New England Thruway

[bluecountry]

Driving from Manhattan into CT, I always wonder what is the deal with the New England Thruway, and why more of I-95 in NY and especially CT did not follow a similar design.

First, what was the concept behind the NE Thruway as to why this is not like the Bruckner, the LIE, or the CT turnpike?
Here, exits are very limited despite this going through a very urbanized area.  The result is, better vision, fewer disruptions, and traffic which when leaving NYC, makes you feel like you are out of trouble...until getting to CT?

Second, why does the NE Thruway begin where it does in the Bronx?  I can understand why the Bruckner, BQE, Gowanous are where they are, but the NE Thruway doesn't seem to start in the Bronx at a specific major intersection.

Third, why was the concept not extended to the LIE or on 95 the CT Turnpike?
That the NE Thruway goes through an urban area with few exits proves that there does not need to be so many exits to serve the local area.

[shadyjay]

nycroads.com has some historical information regarding the history of the New England Thruway.  It was originally built (mostly) on right of way for the Pelham-Port Chester Parkway, hence why it begins at Bronx/Pelham Parkway.  Looking at an old USGS topo map of the area, the cloverleaf where Bronx/Pelham Pkwy and the Thruway meet was intact, with the road to the south being NY 164/Bruckner Blvd (later upgraded to become the Bruckner Exp'y). 
See more here ->   http://www.nycroads.com/roads/new-england/

Since the Thruway had control of the construction of the NEThruway, that's probably why the exits are spaced the way they are. 

The concept of the Connecticut Turnpike wasn't necessarily as a long-distance cross-state route, but as more of a commuter road.  Other turnpikes (Ohio, PA, etc) cover much greater distances but with many less exits.  Those turnpikes tended to avoid urban areas for the most part.  The Connecticut Turnpike had no choice but to punch through an already well-developed area, and with its function geared towards commuting, we ended up with basically a mile an exit, at least for the first 50 miles.  Same goes for the LIE for the most part, except the LIE was built toll-free.  The Connecticut Turnpike had tolls, which you could have easily bypassed via Rt 1 and gotten right back on. 

[bluecountry]

Right, but if the NEThruway could be built in a populated area with few exits, why couldn't this extend to the CT Turnpike?

[lstone19]

Right, but if the NEThruway could be built in a populated area with few exits, why couldn't this extend to the CT Turnpike?

The NE Thruway was built by the NYSTA and is in New York state. The Connecticut Turnpike was built by and is in Connecticut. They're different states with different philosophies for what they wanted their roads to do. NYSTA had no right to tell CT how to build their road and CT had no right to tell NYSTA how to build their road.

[shadyjay]

Here's a blurb from good ole' wiki that sums it up... pretty accurate from what I recall:

The Connecticut Turnpike was designed and built much differently than other toll roads built around the same time. Unlike toll roads in other states that operated under semi-autonomous, quasi-public toll road authorities, the Connecticut Turnpike was operated by the Connecticut Highway Department (later the Connecticut Department of Transportation) from its inception. Additionally, unlike toll roads in other states where revenues collected from motorists were legally required to be kept within the toll road authority and used to finance the facility's construction and upkeep, toll revenues from the Connecticut Turnpike were placed into the state's general fund and used for highway and non-highway expenditures alike. Finally, the closely spaced interchanges and eight mainline barriers were a result of each town through which the Connecticut Turnpike passed being guaranteed a certain number of access points to gain the support of each affected town for construction of the highway. This is in contrast to toll roads built in neighboring states with widely spaced interchanges that normally featured a ticket system where one obtained a ticket at entering the toll road, then paid a distance-based fare upon exiting.

Remember, again, this was before the passage of the federal interstate act, so there was no precident on how a road should be built/designed.  State X could do one thing, State Y something completely different.  There also was no standard on signage.  Look at the NJ Turnpike's signage, for example.  The Connecticut Turnpike signage was all blue and all text (some which lasted until 1992).

[machias]

Here's a blurb from good ole' wiki that sums it up... pretty accurate from what I recall:

The Connecticut Turnpike was designed and built much differently than other toll roads built around the same time. Unlike toll roads in other states that operated under semi-autonomous, quasi-public toll road authorities, the Connecticut Turnpike was operated by the Connecticut Highway Department (later the Connecticut Department of Transportation) from its inception. Additionally, unlike toll roads in other states where revenues collected from motorists were legally required to be kept within the toll road authority and used to finance the facility's construction and upkeep, toll revenues from the Connecticut Turnpike were placed into the state's general fund and used for highway and non-highway expenditures alike. Finally, the closely spaced interchanges and eight mainline barriers were a result of each town through which the Connecticut Turnpike passed being guaranteed a certain number of access points to gain the support of each affected town for construction of the highway. This is in contrast to toll roads built in neighboring states with widely spaced interchanges that normally featured a ticket system where one obtained a ticket at entering the toll road, then paid a distance-based fare upon exiting.

Remember, again, this was before the passage of the federal interstate act, so there was no precident on how a road should be built/designed.  State X could do one thing, State Y something completely different.  There also was no standard on signage.  Look at the NJ Turnpike's signage, for example.  The Connecticut Turnpike signage was all blue and all text (some which lasted until 1992).

And the Connecticut Turnpike's button copy in italics was very, very cool!

[The Ghostbuster]

As everyone knows, originally the New England Thruway had its own exit sequence, Exits 1 through 13. In 1980, they were renumbered to 9 through 22. I would have preferred they had been converted to mileage-based like the rest of Interstate 95 in the state of New York. It would have been the first highway in the state of New York to have fully mileage-based exits by a full three decades. Despite my fantasies, I have previously been told that it is unlikely the New England Thruway segment's exits will be renumbered a second time, even though the state is slowly converting its highways to mileage-based (abet at a snail's pace).

[machias]

As everyone knows, originally the New England Thruway had its own exit sequence, Exits 1 through 13. In 1980, they were renumbered to 9 through 22. I would have preferred they had been converted to mileage-based like the rest of Interstate 95 in the state of New York. It would have been the first highway in the state of New York to have fully mileage-based exits by a full three decades. Despite my fantasies, I have previously been told that it is unlikely the New England Thruway segment's exits will be renumbered a second time, even though the state is slowly converting its highways to mileage-based (abet at a snail's pace).

I believe I-890 in Schenectady has that honor.

[The Ghostbuster]

Sorry, I forgot about Interstate 890. Nevertheless, the way the exits are positioned, the exit numbers would probably not be too different if they followed a sequential-based system.

[ixnay]

Here's a blurb from good ole' wiki that sums it up... pretty accurate from what I recall:

The Connecticut Turnpike was designed and built much differently than other toll roads built around the same time. Unlike toll roads in other states that operated under semi-autonomous, quasi-public toll road authorities, the Connecticut Turnpike was operated by the Connecticut Highway Department (later the Connecticut Department of Transportation) from its inception. Additionally, unlike toll roads in other states where revenues collected from motorists were legally required to be kept within the toll road authority and used to finance the facility's construction and upkeep, toll revenues from the Connecticut Turnpike were placed into the state's general fund and used for highway and non-highway expenditures alike. Finally, the closely spaced interchanges and eight mainline barriers were a result of each town through which the Connecticut Turnpike passed being guaranteed a certain number of access points to gain the support of each affected town for construction of the highway. This is in contrast to toll roads built in neighboring states with widely spaced interchanges that normally featured a ticket system where one obtained a ticket at entering the toll road, then paid a distance-based fare upon exiting.

Remember, again, this was before the passage of the federal interstate act, so there was no precident on how a road should be built/designed.  State X could do one thing, State Y something completely different.  There also was no standard on signage.  Look at the NJ Turnpike's signage, for example.  The Connecticut Turnpike signage was all blue and all text (some which lasted until 1992).

And the Connecticut Turnpike's button copy in italics was very, very cool!

As was the "This is the Connecticut Turnpike" (all caps, white on blue) sign greeting motorists entering from NYS.  File with Ryan Seacrest's "This is American Idol" welcome.

[shadyjay]

Someone should design a modern-day "THIS... is the CONNECTICUT TURNPIKE" welcome sign.  Though it seems turnpike welcome signs have gone out of favor in recent years.  New York Thruway used to have one with an image of the Statue of Liberty and Niagara Falls on it (the sold blue one... not the "Welcome to New York" one).  Maine used to have one that promoted "Transpass".  I believe NJ still has a welcome sign on the GSP and the turnpike. 

[jp the roadgeek]

Sorry, I forgot about Interstate 890. Nevertheless, the way the exits are positioned, the exit numbers would probably not be too different if they followed a sequential-based system.

A few differences, but some would remain the same (fudged some numbers here to avoid major alphabet cities)

Exit 9 (Hutch Parkway NB): 9A NB, unchanged SB
Exit 10 (Gun Hill RD, NB ONLY): 9B
Exit 11 (Bartow/Co-Op: 10A NB, 10 SB
Exit 12 (Baychester Ave NB ONLY): 10B
Exit 13 (Conner St/[Baychester SB]): 11 NB/11A SB
Exit 14 (Hutch Parkway South, SB ONLY): 11B
Exit 15 (US 1): 13
Exit 16 (North Ave/Cedar St): 14
Exit 17 (Chatsworth Ave NB ONLY): 15
Exit 18 A/B (Fenimore [NB]/Mamaroneck Ave): Unchanged (18A NB fudged up from 17 to keep everything as is)
Exit 19 (Playland Parkway): 20
Exit 20 (US 1 South, NB ONLY): 21 (Fudged down to fill the number)
Exit 21 (I-287/[US 1 North NB]): 22
Exit 22 (Midland Ave NB ONLY): 23 (Fudged up to fill number)

[bluecountry]

Right, but if the NEThruway could be built in a populated area with few exits, why couldn't this extend to the CT Turnpike?

The NE Thruway was built by the NYSTA and is in New York state. The Connecticut Turnpike was built by and is in Connecticut. They're different states with different philosophies for what they wanted their roads to do. NYSTA had no right to tell CT how to build their road and CT had no right to tell NYSTA how to build their road.

So essentially there was no engineering reason or otherwise that would have made it so having the CT Turnpike would not be feasible with the same philosophy as the NE thruway?
If so, wow what a failure.

[Ted$8roadFan]

I would also love to see the retro blue signs return.

It's notable that the Connecticut Turnpike was created and controlled by the state Department of Highways (presumably now ConnDOT) and not by its own authority like the NY State Thruway Authority, Mass Turnpike Authority, etc. The road would likely be much different if it had. That probably explains why the CT Turnpike was (and is) so different from other Turnpikes (and the NE Thruway). Not to mention the fact that it passes through three of the state's four biggest cities in one of the most densely populated states in the US.

[lstone19]

Right, but if the NEThruway could be built in a populated area with few exits, why couldn't this extend to the CT Turnpike?

The NE Thruway was built by the NYSTA and is in New York state. The Connecticut Turnpike was built by and is in Connecticut. They're different states with different philosophies for what they wanted their roads to do. NYSTA had no right to tell CT how to build their road and CT had no right to tell NYSTA how to build their road.

So essentially there was no engineering reason or otherwise that would have made it so having the CT Turnpike would not be feasible with the same philosophy as the NE thruway?
If so, wow what a failure.

A failure by whom? The NYSTA for not doing it the Connecticut way? A failure by Connecticut for not doing it the NYSTA way? There was not some organization jointly over both to direct them how to built their roads. Just because it's not how you would have done it and wish they had does not make it a failure.

[bluecountry]

Right, but if the NEThruway could be built in a populated area with few exits, why couldn't this extend to the CT Turnpike?

The NE Thruway was built by the NYSTA and is in New York state. The Connecticut Turnpike was built by and is in Connecticut. They're different states with different philosophies for what they wanted their roads to do. NYSTA had no right to tell CT how to build their road and CT had no right to tell NYSTA how to build their road.

So essentially there was no engineering reason or otherwise that would have made it so having the CT Turnpike would not be feasible with the same philosophy as the NE thruway?
If so, wow what a failure.

A failure by whom? The NYSTA for not doing it the Connecticut way? A failure by Connecticut for not doing it the NYSTA way? There was not some organization jointly over both to direct them how to built their roads. Just because it's not how you would have done it and wish they had does not make it a failure.

A failure by ConnDOT to follow NYSTA's design which would have ensured a much better highway.

[lstone19]

Right, but if the NEThruway could be built in a populated area with few exits, why couldn't this extend to the CT Turnpike?

The NE Thruway was built by the NYSTA and is in New York state. The Connecticut Turnpike was built by and is in Connecticut. They're different states with different philosophies for what they wanted their roads to do. NYSTA had no right to tell CT how to build their road and CT had no right to tell NYSTA how to build their road.

So essentially there was no engineering reason or otherwise that would have made it so having the CT Turnpike would not be feasible with the same philosophy as the NE thruway?
If so, wow what a failure.

A failure by whom? The NYSTA for not doing it the Connecticut way? A failure by Connecticut for not doing it the NYSTA way? There was not some organization jointly over both to direct them how to built their roads. Just because it's not how you would have done it and wish they had does not make it a failure.

A failure by ConnDOT to follow NYSTA's design which would have ensured a much better highway.

Do you not get that Connecticut is a different state than New York? Do you live in New York and believe that New York is the center of the universe and and all other states and countries should be subservient to New York? I'm thinking that's likely since you just said ConnDOT would have followed NYSTA's design. Just because you believe it should have been done one way and it wasn't doesn't mean it was done wrong (that seems to be a common theme in your posts).

[bluecountry]

Right, but if the NEThruway could be built in a populated area with few exits, why couldn't this extend to the CT Turnpike?

The NE Thruway was built by the NYSTA and is in New York state. The Connecticut Turnpike was built by and is in Connecticut. They're different states with different philosophies for what they wanted their roads to do. NYSTA had no right to tell CT how to build their road and CT had no right to tell NYSTA how to build their road.

So essentially there was no engineering reason or otherwise that would have made it so having the CT Turnpike would not be feasible with the same philosophy as the NE thruway?
If so, wow what a failure.

A failure by whom? The NYSTA for not doing it the Connecticut way? A failure by Connecticut for not doing it the NYSTA way? There was not some organization jointly over both to direct them how to built their roads. Just because it's not how you would have done it and wish they had does not make it a failure.

A failure by ConnDOT to follow NYSTA's design which would have ensured a much better highway.

Do you not get that Connecticut is a different state than New York? Do you live in New York and believe that New York is the center of the universe and and all other states and countries should be subservient to New York? I'm thinking that's likely since you just said ConnDOT would have followed NYSTA's design. Just because you believe it should have been done one way and it wasn't doesn't mean it was done wrong (that seems to be a common theme in your posts).

Has nothing to do with being NY centric, and everything to do with the fact that the NEThruway is a good highway that runs well, and the CT TP is one of the worst in the country and did not have to be that way if it followed the NEThruway design.

[Alps]

Right, but if the NEThruway could be built in a populated area with few exits, why couldn't this extend to the CT Turnpike?

The NE Thruway was built by the NYSTA and is in New York state. The Connecticut Turnpike was built by and is in Connecticut. They're different states with different philosophies for what they wanted their roads to do. NYSTA had no right to tell CT how to build their road and CT had no right to tell NYSTA how to build their road.

So essentially there was no engineering reason or otherwise that would have made it so having the CT Turnpike would not be feasible with the same philosophy as the NE thruway?
If so, wow what a failure.

A failure by whom? The NYSTA for not doing it the Connecticut way? A failure by Connecticut for not doing it the NYSTA way? There was not some organization jointly over both to direct them how to built their roads. Just because it's not how you would have done it and wish they had does not make it a failure.

A failure by ConnDOT to follow NYSTA's design which would have ensured a much better highway.

Do you not get that Connecticut is a different state than New York? Do you live in New York and believe that New York is the center of the universe and and all other states and countries should be subservient to New York? I'm thinking that's likely since you just said ConnDOT would have followed NYSTA's design. Just because you believe it should have been done one way and it wasn't doesn't mean it was done wrong (that seems to be a common theme in your posts).

Has nothing to do with being NY centric, and everything to do with the fact that the NEThruway is a good highway that runs well, and the CT TP is one of the worst in the country and did not have to be that way if it followed the NEThruway design.

CT Turnpike failed due to a chronic lack of maintenance that affected many agencies in the 1970s-1980s (West Side Highway). NY Thruway suffered from that in [I forget which] Nation for several years due to agreement issues with the tribal land. Every agency has their issues to deal with.

[bluecountry]

Right, but if the NEThruway could be built in a populated area with few exits, why couldn't this extend to the CT Turnpike?

The NE Thruway was built by the NYSTA and is in New York state. The Connecticut Turnpike was built by and is in Connecticut. They're different states with different philosophies for what they wanted their roads to do. NYSTA had no right to tell CT how to build their road and CT had no right to tell NYSTA how to build their road.

So essentially there was no engineering reason or otherwise that would have made it so having the CT Turnpike would not be feasible with the same philosophy as the NE thruway?
If so, wow what a failure.

A failure by whom? The NYSTA for not doing it the Connecticut way? A failure by Connecticut for not doing it the NYSTA way? There was not some organization jointly over both to direct them how to built their roads. Just because it's not how you would have done it and wish they had does not make it a failure.

A failure by ConnDOT to follow NYSTA's design which would have ensured a much better highway.

Do you not get that Connecticut is a different state than New York? Do you live in New York and believe that New York is the center of the universe and and all other states and countries should be subservient to New York? I'm thinking that's likely since you just said ConnDOT would have followed NYSTA's design. Just because you believe it should have been done one way and it wasn't doesn't mean it was done wrong (that seems to be a common theme in your posts).

Has nothing to do with being NY centric, and everything to do with the fact that the NEThruway is a good highway that runs well, and the CT TP is one of the worst in the country and did not have to be that way if it followed the NEThruway design.

CT Turnpike failed due to a chronic lack of maintenance that affected many agencies in the 1970s-1980s (West Side Highway). NY Thruway suffered from that in [I forget which] Nation for several years due to agreement issues with the tribal land. Every agency has their issues to deal with.

It's the design that is the issue.
NETHruway has few exits, CTTP has way too many.

[lstone19]

It's the design that is the issue.
NETHruway has few exits, CTTP has way too many.

If you want to make a cogent argument, it is not enough to just say "CTTP has way too many [exits]." You also need to state what problems this causes and how your idea would prevent these problems. You then need to be prepared to refute counter-arguments regarding the new problems people believe your ideas would cause.

In the real world, many designs (of anything, not just roads) involve trade-offs. There is rarely a perfect solution.

[Alps]

Right, but if the NEThruway could be built in a populated area with few exits, why couldn't this extend to the CT Turnpike?

The NE Thruway was built by the NYSTA and is in New York state. The Connecticut Turnpike was built by and is in Connecticut. They're different states with different philosophies for what they wanted their roads to do. NYSTA had no right to tell CT how to build their road and CT had no right to tell NYSTA how to build their road.

So essentially there was no engineering reason or otherwise that would have made it so having the CT Turnpike would not be feasible with the same philosophy as the NE thruway?
If so, wow what a failure.

A failure by whom? The NYSTA for not doing it the Connecticut way? A failure by Connecticut for not doing it the NYSTA way? There was not some organization jointly over both to direct them how to built their roads. Just because it's not how you would have done it and wish they had does not make it a failure.

A failure by ConnDOT to follow NYSTA's design which would have ensured a much better highway.

Do you not get that Connecticut is a different state than New York? Do you live in New York and believe that New York is the center of the universe and and all other states and countries should be subservient to New York? I'm thinking that's likely since you just said ConnDOT would have followed NYSTA's design. Just because you believe it should have been done one way and it wasn't doesn't mean it was done wrong (that seems to be a common theme in your posts).

Has nothing to do with being NY centric, and everything to do with the fact that the NEThruway is a good highway that runs well, and the CT TP is one of the worst in the country and did not have to be that way if it followed the NEThruway design.

CT Turnpike failed due to a chronic lack of maintenance that affected many agencies in the 1970s-1980s (West Side Highway). NY Thruway suffered from that in [I forget which] Nation for several years due to agreement issues with the tribal land. Every agency has their issues to deal with.

It's the design that is the issue.
NETHruway has few exits, CTTP has way too many.

You are wrong.

[The Ghostbuster]

The Connecticut Turnpike may have too many exits (subject to interpretation), but I don't see any of them going away anytime soon. Maybe any comments on the CT's exits should be in the Connecticut News thread.

[SignBridge]

Right, but if the NEThruway could be built in a populated area with few exits, why couldn't this extend to the CT Turnpike?

The NE Thruway was built by the NYSTA and is in New York state. The Connecticut Turnpike was built by and is in Connecticut. They're different states with different philosophies for what they wanted their roads to do. NYSTA had no right to tell CT how to build their road and CT had no right to tell NYSTA how to build their road.

So essentially there was no engineering reason or otherwise that would have made it so having the CT Turnpike would not be feasible with the same philosophy as the NE thruway?
If so, wow what a failure.

A failure by whom? The NYSTA for not doing it the Connecticut way? A failure by Connecticut for not doing it the NYSTA way? There was not some organization jointly over both to direct them how to built their roads. Just because it's not how you would have done it and wish they had does not make it a failure.

A failure by ConnDOT to follow NYSTA's design which would have ensured a much better highway.

Do you not get that Connecticut is a different state than New York? Do you live in New York and believe that New York is the center of the universe and and all other states and countries should be subservient to New York? I'm thinking that's likely since you just said ConnDOT would have followed NYSTA's design. Just because you believe it should have been done one way and it wasn't doesn't mean it was done wrong (that seems to be a common theme in your posts).

Has nothing to do with being NY centric, and everything to do with the fact that the NEThruway is a good highway that runs well, and the CT TP is one of the worst in the country and did not have to be that way if it followed the NEThruway design.

CT Turnpike failed due to a chronic lack of maintenance that affected many agencies in the 1970s-1980s (West Side Highway). NY Thruway suffered from that in [I forget which] Nation for several years due to agreement issues with the tribal land. Every agency has their issues to deal with.

It's the design that is the issue.
NETHruway has few exits, CTTP has way too many.

You are wrong.

Problems are often not the result of one specific cause. Maybe the Conn. Tpke's issues are a combination of both factors, bad design and lack of maintenance.

[TheDon102]

The Connecticut Turnpike may have too many exits (subject to interpretation), but I don't see any of them going away anytime soon. Maybe any comments on the CT's exits should be in the Connecticut News thread.

The Connecticut Turnpike might have benefited from an I-295/NJ Turnpike situation in South Jersey, where you have limited exits on the CT Turnpike but have a free freeway alternative to deal with the local traffic. The only problem is South Western CT is much more dense then South Jersey and you dont have much room. You have the Merritt parkway slightly to the north but that doesn't really help much as trucks aren't allowed and it's only 4 lanes wide with antiquated interchanges.

The New England Thruway works well because of the limited exits, but is also kind of saved by the Hutch. The Hutch pulls too much weight in the Metro and while you have a free flowing NET, the Hutch is almost always at a standstill during rush hour including the NET and Hutch interchange in Co-op city.