Connecticut News

[vdeane]

Are you kidding me? The preferred option is the stoplight option for the CT15/US7 interchange?! This project is the poster child for what's wrong with CT Transportation.
https://connecticut.news12.com/ready-for-roadwork-ct-has-nearly-200-projects-planned?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR0JpU2hG782iKAboswxDrAAdsKShCA2AzhmHStfGIMRcVpiF5eVQcBkuJo_aem_AResvS5iFPJg23P-bqwPo4wd9BRQFLvT9d6xjpQApQgtWzr6mIRyhf7bNpxx88kF1kXVnyrDFE9W8prE7tM1q6sf

With no freeway extension happening on US 7 north of the Merritt Parkway, this is a much better solution than adding flyovers where the freeway ends at a traffic signal about 1/2 mile north of this interchange.

But it's a freeway south of there, and freeway/freeway interchanges should be free-flow.

[Plutonic Panda]

Seems like US-7 should be a freeway up to I-84.

[RobbieL2415]

Yes, well.... 

I-84 in East Hartford and Manchester has signage from the mid 1980s.  I can't imagine there's any reflectivity left in those signs, installed about the time I-84 got its current configuration in the area.

My thought is that their either planning on resurfacing and covering the concrete section first, or there's so many signs across the Exit 59-62 C/D that they want to treat it as a separate contract.

The project from Vernon to Union probably costs less, too.

Nearly all the signs from Vernon to the Massachusetts line are ground mounted, whereas there are a lot of overhead gantries on the East Hartford to Manchester stretch. Let's not forget too, there are even more signs and structures to replace, thanks to separate signage for the HOV lanes on that stretch.

Which makes me wonder if we're going to be looking at a multi-year reconstruction process for that stretch; Resurfacing,bridge maintenance and sign replacements.

[Duke87]

Are you kidding me? The preferred option is the stoplight option for the CT15/US7 interchange?! This project is the poster child for what's wrong with CT Transportation.
https://connecticut.news12.com/ready-for-roadwork-ct-has-nearly-200-projects-planned?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR0JpU2hG782iKAboswxDrAAdsKShCA2AzhmHStfGIMRcVpiF5eVQcBkuJo_aem_AResvS5iFPJg23P-bqwPo4wd9BRQFLvT9d6xjpQApQgtWzr6mIRyhf7bNpxx88kF1kXVnyrDFE9W8prE7tM1q6sf

With no freeway extension happening on US 7 north of the Merritt Parkway, this is a much better solution than adding flyovers where the freeway ends at a traffic signal about 1/2 mile north of this interchange.

No, see, the problem with this proposal is that it's worse than doing nothing. Sure, you can't get between the Merritt to the north and 7 directly, but existing traffic patterns already account for the fact that you can't do this. Movements to the south and thru traffic on 7, meanwhile, both of which are greater in volume, currently free flow and will if this is built no longer be able to.

I understand that NIMBY considerations make building anything else impossible, but I'd much prefer they go "no build" here. I use the free flow connections that exist routinely and do not want my movement hindered by downgrading the interchange, kthx.

[vdeane]

Seriously, someone needs to put the Conservancy in its place.  The 2005 plan would not have harmed the character of the parkway AT ALL.  The fact that they thought it would proves that they don't have a clue what they are talking about.  I can't even find what "historic bridges" they're even talking about on their analysis, and the ramp mileage doesn't affect the experience of driving by on the parkway.

https://www.merrittparkway.org/copy-of-route-7-interchange-litigation

As for those who thought that a freeway interchange would "open the door" for a northern extension, I don't know what they're smoking, but CT couldn't afford to do that even if they wanted to.

[kurumi]

You could have a SPUI along free-flowing US 7 and a traffic light on the Merritt Parkway. Let's think outside the box :-}

[Plutonic Panda]

Seriously, someone needs to put the Conservancy in its place.  The 2005 plan would not have harmed the character of the parkway AT ALL.  The fact that they thought it would proves that they don't have a clue what they are talking about.  I can't even find what "historic bridges" they're even talking about on their analysis, and the ramp mileage doesn't affect the experience of driving by on the parkway.

https://www.merrittparkway.org/copy-of-route-7-interchange-litigation

As for those who thought that a freeway interchange would "open the door" for a northern extension, I don't know what they're smoking, but CT couldn't afford to do that even if they wanted to.

I thought Connecticut was a fairly wealthy state.

[vdeane]

I thought Connecticut was a fairly wealthy state.

If CTDOT has a ton of cash, they sure have a hard time finding some for things like removing the lights on CT 9.

[Plutonic Panda]

I thought Connecticut was a fairly wealthy state.

If CTDOT has a ton of cash, they sure have a hard time finding some for things like removing the lights on CT 9.

Well I don't know how the financial structure in taxing set up in connecticut. Maybe the state needs to propose an increase in taxes, or they need to redistribute funds to give the department of transportation more money.

But even if they had the money, i'm sure an extension of this highway would be hard to construct nowadays being in the northeast. Just like IL 53 extension NIMBYland.

[Ted$8roadFan]

Re: CT-9 in Middletown, I don't think a lack of funding is the issue as much as it is a lack of consensus about how best to get rid of the signals at CT-17 and CT-66.

[shadyjay]

Looks like progress is being made on the I-84 Vernon-to-Union project.  Yup... that's right... visible progress... already!  Foundations for the new sign supports are already being dug.  A substantial amount of ground signage in this project is being elevated.  It does seem like its going against recent ConnDOT prescident, but this is a heavily trafficked trucking route and the trucks often obscure right side ground mounted signage.  Granted, most of the gantries will be single sided "4-chord cantilever", but that increases the cost of the contract.  Perhaps its mitigated by the mass "sheeting" of town lines, park & rides, exit services, and in some cases, onramp signage. 

[abqtraveler]

Are you kidding me? The preferred option is the stoplight option for the CT15/US7 interchange?! This project is the poster child for what's wrong with CT Transportation.
https://connecticut.news12.com/ready-for-roadwork-ct-has-nearly-200-projects-planned?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR0JpU2hG782iKAboswxDrAAdsKShCA2AzhmHStfGIMRcVpiF5eVQcBkuJo_aem_AResvS5iFPJg23P-bqwPo4wd9BRQFLvT9d6xjpQApQgtWzr6mIRyhf7bNpxx88kF1kXVnyrDFE9W8prE7tM1q6sf

With no freeway extension happening on US 7 north of the Merritt Parkway, this is a much better solution than adding flyovers where the freeway ends at a traffic signal about 1/2 mile north of this interchange.

Especially so, if CTDOT moves forward with their plan to reconfigure the T-intersection at Gristmill Road to smooth out the transition from the freeway to the surface road heading north. As long as they maintain controlled access from the Merritt Parkway to Gristmill Road (e.g., not adding driveways or new connections to other streets), everything should be fine with a signalized intersection at the Merritt Parkway.

[southshore720]

Are you kidding me? The preferred option is the stoplight option for the CT15/US7 interchange?! This project is the poster child for what's wrong with CT Transportation.
https://connecticut.news12.com/ready-for-roadwork-ct-has-nearly-200-projects-planned?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR0JpU2hG782iKAboswxDrAAdsKShCA2AzhmHStfGIMRcVpiF5eVQcBkuJo_aem_AResvS5iFPJg23P-bqwPo4wd9BRQFLvT9d6xjpQApQgtWzr6mIRyhf7bNpxx88kF1kXVnyrDFE9W8prE7tM1q6sf

With no freeway extension happening on US 7 north of the Merritt Parkway, this is a much better solution than adding flyovers where the freeway ends at a traffic signal about 1/2 mile north of this interchange.

Especially so, if CTDOT moves forward with their plan to reconfigure the T-intersection at Gristmill Road to smooth out the transition from the freeway to the surface road heading north. As long as they maintain controlled access from the Merritt Parkway to Gristmill Road (e.g., not adding driveways or new connections to other streets), everything should be fine with a signalized intersection at the Merritt Parkway.

It's a "we'll take whatever we can get" situation at this point.  US 7 being a complete highway is a pipe dream (along with Route 11).  Anything that diverts traffic off the congested Main Avenue is a plus.

[vdeane]

I feel like I'm one of the only people who thinks freeway/freeway interchanges shouldn't have stoplights even if the freeway only continues on one side.  There's currently a freeway/freeway link between the Merritt and I-95.  There won't be after this project is done.  What they're doing is, in effect, a freeway removal.

[bmitchelf]

Are you kidding me? The preferred option is the stoplight option for the CT15/US7 interchange?! This project is the poster child for what's wrong with CT Transportation.
https://connecticut.news12.com/ready-for-roadwork-ct-has-nearly-200-projects-planned?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR0JpU2hG782iKAboswxDrAAdsKShCA2AzhmHStfGIMRcVpiF5eVQcBkuJo_aem_AResvS5iFPJg23P-bqwPo4wd9BRQFLvT9d6xjpQApQgtWzr6mIRyhf7bNpxx88kF1kXVnyrDFE9W8prE7tM1q6sf

They really don't have room to make this a full cloverleaf? I would eliminate the exits to Main Ave north if it helped at all. Or just use the 40B side if they're going to add a traffic light south of the Merritt anyway.

[Duke87]

I thought Connecticut was a fairly wealthy state.

The state may be home to a decent number of individuals with a lot of money but this doesn't mean the state itself is flush with cash. Connecticut's economy isn't growing very quickly and paying out handsome pensions to retired state employees who now live in Florida is a massive drag on the state's finances. Besides, CT's highway infrastructure is now old enough that maintaining and rebuilding what already exists consumes a lot of resources.

They really don't have room to make this a full cloverleaf? I would eliminate the exits to Main Ave north if it helped at all. Or just use the 40B side if they're going to add a traffic light south of the Merritt anyway.

The room for it is there. And ConnDOT in fact tried to move forward with a modified cloverleaf design 15 years ago, but they got sued and blocked in court.

The problem is, the homeowners who live adjacent to the NW and SW quadrants of the interchange currently enjoy significant buffers of wooded land between their backyards and the ramps. A full interchange would require moving those ramps substantially closer to their backyards, subjecting them to increased noise levels and decreasing their property values. And those homeowners have deep pockets and good lawyers, as well as many allies in Wilton and Ridgefield who oppose a full freeway-freeway interchange of any kind eager to support their case.

At this point ConnDOT has tried every plausible possibility for a full freeway-freeway interchange and they've gotten blocked in court every time. The only politically viable options are the bullshit they have proposed now with stoplights or do nothing.

[Rothman]

I thought Connecticut was a fairly wealthy state.

The state may be home to a decent number of individuals with a lot of money but this doesn't mean the state itself is flush with cash. Connecticut's economy isn't growing very quickly and paying out handsome pensions to retired state employees who now live in Florida is a massive drag on the state's finances. Besides, CT's highway infrastructure is now old enough that maintaining and rebuilding what already exists consumes a lot of resources.

They really don't have room to make this a full cloverleaf? I would eliminate the exits to Main Ave north if it helped at all. Or just use the 40B side if they're going to add a traffic light south of the Merritt anyway.

The room for it is there. And ConnDOT in fact tried to move forward with a modified cloverleaf design 15 years ago, but they got sued and blocked in court.

The problem is, the homeowners who live adjacent to the NW and SW quadrants of the interchange currently enjoy significant buffers of wooded land between their backyards and the ramps. A full interchange would require moving those ramps substantially closer to their backyards, subjecting them to increased noise levels and decreasing their property values. And those homeowners have deep pockets and good lawyers, as well as many allies in Wilton and Ridgefield who oppose a full freeway-freeway interchange of any kind eager to support their case.

At this point ConnDOT has tried every plausible possibility for a full freeway-freeway interchange and they've gotten blocked in court every time. The only politically viable options are the bullshit they have proposed now with stoplights or do nothing.

CT could take the neighbors' homes through eminent domain for a very pretty penny...

[vdeane]

At this point ConnDOT has tried every plausible possibility for a full freeway-freeway interchange and they've gotten blocked in court every time. The only politically viable options are the bullshit they have proposed now with stoplights or do nothing.

What about a partial freeway-freeway interchange, similar to what Michigan did at US 31 and I-94?  That would retain freeway/freeway connectivity to/from the south while still reassuring the NIMBYs to the north that any plans to extend the US 7 freeway are dead.

[pderocco]

They could just dig up the bit of US-7 up to Grist Mill that they built 30-odd years ago, and put in a trumpet at 15. After all, that piece has never done anything useful but bypass less than a mile of Main Ave. It sure doesn't look like they'll ever find room to extended it far enough north to matter.

[RobbieL2415]

Honestly, its a difficult spot to build any freeway-to-freeway connector because you have

-Overhead high voltage transmission lines
-Metro North
-Exit 40

all in the way.

[vdeane]

Honestly, its a difficult spot to build any freeway-to-freeway connector because you have

-Overhead high voltage transmission lines
-Metro North
-Exit 40

all in the way.

Although it wouldn't be hard to preserve the existing ramps as freeway-freeway (at least to/from the south) while still providing the bulk of the movements.  If I were deciding what to do here, I'd get rid of the west half of the exit 40 cloverleaf and turn the east half into a folded diamond.  Then, for US 7, I'd build two new ramps - one from US 7 north to Main Ave to end at the same junction as exit 40 (preventing weaving, albeit by making people continuing to CT 15 north wait at a light) and another from CT 15 south to US 7 (this would have a light, but all existing movements to/from the south would be unaffected by it; only the new movement and traffic to/from the north would need to deal with the light).

Traffic from US 7 south to CT 15 north would still need to use Main Ave, but that traffic is all local anyways, so who cares?  Traffic from significantly further north of there is taking CT 33 anyways.

[Duke87]

What about a partial freeway-freeway interchange, similar to what Michigan did at US 31 and I-94?  That would retain freeway/freeway connectivity to/from the south while still reassuring the NIMBYs to the north that any plans to extend the US 7 freeway are dead.

This has never been considered because the purpose and need of the project every time it has come up has always been "add all the missing movements". So any option that does not do that has never been on the table.

At any rate, I'd see little point in that. You're just swapping around which movements are missing. You'd also still have the problem of "brings ramps closer to wealthy homeowner's backyard" in the NW quadrant.

[roadman65]

https://maps.app.goo.gl/VAtbPMYNh7AZDZ6B8
Why does the Merit Parkway guides have such unusual borders?

[kurumi]

https://maps.app.goo.gl/VAtbPMYNh7AZDZ6B8
Why does the Merritt Parkway guides have such unusual borders?

It's a throwback to the original wooden guide signs from 1938-194x. There's a decent photo here (open image in new tab and zoom in): https://ctmirror.org/2015/09/29/in-praise-of-the-merritt-the-queen-of-parkways/

[vdeane]

What about a partial freeway-freeway interchange, similar to what Michigan did at US 31 and I-94?  That would retain freeway/freeway connectivity to/from the south while still reassuring the NIMBYs to the north that any plans to extend the US 7 freeway are dead.

This has never been considered because the purpose and need of the project every time it has come up has always been "add all the missing movements". So any option that does not do that has never been on the table.

At any rate, I'd see little point in that. You're just swapping around which movements are missing. You'd also still have the problem of "brings ramps closer to wealthy homeowner's backyard" in the NW quadrant.

Doesn't that interchange provide full movement, though?  And wouldn't the wealthy homeowner be less powerful on their own, without any aid from the NIMBYs to the north who are afraid that anything more than a freeway removal means that ConnDOT will try to complete Super 7?

Incidentally, my later proposal provides all movements but one (though not all as freeway-freeway), and the one that's missing is one that I can't see being used by many people ever, especially not with the US 7's current configuration (in fact, with the current configuration, I would say the US 7 SB to CT 15 NB is completely useless and unnecessary; the only use case I could see is if some roadgeek is clinching things and has a bug up their rear about staying on state routes).