Connecticut milepost exit numbering conversion

[Alps]

The map below illustrates the states that have adopted the federal MUTCD as written (red); adopted the MUTCD and have a state supplement (blue); and have published a State MUTCD in lieu of the federal MUTCD (green).

But understand that all language in a supplement or State MUTCD shall be in substantial conformance with the MUTCD. The FHWA can review and reject your state's supplement if that is not accomplished.

[crispy93]

- Non-standard signage on the New Jersey Turnpike and across California

The Turnpike's signs were replaced with standard exit signs/tabs a few years ago

[abqtraveler]

- Non-standard signage on the New Jersey Turnpike and across California

The Turnpike's signs were replaced with standard exit signs/tabs a few years ago

Interesting. It's been about 10 years since I last drove on the New Jersey Turnpike. Nice to see they finally adopted standard signage.

[PHLBOS]

OTOH, 691 has never had mile markers (and still doesn't yet), so 99.8% of people (except DOT workers and roadgeeks in the know) assumed mileage went west to east when in reality it's been the opposite since sometime between the switch from CT 66 and a few years ago. 

UPDATE: Looks like Google Maps has updated I-691 exit numbers except that they left the old number for New 1B/Old 10 WB and new 1A/Old 11 in both directions.  Neither of the 66 exits were updated.

Keeping in mind that I-691 was previously designated as Route 66 (and before that, US-6A). It only became I-691 when the final connection to I-84 was completed around 1990, and the Route 66 designation was truncated to its present western terminus at the I-91/I-691/Route-15 interchange. Prior to the completion of the I-691 freeway to I-84, the freeway section of Route 66 ended at Exit 5 (former Exit 4), and then continued west on its former two-lane alignment toward Waterbury, which is now Route 322.

My suspicion is that CTDOT intentionally excluded mileposts on I-691 to prevent confusion with mileposts increasing heading east, while exit numbers increased heading in the opposite direction, and then having an abrupt reset at the I-91/Route 15 interchange where the freeway continues east as Route 66.

Since I-691 was previously CT 66 and, before that US 6A, (both of which are/were east-west routes); why did the mile markers increase westward rather than eastward from the get-go?

[ran4sh]

I'm not aware of how mile markers are posted in Connecticut, but there is no national standard for how mile markers should be numbered for routes that are not Interstate routes (there are MUTCD standards for how to post the signs, but not how to actually number them). On non-Interstates (e.g. US routes and state routes) some states don't post mile markers, some states reset by county, some states use a different origin point, etc

[jp the roadgeek]

I'm not aware of how mile markers are posted in Connecticut, but there is no national standard for how mile markers should be numbered for routes that are not Interstate routes (there are MUTCD standards for how to post the signs, but not how to actually number them). On non-Interstates (e.g. US routes and state routes) some states don't post mile markers, some states reset by county, some states use a different origin point, etc

Up until now, CT always did the bare minimum for mile markers on all limited access state highways: they put mile markers on highways typically longer than 10 miles (2di's, I-395, CT 2, CT 8, CT 9, CT 11 (because it includes the unbuilt mileage), and the parkways portion of CT 15.  With highways becoming mileage based, they're adding enhanced markers and 0.2 markers to the limited access portions (eg: CT 72 for the limited access portion, but not the portions through Bristol and Terryville; CT 17 for the Middletown and South Glastonbury portions only). MA tends to put them on all many state maintained highways both arterial and limited access (just not through towns where the town maintains the road). 

[The Ghostbuster]

From all the lists of when Connecticut's exits will be converted to mileage-based, one highway I've noticed that has been left off of those lists is US 7. I imagine that is because US 7 might be the last one to convert to mileage-based exits. When it does, I expect the numbers on the Interstate 95-to-Grist Mill Road segment will not change. Only the segments south and north of Interstate 84 will get new numbers. Existing Exits 7-9 will likely become Exits 21A, B, and C, 10 will become 25, 11 will become 27, and 12 will become 30.

[abqtraveler]

From all the lists of when Connecticut's exits will be converted to mileage-based, one highway I've noticed that has been left off of those lists is US 7. I imagine that is because US 7 might be the last one to convert to mileage-based exits. When it does, I expect the numbers on the Interstate 95-to-Grist Mill Road segment will not change. Only the segments south and north of Interstate 84 will get new numbers. Existing Exits 7-9 will likely become Exits 21A, B, and C, 10 will become 25, 11 will become 27, and 12 will become 30.

I would wager a guess that the Danbury-Brookfield section of US-7 will be converted when exits on I-84 are changed. Similarly for the Norwalk section, those would be done (if necessary) when the renumbering of I-95 exits occurs.

[ran4sh]

I'm not aware of how mile markers are posted in Connecticut, but there is no national standard for how mile markers should be numbered for routes that are not Interstate routes (there are MUTCD standards for how to post the signs, but not how to actually number them). On non-Interstates (e.g. US routes and state routes) some states don't post mile markers, some states reset by county, some states use a different origin point, etc

Up until now, CT always did the bare minimum for mile markers on all limited access state highways: they put mile markers on highways typically longer than 10 miles (2di's, I-395, CT 2, CT 8, CT 9, CT 11 (because it includes the unbuilt mileage), and the parkways portion of CT 15.  With highways becoming mileage based, they're adding enhanced markers and 0.2 markers to the limited access portions (eg: CT 72 for the limited access portion, but not the portions through Bristol and Terryville; CT 17 for the Middletown and South Glastonbury portions only). MA tends to put them on all many state maintained highways both arterial and limited access (just not through towns where the town maintains the road). 

Interesting. I like that CT non-interstates are also being given mile-based exit numbers, I know that didn't happen in GA when that state had its conversion in 1999-2000 (exit numbers on non-Interstates in GA are still a mess to this day). I'm also used to how NC numbers non-interstate exits with mile-based numbers that include the non-freeway parts of the route, but doesn't necessarily post mileposts.

[The Ghostbuster]

It also didn't happen in Pennsylvania's 2001 conversion. I don't like the fact that some of the conversions left certain highways' exits unchanged (or unnumbered altogether), although there were likely rational reasons for doing so. Alas, it is what it is.

[jp the roadgeek]

From all the lists of when Connecticut's exits will be converted to mileage-based, one highway I've noticed that has been left off of those lists is US 7. I imagine that is because US 7 might be the last one to convert to mileage-based exits. When it does, I expect the numbers on the Interstate 95-to-Grist Mill Road segment will not change. Only the segments south and north of Interstate 84 will get new numbers. Existing Exits 7-9 will likely become Exits 21A, B, and C, 10 will become 25, 11 will become 27, and 12 will become 30.

I would wager a guess that the Danbury-Brookfield section of US-7 will be converted when exits on I-84 are changed. Similarly for the Norwalk section, those would be done (if necessary) when the renumbering of I-95 exits occurs.

The only changes needed on the southern portion would be adding numbers to the 95 and South Norwalk ramps (1 A-C) and making current Exit 1 SB Exit 1D. 

[mariethefoxy]

I-691 looks like this (the 66 Exits are both Exit 1)

Exit 11 > Exit 1A
Exit 10 > Exit 1B
Exit 9 > Exit 1C
Exit 8 > Exit 2A
Exit 7 > Exit 2B
Exits 6 + 5 > Exit 3
Exit 4 > Exit 5
Exit 3 > Exit 7
Exit 2 > Exit 8A
Exit 1 > Exit 8B

Can anyone give the reasoning behind why I-691, in the eyes of CT, is viewed as an east-west highway rather than the standard west-east with respect to the mile markers & now interchange numbers?

I did a quick search & didn't find too much info.

Per MUTCD 2009, Section 2E.31

14 Spur route interchanges shall be numbered in ascending order starting at the interchange where the spur leaves the mainline route (see Figure 2E-20).

In this case, I-691 leaves it parent and heads west.  For it to have remained a west-east routing, it would have to be an I-x84.  For some reason, I-684 seems to be exempted from this provision, as its mileposts go from White Plains to its parent in Brewster.

That may be because I-684 was originally designated as I-87, which followed the I-684 and I-84 alignment south of Newburgh until 1971, at which point it was shifted to follow the Thruway south of I-84, over the Tappan Zee Bridge, and into New York City.

But now I have an understanding as to why I-691's exit numbers now increase from east to west. That must have been a recent change to the MUTCD, since there are a lot of 3-digit spur routes around the country whose exit numbering follows the traditional pattern of starting at the south/west end and increasing heading north/east, regardless of where it connects to its parent route.

It actually is not a recent change but rather states simply not following the MUTCD (similar to how they don't follow the MUTCD regarding using sequential exit numbers, leaving some freeways without exit numbers, etc)

The rule for numbering and mileposting spur routes has been the same since 2000 and probably before then (the 1988 MUTCD isn't available at the MUTCD web site). "Spur route interchanges shall be numbered in ascending order starting at the interchange where the spur leaves the mainline of the principal route" (from the 2000 edition)

[never mind the fact that 691 is not a spur route]

The MUTCD itself is not a hard-and-fast directive, as a number of states have their own supplements to the MUTCD, and some have developed a state manual for traffic control devices in lieu of using the federal MUTCD. As a result, you still have some degree of variation in signage and pavement markings across state lines. A few examples of the variations I've seen traveling across the country:

- New Hampshire refusing to adopt mileage-based exit numbering; Vermont adopting supplemental "Milepoint Exit" numbers in addition to sequential exit numbers
- Kilometer-based exit numbering on certain highways in Arizona and Delaware
- ROAD CONSTRUCTION AHEAD signs in Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio, and WORK ZONE AHEAD in North Carolina versus ROAD WORK AHEAD specified in the MUTCD
- Non-standard signage on the New Jersey Turnpike and across California
- States that stripe ramp gore areas with chevrons or transverse lines versus those that don't (MUTCD currently allows both)
- Standard mileposts as specified by the MUTCD versus California's postmile system used on freeways

The map below illustrates the states that have adopted the federal MUTCD as written (red); adopted the MUTCD and have a state supplement (blue); and have published a State MUTCD in lieu of the federal MUTCD (green).

Did Connecticut ever have their own MUTCD? Since they had a lot of unique things in their signage such as the exit tabs without the borders, the square shaped No Turn on Red signs, and using the supplemental word signs under the No Left and No Right Turn signs.

[abqtraveler]

I-691 looks like this (the 66 Exits are both Exit 1)

Exit 11 > Exit 1A
Exit 10 > Exit 1B
Exit 9 > Exit 1C
Exit 8 > Exit 2A
Exit 7 > Exit 2B
Exits 6 + 5 > Exit 3
Exit 4 > Exit 5
Exit 3 > Exit 7
Exit 2 > Exit 8A
Exit 1 > Exit 8B

Can anyone give the reasoning behind why I-691, in the eyes of CT, is viewed as an east-west highway rather than the standard west-east with respect to the mile markers & now interchange numbers?

I did a quick search & didn't find too much info.

Per MUTCD 2009, Section 2E.31

14 Spur route interchanges shall be numbered in ascending order starting at the interchange where the spur leaves the mainline route (see Figure 2E-20).

In this case, I-691 leaves it parent and heads west.  For it to have remained a west-east routing, it would have to be an I-x84.  For some reason, I-684 seems to be exempted from this provision, as its mileposts go from White Plains to its parent in Brewster.

That may be because I-684 was originally designated as I-87, which followed the I-684 and I-84 alignment south of Newburgh until 1971, at which point it was shifted to follow the Thruway south of I-84, over the Tappan Zee Bridge, and into New York City.

But now I have an understanding as to why I-691's exit numbers now increase from east to west. That must have been a recent change to the MUTCD, since there are a lot of 3-digit spur routes around the country whose exit numbering follows the traditional pattern of starting at the south/west end and increasing heading north/east, regardless of where it connects to its parent route.

It actually is not a recent change but rather states simply not following the MUTCD (similar to how they don't follow the MUTCD regarding using sequential exit numbers, leaving some freeways without exit numbers, etc)

The rule for numbering and mileposting spur routes has been the same since 2000 and probably before then (the 1988 MUTCD isn't available at the MUTCD web site). "Spur route interchanges shall be numbered in ascending order starting at the interchange where the spur leaves the mainline of the principal route" (from the 2000 edition)

[never mind the fact that 691 is not a spur route]

The MUTCD itself is not a hard-and-fast directive, as a number of states have their own supplements to the MUTCD, and some have developed a state manual for traffic control devices in lieu of using the federal MUTCD. As a result, you still have some degree of variation in signage and pavement markings across state lines. A few examples of the variations I've seen traveling across the country:

- New Hampshire refusing to adopt mileage-based exit numbering; Vermont adopting supplemental "Milepoint Exit" numbers in addition to sequential exit numbers
- Kilometer-based exit numbering on certain highways in Arizona and Delaware
- ROAD CONSTRUCTION AHEAD signs in Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio, and WORK ZONE AHEAD in North Carolina versus ROAD WORK AHEAD specified in the MUTCD
- Non-standard signage on the New Jersey Turnpike and across California
- States that stripe ramp gore areas with chevrons or transverse lines versus those that don't (MUTCD currently allows both)
- Standard mileposts as specified by the MUTCD versus California's postmile system used on freeways

The map below illustrates the states that have adopted the federal MUTCD as written (red); adopted the MUTCD and have a state supplement (blue); and have published a State MUTCD in lieu of the federal MUTCD (green).

Did Connecticut ever have their own MUTCD? Since they had a lot of unique things in their signage such as the exit tabs without the borders, the square shaped No Turn on Red signs, and using the supplemental word signs under the No Left and No Right Turn signs.

I think Connecticut may have had their own State MUTCD many years ago, but Connecticut has since adopted the Federal MUTCD. Not sure when that change happened, but I'm thinking it's been close to 20 years now since that took place. There's still plenty of old non-standard signage that still exists in Connecticut, which will likely remain until those signs are due for replacement.

Some of the locally-maintained roads in Connecticut still have some very old signage, and some municipalities continue to use the single solid yellow stripe to mark the road's centerline, which is no longer allowed per the MUTCD.

[jp the roadgeek]

Another one that is unique to CT: The Yellow SPEED LIMIT AHEAD XX M.P.H signs.  Most states just use the picture of a speed limit with a number and the up arrow.  CT uses it as well, but they use the much larger signs like this:

[shadyjay]

Another one that is unique to CT: The Yellow SPEED LIMIT AHEAD XX M.P.H signs.  Most states just use the picture of a speed limit with a number and the up arrow.  CT uses it as well, but they use the much larger signs like this:

Yeah, it irks me I'm still seeing those around, though the diamond "speed limit ahead" version is gaining popularity.

What irks me even more is that ConnDOT seems to be doing away with the "Merging Traffic" sign, replacing it with... nothing. 

[dantheman]

I drove I-691 this evening, for the first time since exits were renumbered. Why are there leading zeros on the decimal milepost signs? Instead of 0.2 or 1.2, they read 00.2 or 01.2.

I've never seen this anywhere else that I can remember. I also drove the recently-renumbered CT 72 and didn't see any extra zeros on the signs there. It has been too long since I've been in single-digit mileage on CT 9 or I-395, so I'm not sure if it's done anywhere else in CT.

[shadyjay]

I drove I-691 this evening, for the first time since exits were renumbered. Why are there leading zeros on the decimal milepost signs? Instead of 0.2 or 1.2, they read 00.2 or 01.2.

I've never seen this anywhere else that I can remember. I also drove the recently-renumbered CT 72 and didn't see any extra zeros on the signs there. It has been too long since I've been in single-digit mileage on CT 9 or I-395, so I'm not sure if it's done anywhere else in CT.

The ones on Rt 9 say 0.2, 0.4, etc.  For a route that doesn't even get into double digit mileposts, having a double leading zero makes zero sense.  Then again, the I-691 project is/was a design-build project, vs a project designed by ConnDOT and put out to bid.  That's why we never saw any new sign plans made public (outside of spot replacements).  According to I-691 traffic cams, looks like we have some new signage.  There are new 4-chord cantilever gantries for former Exit 6 1/2 mile WB/Exit 8 1/2 mile EB. 

[jp the roadgeek]

So I did take a ride on 691 East today from new Exit 5 to CT 15.  Did indeed notice the mile markers with the leading zeros, even on the ones inside the 1 MP.  Many new sign posts going up, but the wording on some of the new exit signing is changing.  There was a new ground mount for Exit 2B (former Exit 7/Downtown Meriden) that now says just "Meriden" .  Meanwhile, the new 4 chord truss overhead signage for Exit 2A (former Exit 8) now says US 5/Downtown Meriden (no mention of Broad St or TO CT 15 North).  So apparently, CTDOT now prefers that you use the Broad Street ramp to get downtown instead of using Columbia St to Colony St. 

[MikeCL]

How long will it take them to do Fairfield county?

[vdeane]

How long will it take them to do Fairfield county?

Considering that they're slow-rolling it by route and I-95 is near the end of the list?  A long time.

[bob7374]

How long will it take them to do Fairfield county?

Considering that they're slow-rolling it by route and I-95 is near the end of the list?  A long time.

It will be a while since I-95 is not to start until 2029. Other highways will start sooner. CTDOT's exit renumbering page lists the conversion of CT 15 to be completed in 2025. Supposedly it will take placed after signage between Milford and Meriden is updated. That contract is currently scheduled to be advertised next May 8. The Merritt signage has already been updated and is ready for exit number changes, presuming there is no public outcry due to its historic status.

[vdeane]

How long will it take them to do Fairfield county?

Considering that they're slow-rolling it by route and I-95 is near the end of the list?  A long time.

CTDOT's exit renumbering page lists the conversion of CT 15 to be completed in 2025. Supposedly it will take placed after signage between Milford and Meriden is updated. That contract is currently scheduled to be advertised next May 8. The Merritt signage has already been updated and is ready for exit number changes, presuming there is no public outcry due to its historic status.

Good to know, but that doesn't negate that I-84 and I-95 would also need to switch to count as "making Fairfield County mileage based".  US 7 too.

[Alps]

How long will it take them to do Fairfield county?

Considering that they're slow-rolling it by route and I-95 is near the end of the list?  A long time.

CTDOT's exit renumbering page lists the conversion of CT 15 to be completed in 2025. Supposedly it will take placed after signage between Milford and Meriden is updated. That contract is currently scheduled to be advertised next May 8. The Merritt signage has already been updated and is ready for exit number changes, presuming there is no public outcry due to its historic status.

Good to know, but that doesn't negate that I-84 and I-95 would also need to switch to count as "making Fairfield County mileage based".  US 7 too.

What is Fairfield County? YMM Western CT. https://images.federalregister.gov/EN06JN22.001/original.png?1654173307

[bob7374]

For those that did not see the post under Connecticut News or downloaded the sign plans. I have posted some of the plan images from I-384:


and for US 6:


on my New England Exit Renumbering Central site: https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/neexitrenumbering.html#i384signs

[bob7374]

I traveled CT 2 West from Norwich to the CT 66 exit a week ago. Most of the new signs are up, with the future exit numbers and Old Exit # signs (where placed) covered up, such as with the CT 149 exit:


Examples of other signage (included new reassurance markers and mile markers) can be found at:
https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/neexitrenumbering.html#ct2signs