Connecticut milepost exit numbering conversion

[bob7374]

Those who have checked out the updated CTDOT Exit Renumbering project page may have noticed they added future exit numbers for CT 25 as well as I-691. Though it did not appear with the CT 8 sign replacement project plans, since it is noted CT 25 exit numbers will change by 2025, the same as CT 8, I am assuming it will be done as part of the same contract. Since there are no sign plans for CT 25, nor for I-691, here's a traffic camera image of one of the pair of I-84 advance signs,:


I created my own using Sign Maker, the plans are on my New England Exit Renumbering Central website:
https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/neexitrenumbering.html#futnum

[abqtraveler]

Those who have checked out the updated CTDOT Exit Renumbering project page may have noticed they added future exit numbers for CT 25 as well as I-691. Though it did not appear with the CT 8 sign replacement project plans, since it is noted CT 25 exit numbers will change by 2025, the same as CT 8, I am assuming it will be done as part of the same contract. Since there are no sign plans for CT 25, nor for I-691, here's a traffic camera image of one of the pair of I-84 advance signs,:


I created my own using Sign Maker, the plans are on my New England Exit Renumbering Central website:
https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/neexitrenumbering.html#futnum

The Route 25 freeway is relatively short with only three interchanges. If CTDOT doesn't issue a modification for the Route 8 exit renumbering contract to include Route 25, then I would suspect that CTDOT might just renumber Route 25 in-house and just overlay existing signage with new exit numbers. The signs on Route 25 north of Route 8 were replaced about 5 years ago, so I think an overlay would make sense.

[PHLBOS]

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.

[jp the roadgeek]

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. 

[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.

[MikeTheActuary]

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. 

691 and 684 aren't considered spur routes, as evidenced by their even first digits.

The MUTCD could avoid ambiguity by tweaking 2E.31.13 to read "loop or other auxiliary connector routes".

[Rothman]

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. 

691 and 684 aren't considered spur routes, as evidenced by their even first digits.

In terms of I-684:  If it walks like a duck and talks like duck, its first digit doesn't mean jack.

[MikeTheActuary]

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. 

691 and 684 aren't considered spur routes, as evidenced by their even first digits.

In terms of I-684:  If it walks like a duck and talks like duck, its first digit doesn't mean jack.

It's an auxiliary interstate that connects I-287 and I-84, and therefore exit numbering should begin from the south/west end, just as any other auxiliary interstate that connects other interstates does/should.

Arguably, it could be said to be part of a loop around southwestern Connecticut or southern New England....a bypass of the former Fairfield County.

[hotdogPi]

Arguably, it could be said to be part of a loop around southwestern Connecticut or southern New England....a bypass of the former Fairfield County.

I'm definitely not seeing I-684 as a loop. It heads straight toward New York City.

[MATraveler128]

Arguably, it could be said to be part of a loop around southwestern Connecticut or southern New England....a bypass of the former Fairfield County.

I'm definitely not seeing I-684 as a loop. It heads straight toward New York City.

But it does connect two interstates, so either is allowed. But as others have said, there's nothing wrong with I-684 as it stands.

[The Ghostbuster]

I guess we'll have to wait until/if the exit numbers on Interstate 684 are renumbered. I think mileage-based numbers on 684 should increase from south-to-north, just like the existing sequential numbers.

[jp the roadgeek]

I guess we'll have to wait until/if the exit numbers on Interstate 684 are renumbered. I think mileage-based numbers on 684 should increase from south-to-north, just like the existing sequential numbers.

I'm sure they will go south-north, as NYSDOT has maintained the mile markers on 684 for years.  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.

[abqtraveler]

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.

[MikeTheActuary]

I took my wife to dinner at Mohegan Sun this evening.

We drove Route 2 between Hartford and Norwich, and I noticed that there are a couple of "old exit / new exit" signs posted, one at old Exit 13 eastbound, and one at old Exit 8 westbound, with the latter having the new exit number 6 blacked out on one of the signs posted.

[corco]

As of this morning the little CT 3 freeway has mileposts and blacked out numbered exit signs at the exits - but no tabs yet on the old button copy

[RyanB06]

Route 17 in Glastonbury does as well, but the new exit signs list the New London Turnpike ("Glastonbury Center" northbound toward Route 2) exit as Exit 34, so we know what that number is at least.

[bob7374]

I drove I-691 West last weekend to document the new exit numbers, such as for the CT 15 North and US 5 exits:


The rest of the photos are at: https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/neexitrenumbering.html#i691exits

[bob7374]

Also took photos of new exit numbers along CT 72, such as this sign for the former Exits 3-4:


The rest of the photos at:
https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/neexitrenumbering.html#ct72exits

[bob7374]

I've posted photos taken of CT 9 exit renumbering southbound from CT 72 to I-95, including the exits with I-91:


to my New England Exit Renumbering Central website: https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/neexitrenumbering.html#ct9photos

New article today in the Hartford Courant regarding exit renumbering (though doesn't mention the latest exit renumbering on CT 9 and 72, despite showing photos):
https://www.courant.com/2023/05/21/ct-highway-changes-7-things-you-need-to-know-about-all-our-new-exit-numbers/

[ran4sh]

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. 

691 and 684 aren't considered spur routes, as evidenced by their even first digits.

The MUTCD could avoid ambiguity by tweaking 2E.31.13 to read "loop or other auxiliary connector routes".

They could also add something for the 2-way spur routes such as I-526 in South Carolina, etc (which are indeed spurs, but go in both directions from their parent)

[ran4sh]

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]

[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).

[ran4sh]

As I've said numerous times before, it's not because the MUTCD or the federal government *wants* there to be such variation. It's because of how state governments are allowed to do their own thing and they only care about federal standards if funding is at stake.

[abqtraveler]

As I've said numerous times before, it's not because the MUTCD or the federal government *wants* there to be such variation. It's because of how state governments are allowed to do their own thing and they only care about federal standards if funding is at stake.

And that may be true, but to my knowledge, there is no congressional mandate for states to adopt the federal MUTCD as a precondition for federal funding.  For anyone who knows whether Congress has enacted such a mandate, please state what section of federal law that falls under.

[ran4sh]

In any case, your original point of "that must have been a recent change" is defeated

Edit - Apparently this is my 1000th post