login: Today at 12:34:26 PM
Re: Connecticut News
« Reply #2906 on: August 10, 2018, 11:56:00 AM »

Before the expansion of I-91 that added the HOV lanes, not only were their some stupid ramps, but the signage was horrible.

Southbound, the exit for CT 178 was barely signed -- the last guide sign wasn't even a BGS.  It was about the size of legal sized paper.  Didn't have the CT outline reflector shield on it though, but a squashed CT 178 white rectangle shield.

Can't describe how amazing the transformation was between the glorified parkway that section of I-91 was to what it is now.
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

ipeters61

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 106
  • Highway Safety Analyst

  • Age: 23
  • Location: Dover, Delaware
  • Last Login: August 19, 2018, 05:19:14 PM
    • Personal Website
Re: Connecticut News
« Reply #2907 on: August 10, 2018, 01:55:12 PM »

Before the expansion of I-91 that added the HOV lanes, not only were their some stupid ramps, but the signage was horrible.

Southbound, the exit for CT 178 was barely signed -- the last guide sign wasn't even a BGS.  It was about the size of legal sized paper.  Didn't have the CT outline reflector shield on it though, but a squashed CT 178 white rectangle shield.

Can't describe how amazing the transformation was between the glorified parkway that section of I-91 was to what it is now.
Are we talking about signs of this size?  I can't stand those.

Logged

Rothman

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3934
  • Last Login: Today at 12:34:26 PM
Re: Connecticut News
« Reply #2908 on: August 10, 2018, 11:59:07 PM »

No.  Shorter but wider and much flimsier.  Think more like the crappy signage on NY 17.
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

kurumi

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1420
  • Location: Cupertino, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 11:34:14 AM
    • kurumi.com
Re: Connecticut News
« Reply #2909 on: August 11, 2018, 01:22:37 AM »

On old I-91, the interchange with CT 305 was constructed more than a decade before 305 became a signed route in 1962/3. The BGS was (IIRC) a plain "Bloomfield Ave / Windsor" sign.

When 305 was designated, the highway department did not replace the BGS, but instead attached a CT 305 marker to the top border.
Logged

shadyjay

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1059
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Warren, VT
  • Last Login: August 19, 2018, 09:36:48 AM
Re: Connecticut News
« Reply #2910 on: August 11, 2018, 09:58:35 AM »

My first experience with I-91 north of Hartford was in the 1989/1990 timeframe.  Signs from Exits 33 up to 38 were quite flimsy, but I'm assuming that was because the whole road was under construction.  North to Exit 41, there were some overheads that were on slim gantries (similar to those on the turnpike).  Entrance signs lacked direction... instead of "91 North/Springfield/->", they were just "91/Springfield->".  Exit 43 was still open at the time, northbound.  Once you got past Exit 44, the road was already widened, up to the state line. 
Logged
"Thats my opinion... what's YOURS?"

Check out my FLICKR page for road photos throughout New England...
https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/collections/72157657234163953/

Mergingtraffic

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1635
  • Location: NYC-CT
  • Last Login: Today at 06:52:36 PM
    • My Flickr alias: MergingTraffic
Re: Connecticut News
« Reply #2911 on: August 12, 2018, 04:24:35 PM »

Are they making a new Exit 9 on-ramp for I-95 NB?  I see grading that looks to be for that unless it's for construction vehicles for some other project. 

EDIT:
I found it
https://darienite.com/rt-1-bridge-over-i-95-at-exit-9-to-be-replaced-by-november-2019-34234
« Last Edit: August 12, 2018, 04:39:04 PM by Mergingtraffic »
Logged
I only take pics of good looking signs. Long live non-reflective button copy!
MergingTraffic https://www.flickr.com/photos/98731835@N05/

tckma

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 474
  • I only came for the Appelflappen!

  • Age: 39
  • Location: Westminster, MD (weekends) / King of Prussia, PA (weekdays)
  • Last Login: Today at 03:57:06 PM
Re: Connecticut News
« Reply #2912 on: August 15, 2018, 04:21:19 PM »

You guys don't find it fun exiting the parkway and having to go from 65 mph to a stop sign at the end of a 200 ft curvy off-ramp? If not then I'll bet you find the stop signs at the end of the on-ramps charming! Having to enter a highway from a dead stop is always a great time.

Just like the Merritt/Wilbur Cross Parkways, the Taconic State Parkway, Saw Mill River Parkway, and just about any other Westchester County, NY parkway.  Yeah.  A whole lot of not fun.

MikeCL

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 127
  • Location: Connecticut
  • Last Login: Today at 03:46:54 PM
Re: Connecticut News
« Reply #2913 on: Today at 03:28:25 PM »

Are they making a new Exit 9 on-ramp for I-95 NB?  I see grading that looks to be for that unless it's for construction vehicles for some other project. 

EDIT:
I found it
https://darienite.com/rt-1-bridge-over-i-95-at-exit-9-to-be-replaced-by-november-2019-34234
I came here to wonder that as well what about a little past the on ramp from 9? Did the sate put something up on the website about this?

looks like adding one northbound lane

https://www.equipmentworld.com/ctdot-says-strategic-widening-of-i-95-will-reduce-congestion-boost-economy/


And this one talks about a bridge replacement..

https://darienite.com/rt-1-bridge-over-i-95-at-exit-9-to-be-replaced-by-november-2019-34234
« Last Edit: Today at 03:34:09 PM by MikeCL »
Logged

Mergingtraffic

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1635
  • Location: NYC-CT
  • Last Login: Today at 06:52:36 PM
    • My Flickr alias: MergingTraffic
Re: Connecticut News
« Reply #2914 on: Today at 03:42:59 PM »

http://nbcct.co/N1Nuucx

I-84 will have three lanes in Waterbury sooner rather than later.  A year ahead of schedule.  EB this week.
Logged
I only take pics of good looking signs. Long live non-reflective button copy!
MergingTraffic https://www.flickr.com/photos/98731835@N05/

MikeCL

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 127
  • Location: Connecticut
  • Last Login: Today at 03:46:54 PM
Re: Connecticut News
« Reply #2915 on: Today at 03:46:54 PM »

http://nbcct.co/N1Nuucx

I-84 will have three lanes in Waterbury sooner rather than later.  A year ahead of schedule.  EB this week.

I wonder if itís possible for them to widen the rt 8 exit plus the bridge? I still canít on earth think  why they would have the bridge what is it two lanes thatís open to 3? Given itís been the bottleneck for as long as I can remember.
Logged

 


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.