Connecticut News

[MikeTheActuary]

The other thing about CT changing to mileage-based exits is that in so many cases, the sequential-based number isn't too far off from the mileage-implied exit number, which will aggravate any confusion.

It might be simpler, in some cases, to play with the mileposts (akin to what Tennessee has done in a couple of instances) rather than renumber the exits.

[jp the roadgeek]

The places that would be true are on I-84 through Danbury (only Exit 2 would be off 1 mile), I-91 from New Haven to CT 68 (there would be an alphabet city of Exit 1's and probably an Exit 0 for MLK Blvd), and the Exit 14's would no longer have the same number) I-95 between NY and Branford (although there is a discrepancy of 5 in the Fairfield area), CT 2 up to Exit 10 (would be an alphabet city of Exit 1's, but at least the alphabet city of 5's would become much more clear), and CT 8 from Bridgeport to I-84 (would be some discrepancies in the area of CT 15).  CT 15's numbering will look ridiculous when NYSDOT renumbers the Hutch (it'll suddenly jump from 20 to 27 at the state line), and I-691 will most likely get the same treatment CT 72 is getting; numbers will go up as you head west. 

[KEVIN_224]

Why should the Hutchinson Parkway numbering matter if we renumber it? I still don't see why the numbering didn't reset at the CT border in the first place.

[RobbieL2415]

Why should the Hutchinson Parkway numbering matter if we renumber it? I still don't see why the numbering didn't reset at the CT border in the first place.

I would love to see a joint numbering and milage project that sets the mile-based exits from the Whitestone Bridge to I-84.

[abqtraveler]

The places that would be true are on I-84 through Danbury (only Exit 2 would be off 1 mile), I-91 from New Haven to CT 68 (there would be an alphabet city of Exit 1's and probably an Exit 0 for MLK Blvd), and the Exit 14's would no longer have the same number) I-95 between NY and Branford (although there is a discrepancy of 5 in the Fairfield area), CT 2 up to Exit 10 (would be an alphabet city of Exit 1's, but at least the alphabet city of 5's would become much more clear), and CT 8 from Bridgeport to I-84 (would be some discrepancies in the area of CT 15).  CT 15's numbering will look ridiculous when NYSDOT renumbers the Hutch (it'll suddenly jump from 20 to 27 at the state line), and I-691 will most likely get the same treatment CT 72 is getting; numbers will go up as you head west.

I don't see why ConnDOT would start I-691's exit numbering at the eastern end and increase heading west. That goes against the standard convention for east-west oriented routes, which I-691 clearly is. I would expect mile markers and exit numbers to start at I-84 and increase heading east.

[kurumi]

The places that would be true are on I-84 through Danbury (only Exit 2 would be off 1 mile), I-91 from New Haven to CT 68 (there would be an alphabet city of Exit 1's and probably an Exit 0 for MLK Blvd), and the Exit 14's would no longer have the same number) I-95 between NY and Branford (although there is a discrepancy of 5 in the Fairfield area), CT 2 up to Exit 10 (would be an alphabet city of Exit 1's, but at least the alphabet city of 5's would become much more clear), and CT 8 from Bridgeport to I-84 (would be some discrepancies in the area of CT 15).  CT 15's numbering will look ridiculous when NYSDOT renumbers the Hutch (it'll suddenly jump from 20 to 27 at the state line), and I-691 will most likely get the same treatment CT 72 is getting; numbers will go up as you head west.

I don't see why ConnDOT would start I-691's exit numbering at the eastern end and increase heading west. That goes against the standard convention for east-west oriented routes, which I-691 clearly is. I would expect mile markers and exit numbers to start at I-84 and increase heading east.

Internally, the "log direction" (the way mileposts increase) is east to west in ConnDOT records, probably because US 6A / CT 66 construction began near I-91 and made its way toward I-84. It seems exit numbers need to match mileposts and it's apparently too late to change I-691 in the highway log. For motorists, the direction you describe makes more sense.

[jp the roadgeek]

There are 4 roads in CT that are logged differently than they are signed: CT 31, CT 67, CT 72, and I-691.  CT 31 and CT 67 are both signed north-south, but are logged east-west for DOT purposes.  CT 72 is the opposite, but it probably stems from the days when CT 72 began at CT 66 in Middletown and headed north on what is now an extended CT 3 to Cromwell, then head west on current CT 372.  At one time, it used to stretch past its current northwestern terminus and duplex with CT 4 through Torrington and follow CT 272 to the MA border.  I-691 is probably logged as such because of the idea that its official beginning is at its parent.  When the highway was built, it was US 6A, and exit numbers are leftover from it being US 6A/CT 66. 

[PHLBOS]

The other thing about CT changing to mileage-based exits is that in so many cases, the sequential-based number isn't too far off from the mileage-implied exit number, which will aggravate any confusion.

I'm not seeing why such would aggravate any confusion.  If anything, such a scenario would simply mean that those particular interchange numbers would not change at all. 

Using the western end of I-84 as an example, and assuming that CTDOT does not adopt the practice of using Exit 0 (they shouldn't IMHO), I could easily see the westernmost 8 interchanges not changing at all due to their proximity with their respective mile makers (i.e. close enough for a reasonable fudge-factor).

[shadyjay]

The places that would be true are on I-84 through Danbury (only Exit 2 would be off 1 mile), I-91 from New Haven to CT 68 (there would be an alphabet city of Exit 1's and probably an Exit 0 for MLK Blvd), and the Exit 14's would no longer have the same number) I-95 between NY and Branford (although there is a discrepancy of 5 in the Fairfield area), CT 2 up to Exit 10 (would be an alphabet city of Exit 1's, but at least the alphabet city of 5's would become much more clear), and CT 8 from Bridgeport to I-84 (would be some discrepancies in the area of CT 15).  CT 15's numbering will look ridiculous when NYSDOT renumbers the Hutch (it'll suddenly jump from 20 to 27 at the state line), and I-691 will most likely get the same treatment CT 72 is getting; numbers will go up as you head west.

I don't see why ConnDOT would start I-691's exit numbering at the eastern end and increase heading west. That goes against the standard convention for east-west oriented routes, which I-691 clearly is. I would expect mile markers and exit numbers to start at I-84 and increase heading east.

Internally, the "log direction" (the way mileposts increase) is east to west in ConnDOT records, probably because US 6A / CT 66 construction began near I-91 and made its way toward I-84. It seems exit numbers need to match mileposts and it's apparently too late to change I-691 in the highway log. For motorists, the direction you describe makes more sense.

Just out of curiosity, why is it too late to change I-691 in the highway log?  There are no mile markers publicly signed along the roadway (same goes for I-291, I-384, US 6 in Willimantic, etc...).  Starting it with Exit 1 being I-84 East/West makes more sense, especially since I-691 technically doesn't exist east of I-91. 

So, would that mean CT 66 West Exit 13 (and CT 66 East Exit 12) would become Exit 1, then Exits 10/11 would become Exit 1 A/B since they are on I-691? 

[MikeTheActuary]

The other thing about CT changing to mileage-based exits is that in so many cases, the sequential-based number isn't too far off from the mileage-implied exit number, which will aggravate any confusion.

I'm not seeing why such would aggravate any confusion.  If anything, such a scenario would simply mean that those particular interchange numbers would not change at all. 

Using the western end of I-84 as an example, and assuming that CTDOT does not adopt the practice of using Exit 0 (they shouldn't IMHO), I could easily see the westernmost 8 interchanges not changing at all due to their proximity with their respective mile makers (i.e. close enough for a reasonable fudge-factor).

Just to clarify...I am thinking about those situations where an exit number will change by 1 or 2.   

I imagine that while having a situation where, for example (old exit = 5, new exit = 24) would be annoying to folks familiar with the road, the difference is enough to make a clear distinction in the minds of folks familiar with the road.

However, in a situation where, for example (old exit = 12, new exit = 13), with multiple occurrences of slight changes occurring across the western half of the state....the similarity of old and new exit numbers will compound the confusion.

My preference is, of course, to have mileage-based exit numbers...but in Connecticut's case, it seems like ConnDOT is going to be asked to spend a lot of money to make changes that aren't going to make that much difference.

My exit is Exit 40 off of I-91.  I believe that if mileage-based it would be Exit 48.   I struggle to see the value of that change.

(I have absolutely no objection, however, to cleaning up "Exit 39&41".)

[jp the roadgeek]

Just out of curiosity, why is it too late to change I-691 in the highway log?  There are no mile markers publicly signed along the roadway (same goes for I-291, I-384, US 6 in Willimantic, etc...).  Starting it with Exit 1 being I-84 East/West makes more sense, especially since I-691 technically doesn't exist east of I-91. 

So, would that mean CT 66 West Exit 13 (and CT 66 East Exit 12) would become Exit 1, then Exits 10/11 would become Exit 1 A/B since they are on I-691?

Herein lies the question of directional mileage vs mileage from the parent route.  If I-691 were an I-x84, then it would be a non-issue because it would be increasing both west-east and as you moved away from I-84.  Such is the case with I-291 and I-384.  There is precedence for a 3di whose mileposts and exit numbers increase as it gets closer to its parent: I-684.  US 6 would be based on US 6 east-west mileposts.  Unlike CT 11, I-384 does not include any unbuilt portions in its route log (eg east of Bolton Notch), so you wouldn't see a continuation of I-384 mileage.  It looks like CT is also moving away from numbering the exits at termini; CT 9 at I-84 will no longer have numbers, and I imagine any future projects will omit the numbers on the I-84 ramps  at the west end of 691. 

As for numbers from Meriden to Middlefield, I'd say you're right with the 66 numbers.  However, the 91 and 15 exits might be a case for an exit 0 situation, otherwise you'd have an alphabet city with 1A for 91 north, 1B for 91/15 South, 1C for 15 North, 1D for US 5, and 1E for Downtown Meriden, unless you fudge the Downtown exits up to 2 (the Meriden Square exits would be Exit 2; 2B with the fudging).  CT 322 would stay as is, and CT 10 would be Exit 7.

[PHLBOS]

Just to clarify...I am thinking about those situations where an exit number will change by 1 or 2.

Near where I reside, southeastern PA, the Baltimore Pike's interchange w/I-476 (signed as Media/Swarthmore) was originally Exit 2 when the highway first opened in Dec. 1991.  It became Exit 3 when PA converted to mile-marker-based interchange numbering about a decade later.  Yes, dealerships along Baltimore Pike had to drop their Blue Route Exit 2 out of their radio & newspaper advertisements; but they, along with their customers, adjusted.  The old sequential Exit 3 (US 1) along I-476 became Exit 5.     

However, in a situation where, for example (old exit = 12, new exit = 13), with multiple occurrences of slight changes occurring across the western half of the state....the similarity of old and new exit numbers will compound the confusion.

Using the fore-mentioned I-84 example, the first 8 interchanges would not have to change as previously mentioned.  The westernmost I-84 interchange that would change as a result of the conversion would be Exit 9 (CT 25); which is located east of MM 11 with the I-84 mainline overpass situated just east of MM 11.4.  Such would change to Exit 11.  The current Exit 11 (CT 34) would become Exit 16 due to its proximity to MM 16 and so forth.  BTW, I-84's easternmost interchange at the MA border, the current Exit 74 (CT 171) would become Exit 97.

My preference is, of course, to have mileage-based exit numbers...but in Connecticut's case, it seems like ConnDOT is going to be asked to spend a lot of money to make changes that aren't going to make that much difference.

In many instances, ConnDOT is already replacing their signs; and if one notices, exit tabs wide enough to accommodate either additional digits and/or letter suffixes once the change takes effect are being erected in those sign replacement contracts.  The only change there would simply involve masking those tabs with the new numbers.  The cost of doing such, although an added expense, is minimal with respect to the cost of the sign replacement contracts.  Keep in mind that I-395's interchange numbers have already been converted.

My exit is Exit 40 off of I-91.  I believe that if mileage-based it would be Exit 48.   I struggle to see the value of that change.

From a local standpoint, the value of the change may not mean too much; but for more distant traffic, the value of the change is more noticeable.

[connroadgeek]

We will all be dead before Connecticut fully converts its exit numbers. ConnDOT is big on plans, but lacks follow through. They've been talking about doing this for 20 years. At some point you just throw in the towel.

[MikeTheActuary]

We will all be dead before Connecticut fully converts its exit numbers. ConnDOT is big on plans, but lacks follow through. They've been talking about doing this for 20 years. At some point you just throw in the towel.

So...perhaps we will get mileage-based exit numbering after CT 11 is completed? 

[The Ghostbuster]

Why does it take Connecticut's DOT so long to do stuff? Politics? Special Interests? Incompetence? Laziness? A combination of the above & more?

[MikeTheActuary]

Why does it take Connecticut's DOT so long to do stuff? Politics? Special Interests? Incompetence? Laziness? A combination of the above & more?

My money is on "politics/special interests" and "limited funding/diversion of funds that ought to be earmarked for transportation"

[RobbieL2415]

Why does it take Connecticut's DOT so long to do stuff? Politics? Special Interests? Incompetence? Laziness? A combination of the above & more?

I blame a population ignorant about our transportation needs.

[Alps]

We will all be dead before Connecticut fully converts its exit numbers. ConnDOT is big on plans, but lacks follow through. They've been talking about doing this for 20 years. At some point you just throw in the towel.

As my travels take me through CT, I've been thinking about exit numbers. Fun fact: I-91's only good exit number is 15. Everything else needs to change. (Exits 1-7 are all south of Mile 2, so they're either 1A-1H - including I-95 NB as a numbered exit - or you split into 0s and 1s.)

[jp the roadgeek]

15 is still no good.  Overpass is at MP 16.18, so it would need to change to 16.  My exits up to I-691 in Meriden go like this:

Exit 0A (SB ONLY): MLK Blvd
Exit 0B (SB ONLY): I-95 NORTH
Exit 1A: Hamilton St
Exit 1B: Trumbull St
Exit 1C: US 5 NORTH State St (US 5 on NB signage only)
Exit 2 (2A SB): Willow St/Blatchley Ave (slightly fudged for simplicity)
Exit 2B (SB ONLY) Ferry St Fair Haven
Exit 3: CT 17/80
Exit 5: Montowese Ave/Universal Dr (should add Universal to signage)
Exit 6: CT 40
Exit 7 (NB ONLY): US 5/CT 22 TO CT 103 (add CT 103 to signage)
Exit 8: US 5 Washington Ave
Exit 11: US 5 (Wharton Brook Connector)
Exit 12 (NB ONLY) CT 150
Exit 13 (SB ONLY) TO CT 150 East Center St
Exit 16: CT 68
Exit 19A: East Main St
Exit 19B: CT 15 (directional exits; TO I-691 WEST NB)
Exit 20: CT 66 EAST (NB); I-691 WEST (SB)

I agree that despite it being a terminus exit, 95 North should get a number because the mainline extends slightly south and even has an exit before feeding into 95 South.

[Alps]

15 is still no good.  Overpass is at MP 16.18, so it would need to change to 16.  My exits up to I-691 in Meriden go like this:

Exit 0A (SB ONLY): MLK Blvd
Exit 0B (SB ONLY): I-95 NORTH
Exit 1A: Hamilton St
Exit 1B: Trumbull St
Exit 1C: US 5 NORTH State St (US 5 on NB signage only)
Exit 2 (2A SB): Willow St/Blatchley Ave (slightly fudged for simplicity)
Exit 2B (SB ONLY) Ferry St Fair Haven
Exit 3: CT 17/80
Exit 5: Montowese Ave/Universal Dr (should add Universal to signage)
Exit 6: CT 40
Exit 7 (NB ONLY): US 5/CT 22 TO CT 103 (add CT 103 to signage)
Exit 8: US 5 Washington Ave
Exit 11: US 5 (Wharton Brook Connector)
Exit 12 (NB ONLY) CT 150
Exit 13 (SB ONLY) TO CT 150 East Center St
Exit 16: CT 68
Exit 19A: East Main St
Exit 19B: CT 15 (directional exits; TO I-691 WEST NB)
Exit 20: CT 66 EAST (NB); I-691 WEST (SB)

I agree that despite it being a terminus exit, 95 North should get a number because the mainline extends slightly south and even has an exit before feeding into 95 South.

Seemed like Montowese is a 4. For that and the 15 I was going by milemarkers at the exits, not necessarily the cross street, so you may have superseding knowledge.

[zzyzx]

Why does it take Connecticut's DOT so long to do stuff? Politics? Special Interests? Incompetence? Laziness? A combination of the above & more?

I blame a population ignorant about our transportation needs.

I blame the land of steady habits in general.  I tried explaining to my friend, who's lived in CT all of his life as well as his parents, about mile based exit numbers.  It confused him more when he asked me if there were multiple exits within a mile:
"So will they number them 1.1, 1.2, 1.3?"
"No, they'll be numbered 1A, 1B, 1C and so on!"
"That makes no sense.  It's so confusing!" he said back, "If they're numbered in order they're easier to remember!"

He rarely travels out of state, and when he does, it's to NY to MA. And this guy has an advanced degree. I didn't mention enhanced mile markers with the decimals to add to his confusion...

Imagine what the state will have to do to educate everyone about the switch to mile-based exits.  The I-395 renumbering only affected a small portion of the state, and the exits are far off from the original ones.  I would really like to see the general population react when the state phases in EXIT 0s before the freeway junctions (are there any in CT? I can't think of any from memory)

The whole switching exits on the freeways and not the parkways will also add to the confusion.  My friend lives near I-91 and the Wilber Cross.  Explaining to him why the state will renumber 91 and not the WCP will be lots of fun...

[PHLBOS]

I would really like to see the general population react when the state phases in EXIT 0s before the freeway junctions (are there any in CT? I can't think of any from memory)

One thing to keep in mind that many states that already do mile-marker-based interchange numbering don't use Exit 0 for any reason.  Whether such practice is due to a particular state originally having sequential numbering (CT would fall in this category) or such never had such at all is not fully known.

As mentioned upthread & IMHO, it would be better for CT or whomever not to use Exit 0 for an interchange falling within the first mile and/or southern/western terminus unless there's several ramps/interchanges within said-mile.  Such a scenario would exist for MA's Lowell Connector at I-495/US 3 interchange/terminus.  Such is probably, IMHO, the only example in the Bay State where the use of Exit 0 at its southern end has some validity. 

That said, not using Exit 0 would reduce the amount of renumberings along southern and/or western sections in most instances.  Such would be the case for I-84 in CT (the westernmost 8 interchanges wouldn't to change) and even I-93 in MA (the southernmost 11 interchanges wouldn't need to change).

The whole switching exits on the freeways and not the parkways will also add to the confusion.

I was under the impression that the renumbering was to take place on all highways & parkways that presently have sequential numbering.  If anything, renumbering the interchanges along the parkways (CT 15) would straighten out the oddball sequential numbering (Exit 27 at the CT-NY line) such currently have.

[zzyzx]

The CT2030 site is now live with a comprehensive list of state highway and mass transit projects:

https://www.ct2030.com/

[jp the roadgeek]

The only places I would consider using Exit 0 in CT: I-91 at I-95 (only on the SB side for MLK Blvd and maybe I-95 North so you could match up the Exit 1's starting at Hamilton St), and the I-91/CT 15 exits on I-691 (to avoid an alphabet city and confusion with CT 66 Exit 1).  Seeing that CTDOT is moving toward not numbering the termini ramps of highways (such as those at the north end of CT 9 no longer being numbered), you won't see Exit 0's at the southern ends of CT 8/25, CT 9, or US 7. If those termini were numbered, only CT 9 would require an Exit 0.  CT 8/25 and US 7 have only one Exit 1 northbound, so you could use a plain Exit 1 for that and suffixed Exit 1's SB.  CT 9 would require one because northbound you would have 1A for Ferry Point and 1B for CT 154.  SB, CT 154 would be Exit 1, and the 95 ramps would be 0 A-B.

I actually managed to get away from using an Exit 0 at the west end of CT 2 despite all the close ramps.  I did not number the ramp to 91 South from State St west of the Founders Bridge.  Up to the Hebron Ave exit, you'd have:

Exit 1A: Pitkin St/East River Dr (EB), Darlin St (WB)
Exit 1B (WB ONLY): I-84 WEST/91 NORTH
Exit 1C: I-84 EAST
Exit 1D: Governor St
Exit 1E (WB ONLY): Pitkin St
Exit 1F (WB ONLY): TO I-91/CT 15 East River Dr
Exit 2A (EB ONLY): Riverside Dr/Willow St (the Willow St overpass is at MP 1.98, but bumping it to 2 makes it easier)
Exit 2B (EB ONLY): High St
NO # ( EB ONLY): Sutton Ave (exit to be eliminated)
Exit 3: Maple St (EB); Main St (WB)
Exit 4A (4 WB): CT 3 SOUTH (TO I-91 WB signage only)
Exit 4B (EB ONLY): Griswold St
Exit 5A (EB ONLY): CT 17 SOUTH
Exit 5B (5 WB): CT 94

[kurumi]

Exit 5B (5 WB): CT 94

One nitpick: I'd like to see the same exit number in both directions for the same exit. Even if CT 2 WB has only an exit 5B and no 5A, that's outweighed by the advantage of a consistent number for the CT 94 exit (both ways).