Connecticut News

[tckma]

Page 11 mentioned people want a direct expressway between I-84 and I-95.  Hmmm but if you read the media you'd think everyone is against it (Super 7).  It'll never be built, but people DO want it.

I-91 isn't?  CT-8 isn't? 

[edit] Oh, just noticed this is for Danbury.  What about I-684 in New York State?  It's not direct in that you need to jump over using I-287, but it's pretty close.

[jp the roadgeek]

I've been checking the web cams for the I-84 sign project and the one cam at the west end of the I-95 project and am stunned by the lack of progress as well.  Haven't seen any progress in any spot sign replacement projects either.  What's going on?

I've also been wondering why ConnDOT didn't take the time to slightly renumber the exits in Waterbury.  With Exit 24 no longer existing, why not make existing Exit 25 be Exit 24 and renumber Exit 25A to Exit 25?  They did something similar as part of the West River Bridge project on I-95 when Exit 45 became Exit 44.  But perhaps that was to get the exit closer to the mile, and they'll just wait until I-84 goes mile-based to make any exit changes there.  At this rate, that'll happen in 2050.

The exits from West Haven to the Q-Bridge (43-48) would be 45 (Campbell Ave/CT 122, 46A (CT 10), 46B (Long Wharf), 47A (MLK Blvd/CT 34), and 47B (I-91 North).  Waterbury would be 34 (CT 69), 35 (Harpers Ferry/Scott Rd) and 36 (Austin Rd)

[RobbieL2415]

Page 11 mentioned people want a direct expressway between I-84 and I-95.  Hmmm but if you read the media you'd think everyone is against it (Super 7).  It'll never be built, but people DO want it.

I-91 isn't?  CT-8 isn't? 

[edit] Oh, just noticed this is for Danbury.  What about I-684 in New York State?  It's not direct in that you need to jump over using I-287, but it's pretty close.

Oh man, I-684 is already congested as it it.  Ever try going from I-84 W to I-684 S on a weekday?  Always a one-mile backup for the ramp.  Plus, 684 is a longer route to I-95 than you think.  A compromise for US 7 would be to widen it to a Jersey freeway (50-55mph limit) and eliminate petty left turns.

[Mergingtraffic]

Page 11 mentioned people want a direct expressway between I-84 and I-95.  Hmmm but if you read the media you'd think everyone is against it (Super 7).  It'll never be built, but people DO want it.

I-91 isn't?  CT-8 isn't? 

[edit] Oh, just noticed this is for Danbury.  What about I-684 in New York State?  It's not direct in that you need to jump over using I-287, but it's pretty close.

Oh man, I-684 is already congested as it it.  Ever try going from I-84 W to I-684 S on a weekday?  Always a one-mile backup for the ramp.  Plus, 684 is a longer route to I-95 than you think.  A compromise for US 7 would be to widen it to a Jersey freeway (50-55mph limit) and eliminate petty left turns.

I think that was in the original plans with the Ridgefield widening to have a media barrier but people freaked and it was taken out.

[Duke87]

I think that was in the original plans with the Ridgefield widening to have a media barrier but people freaked and it was taken out.

For much of the length yes, since there are almost no driveways. ConnDOT was going to put in a median barrier since it would have provided greater safety with minimal compromise to local access.

But yes, locals complained and demanded there be no median barrier because its presence created the perception that this was part of "Super 7" getting built.

[RobbieL2415]

I think that was in the original plans with the Ridgefield widening to have a media barrier but people freaked and it was taken out.

For much of the length yes, since there are almost no driveways. ConnDOT was going to put in a median barrier since it would have provided greater safety with minimal compromise to local access.

But yes, locals complained and demanded there be no median barrier because its presence created the perception that this was part of "Super 7" getting built.

Punish them with speed humps and a 25mph limit the entire length. And remove all stoplights and replace them with stop signs. Gridlock imperptuity.

[zzyzx]

CONNDOT is paving Route 156 in Niantic this week...they must have ran out of temporary road work signs because I found this perfectly good US-44 shield with a "No Parking"  sign slapped on the other side.




iPhone

[abqtraveler]

I finally got a reply from CONNDOT regarding their exit-renumbering timeline.  Originally, they had planned for Routes 8 and 25 to be the next highways in line to be converted to mile-based exits starting next year.  According to the e-mail I received below from Mr. Barry Schilling at CONNDOT, Routes 9 and 72 will be converted to mile-based exits in the 2020-2022 timeframe, followed by Routes 8 and 25 around 2022.  Other highways will follow suit.  One thing of note, Mr. Schilling made no mention of renumbering exits on Route 7 or Route 15, so I presume that those routes will retain their current numbering schemes.

[jp the roadgeek]

The only question that I have is whether or not I-691 and CT 72 would be numbered west-east or east-west.  The reason: CTDOT has them logged as south-north for inventory purposes, but signed east-west (except for a single set of CT 72 South signs at CT 4 in Harwinton).  If they follow the highway log, the numbers would go in the opposite direction as they do now.  For I-691:

Current Exit 1-2: Exit 1 A/B as is or Exit 8 A/B by log
Current Exit 3: Exit 2 or Exit 7
Current Exit 4: Remains Exit 4 no matter what
Current Exit 5 EB/Exit 6 WB: Exit 6 or Exit 2B
Current Exit 7: Exit 7A or Exit 2A
Current Exit 8: Exit 7B or Exit 1D
Current Exit 9: Exit 8B or Exit 1C
Current Exit 10: Exit 8A or Exit 1B
Current Exit 11: Exit 8C or Exit 1A
Current Exit 12 (part of CT 66): Exit 9 (continuation of I-691 numbers), or No #/Exit 0 (too confusing to reset for CT 66)
Current Exit 13 (part of CT 66): Exit 10 or No #/Exit 0

And for CT 72:
Exit 1: Exit 14 or Exit 6
Exit 2 (WB ONLY): Exit 16 or Exit 4
Exit 3/4 (EB ONLY): Exit 16 A/B or Exit 4 A/B
Exit 6 (WB ONLY): Exit 17 or Exit 3
Exit 7: Exit 18 or Exit 2
Exit 8 (EB ONLY): Exit 19 or Exit 1D
Exit 9 (EB ONLY): Exit 20A or Exit 1C
Unnumbered CT 9 exits (EB ONLY): Exit 20 B/C or Exit 1 B/A

[Alps]

The only question that I have is whether or not I-691 and CT 72 would be numbered west-east or east-west.  The reason: CTDOT has them logged as south-north for inventory purposes, but signed east-west (except for a single set of CT 72 South signs at CT 4 in Harwinton).  If they follow the highway log, the numbers would go in the opposite direction as they do now.  For I-691:

Current Exit 1-2: Exit 1 A/B as is or Exit 8 A/B by log
Current Exit 3: Exit 2 or Exit 7
Current Exit 4: Remains Exit 4 no matter what
Current Exit 5 EB/Exit 6 WB: Exit 6 or Exit 2B
Current Exit 7: Exit 7A or Exit 2A
Current Exit 8: Exit 7B or Exit 1D
Current Exit 9: Exit 8B or Exit 1C
Current Exit 10: Exit 8A or Exit 1B
Current Exit 11: Exit 8C or Exit 1A
Current Exit 12 (part of CT 66): Exit 9 (continuation of I-691 numbers), or No #/Exit 0 (too confusing to reset for CT 66)
Current Exit 13 (part of CT 66): Exit 10 or No #/Exit 0

And for CT 72:
Exit 1: Exit 14 or Exit 6
Exit 2 (WB ONLY): Exit 16 or Exit 4
Exit 3/4 (EB ONLY): Exit 16 A/B or Exit 4 A/B
Exit 6 (WB ONLY): Exit 17 or Exit 3
Exit 7: Exit 18 or Exit 2
Exit 8 (EB ONLY): Exit 19 or Exit 1D
Exit 9 (EB ONLY): Exit 20A or Exit 1C
Unnumbered CT 9 exits (EB ONLY): Exit 20 B/C or Exit 1 B/A

I can't see either route being numbered north-south. I-691's main purposes are both related to I-84 traffic, and... really, so is CT 72. At least 72 has a N-S portion!

[abqtraveler]

The only question that I have is whether or not I-691 and CT 72 would be numbered west-east or east-west.  The reason: CTDOT has them logged as south-north for inventory purposes, but signed east-west (except for a single set of CT 72 South signs at CT 4 in Harwinton).  If they follow the highway log, the numbers would go in the opposite direction as they do now.  For I-691:

Current Exit 1-2: Exit 1 A/B as is or Exit 8 A/B by log
Current Exit 3: Exit 2 or Exit 7
Current Exit 4: Remains Exit 4 no matter what
Current Exit 5 EB/Exit 6 WB: Exit 6 or Exit 2B
Current Exit 7: Exit 7A or Exit 2A
Current Exit 8: Exit 7B or Exit 1D
Current Exit 9: Exit 8B or Exit 1C
Current Exit 10: Exit 8A or Exit 1B
Current Exit 11: Exit 8C or Exit 1A
Current Exit 12 (part of CT 66): Exit 9 (continuation of I-691 numbers), or No #/Exit 0 (too confusing to reset for CT 66)
Current Exit 13 (part of CT 66): Exit 10 or No #/Exit 0

And for CT 72:
Exit 1: Exit 14 or Exit 6
Exit 2 (WB ONLY): Exit 16 or Exit 4
Exit 3/4 (EB ONLY): Exit 16 A/B or Exit 4 A/B
Exit 6 (WB ONLY): Exit 17 or Exit 3
Exit 7: Exit 18 or Exit 2
Exit 8 (EB ONLY): Exit 19 or Exit 1D
Exit 9 (EB ONLY): Exit 20A or Exit 1C
Unnumbered CT 9 exits (EB ONLY): Exit 20 B/C or Exit 1 B/A

I can't see either route being numbered north-south. I-691's main purposes are both related to I-84 traffic, and... really, so is CT 72. At least 72 has a N-S portion!

It defies logic why I-691 would be logged as a N-S route, when it clearly goes E-W.  Exit numbers start at I-84 and increase heading east, which is in line with standard exit numbering conventions. For the 1 or 2 exits on CT-66, comverting them to mile-based numbers should just be a continuation of I-691's numbering scheme to avoid any confusion.

[kurumi]

I-691 is logged going west, which is "backwards"* but not out of character for the route: https://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/documents/dpolicy/hwylog/highwaylog_2017_final.pdf

It would make sense for the motoring public for ConnDOT to optionally relog the route going east (though that might mess up their inventory and anything keyed to existing mileposts) and continue to start exit numbering at I-84.

* all other routes are logged going east or north, except for one-way routes

[KEVIN_224]

For CT Route 9? Hmmm!

Exit 25 for Eliis Street in New Britain would be Exit 35, as mile marker 35 is maybe a hundred feet north of the Ellis Street Bridge. Exit 24 for the Willow Brook Connector (unsigned CT Route 571) would become Exit 34. Exit 23 for Christian Lane in Berlin could become Exit 33.

CT Route 72 is a bit more complicated. I would start the exits at the downtown New Britain split and move west. Maybe the numbering could follow the newer section of Route 72 in Bristol. What about the junction of CT Route 372 by the Plainville/Bristol town line? 

[jp the roadgeek]

For CT Route 9? Hmmm!

Exit 25 for Eliis Street in New Britain would be Exit 35, as mile marker 35 is maybe a hundred feet north of the Ellis Street Bridge. Exit 24 for the Willow Brook Connector (unsigned CT Route 571) would become Exit 34. Exit 23 for Christian Lane in Berlin could become Exit 33.

CT Route 72 is a bit more complicated. I would start the exits at the downtown New Britain split and move west. Maybe the numbering could follow the newer section of Route 72 in Bristol. What about the junction of CT Route 372 by the Plainville/Bristol town line?

I don't give a number to the 72/372 intersection because it's an at-grade, signalized intersection. The two intersections on the new portion of 72 are also at-grade and signalized.    As for the Route 9 exits: pretty accurate; only thing is that Ellis St would have to be 35A northbound, with the Downtown (Columbus Blvd) exit being 35B.


My Route 9 Exits:

Exit 0 A/B (SB ONLY): I-95/US 1
Exit 1A (NB ONLY): Ferry Point
Exit 1B NB/1 SB: CT 154
Exit 4: CT 153/154
Exit 5: CT 154
Exit 7: CT 80
Exit 9: CT 148
Exit 10: CT 82
Exit 13: Beaver Meadow Rd
Exit 15: CT 81
Exit 18: CT 154/Aircraft Rd
Exit 21: CT 155
Exit 22: Bow Lane/Harbor Area (NB); Silver St (SB)
Exit 23A (SB ONLY): CT 17 South
Exit 23B (SB ONLY): deKoven Dr
Exit 24A: CT 66 West
Exit 24B: CT 17 North/CT 66 East
Exit 25 (NB ONLY): CT 99 North
Exit 27: CT 372
Exit 29 A/B: I-91
Exit 31: CT 372 TO US 5/CT 15 North (NB); US 5/CT 15 (SB)
Exit 32: US 5/CT 15 South (SB); CT 372 (SB)
Exit 33 (SB ONLY): Christian Lane
Exit 34 (NB ONLY): (SR 571) TO CT 71/CT 372
Exit 35A NB/35 SB: Ellis St (TO CT 71 on SB signage)
Exit 35B (NB ONLY): Downtown New Britain
Exit 36 NB/36A SB: CT 72 West
Exit 36B (SB ONLY): Chestnut St
Exit 36C (SB ONLY): East Main St
Exit 38: CT 175 (NB); Ella Grasso Blvd/TO CT 175 (SB)
Exit 39: CT 71
Exit 40 A/B: I-84 (US 6)

[jon daly]

Speaking of I-691, why is it an even # 3di? It's more of a spur than a loop or bypass.

[MikeTheActuary]

Speaking of I-691, why is it an even # 3di? It's more of a spur than a loop or bypass.

It connects two interstates as a bypass or to form a partial loop.  It's eligible for an even first number.

See also I-291 and I-684.

[jon daly]

OK. I was wondering about that (Less so about Conn's I-291. It was originally supposed to be a loop.) But I-395 in Conn. and Mass. also qualifies for an even number by this logic and I-695 and I-895 are available (unless one of those was reserved for a cross-Sound bridge.)

[ipeters61]

OK. I was wondering about that (Less so about Conn's I-291. It was originally supposed to be a loop.) But I-395 in Conn. and Mass. also qualifies for an even number by this logic and I-695 and I-895 are available (unless one of those was reserved for a cross-Sound bridge.)

Was I-395 originally just the number from the I-95/395 split to CT-695 in Danielson?  I ask because I don't know.

[Mergingtraffic]

The repaved over the concrete on I-691. I thought they originally left it bc they finally realized concrete last longer after all these years. I guess not. It'll need to be repaved in 7 years meanwhile the concrete that just got paid over would've lasted a lot longer.

[PHLBOS]

OK. I was wondering about that (Less so about Conn's I-291. It was originally supposed to be a loop.) But I-395 in Conn. and Mass. also qualifies for an even number by this logic and I-695 and I-895 are available (unless one of those was reserved for a cross-Sound bridge.)

Was I-395 originally just the number from the I-95/395 split to CT-695 in Danielson?  I ask because I don't know.

I-395 was originally CT/MA 52.  Route 52 was completed to I-290 in Auburn, MA circa 1977 & became I-395 circa 1983.

Due to the highway being in two states; a number had to be assigned that wasn't already used (CT 695) or was proposed to be used at the time (the I-895 proposal in MA & RI was just killed off a year earlier).

Since the road was to be a child to I-95 & all the even 3di numbers were still somewhat spoken for at the time; an odd 3-digit derivative of I-95 was selected.  Given that one end of the highway terminated near New London, one could argue that at least one end of I-395 was near a city.

[jon daly]

Thanks. I appreciate your patience. I'm sure this has been discussed before and some may be tired of explaining why these 3dis were numbered the way they were..

[ipeters61]

OK. I was wondering about that (Less so about Conn's I-291. It was originally supposed to be a loop.) But I-395 in Conn. and Mass. also qualifies for an even number by this logic and I-695 and I-895 are available (unless one of those was reserved for a cross-Sound bridge.)

Was I-395 originally just the number from the I-95/395 split to CT-695 in Danielson?  I ask because I don't know.

I-395 was originally CT/MA 52.  Route 52 was completed to I-290 in Auburn, MA circa 1977 & became I-395 circa 1983.

Due to the highway being in two states; a number had to be assigned that wasn't already used (CT 695) or was proposed to be used at the time (the I-895 proposal in MA & RI was just killed off a year earlier).

Since the road was to be a child to I-95 & all the even 3di numbers were still somewhat spoken for at the time; an odd 3-digit derivative of I-95 was selected.  Given that one end of the highway terminated near New London, one could argue that at least one end of I-395 was near a city.

Dumb question, even though I know I-395 was really the continuation of the Connecticut Turnpike (up to Danielson), wouldn't it have just made sense to make it an extension of I-290 or to extend I-395 up to I-495?

[PHLBOS]

OK. I was wondering about that (Less so about Conn's I-291. It was originally supposed to be a loop.) But I-395 in Conn. and Mass. also qualifies for an even number by this logic and I-695 and I-895 are available (unless one of those was reserved for a cross-Sound bridge.)

Was I-395 originally just the number from the I-95/395 split to CT-695 in Danielson?  I ask because I don't know.

I-395 was originally CT/MA 52.  Route 52 was completed to I-290 in Auburn, MA circa 1977 & became I-395 circa 1983.

Due to the highway being in two states; a number had to be assigned that wasn't already used (CT 695) or was proposed to be used at the time (the I-895 proposal in MA & RI was just killed off a year earlier).

Since the road was to be a child to I-95 & all the even 3di numbers were still somewhat spoken for at the time; an odd 3-digit derivative of I-95 was selected.  Given that one end of the highway terminated near New London, one could argue that at least one end of I-395 was near a city.

Dumb question, even though I know I-395 was really the continuation of the Connecticut Turnpike (up to Danielson), wouldn't it have just made sense to make it an extension of I-290 or to extend I-395 up to I-495?

Short answer: state politics/egos. 

CT probably would've objected to I-290 coming in their state because 290's I-90 parent doesn't enter into it. 
MA's thought probably was something like; "I-290 in our state is already fully completed; why should we redesignate it?"

[Roadsguy]

OK. I was wondering about that (Less so about Conn's I-291. It was originally supposed to be a loop.) But I-395 in Conn. and Mass. also qualifies for an even number by this logic and I-695 and I-895 are available (unless one of those was reserved for a cross-Sound bridge.)

Was I-395 originally just the number from the I-95/395 split to CT-695 in Danielson?  I ask because I don't know.

I-395 was originally CT/MA 52.  Route 52 was completed to I-290 in Auburn, MA circa 1977 & became I-395 circa 1983.

Due to the highway being in two states; a number had to be assigned that wasn't already used (CT 695) or was proposed to be used at the time (the I-895 proposal in MA & RI was just killed off a year earlier).

Since the road was to be a child to I-95 & all the even 3di numbers were still somewhat spoken for at the time; an odd 3-digit derivative of I-95 was selected.  Given that one end of the highway terminated near New London, one could argue that at least one end of I-395 was near a city.

Was the CT 695 spur ever a part of CT 52, or was that number only added once the road was extended north?

[PHLBOS]

OK. I was wondering about that (Less so about Conn's I-291. It was originally supposed to be a loop.) But I-395 in Conn. and Mass. also qualifies for an even number by this logic and I-695 and I-895 are available (unless one of those was reserved for a cross-Sound bridge.)

Was I-395 originally just the number from the I-95/395 split to CT-695 in Danielson?  I ask because I don't know.

I-395 was originally CT/MA 52.  Route 52 was completed to I-290 in Auburn, MA circa 1977 & became I-395 circa 1983.

Due to the highway being in two states; a number had to be assigned that wasn't already used (CT 695) or was proposed to be used at the time (the I-895 proposal in MA & RI was just killed off a year earlier).

Since the road was to be a child to I-95 & all the even 3di numbers were still somewhat spoken for at the time; an odd 3-digit derivative of I-95 was selected.  Given that one end of the highway terminated near New London, one could argue that at least one end of I-395 was near a city.

Was the CT 695 spur ever a part of CT 52, or was that number only added once the road was extended north?

No.  The number was assigned to that short piece of then-CT Turnpike circa 1964.