Improvements for end of I-384 in CT

[Mergingtraffic]

I found this and thought it was interesting, a new flyover for US 6.

Of course the US 6 Expressway was supposed to continue east of here but it stalled b/c of the allignment. 

http://www.crcog.org/publications/Rt6CorridorStudy/2012-01-09BoltonNotch_RevisedConceptE.pdf

[kurumi]

Here's a 1950 newspaper article about the original interchange there (which opened in 1953).

I've seen a few other ideas about the Bolton interchanges:

2009: Route 44 strategic corridor plan Option 1 is to reconfigure both interchanges (true end of I-384 and the 6/44 split) so that US 44 is the mainline. Option 2 is to convert both to signalized intersections. I-384 would end at a T intersection.

2011: Route 6 Hop River Corridor Transportation Study Three more options for the 6/44 split, including a signalized intersection[/url]

All the concepts assume I-384 to Willimantic is dead.

For doofy's link, I like the concept overall, but would prefer moving the Notch Road/US 44 intersection east to align with Quarry Road -- creating one signalized 4-way intersection instead of two three-way intersections. One less traffic light for those on 44. If you make the US 6 WB flyover a "fly-under", I think that will help with convincing motorists that the freeway is ending and it's time to slow down, since there's one less prominent freeway element in view.

If I were extending I-384 eastward, I wouldn't do it from Bolton Notch anyway. I'd have it follow SR 534 east (instead of northeast) from the vicinity of exit 4, stay south of Bolton Center and US 6 as long as possible, keeping away from the environmentally sensitive Hop River.

[kurumi]

On July 18, 2013, ConnDOT published an exec summary and full report for the Route 6 Hop River Corridor Transportation Study here: http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?A=3529&Q=528484

Features:

• Better rendering of recommended 6/44 interchange concept
• a 2-lane roundabout for the CT 66 intersection at the end of the old I-84 ramps in Columbia
• 2-lane boulevards (with tree-lined medians) for small village centers in Bolton and Andover

[Duke87]

If they are not going to build the freeway because zomg wetlands, at least widen the existing road to 4 lanes. Or would that raise the same environmental concerns?
At any rate, it needs something done - it's congested and dangerous. If we can save a few lives by disrupting the local environment a little, I'd say it's worth it.

On a related note, is there something about Hop River that makes it more sensitive than your average small winding river? It seems to me that the issue is overblown and that with a little runoff control (which is mandatory for all new construction these days anyway) the river should be fine. We're not talking about building anything on top of it, after all, just in relative proximity to it (with 1 required crossing). If properly designed the direct overlap of the ROW and wetlands should be minimal.

[cpzilliacus]

If they are not going to build the freeway because zomg wetlands, at least widen the existing road to 4 lanes. Or would that raise the same environmental concerns?
At any rate, it needs something done - it's congested and dangerous. If we can save a few lives by disrupting the local environment a little, I'd say it's worth it.

On a related note, is there something about Hop River that makes it more sensitive than your average small winding river? It seems to me that the issue is overblown and that with a little runoff control (which is mandatory for all new construction these days anyway) the river should be fine. We're not talking about building anything on top of it, after all, just in relative proximity to it (with 1 required crossing). If properly designed the direct overlap of the ROW and wetlands should be minimal.

I think I said it before in the context of Connecticut and the U.S. 6 corrridor (so pardon me if I am being repetitive), but the presence of wetlands do not mean that a new highway cannot be built. 

It will certainly be more expensive to build and maintain, because federal environmental rules do not want stormwater from a freeway (or any paved surface) running directly to a wetland.  That means that the stormwater runoff must be controlled during construction (which can be done), and that there must be detention ponds or other ways of trapping the stormwater runoff before it can escape to a wetland or other sensitive body of water.  And the detention ponds must be maintained over time.

[Duke87]

It will certainly be more expensive to build and maintain, because federal environmental rules do not want stormwater from a freeway (or any paved surface) running directly to a wetland.  That means that the stormwater runoff must be controlled during construction (which can be done), and that there must be detention ponds or other ways of trapping the stormwater runoff before it can escape to a wetland or other sensitive body of water.  And the detention ponds must be maintained over time.

Isn't that par for the course for any new construction in any developed area, though?

The reason for this, by the way, has nothing to do with protecting wildlife and everything to do with preventing flooding. Impervious services cause rain to make its way into watercourses a lot faster than is natural - water runs off of pavement a lot faster than dirt with vegetation. If this is unchecked streams will rise a lot briefly rather than a little for a while. Retention ponds or tanks check this by holding excess water back in storage and releasing it only at the rate that would occur if the land were undeveloped.

[cpzilliacus]

Isn't that par for the course for any new construction in any developed area, though?

Yes, to some extent. Though it is my  impression  that federal environmental regulators are much tougher on highway projects than  they are on some others that disturb the land and nearby waterways.

The reason for this, by the way, has nothing to do with protecting wildlife and everything to do with preventing flooding. Impervious services cause rain to make its way into watercourses a lot faster than is natural - water runs off of pavement a lot faster than dirt with vegetation. If this is unchecked streams will rise a lot briefly rather than a little for a while. Retention ponds or tanks check this by holding excess water back in storage and releasing it only at the rate that would occur if the land were undeveloped.

That is certainly a goal of those water detention ponds. But if a proposed highway runs through a watershed that is deemed to have special attributes (such as a self-reproducing trout population in the case of Md. 200, even though the trout are an introduced species, not subject to any federal protection at all), then the regulators want that water running into the stream to not contain the nasty stuff that runs off of highway pavement, and they also want the water not to be steaming hot, as it can be when a summer thunderstorm hits on a hot afternoon.

[Mergingtraffic]

As much as I would like to see improvements to the end of I-384, there are projects that are more important such as adding a 2nd lane from I-91NB to US5/15 I-84EB ramp.

[jp the roadgeek]

As much as I would like to see improvements to the end of I-384, there are projects that are more important such as adding a 2nd lane from I-91NB to US5/15 I-84EB ramp.

Agreed. That ramp on a Sunday afternoon is backed up for miles.

[Alps]

As much as I would like to see improvements to the end of I-384, there are projects that are more important such as adding a 2nd lane from I-91NB to US5/15 I-84EB ramp.

Agreed. That ramp on a Sunday afternoon is backed up for miles.

CT 15 could easily go down to a single NB lane.

[southshore720]

I think they should replace the signage for Exit 59 on I-84 EB and use Bolton as the control city instead of Providence as that is where the I-384 spur technically ends.  No need to get people's hopes up on a direct connection to Providence that will never happen...

[shadyjay]

I think they should replace the signage for Exit 59 on I-84 EB and use Bolton as the control city instead of Providence as that is where the I-384 spur technically ends.  No need to get people's hopes up on a direct connection to Providence that will never happen...

I think Providence is fine, but maybe it could also include Willimantic. 

It is a direct connection to Providence, just not a limited-access highway the whole way.  There's a sign on I-395 in NE CT that has Providence as a control city for the US 44 exit, and that's a surface road. 

[jp the roadgeek]

I think they should replace the signage for Exit 59 on I-84 EB and use Bolton as the control city instead of Providence as that is where the I-384 spur technically ends.  No need to get people's hopes up on a direct connection to Providence that will never happen...

I think Providence is fine, but maybe it could also include Willimantic. 

It is a direct connection to Providence, just not a limited-access highway the whole way.  There's a sign on I-395 in NE CT that has Providence as a control city for the US 44 exit, and that's a surface road.

What I love is the signs on CT 2 E for I-395 North that use Providence as a control city.  Worcester would be much better, as I-395 doesn't come within 30 miles of Providence (a side sign uses Plainfield and Worcester, so swap Providence and Worcester).

[shadyjay]

See, I always liked that one!  What has erked me all these years is the usage of "Norwich/Plainfield" as control cities advertised for I-95 NB Exit 76.  I was really surprised Plainfield wasn't replaced with Worcester when those signs were replaced c 2000.  In fact, the former "Mass Pike / Worcester" sign that was mounted on the US 1 overpass that got yanked out in 2000 was never replaced, and now the only mention of the Mass Pike is two small old Mass Pike shields just before the exit.  Worcester gets NO mention as a control city, until you get north of Route 2 in Norwich.

"And that's what really grinds my gears...."

Back to you, Tom....

[NE2]

What I love is the signs on CT 2 E for I-395 North that use Providence as a control city.  Worcester would be much better, as I-395 doesn't come within 30 miles of Providence (a side sign uses Plainfield and Worcester, so swap Providence and Worcester).

Since this is arguably the best way between Hartford and Providence, it makes perfect sense.

[Crazy Volvo Guy]

Since this is arguably the best way between Hartford and Providence, it makes perfect sense.

Agreed.  I was taking a load from Columbus, OH to Mansfield, MA.  They wanted me to run I-80 to I-287 to I-95, but I brain farted and went up I-81 to I-84, failing to remember until I was well into CT.  Seeing how I made a great many trips from New Hampshire to eastern Pennsylvania and back to see my grandmother back in the day, the route was always I-84 to to I-90, and that's a habit that I can't seem to shake.  It doesn't help any that I very infrequently get dispatched to northern New England - it's usually only when I put in for earned time off in Greenland, NH to see my dad, and that's generally once every 10-14 weeks.

Anyway, rather than going across the MassPike and picking up an unauthorized toll, I went across CT-2 to I-395 to the CT turnpike spur to US 6 and finally I-295.  I would not have added that much time, had 2 not come to a complete stop for 45 minutes or so.

[KEVIN_224]

Unauthorized toll...What about the toll on I-84 East, crossing over the Hudson River in New York?

I know that US Route 20 parallels I-90/Massachusetts Turnpike from Sturbridge until at least Worcester. It's a nice way to duck that toll...if you love stop lights at least. A friend driving from central CT towards Maine once did I-84 East>US 20 East>I-290 East>I-495 North and then I-95 as usual from there.

Getting this back to I-384 and that area...I'm one of many who wish they'd at least build a new highway. Of course I mean from the current end of I-384 in Bolton to the short US Route 6 expressway near Willimantic.

[Alps]

Unauthorized toll...What about the toll on I-84 East, crossing over the Hudson River in New York?

Yeah... You probably saved enough money by crossing at 84 vs. 287 to cover the Mass Pike from Exits 9-10. Of course, I know you wouldn't be reimbursed regardless.