While reading on the history of I-84 in CT, I found several things that piqued my interest:
- The proposed Hartford-Providence expressway was originally numbered as I-82. This would've been the path of least resistance as I-84 was then routed toward Sturbridge, as it is now. Why it was changed is beyond me, because why spend money on all the new signs for a route that may not be completed ever? And why reroute an established route in the first place?
- Where I-84 and I-86 were to meet, there was no interchange. Back then, you had to use Silver Lane to transfer between the two. I think they were jumping the gun with the switcheroo, since the remainder of new I-84 (today's I-384) had yet to be completed.
- The Willimantic Bypass was signed as I-84, even though there were no connections to the rest of the proposed route. Again, why spend all that money on the new signs?
- There really was no good way to negotiate the Scituate Reservoir area. That alone was the big sticking point in getting the reroute/extension cancelled, as evidenced by a combination of environmental and community opposition.
- And finally, the myriad of signs that informed motorists of the switch, beginning with the 1968 renumbering. EB I-84 was signed as "I-84 ENDS/I-86 TO BOSTON", while WB I-86 had "I-86 ENDS/I-84 TO HARTFORD". Then when the extension was cancelled, the infamous "I-86 IS NOW I-84" signs appeared (and I believe a few of those existed in MA as well), along with "I-84 IS NOW I-384" for the Bolton spur and "I-84 IS NOW US 6" for the Willimantic Bypass. I imagine all these signs have been taken down by now, although I need to be sure of that, because there may still be some in the wild that I'm unaware of.
As always, any additional info would be greatly appreciated!
Additional info? CT was littered with those small rectangular signs at one point: A "NOTICE" banner with the route change below it. 86 is now 84, 66 is now 691, 52 is now 395 (or whatever they were).
Well ideally I-84 into Providence and beyond ( as I-195 should really be I-84) is a good idea, but locals don't seem to want it, and there is no real push to get Hartford connected to Providence and overall from the lack of freeways finished or scrubbed the state is anti freeway and would rather travel surface roads with 35-45 average speed limits and frequent stop lights.
US 7 is prime example as it's a slow moving route throughout the state that had plans for a freeway bypass that will never surface. Only the greater Danbury received the finished product and of course the small segment in Norwalk, but the rest will remain as is. Being that no one locally has complained about the slow speed limits and frequent stoplights on the route, I'm guessing that residents of the corridor are willing to sacrifice the convenience of a freeway for whatever reason and accept low speed limits and obstacles.
Connecticut will always bring things that were that will never be and prove interesting to many outsiders in the road community.
Interstate 384 and US 6 should have been connected at the very least. While extending Interstate 84 along Interstate 195 would have made sense, I don't think it was ever officially proposed to do so. I agree Interstate 86 should have remained 84, and the Hartford-Providence Interstate proposal should have been numbered Interstate 82, as it was to have been originally. The existing Interstate 86 in Pennsylvania and New York is a much better place for the 86 designation.
<———- If it's easier to visualize than imagine...
This is the only real image I've ever been able to find online (and it's shown up on various sites over the years). I suppose that's not too surprising given the years involved because digital cameras didn't exist then, so whatever photos there may be are probably sitting in a closet somewhere as prints or negatives.
(https://www.aaroads.com/shields//img/CT/CT19790861i1.jpg)
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 29, 2023, 10:54:49 AM
Interstate 384 and US 6 should have been connected at the very least. While extending Interstate 84 along Interstate 195 would have made sense, I don't think it was ever officially proposed to do so. I agree Interstate 86 should have remained 84, and the Hartford-Providence Interstate proposal should have been numbered Interstate 82, as it was to have been originally. The existing Interstate 86 in Pennsylvania and New York is a much better place for the 86 designation.
I am aware of that. I'm just saying ideally it would have made more sense.
Yes I-84 should have remained where it was and some other, like I-82, should have been applied.
The change was made when I-86 was given to the planned extension along the old proposed I-491 path and existing CT 3 to end at I-91 in Wethersfield. Not sure if the proposed extension would have come in around the spot where the I-84/I-86 transition took place, or as part of the whole I-84/I-384/I-291 complex on the East Hartford/Manchester line.
Time for kurumi to respond and drop the mic.
I wonder too what the connection between I-84/I-86 would have looked like... my guess is that traffic on what is I-84 today would've been about the same, as that was the thru route (signed also CT 15, W Cross Highway). 2-lane connections probably would've sufficed. I-84 East would have "exited from itself" via the two lanes on the right, just as I-384 does today. Heading west, I-84 would have come in via what is now I-384 West, and traffic on what is now I-84 West (coming down from Mass) would still have had to shift right to head to Hartford (as it does today). My guess is that what is today's westbound Exit 59 would be more than 1 lane, as it would've carried some sort of I-86 "thru traffic" heading west to get towards the Putnam Bridge. With I-291 proposed to come in closer to the Buckland St area (where I-84 goes from N/S to a more E/W trajectory), the whole "frontage road" style set up would have been different, if not non-existant.
I still think that the I-86/I-491 link between CT 2 and I-384 is one of the missing links in the greater Hartford area. (#1 on that list would be I-291 NW of Hartford). If I-86/I-491 had been built, it would have allowed thru traffic from south of Hartford to east of Hartford to completely bypass Hartford proper. Coupled with twinning of the Putnam Bridge, it would have provided a nice alternative to Manchester, without having to go over the Charter Oak or Founders Bridges.
But, alas, we probably won't see a drop of new highway expansion, outside of whatever comes of the Hartford Mobility study.
I remember clearly seeing the "NOTICE/66 IS NOW 691" signs in Meriden (heading west, just before the ramp from Preston Ave merged in). In more recent memory, the CT 9 extension to Berlin (which opened late 1989) had "9 ENDS/72 BEGINS" signs at the point where the new CT 9 roadway joined the pre-existing CT 72 roadway at the Berlin Tpke. How they managed to tie in the former road system with the extension of CT 9 was something else, as were the signs that had dual control cities for the Berlin Tpke (Newington/Hartford and Meriden/New Haven). It wasn't until the first few months into 1990 when CT 9 was extended over the CT 72 roadway, thru New Britain, and on to the "Shevchenko" to end at Rt 175 in Newington for 2 years, until the rest was complete to I-84. And lets not forget there was an alternate interchange setup proposed for that part of Route 9, involving frontage roads extending from Rt 175 up to Rt 71, a lot different than what was built.
Quote from: shadyjay on November 29, 2023, 05:41:08 PMIt wasn't until the first few months into 1990 when CT 9 was extended over the CT 72 roadway, thru New Britain, and on to the "Shevchenko" to end at Rt 175 in Newington for 2 years, until the rest was complete to I-84. And lets not forget there was an alternate interchange setup proposed for that part of Route 9, involving frontage roads extending from Rt 175 up to Rt 71, a lot different than what was built.
And you may recall that during the time leading up to that extension of Route 9, new signs were erected for the 72 exit in Cromwell with three dots followed by the numerals "72," which were later revealed to be mounts for a "3" when 72 was truncated to its current end and 372 replacing it to 91.
Quote from: shadyjay on November 29, 2023, 05:41:08 PM
I remember clearly seeing the "NOTICE/66 IS NOW 691" signs in Meriden (heading west, just before the ramp from Preston Ave merged in). In more recent memory, the CT 9 extension to Berlin (which opened late 1989) had "9 ENDS/72 BEGINS" signs at the point where the new CT 9 roadway joined the pre-existing CT 72 roadway at the Berlin Tpke. How they managed to tie in the former road system with the extension of CT 9 was something else, as were the signs that had dual control cities for the Berlin Tpke (Newington/Hartford and Meriden/New Haven). It wasn't until the first few months into 1990 when CT 9 was extended over the CT 72 roadway, thru New Britain, and on to the "Shevchenko" to end at Rt 175 in Newington for 2 years, until the rest was complete to I-84. And lets not forget there was an alternate interchange setup proposed for that part of Route 9, involving frontage roads extending from Rt 175 up to Rt 71, a lot different than what was built.
I've always wondered about how the 5-lane Shevchenko section on CT-9 South just before CT-72 splits would've looked like with 10-lanes.
I wonder
Along with the section of CT-72 crossing over CT-372 for the proposed CT-10 expressway.
I forgot about Steve Anderson.
http://www.nycroads.com/roads/expwy_CT/
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 29, 2023, 06:36:41 PM
And you may recall that during the time leading up to that extension of Route 9, new signs were erected for the 72 exit in Cromwell with three dots followed by the numerals "72," which were later revealed to be mounts for a "3" when 72 was truncated to its current end and 372 replacing it to 91.
I DO remember that! Haha. The signs were changed from "72/Cromwell/Berlin" to " 72/West St/Cromwell".
Another "fun" oddity that existed for many years were the highway lights on the ramp from I-91 North to I-291 West in Rocky Hill. Up until the mid 1990s, the 4th lane, coming in from Route 9, ended about 1/4 mile before Exit 23. Highway lighting was on the left side of the road, which continued right up to and onto the ramp that was constructed for I-91 North to I-291 West. You can see the route of the old road before they replaced the Route 160 overpass here:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6587228,-72.6699851,3a,44.8y,7.38h,79.88t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s380h08L9OImBGnlvGVZNnQ!2e0!5s20150701T000000!7i13312!8i6656?entry=ttu
Well, the old road was lighted and concrete-surfaced, complete with the bridge over I-91 South. The lighting came back in NB at the location where I-291 East would have merged onto I-91 North, about 1/2 mile before Exit 24. This is also where the 4th lane re-started, on the left, so that traffic entering I-91 NB from I-291 EB would have its own lane. The I-91 SB to I-291 WB ramp was lighted as well. All ramps and their associated pavement and bridges were removed, EXCEPT the I-291 East to I-91 South ramp, which still exists.
Quote from: Rothman on November 29, 2023, 05:21:46 PM
Time for kurumi to respond and drop the mic.
No mic to drop; there's already a lot of good info in the thread.
I don't have a diagram of how the I-84/86 interchange was supposed to be laid out (or, for that matter, the I-84/I-491/US6 interchange, before I-86 was a thing).
Going with I-82 in 1969 could have saved a lot of rework in hindsight, but maybe ConnDOT had planners concerned about The Grid.
Other hazy memories from the 70s and 80s:
On I-91 NB at the Founders Bridge, old exit 30 was signed (for a while) as [I-84][I-86][2].
There was a BGS for SR 533 on I-86 (now just Tunnel Road). That didn't stay up long unfortunately.
ISTR some signage on the Putnam Bridge approach EB at Main St in Glastonbury showing CT 2/17 as an overlap. CT 17 did officially extend to CT 15 for a while (along SR 517, Main St) but I don't know how well that was signed.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 29, 2023, 10:54:49 AM
Interstate 384 and US 6 should have been connected at the very least. While extending Interstate 84 along Interstate 195 would have made sense, I don't think it was ever officially proposed to do so. I agree Interstate 86 should have remained 84, and the Hartford-Providence Interstate proposal should have been numbered Interstate 82, as it was to have been originally. The existing Interstate 86 in Pennsylvania and New York is a much better place for the 86 designation.
I-384 should just carry US 6 and US 44 tbh.
I-86 in its current form is a much better fit for this number than Hartford-Sturbridge could ever be. I would've left everything alone and make the road to Providence I-82. And I, too, am surprised that I-195 was not planned as an I-84 extension, which would've made perfect sense given its proximity to what had been proposed.
I did snag this for awhile off ebay but sold it unfortunately
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52114656767_8364aa868c_k.jpg)
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on November 30, 2023, 12:38:46 AM
I did snag this for awhile off ebay but sold it unfortunately
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52114656767_8364aa868c_k.jpg)
Indiana Jones: "It belongs in a museum!"
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on November 30, 2023, 12:38:46 AM
I did snag this for awhile off ebay but sold it unfortunately
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52114656767_8364aa868c_k.jpg)
Ooh, and it's wooden.
Since we are reminiscing, I will say that this was a fascinating transformation to watch evolve as a kid in many car rides along this route (especially with a civil engineer father happy to have someone to listen to his commentary about it). Mostly responsible for me even being here, as my avatar probably gives away.
The 86/15/Wilbur Cross section of 84 had a distinctly different feel then, narrower and to much less forgiving standards, a slightly beefier version of the Wilbur Cross Parkway as it is today. The first expansion I remember being particularly cognizant of was in the Tolland area, where I remember seeing new signs erected and possibly far from the existing roadway, easily doubling the width of the ROW. This had to be at the very beginning of the 80s.
However, this was nothing compared to the scope of the Vernon to East Hartford expansion in the early 80s. At the point of the current 384/291 interchanges, the right-of-way easily tripled in size from the old tight, steep climb up that last hill before descending into Hartford. I'm still amazed at the amount of land they were able to consume there compared to what existed before. It was hard to conceive of how they would fill it all when it was simply graded dirt, but the vast network of ramps and lanes there now obviously answered that question. I doubt we will see anything like that in the Northeast again
And of course, this being Connecticut, all this while the road we drove upon was "legally closed," per the signs.
The I-91 expansion of the late 80s/early 90s north of Hartford was also substantial. I can remember the road being a narrow 2 lanes in each direction from the I-84/I-91 interchange, up to the Dexter Coffin Bridge. The work they did there to transform a road that was there to what is there now (a width that could accommodate 5 lanes in each direction but is currently set up as 3+1 HOV) was impressive. I can only imagine having to commute daily through that mess.
The only thing that was a little perplexing with that project is why does the HOV lane end just shy of Hartford and just shy of the exit for the airport? Seems like it could have been extended another 3/4 mile south to dump into Trumbull St (instead of the Leibert Rd exit) and extended another mile at the north end to feed directly into the flyover to the airport at Exit 40.
By the time we started traveling north of Hartford, the road was already widened north of East Windsor to its present configuration (having been done sometime in the late 1980s, but it was done by 1989). Most of the signage along that stretch dates back to that project's completion, so that's some of the oldest button copy signage in the state that has yet to have a blanket sign replacement contract assigned to it.
Also, IIRC, the 1970s BGS on I-91 for CT 305 looked like this (along with exit arrow, "1 MILE", etc):
(https://images2.imgbox.com/ca/a5/vcuwN3bH_o.png) (https://imgbox.com/vcuwN3bH)
Reason: the sign was erected long before CT 305 existed. Circa 1963, it looks like they mounted a route marker on top and that was that.
There were some similar situations where a new signed route was designated at an existing freeway interchange (CT 320 along I-84) but I don't know how those were updated.
Usually, CT skimps on projects, leaving a lot to be desired, and it often still creates traffic congestion because the project wasn't built to full potential as it should have been. (Think I-95 Long Wharf Exit 46 down to 45 and 44, it was improved but not enough and the channeled turns and free movements were removed from Exit 44)
The projects that exceeded expectations for the freeway hating and NIMBY CT are:
A) I-91 north of Hartford
B) I-84 east of Hartford including the I-291/I-384 interchange were really done right.
C) I'd even through in the I-84/I-691 interchange as well. Although for some reason traffic backs up from I-84 EB to I-691, even though the ramp is straigh with a slight uphill grade) But it's a long sprawling interchange. I-84 WB the exit ramp for I-691 (Exit 27) actually is before Exit 28 b/c the ramp is so long.
D) And I-84 between Exit 23 and 25 for honorable mention. On I-84 EB, Exit 25 exits before the Exit 23 on-ramp so there is no weaving and they straightened out a curve as well.
D.1) IDK about the Q-Bridge b/c of the I-95 NB to I-91 NB exit, the left lane of the two-lane exit ends and the left on-ramp from New Haven is kinda odd to me.
Mergingtraffic...
The problem with the I-84/I-691 interchange is on I-84 EB approaching I-691 EB. The decelleration lane really is non-existant. What would be ideal is the merge from Exit 26 becoming an "operational lane" and that transitions to a 2-lane off-ramp with APLs. The offramp is more than suitable to be widened, and really, you could widen I-691 to the CT 10 exit as well. Again, a short, quick project for some good results. Another one that would be good to see is operational lanes between Exits 21 & 22 on I-91 in Cromwell.
Kurumi...
I remember the onramps which were marked "91/Hartford/->" and "91/Springfield->". Not sure why there was no direction. Probably from the same era as the Bloomfield Ave mockup sign you posted. When I started traveling that part of I-91, it was all construction signage up to Exit 38, but Exits 39, 40, 41, & 42 still had the old signage as widening hadn't made it up that far yet.
Quote from: shadyjay on November 30, 2023, 10:55:10 PM
Mergingtraffic...
The problem with the I-84/I-691 interchange is on I-84 EB approaching I-691 EB. The decelleration lane really is non-existant. What would be ideal is the merge from Exit 26 becoming an "operational lane" and that transitions to a 2-lane off-ramp with APLs. The offramp is more than suitable to be widened, and really, you could widen I-691 to the CT 10 exit as well. Again, a short, quick project for some good results. Another one that would be good to see is operational lanes between Exits 21 & 22 on I-91 in Cromwell.
Kurumi...
I remember the onramps which were marked "91/Hartford/->" and "91/Springfield->". Not sure why there was no direction. Probably from the same era as the Bloomfield Ave mockup sign you posted. When I started traveling that part of I-91, it was all construction signage up to Exit 38, but Exits 39, 40, 41, & 42 still had the old signage as widening hadn't made it up that far yet.
I can see that with I-691. However, I don't see CTDOT prioritizing it, I think there's no decel lane bc you don't really have to slow down to use the ramp. You just get off onto the ramp. It's long and straight. The grade uphill isn't until it meets the I-691 mainline. I do notice motorists jump in at last minute so that could be a cause.
I'd throw in the CT-8/Merritt interchange. Even tho it's incomplete, what was built is high speed and quite up to standards.
I guess overall, the state highway system is the bests it's ever been with constant improvements going on.
Btw: the CT-8 NB > I-84 EB ramp STILL isn't open.
They're fixing the I-84 mainline before the open it. Even tho the ramp itself is fine. What was supposed to be 6 week closure starting in August (and then an announcement it'll be open by December 1) it's STILL closed.
Why not just close the ramp when work is being done?!
Quote from: shadyjay on November 30, 2023, 11:49:00 AM
The only thing that was a little perplexing with that project is why does the HOV lane end just shy of Hartford and just shy of the exit for the airport? Seems like it could have been extended another 3/4 mile south to dump into Trumbull St (instead of the Leibert Rd exit) and extended another mile at the north end to feed directly into the flyover to the airport at Exit 40.
By the time we started traveling north of Hartford, the road was already widened north of East Windsor to its present configuration (having been done sometime in the late 1980s, but it was done by 1989). Most of the signage along that stretch dates back to that project's completion, so that's some of the oldest button copy signage in the state that has yet to have a blanket sign replacement contract assigned to it.
There just seems to be a lot missing from CT's HOV lanes.
Why is it only one lane each direction?
Why do they end before important exits? (I would argue that I-84s HOV lanes should start/end at Exit 67 as its the primary exit for folks commuting from Tolland/Willington/Coventry)
Why are the medians not seperated? (Seriously, wtf is the point if people in single-occupant vehicles are just going to cut across the no-man's-land whenever they feel like it)
HOV lanes, yeah, getting stuck behind someone going the speed limit can be a pain, but I don't think I've ever seen an HOV lane that was more than 1 lane wide. The lack of a barrier is probably so that emergency vehicles can get in/out easily, though there is, in most cases, plenty of room to slap in a jersey barrier and still maintain a shoulder. Perhaps you could have large gaps every so often for emergency vehicle access. I know during the winter the divider isn't usually plowed.
As far as why they end before important exits... I can see I-84 WB as there are many left exits so chaulk that up to just poor geometry/design of the roadway before the HOV lane was put in. I-91 on the other hand, again, ending at the "great merge" at Jennings Rd SB and NB ending just before the Airport irks me. Slap in a flyover for Bradley and a flyunder directly to the Moody overpass directly into downtown and you'd be all set.
You see all the crap in the area between the GP lanes and HOV lane on I-91? Goodbye tires... :D
Quote from: shadyjay on December 01, 2023, 06:06:02 PM
HOV lanes, yeah, getting stuck behind someone going the speed limit can be a pain, but I don't think I've ever seen an HOV lane that was more than 1 lane wide.
Outside of reversible lane setups (which Minneapolis and the NoVA side of DC have had for decades), none really existed until NoVA built out its Ho/T lane network on the DC Beltway and more recently I-66.
Quote from: Rothman on December 01, 2023, 09:09:50 PM
You see all the crap in the area between the GP lanes and HOV lane on I-91? Goodbye tires... :D
Even within ConnDOT, someone may actually have the bright idea to clean up the space before restriping it as a lane...
Quote from: froggie on December 02, 2023, 08:14:27 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on December 01, 2023, 06:06:02 PM
HOV lanes, yeah, getting stuck behind someone going the speed limit can be a pain, but I don't think I've ever seen an HOV lane that was more than 1 lane wide.
Outside of reversible lane setups (which Minneapolis and the NoVA side of DC have had for decades), none really existed until NoVA built out its Ho/T lane network on the DC Beltway and more recently I-66.
Quote from: Rothman on December 01, 2023, 09:09:50 PM
You see all the crap in the area between the GP lanes and HOV lane on I-91? Goodbye tires... :D
Even within ConnDOT, someone may actually have the bright idea to clean up the space before restriping it as a lane...
Heh, I thought someone up above mentioned emergency vehicles and others crossing through that junkyard. Can't say I haven't thought about it, but I typically find the GP lanes travel faster than the HOV lane due to slowpokes blocking the single lane (outside of any jams coming into Hartford, of course).
I'm not a civil engineer, but I wonder if:
* shoulders are paved to different standards than standard lanes (roadbed, pavement thickness, etc.)
* the DMZ between HOV and GP lanes is paved as a shoulder (I think there are drains there as well)
There are drains, so the grading is depressed so water trickles in.
The I-84 HOV Lanes actually end in downtown and get off via Route 2 I believe.
I-91s don't make as much since but Lambert Rd is an exit before downtown
Quote from: kurumi on December 02, 2023, 11:51:33 AM
I'm not a civil engineer, but I wonder if:
* shoulders are paved to different standards than standard lanes (roadbed, pavement thickness, etc.)
* the DMZ between HOV and GP lanes is paved as a shoulder (I think there are drains there as well)
Both valid questions.
Any photos of when CT 52 became I-395?
Not per say, but this sign on I-95 NB at Exit 75, which I took in 2000, was around back when I-395 was CT 52. I remember the changeover at this interchange. Basically, the "52" square was replaced with an I-395 shield, and where it said "CONN/TPKE" was replaced with the "NORTH" button copy from the I-95 pull-through. There was also a ground-mounted diagrammatic by the DOT salt shed at the Exit 74 merge (where they're widening right now) that had the same CONN/TPKE -> NORTH treatment. The I-395 exit was also given the # 76 at the same time... I don't recall the I-95 exit ever having a number (since I-95 exited from itself to leave the turnpike). But predating the turnpike in this area was a sort of Super 2 from today's Exit 70 out to the Gold Star Bridge in New London/Groton, so that was the "thru route" even back then, pre-Conn Tpke.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/4344/36747537260_790977300a_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/XZfJyC)95NB-Exit75-3 (https://flic.kr/p/XZfJyC) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr
Tough to make out, but at the bottom of the overhead are small "TO MASS PIKE" signs. The overhead mounted on the overpass ahead stated "MASS PIKE/Worcester/KEEP LEFT". There was also a mileage sign just past the Exit 75 sign that said
WATERFORD 2
GROTON #
MYSTIC ##
KEEP RIGHT
Quote from: shadyjay on December 06, 2023, 11:36:25 PM
Not per say, but this sign on I-95 NB at Exit 75, which I took in 2000, was around back when I-395 was CT 52. I remember the changeover at this interchange. Basically, the "52" square was replaced with an I-395 shield, and where it said "CONN/TPKE" was replaced with the "NORTH" button copy from the I-95 pull-through. There was also a ground-mounted diagrammatic by the DOT salt shed at the Exit 74 merge (where they're widening right now) that had the same CONN/TPKE -> NORTH treatment. The I-395 exit was also given the # 76 at the same time... I don't recall the I-95 exit ever having a number (since I-95 exited from itself to leave the turnpike). But predating the turnpike in this area was a sort of Super 2 from today's Exit 70 out to the Gold Star Bridge in New London/Groton, so that was the "thru route" even back then, pre-Conn Tpke.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/4344/36747537260_790977300a_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/XZfJyC)95NB-Exit75-3 (https://flic.kr/p/XZfJyC) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr
Tough to make out, but at the bottom of the overhead are small "TO MASS PIKE" signs. The overhead mounted on the overpass ahead stated "MASS PIKE/Worcester/KEEP LEFT". There was also a mileage sign just past the Exit 75 sign that said
WATERFORD 2
GROTON #
MYSTIC ##
KEEP RIGHT
52 became 395 well before 2000. More like the mid-1980's.
There's an assertion from Webster, MA residents (https://websteroralhistory.wordpress.com/carla-manzi/, and a page that's no longer up) that I-395/SR52 was originally supposed to go to Sturbridge. I haven't seen good sources for this, and still consider it an urban legend. Also, that routing doesn't make the most sense (defies the gravitational pull of Worcester and Boston).
Is Massachusetts still planning on renumbering Interstate 290 as an extension of Interstate 395? I always thought that was a stupid idea as it would "orphan" Interstate 190. Also, why would CT/MA 52/Interstate 395 go to Sturbridge when it is already served by Interstate 84 and Interstate 90?
Quote from: SectorZ on December 07, 2023, 08:10:49 AM
52 became 395 well before 2000. More like the mid-1980's.
Well aware, perhaps my wording was off.
The signs in the gantry were
around in existence when I-395 was still signed CT 52. The outline of the CT 52 shield could still be seen, along with "CONN TPKE" even when the I-395 shield was put on. The signs were replaced in 2000/2001.
And if you don't want to "orphan" I-190, then send I-395 in CT due east to follow the Conn Turnpike stub to end at the RI state line, and sign I-395 from Danielson, north to Mass, as I-290. With how sharp of a turn I-395 makes at that point, its basically "exiting from itself" already. Looks like ConnDOT is going to install an overhead again here, as the ground-mount signage just isn't enough to denote the sharp left turn thru traffic makes.
Quote from: shadyjay on December 07, 2023, 08:14:01 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on December 07, 2023, 08:10:49 AM
52 became 395 well before 2000. More like the mid-1980's.
Well aware, perhaps my wording was off.
The signs in the gantry were around in existence when I-395 was still signed CT 52. The outline of the CT 52 shield could still be seen, along with "CONN TPKE" even when the I-395 shield was put on. The signs were replaced in 2000/2001.
And if you don't want to "orphan" I-190, then send I-395 in CT due east to follow the Conn Turnpike stub to end at the RI state line, and sign I-395 from Danielson, north to Mass, as I-290. With how sharp of a turn I-395 makes at that point, its basically "exiting from itself" already. Looks like ConnDOT is going to install an overhead again here, as the ground-mount signage just isn't enough to denote the sharp left turn thru traffic makes.
Gotcha. I've been sick all week and my ability to comprehend much of anything has been off.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 30, 2023, 11:23:43 AMSince we are reminiscing, I will say that this was a fascinating transformation to watch evolve as a kid in many car rides along this route (especially with a civil engineer father happy to have someone to listen to his commentary about it). Mostly responsible for me even being here, as my avatar probably gives away.
The 86/15/Wilbur Cross section of 84 had a distinctly different feel then, narrower and to much less forgiving standards, a slightly beefier version of the Wilbur Cross Parkway as it is today. The first expansion I remember being particularly cognizant of was in the Tolland area, where I remember seeing new signs erected and possibly far from the existing roadway, easily doubling the width of the ROW. This had to be at the very beginning of the 80s.
However, this was nothing compared to the scope of the Vernon to East Hartford expansion in the early 80s. At the point of the current 384/291 interchanges, the right-of-way easily tripled in size from the old tight, steep climb up that last hill before descending into Hartford. I'm still amazed at the amount of land they were able to consume there compared to what existed before.
Believe the reconstruction of the old Wilbur Cross Highway in Connecticut, or 86 (formerly Rte 15) began earlier, possibly in Union, CT in 1976. This was likely at the same time as the reconstruction of the Massachusetts section of 86, which was a short segment connecting to the Mass. Turnpike. The Connecticut reconstruction started at the Mass. border, and slowly moving towards Hartford. That's what personally remember as a kid in New England.
If I-84 went to Providence, then why was the portion of current I-84 from East Hartford to Sturbridge named I-86 vs say I-284?
There was already going to be an Interstate 284 heading north from the existing Interstate 84/CT 2 freeway interchange northward to Interstate 291 just east of the Captain Bissell Memorial Bridge. That was cancelled in 1983, and all that exists of 284 is the short connector road to Governor St. Personally, the 84-to-86-back-to-84 corridor from East Hartford, CT to Sturbridge, MA should have stayed 84, and the unbuilt Hartford-to-Providence freeway should have been numbered Interstate 82 (as it was proposed to become prior to 1968).
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 02, 2024, 03:42:13 PMThere was already going to be an Interstate 284 heading north from the existing Interstate 84/CT 2 freeway interchange northward to Interstate 291 just east of the Captain Bissell Memorial Bridge. That was cancelled in 1983, and all that exists of 284 is the short connector road to Governor St. Personally, the 84-to-86-back-to-84 corridor from East Hartford, CT to Sturbridge, MA should have stayed 84, and the unbuilt Hartford-to-Providence freeway should have been numbered Interstate 82 (as it was proposed to become prior to 1968).
I-82 has an interesting history on the drawing board:
* (possibly) the first primary, non-letter-suffixed interstate to have 2 planned instances. The Aug 14 1957 map (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Interstate_Highway_plan_August_14,_1957.jpg) has two I-82s: one from I-5 in Portland, OR to I-15 in Utah (this is I-84 now; there would have been I-82N and I-82S in Idaho); and the other from Scranton to New York along today's I-380 and I-80
* the proposed I-82 in CT and RI makes 3 instances of I-82 that were abandoned or renumbered entirely
* In Aug 1957, today's I-82 was not on the map yet
Quote from: bluecountry on April 02, 2024, 03:26:17 PMIf I-84 went to Providence, then why was the portion of current I-84 from East Hartford to Sturbridge named I-86 vs say I-284?
Back then, there was a lot less driving the ability to create 2di. Just look at today's I-86 and I-88 in a single state - at least I-86 would have been in two states, even though incredibly tiny. It was planned to end at I-91 after crossing the CT 15 bridge, sorta like today's NY I-86, but yeah by today's standards this would absolutely be a 3di.