Print

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

[Alex]

The 2009 Geonova atlas base shows construction of the Bennington bypass between U.S. 7 and Vermont 9. Is this underway now? When we traveled Vermont 9 in 2007, there was no sign of work extending the bypass outside of stubs north of town. The bypass is needed, considering that we sat through three signal cycles in downtown Bennington on a Saturday afternoon.

[Dougtone]

The 2009 Geonova atlas base shows construction of the Bennington bypass between U.S. 7 and Vermont 9. Is this underway now? When we traveled Vermont 9 in 2007, there was no sign of work extending the bypass outside of stubs north of town. The bypass is needed, considering that we sat through three signal cycles in downtown Bennington on a Saturday afternoon.

There is current construction on what's called the Northern Segment of the Bennington Bypass.  The construction is slowly progressing from US 7 southeast to VT 9.  At last check, nothing was going on yet at VT 9, and the construction was going on closer to US 7.

[Snappyjack]

So, Vermont has new sheilds? Or are they recycling old ones, prior to the green shields?

[Alex]

I was wondering myself, since the changever occurred in 1995. That's a long time for old shields to remain in stock!

[FLRoads]

No, Vermont still has the two main styles of route shield...the newer green shields, and the plain black-and-white "circle shields".  The VA 153/VA 315 intersection received a new set of the latter.

Did you mean VT??   

[Duke87]

So... the other half of that goofy interchange is finally going to be used, then.

Any idea if they're actually building a full four lane freeway or will it just be more super 2?

[Snappyjack]

So... the other half of that goofy interchange is finally going to be used, then.

Any idea if they're actually building a full four lane freeway or will it just be more super 2?

Well the sole reason it is goofy is due to the fact that for now, it is only half utilized. That whole stretch of the current Bennington Bypass from U.S. 7 and into New York was built on original alignment for the Interstate 88 extension from Albany to Portsmouth, NH. Part of the new stretch of the bypass will also utilize this original alignment as well.

[Dougtone]

More super-2.

I think that traffic really only warrants that a super-two be constructed for the remaining bits of the bypass.  It certainly looked that way when I passed on through a few weeks ago.

[Dougtone]

Perhaps...but if traffic volumes are that low, I'd have to question why VTrans chose to go with a SPUI at the VT 9 interchange.

I can think of two possibilities for that SPUI at the future interchange for VT 279 with VT 9.  On the east side of Bennington, VTrans doesn't have much wiggle room between the residential neighborhoods of Bennington and the Green Mountains and figured a SPUI may make sense for that.  Another may be that VTrans wants a seamless transition between VT 279 traffic to VT 9 eastbound, but does not want to invest in a flyover ramp.

[Snappyjack]

Well the sole reason it is goofy is due to the fact that for now, it is only half utilized. That whole stretch of the current Bennington Bypass from U.S. 7 and into New York was built on original alignment for the Interstate 88 extension from Albany to Portsmouth, NH. Part of the new stretch of the bypass will also utilize this original alignment as well.

One fly in your ointment.  The arrangement of that northern Bennington Bypass interchange is such that the northeast leg of the Bennington bypass (the one currently under construction) ties seamlessly into US 7 to the north, not into VA 279.

As a side note, an "I-88 extension" was only one possibility for this east-west route.  It was also considered as "I-92".

I think that traffic really only warrants that a super-two be constructed for the remaining bits of the bypass.  It certainly looked that way when I passed on through a few weeks ago.

Perhaps...but if traffic volumes are that low, I'd have to question why VTrans chose to go with a SPUI at the VT 9 interchange.

Actually, the I-88 extension and I-92 were two seperate plans for an east-west route that were both cancelled.

[froggie]

A few recent Vermont notes:

- My other half has been making a few trips over to Burlington lately.  The other day, she mentioned that the new roundabout at US 2/US 302 in Montpelier is almost complete.  I'll be up that way Labor Day weekend and will be taking a look...

- At the VT 11/VT 121 junction east of Londonderry, the previous oval VT 121 shields have been replaced with the standard Vermont route marker.  With a twist:  instead of the normal green color, they're black.  Missed a photo opportunity coming through, but I'll be up there again Labor Day weekend (it's on my direct route north to my other half).

- Not sure if this got mentioned in the past, but over the winter, the old square VT 153/VT 315 shields in Rupert were replaced by new oval shields.  The old green "Vermont 153" square shield at the NY line was still there as of 7/30.

[froggie]

Back in July, VTrans completed the Final EIS for the Williston segment (between I-89 just east of VT 2A and VT 117) of the Circumferential Highway.  The preferred alternative is for the new alignment road...upgrading VT 2A and a "hybrid" alternative were also considered, but both faced opposition from Essex Junction, which has de-facto approval over any ROW takings within the village.  Since any improvements to VT 2A would require new right-of-way, this effectively gave the village veto power over that alternative.

In a nutshell, the preferred alternative is for a 4-lane divided boulevard with a 40 MPH speed limit and traffic signals at both US 2 and Mountain View Rd.  The trumpet interchange previously proposed at I-89 is retained (with auxiliary lanes on I-89 between the trumpet and the ramps at VT 2A), but the traffic signals replace previously proposed interchanges in order to reduce the roadway footprint and the ensuing wetland impacts, which were a major concern of the EPA with the new alignment alternative.  The lower design speed, plus going with a narrow median (overall roadway width, including median, ranges from 70 to 78ft) is meant to further reduce the roadway footprint and wetland impacts.

No word as far as I can tell as to when construction would begin.

[Crazy Volvo Guy]

In a nutshell, the preferred alternative is for a 4-lane divided boulevard with a 40 MPH speed limit and traffic signals at both US 2 and Mountain View Rd.

Having lived in the south for 3 years, I can say with certain authority that there's no reason a divided boulevard should carry anything less than a 45, if not a 50.  It's time for New England to get over its fetish for 35s and 40s everywhere, departing the 1950s to come into 2010.  Cars are safer, handle better and have much shorter stopping distances.

[vdeane]

For that matter, how about getting over their 50 fetish?

[agentsteel53]

seriously, any fetish under about 80 is sexually deviant. 

[Crazy Volvo Guy]

For that matter, how about getting over their 50 fetish?

I could go with that.  There's absolutely no reason for rural Interstates to be any less than, frankly, 75...but that seems to be a lot to ask of people out here in the east.  70 at least on Interstates, 55 on major thoroughfares, 45-50 everywhere else except residential streets, dangerous backroads that actually warrant a lower limit and downtown streets.

[Grzrd]

seriously, any fetish under about 80 is sexually deviant. 

Who do you call if you observe a 10 or 15 fetish in a downtown area?

[Ian]

I could see roads like US 4 in rural Vermont between Rutland and Woodstock be raised to around 60 or 65. Nobody obeys the 55 posted limit.

[froggie]

50 speed limit, not 55.  And the only place you could reasonably go better than 60 through there would be near Killington...in which case you're still dealing with ski traffic 5 months out of the year...

Also, in my experience, Vermonters tend to stick to the speed limit.  It's the out-of-staters that go faster.

[vdeane]

That would explain why every Vermonter I've seen on US 11 drives 5 mph below the speed limit without fail.

Speed limits in Vermont are 50 unless otherwise posted.  Some US highway segments are 55, and interstates can be up to 65, but most rural roads are 50.

[shadyjay]

Between towns, you can move pretty good.  I usually go 55 in a 50.  Its the small towns where the speed limit drops from 50 to 30 that you have to watch out for, cause the cops will get you, no matter what color your plate is.  I have been busted on US 4 EB just east of Rutland going 55 in a 40 or 45, which was about 1/4 mile away from the start of the 50mph zone.  From there, climbing up and over Sherburne Pass and down to West Bridgewater, I can see a higher speed limit of 55.  East of there into Woodstock, the road isn't that straight or wide. 

The new "speed limit ahead" signs are great - the yellow diamonds with an up arrow and the new speed limit have replaced the vague "Reduced Speed Ahead" black on white signs.  When you see the yellow diamonds, you know to slow down. 

[froggie]

Some US highway segments are 55,

Only those segments that are limited-access (i.e. no private access).  That's basically limited to 6 sections that I know of:  two on US 2 (west of I-89/Colchester to near the lake and west of I-91 halfway to Danville), two on US 7 (the "Super-7" north of Bennington and the 4-lane south of Rutland), VT 63, and VT 279.

Both VT 62 and VT 289 are 50 MPH.  I believe VT 191 is also 50 MPH.

and interstates can be up to 65,

As is the US 4 freeway west of Rutland.

From there, climbing up and over Sherburne Pass and down to West Bridgewater, I can see a higher speed limit of 55.

This is the same section I was thinking earlier.  However, it'd require a change in state law to implement.

The new "speed limit ahead" signs are great - the yellow diamonds with an up arrow and the new speed limit have replaced the vague "Reduced Speed Ahead" black on white signs.  When you see the yellow diamonds, you know to slow down.

Agreed.

[Stephane Dumas]

In a nutshell, the preferred alternative is for a 4-lane divided boulevard with a 40 MPH speed limit and traffic signals at both US 2 and Mountain View Rd.  The trumpet interchange previously proposed at I-89 is retained (with auxiliary lanes on I-89 between the trumpet and the ramps at VT 2A), but the traffic signals replace previously proposed interchanges in order to reduce the roadway footprint and the ensuing wetland impacts, which were a major concern of the EPA with the new alignment alternative.  The lower design speed, plus going with a narrow median (overall roadway width, including median, ranges from 70 to 78ft) is meant to further reduce the roadway footprint and wetland impacts.

No word as far as I can tell as to when construction would begin.

Did they studied other possibilities instead of traffic lights like roundabouts? And keep the ROW for upgrade to interchange just in case. I have a felling then the traffic lights will cause more harm in the long-range.

[froggie]

Yes, they looked at roundabouts.  They went with traffic signals because of the smaller footprint, which reduced wetlands impacts to a level that was acceptable to the EPA.  This is also the reason why they went with signals instead of interchanges.

[froggie]

The on-again, off-again plan for a roundabout at "Malfunction Junction" (where VT 11/30 meets VT 7A in Manchester) is apparently back on again.  The town voted Tuesday to begin property acquisition, with the plan of beginning utility relocation later this fall and actual construction on the project next year.  As long as adjacent property owners don't appeal (one indicated in the Journal article that he might, though he "declined comment" when specifically asked), construction is expected to take place next year and the following, with completion expected in late 2012.