Connecticut News

[vdeane]

Disagree.  Contrary to popular perception, there ARE some 4 mile gaps even west of New Haven.  IMO that's too far to fudge.

[jp the roadgeek]

Gotta go with vdeane on this one.  I actually looked at the CT Route Log for I-95 and went through what the numbers would be.  Yes, some of the heavy hitters in the sequential system are at the correct milepost (US 7, Milford Connector, US 1 Exit in Milford, I-91), but there are some necessary changes.  Exit 2 would become Exit 1 as it should be anyway. It would clean up some multi-numbered exit complexes by using 1 number and just adding suffixes: the confusing Exit 7-8 situation in Stamford would become 8A & 8B; the back to back interchanges at US 7 (14/15) would become 15A & 15B; and the CT 34 MLK Jr. Blvd/I-91 exits in New Haven (47/48) would become 48A & 48B.   The biggest discrepancies of up to 4 miles is on some of the exits through Fairfield.  Also, having a plain exit number and a suffixed exit number is not MUTCD compliant; the Exit 27/27A situation in Bridgeport would have to be corrected (Lafayette Blvd. would be 29A and CT 8/25 would be 29B).

[Alps]

The Garden State Parkway has been renumbering exits by slight amounts - 140 and 140A became 140A and 140B for example. They just decided that travelers would have to live with a little confusion and get over it.

[Mergingtraffic]

Another truck rollover at Exit 27A tonight on I-95 in Bridgeport.  Hardly any signage about the right curve.  Other states use BYS for stuff like that but CT never does. It's like they only use a "generic" basic guideline from the MUTCD for signage.

[KEVIN_224]

For those not from Connecticut, I believe that is the loop ramp that starts CT Routes 8 and 25. Agreed that better ramp signage is needed there.

[JJBers]

My dad really wants the exits to be re-done by mileage post...I think they should redo I-91 in that system sometime.

[MikeTheActuary]

I'm waiting for the sideshow when complaints come from Fairfield County if/when the state should propose renumbering the Merritt/Cross Parkway exits.

[jp the roadgeek]

I'm waiting for the sideshow when complaints come from Fairfield County if/when the state should propose renumbering the Merritt/Cross Parkway exits.

Fairfield County: The only place where the next number after 30 is 27.

[Mergingtraffic]

I'm still amazed about the amount of talk about exit numbers. 

[The Ghostbuster]

I say less talk, more action on making the exits mileage-based. It's obvious some of the exit numbers on 95 will remain the same, since their sequential numbers are already close to mileage-based. Are there any other roads whose present exit number are close to what they would be if they were mileage-based?

[PHLBOS]

Are there any other roads whose present exit number are close to what they would be if they were mileage-based?

Exits 1 through 8 along I-84; especially if ConnDOT doesn't resort to using Exit 0 for its current Exit 1 (Saw Mill Road).

[vdeane]

Are there any other roads whose present exit number are close to what they would be if they were mileage-based?

Exits 1 through 8 along I-84; especially if ConnDOT doesn't resort to using Exit 0 for its current Exit 1 (Saw Mill Road).

That would be a good place to fudge the numbers and just leave them as is; exit 8 is at mile 8.4 and none of the numbers would change by more than 1 (and a majority at the same number potentially with a suffix); the true mile-based system would be 1A, 1B/C, 4A, 4B, 5, 6, 8A, 8B (assume round to nearest mile and no exit 0).

[Duke87]

Disagree.  Contrary to popular perception, there ARE some 4 mile gaps even west of New Haven.  IMO that's too far to fudge.

The biggest gap on I-95 south of New Haven is between exits 18 (20 if mile-based) and 19 (23 if mile-based). Not quite 4 miles between exits although one of them has a sequential number that's 4 off from its theoretical mile-based number.

Then the Merritt Parkway has 5.5 miles between exits 42 and 44 (the "no exit zone"), and a couple other gaps (27-28, 31-33) that exceed 3 miles.

[jp the roadgeek]

I-691 is another one that is pretty close to its mileage.  Exits 1-2 for I-84 could become 0 A/B or 1 A/B depending on the whole Exit 0 thing (personally, I think the I-84 West exit shouldn't have a number since I-691 West mainlines into I-84 West a la I-384 does, and that one isn't numbered).  3 would become 2.  4 would stay as is.  5 and 6 would both become 6 (pair of partial interchanges on either side of Meriden Square Westfield Meriden.  7 and 8 would stay as is.  The I-91/CT 15 interchanges (9-11) would all most likely become 9A, 9B, and 9C.  I would continue the I-691 mileage for the 2 exits on CT 66 (12-Preston Ave and 13-West Main St); each would become 10 and 11, respectively (1 and 2 if ConnDOT resets it for CT 66 mileage).

In Danbury, I would just number Exit 1 as Exit 0 and Exit 2 (A-B) as Exit 1 (A-B), or just make it 1A, 1B(C).  3-8 would remain as is.

[shadyjay]

In theory, but according to ConnDOT's mileage log, they have I-691 mileage backwards, with mileages increasing as you head west.  Doesn't matter right now, since there are no mileposts along I-691 (or along I-384 or I-291 for that matter). 

I'm not a fan of Exit 0... never seen one personally.  Just make I-84 East as Exit 1 and leave the number out of I-84 West, or if you have to, then Exit 1A and Exit 1B (though I still prefer the directional suffixes). 

[kurumi]

The only thing that bugged me on a older plan I saw: mile marker 0 through 1.99 would all be exit 1 (not 0 and 1, or 1 and 2). In CT, many freeways have lots of exits close to their west or southern termini -- so we'd have a lot of "Exit 1x":

CT 2: 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 1E
US 7: 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D
CT 8: 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D
I-91: 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 1E, 1F (and Willow St, MP 1.80, would have been 1G but is listed as 2A)
I-291: 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D

My 2 cents: Exit N should be assigned to interval of milepost [N-1, N)

[noelbotevera]

I actually had a thread in Fictional Highways where I tried renumbering exits in New England...and boy was Connecticut a pain (mostly because of roads like CT 8 and I-95 that had exits really close together). I tried avoiding giving major junctions a suffix and then a minor street the next suffix (like in California).

Link (note: if I write a direction next to an exit or road, that means it is for that specific direction)

Yeah, shameless self-promotion, but whatever. I probably need to refine this anyway.

[JJBers]

I actually had a thread in Fictional Highways where I tried renumbering exits in New England...and boy was Connecticut a pain (mostly because of roads like CT 8 and I-95 that had exits really close together). I tried avoiding giving major junctions a suffix and then a minor street the next suffix (like in California).

Link (note: if I write a direction next to an exit or road, that means it is for that specific direction)

Yeah, shameless self-promotion, but whatever. I probably need to refine this anyway.

Uhhh, the link doesn't allow the public to access.
Anyways, what about unsigned exits in Connecticut? Would they get a number now...

[jp the roadgeek]

I actually had a thread in Fictional Highways where I tried renumbering exits in New England...and boy was Connecticut a pain (mostly because of roads like CT 8 and I-95 that had exits really close together). I tried avoiding giving major junctions a suffix and then a minor street the next suffix (like in California).

Link (note: if I write a direction next to an exit or road, that means it is for that specific direction)

Yeah, shameless self-promotion, but whatever. I probably need to refine this anyway.

Uhhh, the link doesn't allow the public to access.
Anyways, what about unsigned exits in Connecticut? Would they get a number now...

As stated before, CT 349 and CT 184 exit(s) are getting number(s).  That would leave only the US 6 Willimantic Bypass, CT 3, two sections of CT 17, and CT 20 as the only limited access highways without numbers.  Haven't heard any plans and most would come with sign replacement projects if they did.  If these were to get numbers:

US 6: CT 32 would be 90, and CT 195 would be 92

CT 3: I-91 would be 11 (11 A/B Southbound), Main St would be 13, and CT 2 would be 14 A/B

CT 17: Middletown Main St Ext. would be 21, CT 9 South would be 22, then in South Glastonbury, Hubbard St would be 35 and New London Turnpike would be 36

CT 20: Bradley 28A, Hamilton Rd South 28B, (Hamilton Rd North on SSR 401 28C), CT 75 would be 29, Old County Road 30, and I-91 31 A/B

Also, a couple of spot numbers could be added: 0 A/B on I-91 South for CT 34 MLK Blvd and I-95 North, 6 A/B on I-291 for I-84, 0 on I-384 West for 84/291, 0 A/B on CT 8/25 and CT 9 South for I-95, Exit 0 A/B on CT 40 for I-91, and 1 on SR 571 for CT 71.  I'm really not for adding numbers on the Berlin Turnpike because most intersections are signalized.

[Mergingtraffic]

Since we are again talking about what exits will become what....I really don't see the benefit of mileage based exit numbers unless you know the mile of the exit you're getting off at.

I recently drove up I-395 from I-95 to CT-101.  I haven't been up there since the numbers were changed.  Without looking at any GPS or anything, the mileage based numbers did nothing for me as I didn't know what mile, the CT-101 interchange was. So I had no idea how much I had left to go.
So, for sequential or mileage based, it doesn't matter to me.

I do think on roads with one or two exits, mileage based seems like a waste, such as CT-2A.

[vdeane]

You're problem wasn't that you didn't know the mile the exit is on.  The exit number tells you.  Your problem is that you did not know the exit number, so your problem would exist regardless of what numbering system is used, and is actually worse under sequential (where you need to know the mile marker specifically, not just either the mile or the exit number).

[MikeTheActuary]

CT 20: Bradley 28A, Hamilton Rd South 28B, (Hamilton Rd North on SSR 401 28C), CT 75 would be 29, Old County Road 30, and I-91 31 A/B

So, for traffic headed to Bradley from I-91, they would encounter in sequence: Exit 28B (Hamilton Road South), Exit 28A (Bradley), Exit 28C (Hamilton Road North)?

I think that they probably could get away with leaving Hamilton Road North unnumbered.  I'm not even certain that interchange will survive the realignment of CT401 as part of Bradley's long-term construction plan.

PS, don't forget the short freeway segment of CT187/CT189, or CT598 (Whitehead highway).

[jp the roadgeek]

CT 20: Bradley 28A, Hamilton Rd South 28B, (Hamilton Rd North on SSR 401 28C), CT 75 would be 29, Old County Road 30, and I-91 31 A/B

So, for traffic headed to Bradley from I-91, they would encounter in sequence: Exit 28B (Hamilton Road South), Exit 28A (Bradley), Exit 28C (Hamilton Road North)?

I think that they probably could get away with leaving Hamilton Road North unnumbered.  I'm not even certain that interchange will survive the realignment of CT401 as part of Bradley's long-term construction plan.

PS, don't forget the short freeway segment of CT187/CT189, or CT598 (Whitehead highway).

I made Hamilton Rd North 28C because it can only be accessed inbound to the airport, where Bradley and Hamilton Rd South are full interchanges.  That's kind of why I put it in parentheses if it's even worth numbering.

I would ignore 187/189 (1 silly exit while the other ramps are mainline 187 and 189).  If that were numbered, then we'd have to number the CT 175 interchange on the Berlin Turnpike, as well at the CT 322 and US 6 ramps from CT 10.  I would number Whitehead west from I-91 although it bucks the trend (0 A/B for I-91, 1A for Columbus Blvd and 1B for Prospect St)

[noelbotevera]

I actually had a thread in Fictional Highways where I tried renumbering exits in New England...and boy was Connecticut a pain (mostly because of roads like CT 8 and I-95 that had exits really close together). I tried avoiding giving major junctions a suffix and then a minor street the next suffix (like in California).

Link (note: if I write a direction next to an exit or road, that means it is for that specific direction)

Yeah, shameless self-promotion, but whatever. I probably need to refine this anyway.

Uhhh, the link doesn't allow the public to access.
Anyways, what about unsigned exits in Connecticut? Would they get a number now...

Fixed. I changed access to let people comment, but I could change it to allow editing for the sake of refining it.

[MikeTheActuary]

Disagree.  Contrary to popular perception, there ARE some 4 mile gaps even west of New Haven.  IMO that's too far to fudge.

There is precedent.  Check out how far mile-marker 2 is from the state line on I-40 in Tennessee.

If Connecticut is being forced to renumber the exists on I-95 west of New Haven, Tennessee ought to be forced to renumber the exits on I-40.