Print

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

[shadyjay]

There was no plaza at the tunnel.  The only one north of Milford was in Wallingford, I believe just north of Exit 65.  There were, however, a pair of picnic areas a couple miles south of the tunnel... they still exist but no access is provided to them. 

Came through Rt 72 East yesterday... no mile markers yet.  Still no SB markers on CT 9 until you get to the Middletown line.  Still the same few gantries left to go up in New Britain, but they did get the gantry up where Rt 72 meets Rt 9...
CT72EB-atCT9 by Jay Hogan, on Flickr

No exit tabs on any of the other advance APL signs for said junction.


Also travelled part of I-91 in New Haven/North Haven and all of Rt 40 yesterday.  New sign foundations are going in for new overheads for Exits 9 & 10, so finally some progress with that project.  Nothing on Rt 40 whatsoever... no foundation work yet. 

[abqtraveler]

There was no plaza at the tunnel.  The only one north of Milford was in Wallingford, I believe just north of Exit 65.  There were, however, a pair of picnic areas a couple miles south of the tunnel... they still exist but no access is provided to them. 

Hmmm...from memory, I thought the toll plaza was at or near the tunnel. I guess the Wallingford plaza was the one I was recollecting.

[jp the roadgeek]

Has the Merritt Parkway changed much since its construction? It seems like the preservationists want to keep it in the 1930s. I know Exit 30 was for an intersection with Butternut Hollow Road, which according to Wikipedia, was closed in 1955. Also, the service areas just had gas stations until recently, and the parkway had tolls until 1988 (originally to finance the construction of the Wilbur Cross Parkway, which wasn't tolled). Also, does anyone know why the Merritt Parkway is missing Exit 32 and Exit 43?

The Wilbur Cross had tolls once it opened.   There was a toll booth in Wallingford, a mile or so north of the East Haven Service Areas.    The tolls were removed at the same time as the Merritt tolls.

IIRC, there was a toll plaza at the West Rock Tunnel. I don't remember if it was at the east or west end of the tunnel.

The toll booth in Wallingford was right by the Exit 65 Southbound exit ramp.  Don’t ever remember one by the West Rock Tunnel, but I could see if there was one just north of it where the carriageways split for the tunnel. 

[RobbieL2415]

There was no plaza at the tunnel.  The only one north of Milford was in Wallingford, I believe just north of Exit 65.  There were, however, a pair of picnic areas a couple miles south of the tunnel... they still exist but no access is provided to them. 

Hmmm...from memory, I thought the toll plaza was at or near the tunnel. I guess the Wallingford plaza was the one I was recollecting.

There was a (usually) covered sign warning of icy conditions in the tunnel, but in all my research I've never heard of a toll booth before either end of the tunnel.

[BamaZeus]

I don't ever remember a toll booth near the tunnel.  It was the Sikorsky Bridge and Wallingford.

[BamaZeus]

People were apparently up in arms when the CT 8 and CT 25 expressway interchanges were constructed.  It built sweeping modern interchanges over the parkway in the 1980s and some of it probably could have been done with loop ramps.  Several original bridges in the area were lost, but for some reason they kept the narrow barely-used Housatonic RR overpass vic. Route 25. 

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.2361319,-73.1872471,3a,47.7y,79.97h,84.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sxQQFsWKtVDGkqzFM5SJaLw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

That rail line was abandoned not too long after the Merritt opened. 

I definitely remember a cloverleaf interchange at Route 8 with the likely original block signage that lasted right up to the replacement, and the original bridge.  I found a pic of it.

https://www.knowol.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Merritt-Parkway-Bridge-16.png

[shadyjay]

https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/CTDOT-Construction-Advisories/2023/Exit-Numbers-Changing-on-Interstate-691-from-Cheshire-to-Middlefield

Exit Numbers Changing on Interstate 691 from Cheshire to Middlefield
The Connecticut Department of Transportation (CTDOT) is announcing that exit numbering will be revised on Interstate 691 both Eastbound and Westbound from Cheshire to Middlefield beginning on April 24, 2023, weather permitting.

So this is interesting, considering not one new sign has been installed yet in this project (though some foundations are in, especially on the west end).  Wonder if we're going to see the new signs starting to go up on this date, and my guess is that, unlike the 9/72 boondoggle, we'll see the signs go up with the new numbers right away. 

[jp the roadgeek]

Maybe they’re starting to accelerate the exit renumbering plans.  However, the new numbers aren’t up or listed yet.  The ones on Wikipedia probably are inaccurate.  I’d imagine them to look like this if CT 9 fudging numbers is any indication:

1A: 91 North
1B: 91/15 South
1C (WB ONLY): 15 North
2: US 5
3: Downtown Meriden
4: Lewis Ave (WB); 71 (EB)
5: 322 (WB); West Main St (EB)
7: 10
8 A/B or 8 & 9 (WB ONLY): 84

The 66 Exits would both be 1. 

Also drove through the Manchester complex and the M markers are all still there.

[abqtraveler]

https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/CTDOT-Construction-Advisories/2023/Exit-Numbers-Changing-on-Interstate-691-from-Cheshire-to-Middlefield

Exit Numbers Changing on Interstate 691 from Cheshire to Middlefield
The Connecticut Department of Transportation (CTDOT) is announcing that exit numbering will be revised on Interstate 691 both Eastbound and Westbound from Cheshire to Middlefield beginning on April 24, 2023, weather permitting.

So this is interesting, considering not one new sign has been installed yet in this project (though some foundations are in, especially on the west end).  Wonder if we're going to see the new signs starting to go up on this date, and my guess is that, unlike the 9/72 boondoggle, we'll see the signs go up with the new numbers right away.

Another interesting observation is that, per the press release, CTDOT's District 4 (Thomaston) is administering the highway rehabilitation/sign replacement/exit renumbering contract for I-691, despite the fact that I-691 lies entirely within CTDOT District 1 (Rocky Hill).

[Mergingtraffic]

I’m not a big fan of diverging diamonds but CT DOT is proposing one for US-6 Newtown Rd for I-84 WB on-ramp Exit 8, Danbury, CT.

Scroll down to Interchange 8 Improvements

https://www.i84danbury.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/PAC13-Presentation_030723.pdf?mibextid=Zxz2cZ

I don’t mind it here as it is half a diverging diamond.
Still not to start until 2030s or so

 

[The Ghostbuster]

You mean if we're lucky, it will start in the 2030s. Considering Connecticut transportation history, we'll be lucky if it is constructed at all.

[jp the roadgeek]

Just realized CTDOT picked the worst week of the year to renumber I-691’s exits.  Out of towners going to the Daffodil Festival at Hubbard Park on 4/29 and 4/30 are going to have fun when their GPS tells them to get off Exit 4, and they end up getting off the new exit 4. 

[Alps]

Just realized CTDOT picked the worst week of the year to renumber I-691’s exits.  Out of towners going to the Daffodil Festival at Hubbard Park on 4/29 and 4/30 are going to have fun when their GPS tells them to get off Exit 4, and they end up getting off the new exit 4. 

are you inviting us to daffodil festival

[abqtraveler]

Just realized CTDOT picked the worst week of the year to renumber I-691’s exits.  Out of towners going to the Daffodil Festival at Hubbard Park on 4/29 and 4/30 are going to have fun when their GPS tells them to get off Exit 4, and they end up getting off the new exit 4. 

are you inviting us to daffodil festival

If it isn't that, then it's the dogwood festival they have in Fairfield around this time of year.

[abqtraveler]

Maybe they’re starting to accelerate the exit renumbering plans.  However, the new numbers aren’t up or listed yet.  The ones on Wikipedia probably are inaccurate.  I’d imagine them to look like this if CT 9 fudging numbers is any indication:

1A: 91 North
1B: 91/15 South
1C (WB ONLY): 15 North
2: US 5
3: Downtown Meriden
4: Lewis Ave (WB); 71 (EB)
5: 322 (WB); West Main St (EB)
7: 10
8 A/B or 8 & 9 (WB ONLY): 84

The 66 Exits would both be 1. 

Also drove through the Manchester complex and the M markers are all still there.

So here's a question: Why is CTDOT reversing the direction that exit numbers increase from east to west? The standard convention spelled out in the MUTCD requires exit numbers and mileposts to start at the south or west end of a highway and increase heading north or east. So for I-691, CTDOT would be violating the convention specified by the MUTCD by starting at the east end and increasing heading west.

[The Ghostbuster]

There are plenty of instances where former sequentially-numbered exits had their exit sequence directions reversed when the roadway was converted to mileage-based exits.

In Connecticut: CT 72, the fore-mentioned Interstate 691
In Kentucky: Pennyrile Parkway (now Interstate 69/169), Western Kentucky Parkway (now Interstate 69, future Interstate 569).
In Maryland/Virginia: The Captial Beltway (Interstates 95/495).
In Massachusetts: MA 128 (portion not co-designated with Interstate 95).
In Oklahoma: Cimarron Turnpike, Indian Nation Toll Road, H.E. Bailey Turnpike.
In Pennsylvania: Interstate 283, Interstate 380.
In West Virginia: The West Virginia Turnpike.

Those are just a few examples that I can think of off the top of my head (with help from some old road atlases).

[abqtraveler]

There are plenty of instances where former sequentially-numbered exits had their exit sequence directions reversed when the roadway was converted to mileage-based exits.

In Connecticut: CT 72, the fore-mentioned Interstate 691
In Kentucky: Pennyrile Parkway (now Interstate 69/169), Western Kentucky Parkway (now Interstate 69, future Interstate 569).
In Maryland/Virginia: The Captial Beltway (Interstates 95/495).
In Massachusetts: MA 128 (portion not co-designated with Interstate 95).
In Oklahoma: Cimarron Turnpike, Indian Nation Toll Road, H.E. Bailey Turnpike.
In Pennsylvania: Interstate 283, Interstate 380.
In West Virginia: The West Virginia Turnpike.

Those are just a few examples that I can think of off the top of my head (with help from some old road atlases).

The aforementioned routes now follow the standard convention starting at the south/west end and increasing heading north east.

I know that Route 72 in Connecticut increases heading "west" because CTDOT designates Route 72 as a north-south route in its route logs, as its alignment is more of a dogleg that runs east-west between New Britain and Bristol, and then turns north-south from Bristol to Harwinton. So what is publicly signed as its "eastern" end at Route 9 is actually the southern end of Route 72. So there's some sense to that.

As far as I-691 is concerned, it's about as east-to-west as a highway can be. In my mind there is no reason why they would start the mileage and exit numbering at its east end and increase heading west in violation of the MUTCD convention. I'm surprised the FHWA hasn't called CTDOT out on that.

[vdeane]

It wouldn't be the only instance of a 3di forgoing convention in favor of having the 0 exit/mile point at its parent.  I-581 does the same thing.

In Maryland/Virginia: The Captial Beltway (Interstates 95/495).

You mean the Cookie Monster Expressway?

Actually, I-495 does go backwards, but that's for the very good reason of allowing the MD portion of the beltway to have a single set of exit numbers without causing issues for I-95.

[jp the roadgeek]

There are plenty of instances where former sequentially-numbered exits had their exit sequence directions reversed when the roadway was converted to mileage-based exits.

In Connecticut: CT 72, the fore-mentioned Interstate 691
In Kentucky: Pennyrile Parkway (now Interstate 69/169), Western Kentucky Parkway (now Interstate 69, future Interstate 569).
In Maryland/Virginia: The Captial Beltway (Interstates 95/495).
In Massachusetts: MA 128 (portion not co-designated with Interstate 95).
In Oklahoma: Cimarron Turnpike, Indian Nation Toll Road, H.E. Bailey Turnpike.
In Pennsylvania: Interstate 283, Interstate 380.
In West Virginia: The West Virginia Turnpike.

Those are just a few examples that I can think of off the top of my head (with help from some old road atlases).

The aforementioned routes now follow the standard convention starting at the south/west end and increasing heading north east.

I know that Route 72 in Connecticut increases heading "west" because CTDOT designates Route 72 as a north-south route in its route logs, as its alignment is more of a dogleg that runs east-west between New Britain and Bristol, and then turns north-south from Bristol to Harwinton. So what is publicly signed as its "eastern" end at Route 9 is actually the southern end of Route 72. So there's some sense to that.

As far as I-691 is concerned, it's about as east-to-west as a highway can be. In my mind there is no reason why they would start the mileage and exit numbering at its east end and increase heading west in violation of the MUTCD convention. I'm surprised the FHWA hasn't called CTDOT out on that.

I-691 is logged as North-South like CT 72 is.  A couple of others (CT 31 and CT 67) are logged East-West but signed North-South.  Plus here, it's most likely a case of logging miles from its parent. 

[abqtraveler]

There are plenty of instances where former sequentially-numbered exits had their exit sequence directions reversed when the roadway was converted to mileage-based exits.

In Connecticut: CT 72, the fore-mentioned Interstate 691
In Kentucky: Pennyrile Parkway (now Interstate 69/169), Western Kentucky Parkway (now Interstate 69, future Interstate 569).
In Maryland/Virginia: The Captial Beltway (Interstates 95/495).
In Massachusetts: MA 128 (portion not co-designated with Interstate 95).
In Oklahoma: Cimarron Turnpike, Indian Nation Toll Road, H.E. Bailey Turnpike.
In Pennsylvania: Interstate 283, Interstate 380.
In West Virginia: The West Virginia Turnpike.

Those are just a few examples that I can think of off the top of my head (with help from some old road atlases).

The aforementioned routes now follow the standard convention starting at the south/west end and increasing heading north east.

I know that Route 72 in Connecticut increases heading "west" because CTDOT designates Route 72 as a north-south route in its route logs, as its alignment is more of a dogleg that runs east-west between New Britain and Bristol, and then turns north-south from Bristol to Harwinton. So what is publicly signed as its "eastern" end at Route 9 is actually the southern end of Route 72. So there's some sense to that.

As far as I-691 is concerned, it's about as east-to-west as a highway can be. In my mind there is no reason why they would start the mileage and exit numbering at its east end and increase heading west in violation of the MUTCD convention. I'm surprised the FHWA hasn't called CTDOT out on that.

I-691 is logged as North-South like CT 72 is.  A couple of others (CT 31 and CT 67) are logged East-West but signed North-South.  Plus here, it's most likely a case of logging miles from its parent.

Strange why they would log I-691 as a north-south route. It's about as east-to-west as a highway can get.

[Alps]

There are plenty of instances where former sequentially-numbered exits had their exit sequence directions reversed when the roadway was converted to mileage-based exits.

In Connecticut: CT 72, the fore-mentioned Interstate 691
In Kentucky: Pennyrile Parkway (now Interstate 69/169), Western Kentucky Parkway (now Interstate 69, future Interstate 569).
In Maryland/Virginia: The Captial Beltway (Interstates 95/495).
In Massachusetts: MA 128 (portion not co-designated with Interstate 95).
In Oklahoma: Cimarron Turnpike, Indian Nation Toll Road, H.E. Bailey Turnpike.
In Pennsylvania: Interstate 283, Interstate 380.
In West Virginia: The West Virginia Turnpike.

Those are just a few examples that I can think of off the top of my head (with help from some old road atlases).

The aforementioned routes now follow the standard convention starting at the south/west end and increasing heading north east.

I know that Route 72 in Connecticut increases heading "west" because CTDOT designates Route 72 as a north-south route in its route logs, as its alignment is more of a dogleg that runs east-west between New Britain and Bristol, and then turns north-south from Bristol to Harwinton. So what is publicly signed as its "eastern" end at Route 9 is actually the southern end of Route 72. So there's some sense to that.

As far as I-691 is concerned, it's about as east-to-west as a highway can be. In my mind there is no reason why they would start the mileage and exit numbering at its east end and increase heading west in violation of the MUTCD convention. I'm surprised the FHWA hasn't called CTDOT out on that.

I-691 is logged as North-South like CT 72 is.  A couple of others (CT 31 and CT 67) are logged East-West but signed North-South.  Plus here, it's most likely a case of logging miles from its parent.

Strange why they would log I-691 as a north-south route. It's about as east-to-west as a highway can get.

hell, most traffic heading east is going north on I-91 to bypass I-84

[bob7374]

There are plenty of instances where former sequentially-numbered exits had their exit sequence directions reversed when the roadway was converted to mileage-based exits.

In Connecticut: CT 72, the fore-mentioned Interstate 691
In Kentucky: Pennyrile Parkway (now Interstate 69/169), Western Kentucky Parkway (now Interstate 69, future Interstate 569).
In Maryland/Virginia: The Captial Beltway (Interstates 95/495).
In Massachusetts: MA 128 (portion not co-designated with Interstate 95).
In Oklahoma: Cimarron Turnpike, Indian Nation Toll Road, H.E. Bailey Turnpike.
In Pennsylvania: Interstate 283, Interstate 380.
In West Virginia: The West Virginia Turnpike.

Those are just a few examples that I can think of off the top of my head (with help from some old road atlases).

The aforementioned routes now follow the standard convention starting at the south/west end and increasing heading north east.

I know that Route 72 in Connecticut increases heading "west" because CTDOT designates Route 72 as a north-south route in its route logs, as its alignment is more of a dogleg that runs east-west between New Britain and Bristol, and then turns north-south from Bristol to Harwinton. So what is publicly signed as its "eastern" end at Route 9 is actually the southern end of Route 72. So there's some sense to that.

As far as I-691 is concerned, it's about as east-to-west as a highway can be. In my mind there is no reason why they would start the mileage and exit numbering at its east end and increase heading west in violation of the MUTCD convention. I'm surprised the FHWA hasn't called CTDOT out on that.

I-691 is logged as North-South like CT 72 is.  A couple of others (CT 31 and CT 67) are logged East-West but signed North-South.  Plus here, it's most likely a case of logging miles from its parent.

Strange why they would log I-691 as a north-south route. It's about as east-to-west as a highway can get.

hell, most traffic heading east is going north on I-91 to bypass I-84

If anyone wants to reach out to CTDOT to try to get an answer, this from their exit renumbering FAQ page:
All inquiries relating to exit numbering should be sent to DOT.TrafficEngineering@ct.gov with
the subject line Exit Numbering.

[kurumi]

I-691 is logged as North-South like CT 72 is.  A couple of others (CT 31 and CT 67) are logged East-West but signed North-South.  Plus here, it's most likely a case of logging miles from its parent.

Strange why they would log I-691 as a north-south route. It's about as east-to-west as a highway can get.

The highway log does note "LOG DIR / WEST" ... which I think is unique for east-west roads in the state. The reason could be the sequence in which it was built or funded: east of US 5 first, then CT 322 to US 5, and finally I-84 to CT 322.

IMO tying the exit numbering to this doesn't help the motorist, and ConnDOT could have made that an exception as well, increasing eastbound, opposite to the log mileposts.

[shadyjay]

If anyone wants to reach out to CTDOT to try to get an answer, this from their exit renumbering FAQ page:
All inquiries relating to exit numbering should be sent to DOT.TrafficEngineering@ct.gov with
the subject line Exit Numbering.

I still can't believe how buried into the ConnDOT site that page is.  Seems like something that should be front-and-center, or at least under "Major Projects".

https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/Traffic-Engineering/Exit-Renumbering

[Duke87]

This was approved by the legislature over a year ago and had seemingly been quietly forgotten about since, but...

https://www.wtnh.com/news/connecticut/connecticut-dot-placing-cameras-in-construction-zones-to-crack-down-on-speeding/?fbclid=IwAR2Qo9Q4GT5qf1MaEPmxBkMoSBuzk4fV_4OiX7WfyTYs94C2cwEgdI3be3Y

Looks like Connecticut will be placing revenue generation cameras in a few freeway work zones after all.

I have to assume someone in a position of power got to nagging since I doubt ConnDOT actually wanted to do this, and the state police are on the record as being in opposition (because they see it as their jobs being automated away).