The original bonds from 1954 were for the "Greenwich-Killingly Expressway", so this was always the plan. But why? Was it expected that Rhode Island would build a connecting highway to Providence? Or even a more direct route towards Boston? The Rhode Island Turnpike and Bridge Authority legislation is no help, since it authorized a route roughly from Westerly to Fall River.
im surprised they didnt mirror the original CT 15 for the entire length, and have the CT Turnpike go to New Haven then turn north to Hartford then turn east to Sturbridge to pick up the Mass Pike which was also under construction at the time. Yea those later were built as other interstates but if i remember right the CT Turnpike was built before the interstate system like the other toll roads in the northeast.
Quote from: mariethefoxy on February 20, 2016, 02:29:14 PM
im surprised they didnt mirror the original CT 15 for the entire length, and have the CT Turnpike go to New Haven then turn north to Hartford then turn east to Sturbridge to pick up the Mass Pike which was also under construction at the time. Yea those later were built as other interstates but if i remember right the CT Turnpike was built before the interstate system like the other toll roads in the northeast.
Probably because what became Route 15 had just been built on that route.
I am going to take a guess, but I think its because of Providence. Following the CT 15 and bypassing Rhode Island was not what they wanted as, even though some of us do not think Rhode Island is big enough to be a state, its capital city is a large population center of the Northeast enough worthy of easy access from NYC.
Why it was not continued along US 1 to Providence might be because of the distance between the border and the city itself. US 6's entry to RI is closer to Providence than US 1's entry point.
I would imagine that there was discussion with Rhode Island to fix the point that RI would have wanted to tie into.
At the time the Turnpike was planned, there were two major roads from CT into RI: US-1 on the shoreline and US-6 that connected the capitals. The two states planned cross-state turnpikes but each wanted to keep traffic in their state longer. Therefore, CT kept traffic in CT longer by veering north to connect to US-6, and RI planned to connect it's turnpike to US-1 near Westerly. CT built their road first, and RI only ended up building a 4 lane non-controlled highway (toady's RI-3) to lead to the Providence area.
Of course, once the interstate system plans were laid out, the strategy changed to one of just connecting everything. I-95 would serve New London and connect the coast to Providence and I-84 would replace US-6. Of course, not all of that was built either.
A final piece of the puzzle may be that the Lieutenant Governor of CT at the time was from the northeast corner of the state and may have had some influence.
to me my route across connecticut more times than not over the years and even today has been basically diagonally across the state roughly similar to what Route 15 does, heading up from 95 to 91 to 84 to get to the Mass Pike for better access to Massachusetts and New England, staying on 95 to RI and heading on 95 to 128 in MA actually takes longer distance and time wise.
Looks like something roughly following Routes 102-126-109 to Boston via Woonsocket would not be much longer than the route via Hartford. But I have no evidence that Rhode Island and Massachusetts were planning such a road.
From Quarterly Toll Review, 1953 (?):
QuoteMaine to Miami Expressway
There are some serious gaps in the proposed Maine to Miami Expressway but not nearly as many as there were only a year ago. Here's how the most direct route shapes up.
Maine is presently building a 66-mile turnpike extension from Augusta to Portland, and the present turnpike runs 53 miles from Portland to Kittery near the New Hampshire border.
New Hampshire picks up with a total of about 18 miles of turnpike improvements following its narrow Atlantic Ocean shoreline from Maine to the Massachusetts border.
Massachusetts would need a new turnpike for about 70 miles from the New Hampshire line to Rhode Island, by-passing Boston. There has been serious discussion of the 35-mile Boston-Fall River section. This would link into a tentatively approved New England South Shore Expressway at the Rhode Island line near Fall River. An alternate route from Boston would require about 25 miles of new expressway south to the Rhode Island line north of Providence where a connection could be made to a possible new cross-Rhode Island route.
Rhode Island has tentatively approved its 38-mile section of the proposed New England South Shore Expressway starting at Fall River and partly following the Long Island shore to Connecticut. There is also a possible cross-state route from Connecticut near South Killingly, at the terminus of the Greenwich-Killingly Thruway, and running about 25 miles across the northern section of the state, skirting Providence, to the Massachusetts line.
Connecticut has tentatively approved its 20-mile stretch of the New England South Shore Expressway starting at the Rhode Island line and joining the Greenwich-Killingly Thruway northwest of New London. The Greenwich-Killingly Thruway would also connect with a possible cross-Rhode Island route at South Killingly. Traflic from both of these sources would merge in the New London area and continue 110 miles on the Greenwich-Killingly Expressway to the New York State line near Greenwich.
New York State's approved 15-mile New England Thruway and the New York City Expressway System and connections will provide a number of routes to the north end of the New Jersey Turnpike west of the Hudson River.
New Jersey's 118-mile turnpike connects with the Memorial Bridge across the Delaware River in Delaware.
Delaware is soon expected to approve a connection of about 20-miles to the state line at Warwick, Maryland. This route may be financed by collections from the Memorial Bridge.
Maryland has approved a 40-mile route from the Delaware State line at Warwick, Maryland to the westerly end of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge approaches at Queenstown. From Queenstown via the Chesapeake Bay Bridge, about 35-miles of the route to Washington, D.C. and the Potomac River is constructed, with the remaining 12-miles approved.
Virginia would have to build a 200-mile turnpike from Alexandria opposite Washington, D.C. passing by or through Fredericksburg, Richmond and Petersburg to the North Carolina line in the vicinity of U. S. Route 301. This would follow the route proposed in early 1953 by the private Virginia Interstate Turnpike Corporation. The State has already set up a public authority to build about 27-miles in the middle of this route from Richmond to Petersburg.
North Carolina's Turnpike Authority would have to build about a 200-mile connection from the Virginia line in the vicinity of Route 301, passing west[sic] of Raleigh and east of Fayetteville, to the South Carolina line between U. S. 15 and U. S. 301.
South Carolina has no published turnpike plans but would need a section of perhaps 200-miles from the North Carolina line to the Georgia State line in the vicinity of the present crossing by Route 301.
Georgia has standby turnpike legislation which would enable it to build a required 175-mile section from the South Carolina border in the vicinity of U. S. Route 301, to the Florida border east of the Okefenokee Swamp.
Florida would be required to build a connection of about 40-miles from the Georgia border to or around Jacksonville for a meeting with the proposed 324-mile Sunshine State Parkway Route from Jacksonville to Miami.
A route total of almost 1800 miles.
It doesn't look like the route from Boston to Killingly was anything more than an idea the article author had.
Quote from: NE2 on February 21, 2016, 04:55:41 AM
Delaware is soon expected to approve a connection of about 20-miles to the state line at Warwick, Maryland. This route may be financed by collections from the Memorial Bridge.
More like about 35 miles. And I question the validity of having it financed by the Delaware Memorial Bridge tolls, as that's a separate bi-state agency that would probably have had nothing to do with such a road.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 21, 2016, 12:01:32 PM
Quote from: NE2 on February 21, 2016, 04:55:41 AM
Delaware is soon expected to approve a connection of about 20-miles to the state line at Warwick, Maryland. This route may be financed by collections from the Memorial Bridge.
More like about 35 miles. And I question the validity of having it financed by the Delaware Memorial Bridge tolls, as that's a separate bi-state agency that would probably have had nothing to do with such a road.
I think there's a lot of vagary and speculation involved. It's a magazine article or some such thing (from 1953), not a statement of official intent.
There's a bunch of "some have said" regarding the northern swing, even including retaliation over I-84.
Quote from: my I-395 page
Connecticut vs. Rhode Island
Some of the following is based on fact, and some has not been proven. It concerns why the Connecticut Turnpike was routed by Norwich and Killingly instead of continuing along the shore; and what might have been some consequences decades later.
Reasons for locating the Turnpike northward certainly included helping Norwich and Killingly. State Senator Lawrence Gilman (not the music critic) is said to have favored a highway linking Norwich to the shoreline. The Turnpike's original name is the Greenwich-Killingly Expressway, for the towns at each end.
As the Turnpike was being designed, the allocation of a federal Interstate route along the shore was already well-known. Some say that the Killingly alignment was also intended to secure a longer extent of future Interstate 95 in Connecticut. This would have resulted in fewer miles for Rhode Island, as I-95 would have proceeded straight across to Providence; under Ocean State protest, as the story goes, Interstate 95 was ruled to go closer to the shore.
The final part of the story: In the early 1980s, when Connecticut needed Rhode Island's help to keep the eastern I-84 proposal alive, Rhode Island remembered the Connecticut Turnpike/I-95 attempt and "got revenge" by stuffing I-84.
Again, I've heard this from just a few people, and not seen any sources you could call official. But the story is interesting nonetheless.
NE2, from your quote from Quarterly Toll Review...
QuoteMaryland has approved a 40-mile route from the Delaware State line at Warwick, Maryland to the westerly end of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge approaches at Queenstown. From Queenstown via the Chesapeake Bay Bridge, about 35-miles of the route to Washington, D.C. and the Potomac River is constructed, with the remaining 12-miles approved.
[...]
Florida would be required to build a connection of about 40-miles from the Georgia border to or around Jacksonville for a meeting with the proposed 324-mile Sunshine State Parkway Route from Jacksonville to Miami.
Queenstown is at the *east* end of MD's U.S. 50/301 multiplex. Perhaps the author meant to say "westbound" somewhere in there?
As for the SSP, it wound up running from Miami not to Jacksonville, but to a junction with I-75 near Wildwood and "The Villll-ah-gesssss!". Plus of course it eventually became Florida's (not "the Florida") Turnpike aka the Less Stressway (imagine if the PTC, OTC, and NJTA renamed their turnpikes similarly [comic strip "!"]).
ixnay
It's worth noting that in a world where the Turnpike exists but the non-turnpike portion of I-95 does not, taking the turnpike to the end and then following US 6 would be a very logical and direct means of getting to Providence from points south.
Still, a shorter highway tying into the eastern end of CT 184 (which used to continue directly into RI 3 before I-95 was built) would have achieved the same with less construction, albeit requiring motorists travel more miles on two lane road to get to Providence.
The fact that US 6 in Killingly puts the eastern end of the highway as close to Providence as CT could get it does seem to indicate that being the goal, but it does not explain why that was chosen as the goal.
Was there anything around Killingly they wanted to attract drivers to, or something along the southeast coast they wanted to divert drivers from?
Just a wild guess on my part.
Aren't Providence and Worcester, MA almost equal distance from that part of Killingly? Why didn't they just end the Turnpike at the Massachusetts state line to begin with? Strange!
I believe it was supposed to end at I84. I84's planned route in CT was from Danbury to Killingly, by way of Waterbury and Hartford as it is now, but east of Hartford would have roughly paralleled US 6 through Tolland and Windham Counties (instead of the old CT 15). From Killingly it would have continued to Providence. It was cancelled in the mid-80s due to environmental concerns, by both RIDOT and CONNDOT. Small vestiges exist of this planned routing in Manchester (as I-384), in Willimantic (US 6), and in Killingly (SR 695,the actual end of the CT Turnpike).
I don't think I-95's current alignment was originally supposed to be the through-route to Providence, hence why the Tpke was signed to Killingly.
Quote from: ixnay on February 21, 2016, 02:22:46 PM
NE2, from your quote from Quarterly Toll Review...
QuoteMaryland has approved a 40-mile route from the Delaware State line at Warwick, Maryland to the westerly end of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge approaches at Queenstown. From Queenstown via the Chesapeake Bay Bridge, about 35-miles of the route to Washington, D.C. and the Potomac River is constructed, with the remaining 12-miles approved.
[...]
Queenstown is at the *east* end of MD's U.S. 50/301 multiplex. Perhaps the author meant to say "westbound" somewhere in there?
[...]
ixnay
I tripped over that sentence a few times, but while it's poorly constructed, it's accurate. The westerly end of the APPROACHES to the bridge are indeed near Queenstown (Kent Island, actually). Seems this magic freeway would come no closer to Baltimore than Annapolis or Bowie, perhaps more or less following US301.
We now return you to the Northeast...
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on February 25, 2016, 03:10:26 PM
I believe it was supposed to end at I84.
No such thing when the turnpike was built in the mid-1950s.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on February 25, 2016, 03:10:26 PM
From Killingly it would have continued to Providence. It was cancelled in the mid-80s due to environmental concerns, by both RIDOT and CONNDOT.
Oh yes, the nut-job survey-stake pullers had nothing to do with it at all. :rolleyes: :-D
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on February 25, 2016, 03:10:26 PM
I believe it was supposed to end at I84. I84's planned route in CT was from Danbury to Killingly, by way of Waterbury and Hartford as it is now, but east of Hartford would have roughly paralleled US 6 through Tolland and Windham Counties (instead of the old CT 15). From Killingly it would have continued to Providence. It was cancelled in the mid-80s due to environmental concerns, by both RIDOT and CONNDOT. Small vestiges exist of this planned routing in Manchester (as I-384), in Willimantic (US 6), and in Killingly (SR 695,the actual end of the CT Turnpike).
I don't think I-95's current alignment was originally supposed to be the through-route to Providence, hence why the Tpke was signed to Killingly.
Was not originally I-84 planned to be its current alignment east of Hartford? In fact it was before I-86 came into play for it. Then it was simply switched back to its original alignment to Sturbridge, MA after, like you said, it was cancelled east of Hartford.
Anyway, it could have not been originally planned to go to Providence if it were signed where it is now.
Quote from: mariethefoxy on February 20, 2016, 02:29:14 PM
im surprised they didnt mirror the original CT 15 for the entire length, and have the CT Turnpike go to New Haven then turn north to Hartford then turn east to Sturbridge to pick up the Mass Pike which was also under construction at the time. Yea those later were built as other interstates but if i remember right the CT Turnpike was built before the interstate system like the other toll roads in the northeast.
Believe the Massachusetts Turnpike predated the 1956 authorization of the interstate system. It most likely was built in sections starting in the late forties. The extension into Boston was built in the mid sixties.
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on February 25, 2016, 06:43:34 AM
Aren't Providence and Worcester, MA almost equal distance from that part of Killingly? Why didn't they just end the Turnpike at the Massachusetts state line to begin with? Strange!
I'm guessing the shipping ports of Providence, Fall River and New Bedford were more important at the time than Worcester. key word: guessing.
Quote from: NE2 on February 21, 2016, 04:55:41 AM
Looks like something roughly following Routes 102-126-109 to Boston via Woonsocket would not be much longer than the route via Hartford. But I have no evidence that Rhode Island and Massachusetts were planning such a road.
From Quarterly Toll Review, 1953 (?):
QuoteMaine to Miami Expressway
There are some serious gaps in the proposed Maine to Miami Expressway but not nearly as many as there were only a year ago. Here's how the most direct route shapes up.
Maine is presently building a 66-mile turnpike extension from Augusta to Portland, and the present turnpike runs 53 miles from Portland to Kittery near the New Hampshire border.
New Hampshire picks up with a total of about 18 miles of turnpike improvements following its narrow Atlantic Ocean shoreline from Maine to the Massachusetts border.
Massachusetts would need a new turnpike for about 70 miles from the New Hampshire line to Rhode Island, by-passing Boston. There has been serious discussion of the 35-mile Boston-Fall River section. This would link into a tentatively approved New England South Shore Expressway at the Rhode Island line near Fall River. An alternate route from Boston would require about 25 miles of new expressway south to the Rhode Island line north of Providence where a connection could be made to a possible new cross-Rhode Island route.
Rhode Island has tentatively approved its 38-mile section of the proposed New England South Shore Expressway starting at Fall River and partly following the Long Island shore to Connecticut. There is also a possible cross-state route from Connecticut near South Killingly, at the terminus of the Greenwich-Killingly Thruway, and running about 25 miles across the northern section of the state, skirting Providence, to the Massachusetts line.
Connecticut has tentatively approved its 20-mile stretch of the New England South Shore Expressway starting at the Rhode Island line and joining the Greenwich-Killingly Thruway northwest of New London. The Greenwich-Killingly Thruway would also connect with a possible cross-Rhode Island route at South Killingly. Traflic from both of these sources would merge in the New London area and continue 110 miles on the Greenwich-Killingly Expressway to the New York State line near Greenwich.
New York State's approved 15-mile New England Thruway and the New York City Expressway System and connections will provide a number of routes to the north end of the New Jersey Turnpike west of the Hudson River.
New Jersey's 118-mile turnpike connects with the Memorial Bridge across the Delaware River in Delaware.
Delaware is soon expected to approve a connection of about 20-miles to the state line at Warwick, Maryland. This route may be financed by collections from the Memorial Bridge.
Maryland has approved a 40-mile route from the Delaware State line at Warwick, Maryland to the westerly end of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge approaches at Queenstown. From Queenstown via the Chesapeake Bay Bridge, about 35-miles of the route to Washington, D.C. and the Potomac River is constructed, with the remaining 12-miles approved.
Virginia would have to build a 200-mile turnpike from Alexandria opposite Washington, D.C. passing by or through Fredericksburg, Richmond and Petersburg to the North Carolina line in the vicinity of U. S. Route 301. This would follow the route proposed in early 1953 by the private Virginia Interstate Turnpike Corporation. The State has already set up a public authority to build about 27-miles in the middle of this route from Richmond to Petersburg.
North Carolina's Turnpike Authority would have to build about a 200-mile connection from the Virginia line in the vicinity of Route 301, passing west[sic] of Raleigh and east of Fayetteville, to the South Carolina line between U. S. 15 and U. S. 301.
South Carolina has no published turnpike plans but would need a section of perhaps 200-miles from the North Carolina line to the Georgia State line in the vicinity of the present crossing by Route 301.
Georgia has standby turnpike legislation which would enable it to build a required 175-mile section from the South Carolina border in the vicinity of U. S. Route 301, to the Florida border east of the Okefenokee Swamp.
Florida would be required to build a connection of about 40-miles from the Georgia border to or around Jacksonville for a meeting with the proposed 324-mile Sunshine State Parkway Route from Jacksonville to Miami.
A route total of almost 1800 miles.
It doesn't look like the route from Boston to Killingly was anything more than an idea the article author had.
That routing is a lot like what is now known as (duh) I-95! The most notable difference is the route from New York to Washington, where it followed the entire NJ Turnpike, thus bypassing Philadelphia, and then took US 301 to the Chesapeake Bay Bridge, along with US 50 to the nation's capital, thus bypassing Baltimore as well. But other than that, exact same routing.
Quote from: DJStephens on February 26, 2016, 10:40:52 AM
Believe the Massachusetts Turnpike predated the 1956 authorization of the interstate system. It most likely was built in sections starting in the late forties. The extension into Boston was built in the mid sixties.
The first portion of the MassPike (between MA 102 in West Stockbridge and MA 128 in Weston) was built in 1955-57. The connector to the NY Thruway's Berkshire Extension opened in 1959. The Boston Extension (between MA 128 in Weston and the Central Artery [now I-93] in Boston) was built in 1962-65. The final stretch (between I-93 and East Boston) was built in 1991-2003 as part of the Big Dig.
The route designation I-90 was assigned in 1959.
Quote from: Henry on February 26, 2016, 11:28:57 AM
That routing is a lot like what is now known as (duh) I-95! The most notable difference is the route from New York to Washington, where it followed the entire NJ Turnpike, thus bypassing Philadelphia, and then took US 301 to the Chesapeake Bay Bridge, along with US 50 to the nation's capital, thus bypassing Baltimore as well. But other than that, exact same routing.
Probably because the NJ Turnpike and 301 already existed at that time, whereas I-95 thru Philly & Baltimore did not.
The original 1950s plan for I-84 is the current alignment (northeast to I-90). In 1968, additional interstate mileage for a Hartford to Providence link was approved. The first working number for this link was Interstate 82 (http://www.kurumi.com/roads/ct/i82.html). Shortly afterward the I-84 designation was shifted, creating I-86 in the northeast. In 1983, CT punted on I-84 to Providence, and in 1984, I-84 returned to its pre-1969 alignment, wiping out I-86.
In 1953 there were dotted-line long-range freeway proposals for US 6 and CT 12 in the Killingly area.
Quote from: DJStephens on February 26, 2016, 10:40:52 AM
Quote from: mariethefoxy on February 20, 2016, 02:29:14 PM
im surprised they didnt mirror the original CT 15 for the entire length, and have the CT Turnpike go to New Haven then turn north to Hartford then turn east to Sturbridge to pick up the Mass Pike which was also under construction at the time. Yea those later were built as other interstates but if i remember right the CT Turnpike was built before the interstate system like the other toll roads in the northeast.
Believe the Massachusetts Turnpike predated the 1956 authorization of the interstate system. It most likely was built in sections starting in the late forties. The extension into Boston was built in the mid sixties.
I can say it was the fifties (as confirmed downthread from your post) because my father enjoyed telling the story of sneaking on and driving the unopened road outside Worcester in those years. Guess I know where I got the bug.
The MassPike has some small isolated sections in the Berkshires that were opened in the early 50s, but the majority of it opened in spring of 1957.