Interstates In Connecticut

[highwayroads]

The interstates in Connecticut need a few improvements...

- Mileage marker signs are absolutely worn and alot of places are missing them. Also there needs to be more consistency with them. Other states have clear green mileage markers every tenth or every 5 tenths all in consistent places on the right shoulder of the road. In Connecticut, there are a lack of signs, mileage markers bolted to light poles in the median of the highway like on I-91 through Hartford and Windsor. I-84 between Southbury and Danbury have consistent markers throughout.

- The visibility on the on-ramps suck. In other states, North Carolina for one, the exit ramps are so long and the visibility is excellent so people travelling down the highway can see a long time in advance cars coming to merge on the highway. For example, try driving I-395 North in Norwich and try getting onto Route 2 West at rush hour. The lane to exit, you have cars coming onto the highway at the same time you are trying to take the exit to Route 2.

- I absolutely hate the "reassurance" interstate shields in CT having the state name on them. I have strong beliefs that these are Interstate Highways, not state routes and the state shouldn't be able to post their name in a U.S. Interstate shield. These interstate shields are like official memorablia for collectors too, and it seems like the state wants to make these signs too proprietary.

[KEVIN_224]

You have a valid point about the mile markers on I-84! I was told about many of the signs being replaced recently from the state line in Danbury, heading east to about the Housatonic River. I haven't been on I-84 west of Exit 35 (New Britain/Plainville town line) this year. The last time I checked, however, there were small little 1/5 mile markers from the area of the Housatonic River up until about the CT Route 69 exit in Waterbury. 

As for I-91 mile markers, it varies. The markers in the center concrete median, on or near the streetlight posts, begin once you're north of the I-84/US 6 | Trumbull Street exits (Exits 32 A|B) in Hartford. That ends at the MA state line in Enfield. The center median continues until about MM 3 in Longmeadow, MA. However, the Massachusetts MM signs, whole and fractional, are on the right shoulder. Any MM signs I've seen south of Hartford are on the right shoulders. One notable sign missing heading south is MM 25 in Middletown, just after the town line with Cromwell.

As for the state name on the reassurance shields, I see that as no big deal. Don't most states do it that way?

[highwayroads]

It depends on each state DOT to determine which style Interstate signs they put up. I have been across the country, but only started taking a close eye at the signs a few months ago and that is when I noticed the state names. Connecticut is the only state I have seen that almost every interstate sign on the highway and signs off of the highway directing you to the highway all have Connecticut on them. New York and Massachusetts don't, Pennsylvania is spotty, I have seen them in New Mexico.

[Perfxion]

You also know that a lot of I-95 and some of I-84 are older than the interstate highway system. Thus they are no where near interstate standards in some places. Same thing in Houston with the gulf freeway portion of I-45, they started that in 1946 and didn't finish it until the 90s! They kept trying to redo the older and older parts to interstate standards.

[wytout]

- I absolutely hate the "reassurance" interstate shields in CT having the state name on them. I have strong beliefs that these are Interstate Highways, not state routes and the state shouldn't be able to post their name in a U.S. Interstate shield. These interstate shields are like official memorablia for collectors too, and it seems like the state wants to make these signs too proprietary.

IF every state all adopted the Neutered Interstate shield it would be BOOOOOOOOOOOO--- RINNNNNNNNNNNNNG
That's one of the damn few things I like about CT signage, they continue to keep the state name shields alive.  Though the interstate highways receive an enormous amount of federal funds, they ARE still state maintained roads in each state.  The federal government doesn't OWN the roadways.   There are federal Interstate standards that are set and federal funding for their maintenance and construction, etc is contingent upon meeting those standards.  The state named interstate shield is great.  It's got the commonality of a uniform interstate marker from coast to coast, and each state can put it's little stamp on it without taking away from the easily recognizable colors and shape.

Please don't tell me you think that every state highway should use the FHWA default, New Jersey shield!   .... although that's hardly ANY worse than the CT Square.

[hbelkins]

I have strong beliefs that these are Interstate Highways, not state routes and the state shouldn't be able to post their name in a U.S. Interstate shield.

Your strong belief is incorrect. They ARE state routes. They were built and are maintained by the states -- with federal funding, yes, but they are state routes.

[highwayroads]

Guys, is there any web page that kinda gives a general idea to which states have neutered interstate signs and which ones don't? I know it's not a perfect science, but for the most part, one of them dominates the state. For example New York and Pennsylvania I have seen have much more signs missing the state name.

Or can anyone help me out with their knowledge? Thanks.

[Mergingtraffic]

I will miss the non-bordered exit tabs.  For a couple years there CT was doing alligned-non-bordered exit tabs (ala I-95 in Fairfield County) and it looked really sleek. 

I am more concerned with the lack of widening on CT interstates.  The only well built interchanges are I-84/I-691, I-84/I-291/I-384 and I-91/CT20. 

If I-95 between New Haven and NY were in TN, or TX that would be 10 lanes wide plus and nobody would complain.

[qguy]

I have strong beliefs that these are Interstate Highways, not state routes and the state shouldn't be able to post their name in a U.S. Interstate shield.

Your strong belief is incorrect. They ARE state routes. They were built and are maintained by the states -- with federal funding, yes, but they are state routes.

HB is correct. Each state paid between 10 and 25 percent of the cost of each of its interstate highways. Plus they managed their design and construction. Why shouldn't the state put its name on the shields? (You could even say that the state name only takes up 10—25% of the total area of the shield. Seems appropriate to me...  )

[shadyjay]

Guys, is there any web page that kinda gives a general idea to which states have neutered interstate signs and which ones don't? I know it's not a perfect science, but for the most part, one of them dominates the state. For example New York and Pennsylvania I have seen have much more signs missing the state name.

Or can anyone help me out with their knowledge? Thanks.

I think there's a thread on this in the General Discussion section, but as far as New England is concerned:

Neutered (no state name):  NY, RI, MA, VT, NH
With State Name:    CT, ME <- in fact, ME even replaced the shields on BGSs on the non-turnpike portion with state name shields

[connroadgeek]

I will miss the non-bordered exit tabs.  For a couple years there CT was doing alligned-non-bordered exit tabs (ala I-95 in Fairfield County) and it looked really sleek. 

I am more concerned with the lack of widening on CT interstates.  The only well built interchanges are I-84/I-691, I-84/I-291/I-384 and I-91/CT20. 

If I-95 between New Haven and NY were in TN, or TX that would be 10 lanes wide plus and nobody would complain.

New guide signage in CT does not include the state name. Perhaps there's a different policy for reassurance markers, but it seems the trend is towards shields without the state name. The days of large scale highway building and widening in Connecticut are pretty much over unfortunately. It's mass transit or bust now as we've simply run out of space for any expansion.

[wytout]

I will miss the non-bordered exit tabs.  For a couple years there CT was doing alligned-non-bordered exit tabs (ala I-95 in Fairfield County) and it looked really sleek.  

I am more concerned with the lack of widening on CT interstates.  The only well built interchanges are I-84/I-691, I-84/I-291/I-384 and I-91/CT20.  

If I-95 between New Haven and NY were in TN, or TX that would be 10 lanes wide plus and nobody would complain.

New guide signage in CT does not include the state name. Perhaps there's a different policy for reassurance markers, but it seems the trend is towards shields without the state name. The days of large scale highway building and widening in Connecticut are pretty much over unfortunately. It's mass transit or bust now as we've simply run out of space for any expansion.

ON Blanket signing projects (engineering standard), State name is on all reassurance interstate markers and neutered on all BGS's.  This is true for the new project on 84 from the state line to newtown, and it's true on CT-20 Bradley connector project (the "to I91" reassurance shields in the assembly w/ the CT20 shields). Sometimes when the state puts up an interim reassurance marker to replace one that was damaged damaged... well THAT's where lately i've notice some real atrocities, not just neutered, but off center and not meeting their one current TYPE IV sheeting standards.

We haven't run out of space for expansion, we've run into NIMBYism, lack of funding due to diversion of money from CONNDOT to the general fund, and we've run into special interests and whacko political agendas.

[relaxok]

We haven't run out of space for expansion, we've run into NIMBYism, lack of funding due to diversion of money from CONNDOT to the general fund, and we've run into special interests and whacko political agendas.

Bingo.  The NIMBYism is the killer.  Especially when deep pockets are involved.

There are tons of places to widen and improve the highways in CT.  I think only people along the coast think of the state as crowded.  Much of it is really very rural.  A lot of the interstate miles besides 95 are nowhere near maxed out as far as what could be done.  I will grant that 95 west of New Haven is a bear but even then there would be opportunities if people would be able see past their own backyard. 

[Duke87]

It is perfectly physically feasible for I-95 to be 8 lanes from the state line to New Haven. Note that it already is in Bridgeport now (nicely done).

The problem is that a wholesale widening of the highway in that area would generate too much opposition to be politically feasible. As you say, NIMBYs. Although, in this case, it isn't so much "I don't want (more of) a highway in my backyard" as it is "carbon emissions! We need to spend that money on public transit instead!"

Of course, if you think the situation with 95 is bad, don't even talk about the Parkway, which could also stand to be widened...

[Mergingtraffic]

If I-95 could be doubled in size in East Haven, it could be widened anywhere. 

I drove on the I-84-I-91 flyover today and noticed the flyover seems to be built for two lanes with no shoulders.  of course it's striped as one with shoulders.  It should be two lanes b/c basically that flyover ramp replaced the northwest beltway. That and the 4th lane from the aetna viaduct to the I-91 ramps on I-84 EB.


Also, I-91 north of Hartford and I-84 east of hartford were nicely widened a few decades ago.  Imagine if they weren't widened b/c of nimbys.

[KEVIN_224]

There's also been an effort from some people to get rid of the Aetna Viaduct. Good luck with that one! I-84/US 6 would never work at street level in that vicinity!

[shadyjay]

If I-95 could be doubled in size in East Haven, it could be widened anywhere.  

True, especially the section through the "Annex" (New Haven East).  

Here's what I'd like to see happen:

On the Turnpike:
Spot improvements between Greenwich and Fairfield:  Closure of some exits/entrances, improvements through Norwalk (that is planned), replacement of the rest of the median and conversion to center lighting.  Perhaps widening from Westport down to Norwalk would help out.

Reconstruction in West Haven area to New Haven including interchange consolidation.  Planned.

Major reconstruction/widening:  From Branford to East Lyme.  

Bring back tolls and the turnpike trailblazer (:-).  Now I'm not talking all the barriers we used to have.  But simply:  Greenwich, Westport area (maybe), Madison, Plainfield.  Maybe entry tolls where I-95 meets the turnpike, definitely on the Mohegan-Pequot "Spur" (Exit 79A), elsewhere?  

On [Eastern] I-95:
Reconstruct and widen from the turnpike to New London - not a big deal, as most has a wide median.  
Then continue the job from eastern Groton to Route 78.  Yes I know, Route 78 will never get built, but seems like it'd be a good transition point (traffic split between "inland points" and "coastal points").  

On I-91:
Don't think there's much you can do, outside of some tweaking around the Charter Oak Bridge area.  Commuter rail by 2016 would help as well.  Overall, its not THAT bad.  

On I-84:
Reconstruction/widening from Danbury up to Waterbury, starting with the 2-lane section in Waterbury.  Something should be done through West Hartford/Hartford.  Way too many curves and left exits cause issues.  But what is the easiest solution through there?  East of Hartford, you're in pretty good shape.

In the Year 2030 (or later):
Fix the exit numbering on the parkway to a mile-based system.  Eventually, switch over entire state this way.
Fix CT 9 in Middletown NOW.... send it to Portland and back via two new bridges.  Costly?  Yes, but Middletown can reclaim its waterfront.
Finish CT 11.... enough said.
I-84 to Providence?  Would be nice!  Old I-84 can become I-384/CT 15.  
Build the "Super 7".... yeah I know, not gonna happen.  
Widen the Merritt?  Yeah, in the year 2100 maybe.

[wytout]

I agree w/ any and ALL highway expansion projects in CT because there is so much need for the capacity......

.....except the Merritt. Leave the Merritt be.  It really is a piece of history and it's extemely unique.  It's not NIMBYism because it's not in my back yard, but I drive it several times a year, it's just that The Merritt is nationally know for being... The Merritt.  It's dangerous as fuck... but it's The Merritt.

[Alps]

I agree w/ any and ALL highway expansion projects in CT because there is so much need for the capacity......

.....except the Merritt. Leave the Merritt be.  It really is a piece of history and it's extemely unique.  It's not NIMBYism because it's not in my back yard, but I drive it several times a year, it's just that The Merritt is nationally know for being... The Merritt.  It's dangerous as fuck... but it's The Merritt.

I will always say there's enough room in that corridor for 6 to 8 lanes but would never advocate for it. The Garden State Parkway has been utterly ruined for most of its length (basically Exit 80 north).

[wytout]

I will always say there's enough room in that corridor for 6 to 8 lanes but would never advocate for it. The Garden State Parkway has been utterly ruined for most of its length (basically Exit 80 north).

Exactly my point, Most people these days could never imagine the former beauty of the Garden State, another important piece of our highway history, but driving it today, you could never imagine what it started out as.

[Alps]

I will always say there's enough room in that corridor for 6 to 8 lanes but would never advocate for it. The Garden State Parkway has been utterly ruined for most of its length (basically Exit 80 north).

Exactly my point, Most people these days could never imagine the former beauty of the Garden State, another important piece of our highway history, but driving it today, you could never imagine what it started out as.

Well, you can, but you have to drive south and realize that's what it was like all the way north until Union/Essex.

[Perfxion]

As a person that used to drive the Merritt every week, that highway needs more lanes. Its goes from slow to bumper to bumper from Greenwich to Milford from 2:00pm to 7:00pm. Esp if you go on a Friday. That isn't rush hour that could be half of an afternoon spent just trying to get to a friend or families place.

[vdeane]

Does it?  Perhaps widening I-95 and building a 4-lane HOT freeway parallel would work.  Or a HOV requirement during rush hour.  I-66 within the capital beltway is actually more congested outside of rush hour due to the HOV restriction.

[PHLBOS]

I agree w/ any and ALL highway expansion projects in CT because there is so much need for the capacity......

.....except the Merritt. Leave the Merritt be.  It really is a piece of history and it's extemely unique.  It's not NIMBYism because it's not in my back yard, but I drive it several times a year, it's just that The Merritt is nationally know for being... The Merritt.  It's dangerous as fuck... but it's The Merritt.

I will always say there's enough room in that corridor for 6 to 8 lanes but would never advocate for it. The Garden State Parkway has been utterly ruined for most of its length (basically Exit 80 north).

One likely reason why the Merritt was left alone was because I-95 (CT Turnpike) is in close proximity, basically runs parallel to it and picks up the truck and and any extra traffic that the Merritt couldn't handle.  The likely thought was that if any highway widening in that area was to take place; it would be along I-95.

OTOH, one does not necessarily sees a continuously parallel highway that's in a reasonably close proximity to the GSP.  As a result, the only to address any capacity issues associated with the GSP was indeed to widen it.   Sad but true. 

[Duke87]

I dunno about comparing the GSP to the Merritt. The GSP never had ornate bridges the way the Merritt does. No other highways do. The Merritt really is unique and irreplaceable.

But, the Merritt already is a shadow of its former self, simply because the area that it runs through is now far more densely populated than it was when it was built. It was designed as a stroll through the countryside. That doesn't exist in southwestern Connecticut anymore.

And, there is enough demand that is closer to the Merritt than 95 that 95's ability to pick up traffic from it is limited. Sure, 95 will carry the long distance traffic, but anyone who lives north of the Merritt is likely going to be getting on it rather than driving passed it to go to 95.

I don't think it all needs widening, though. Only north of exit 34 or 35.