If one is attempting to clinch I-684, one has only one choice if traveling west on I-287. One takes the exit for I-684 because there is no access from the ramp from I-287 to the Hutchinson River Parkway to I-684.
But if one is traveling south on I-684 and approaching I-287, there are two choices. One can take the ramp to I-287 or one can continue on to the Hutch and then access I-287 from that interchanges.
Which part is officially I-684, the spur to I-287 or the spur to the Hutchinson River Parkway?
Note that access at the Hutch is via frontage roads (and there is no access from I-684 to I-287 west via the Hutch).
The FHWA takes I-684 along the direct ramps: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/nhs/maps/ny/westchester_ny.pdf
The spur to the Hutch is NY 984J, though NYSDOT labels both as I-684 on at least one map: http://www.nysgis.state.ny.us/gisdata/quads/drg24/ff49.htm
In addition, the Hutch is signed as exit 1 on I-684 southbound.
Note that the interchange between 287 (via Westchester Ave) and the Hutch is a cloverleaf. 287 west to 984J north and 984J south to 287 west are not possible directly, but can be done the long way around by taking three loops.
Nonetheless, attempting to make movements between 684 and 287 this way is not recommended because it's a hell of a weave which no one was ever intended to go through.
And it's unnecessary because the other branch is actually 684, anyway.
Although, an easter egg that a more exploratory and adventerous traveler may wish to pursue: northbound on the branch from the hutch, right before the overpass at the merge onto 684 proper, is a mile marker for mile 1 on 984J.... with a nice little interstate 984J shield on it. A similar marker exists southbound at the end of the guardrail under the overpass, but that one would probably be more difficult to pull over and get a picture of. (I have attempted neither... something I need to get around to sometime)
kinda off topic here but what I find annoying about I-684 is it's 6 lanes all the way except for a short portion at the Saw Mill Pkwy.
Well, you could stay in the right lane through that section and use the C/D lanes on the outside, so there are still technically three through lanes. The traffic mix justifies the split.
Quote from: doofy103 on July 05, 2011, 10:33:35 PM
kinda off topic here but what I find annoying about I-684 is it's 6 lanes all the way except for a short portion at the Saw Mill Pkwy.
If you want to pick nits, it drops down to four lanes right before either end as well: between exit 1 and 287, and between 84 and exit 10.
Actually, H.B., make sure you take note of this: I-684 doesn't end at I-84, it ends just beyond at exit 10. If you just get off at 84 you will not quite clinch it.
Isn't it NY 981B north of I-84?
CHM and OSM are both wrong, then. As is the "END 684" shield at exit 10.
Well if it's signed as I-684 to exit 10, OSM is correct, since it covers signage rather than official designations (at least if the former is internally consistent).
My reading of the NYSDOT docs I've used when plotting New York routes in CHM show that it's definitely NY 981B and may also officially be I-684 beyond I-84. The touring routes document lists the terminus of I-684 as I-84. But the Traffic Data Report continues I-684 to the Exit 10 interchange (as shown in CHM and OSM). That same report lists NY 981B as a 0.39 mile connector between I-684 and NY 22.
Hmm... FHWA lists the length of I-684 as 27.06 miles. NYSDOT's log lists it as 28.46 miles.
Weird.
The most egregious discrepancy in lengths is on I-695 in Maryland. Between I-95 (north) and I-97, it was never added to the Interstate system, and is officially MD 695.
Used 684 many times over the past 21 years. One gripe is that the advance signage for the 684 exit along either 84 WEST or 287 is TOO SHORT; only 1/2 mile. That's rather odd for an exit for a 6-lane Interstate not to get sufficient notice while approaching it along another highway. Ironically, advance signage for both 84 and 287 aloing 684 starts at 2 miles.
While I'm used to it; somebody unfamiliar with the area could easily miss the exit if they're traveling along 84 or 287.
Another gripe is along the approach lane striping to the 684 exit from 287 eastbound. The distance between the merge lane from the previous exit to the 684 exit is very short. IMHO, the short-distance shoulder should restriped as an entrance/exit lane (making 287 east 4 continuous lanes between ramps).
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 08, 2012, 07:07:29 PM
Used 684 many times over the past 21 years. One gripe is that the advance signage for the 684 exit along either 84 or 287 is TOO SHORT; only 1/2 mile.
Huh?
On I-84 eastbound...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.staticflickr.com%2F5242%2F5344208523_f23714a240.jpg&hash=f291ef7a23c275513a29482335ba41192de495b0)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.staticflickr.com%2F5048%2F5344211239_ee4a9716f7.jpg&hash=f37c38857b1bc351505ada87b8eb92dfd59664e5)
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 08, 2012, 07:07:29 PM
Used 684 many times over the past 21 years. One gripe is that the advance signage for the 684 exit along either 84 or 287 is TOO SHORT; only 1/2 mile. That's rather odd for an exit for a 6-lane Interstate not to get sufficient notice while approaching it along another highway. Ironically, advance signage for both 84 and 287 aloing 684 starts at 2 miles.
While I'm used to it; somebody unfamiliar with the area could easily miss the exit if they're traveling along 84 or 287.
Another gripe is along the approach lane striping to the 684 exit from 287 eastbound. The distance between the merge lane from the previous exit to the 684 exit is very short. IMHO, the short-distance shoulder should restriped as an entrance/exit lane (making 287 east 4 continuous lanes between ramps).
1/2 mile is the standard distance to sign exists in NY in urban and suburban areas, regardless of what the exit is for (though termini get 1 mile), though numerous exceptions exist (this is NY, after all). I've seen major connections get as low as 1/4 mile depending on the area.
The 2 mile advance sign (and a 5 mile one on I-87 south for I-287 at exit 15) are oddities; NY almost never posts exits with more than a mile advance signage (exception: termini and unnumbered exits).
Quote from: hbelkins on March 08, 2012, 09:29:17 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 08, 2012, 07:07:29 PM
Used 684 many times over the past 21 years. One gripe is that the advance signage for the 684 exit along either 84 or 287 is TOO SHORT; only 1/2 mile.
On I-84 eastbound...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.staticflickr.com%2F5242%2F5344208523_f23714a240.jpg&hash=f291ef7a23c275513a29482335ba41192de495b0)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.staticflickr.com%2F5048%2F5344211239_ee4a9716f7.jpg&hash=f37c38857b1bc351505ada87b8eb92dfd59664e5)
Since my trips through the I-84/684 interchange over the years only involved coming to/from the eastern end (to/from CT), which are likely done by the
majority of travelers through that area; it is very easy to overlook those eastbound approach signs. My bad, though my original point
still stands with regards to advance signage for I-684 from I-84
WEST and I-287
EAST. Could someone confirm regarding advance 684 exit signage from I-287 West?
Quote from: deanej on March 09, 2012, 11:15:40 AM1/2 mile is the standard distance to sign exists in NY in urban and suburban areas, regardless of what the exit is for (though termini get 1 mile), though numerous exceptions exist (this is NY, after all). I've seen major connections get as low as 1/4 mile depending on the area.
The 2 mile advance sign (and a 5 mile one on I-87 south for I-287 at exit 15) are oddities; NY almost never posts exits with more than a mile advance signage (exception: termini and unnumbered exits).
Really. If that's the case, I am surprised that MUTCD hasn't gotten on NYDOT's a** over that. While a 2-mile advance (that 5-mile advance example is the other extreme IMHO, but I guess it was placed to inform through-NJ traffic in mind) may be an oddity; a 1-mile advance sign (which is SOP nearly everywhere else) for 684 from BOTH 84 West and 287 EAST shouldn't be too much to ask.
Quote from: hbelkins on March 08, 2012, 09:29:17 PM
On I-84 eastbound...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.staticflickr.com%2F5242%2F5344208523_f23714a240.jpg&hash=f291ef7a23c275513a29482335ba41192de495b0)
Amazing how a "normal" fonted NY 22 shield can look so wrong on a BGS. Without the wide digits, that NY 22 shield looks totally wrong!
(Funny how US 6 and US 202 don't appear on the overheads that follow. Why not include them on the NY 22 advance? Or alternatively, why include them on the 2-mile advance if they don't show up on the next assembly where someone unfamiliar with the setup might need the information to decide what exit to take to get to the US routes?)
That's one bad sign:
'70-spec US-6 shield next to a '61 spec stretched US-202 shield, next to a wide NY-22 shield that is supposed to be using Series F. At least the Interstate shield looks somewhat decent.
Quote
Since my trips through the I-84/684 interchange over the years only involved coming to/from the eastern end (to/from CT), which are likely done by the majority of travelers through that area;
287 WB approaching 684 only has a 1/2 mile advance, but I'm going to have to disagree with you on your assumption about the prevailing travel direction. While I'm not bothering to pull up actual traffic counts from NYSDOT/NYSTA/whoever maintains it now, based on the ramp configurations and my own previous travels through the area (which are numerous since I used to live down south and frequently visited family in northern CT) I would assume that the majority of traffic continues down towards NYC on the Hutch after passing 287, and that most exiting traffic does 287 EB -> 684 NB -> 84 EB and 84 WB -> 684 SB -> 287 WB. For example WB 84 to SB 684 has a flyover, whereas NB 684 to WB 84 has a tight loop ramp.
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 09, 2012, 05:08:12 PM
Really. If that's the case, I am surprised that MUTCD hasn't gotten on NYDOT's a** over that. While a 2-mile advance (that 5-mile advance example is the other extreme IMHO, but I guess it was placed to inform through-NJ traffic in mind) may be an oddity; a 1-mile advance sign (which is SOP nearly everywhere else) for 684 from BOTH 84 West and 287 EAST shouldn't be too much to ask.
The entirety of I-287 is maintained by NYSTA.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on March 10, 2012, 08:32:13 AM
Quote
Since my trips through the I-84/684 interchange over the years only involved coming to/from the eastern end (to/from CT), which are likely done by the majority of travelers through that area;
287 WB approaching 684 only has a 1/2 mile advance, but I'm going to have to disagree with you on your assumption about the prevailing travel direction. While I'm not bothering to pull up actual traffic counts from NYSDOT/NYSTA/whoever maintains it now, based on the ramp configurations and my own previous travels through the area (which are numerous since I used to live down south and frequently visited family in northern CT) I would assume that the majority of traffic continues down towards NYC on the Hutch after passing 287, and that most exiting traffic does 287 EB -> 684 NB -> 84 EB and 84 WB -> 684 SB -> 287 WB. For example WB 84 to SB 684 has a flyover, whereas NB 684 to WB 84 has a tight loop ramp.
3 things:
1. Traffic-wise, I was only referring to the I-84/684 interchange area per say and not the I-287/684/Hutchinson Pkwy/Westchester Ave interchange and was referring with regards to through-traffic beyond NYC as well as truck traffic (which is NOT allowed to use the Hutchinson Pkwy IIRC).
2. From your post
"that most exiting traffic does 287 EB -> 684 NB -> 84 EB and 84 WB -> 684 SB -> 287 WB." Outside of 684 NB-> 84 EB piece, aren't we saying the same thing regarding everything else? You're actually agreeing/supporting my earlier post.
3. As far as the ramp from 684 N to 84 E is concerned (Exit 9E); that ramp design was likely design oversight in terms of actual traffic counts. Outside of the flyover ramp to 684 S from 84 W; the interchange was designed essentially as a 'cookie-cutter' cloverleaf/flyover 4-way type as opposed directional 3-way expressway with an added connector (to US 6/202 & NY 22).
Quote from: deanej on March 10, 2012, 02:25:38 PM
The entirety of I-287 is maintained by NYSTA.
While that's fine and dandy for I-287; that doesn't explain I-84 (particularly westbound). Yes, I'm aware of the short-lived period when at least the eastern-NY stretch of 84 was briefly maintained by NYSTA; but the 1/2 mile advance signage for I-684 issue from westbound I-84 not only predated that temporary transfer of maintenance responsibilities, it has also outlasted it.
The only I-684 interchange signage changes from westbound 84 I know of within the last 21 years was when all the overhead diagrametric signs were replaced with 2 identical ground-mounted signs along each side of 84 west and the replacement of the actual exit sign bridge w the exit and pull-through sign (for 84 west) with a single cantilever sign structure for only the exit. The sign panels at the ramp split were also replaced as well.
However, despite all the above-changes 84 westbounders STILL only get a 1/2 advance notice for I-684.
Both NYSDOT and NYSTA do advance signage similarly, and it's not like NYSDOT would re-sign I-84 just because it's no longer a NYSTA road; it would cost too much and there's no point. Both NYSDOT and NYSTA abhor signing an exit until the gore point of the previous exist at a minimum so this leads to some really short leads with signage.
Quote from: Duke87 on July 05, 2011, 08:37:16 PM
Although, an easter egg that a more exploratory and adventerous traveler may wish to pursue: northbound on the branch from the hutch, right before the overpass at the merge onto 684 proper, is a mile marker for mile 1 on 984J.... with a nice little interstate 984J shield on it. A similar marker exists southbound at the end of the guardrail under the overpass, but that one would probably be more difficult to pull over and get a picture of. (I have attempted neither... something I need to get around to sometime)
A quick Google search lead me to this picture from Upstate NY Roads:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.upstatenyroads.com%2Fregion-photos%2Fregion8%2F100_0043.jpg&hash=7bde9a61780377fbe429ea92304ebd45d11347da)
P.S.: What's CHM? I know it's not a Compiled HTML Help file.
Did they pick 984J as the reference route number because of association with I-84's 3DI 684? I know that the first two digits were given, since all the reference routes begin with 9 and Westchester is in Region 8, but being 984J and not something like 982T or something without an apparent relationship to 84 suggests that the ending in -84 was deliberate. If so, then no wonder the mistaken I-shield would show up eventually.
N-984J: I-984?
(Do us all a favor.)
CHM = Clinched Highway Mapping.
Reminds me of CT 695 which is the far eastern leg of the Connecticut Turnpike. 695 is not signposted, though it would seem that it is a logical numbering since its a "spur" off I-395 (and the rest of the turnpike), but according to Kurumi's site, the 695 numbering pre-dated the I-395 signing of the turnpike by almost 20 years, so its pure coincidence.
See: http://www.kurumi.com/roads/ct/ctx600.html#d_695_route
Quote from: PurdueBill on March 12, 2012, 11:49:30 AM
Did they pick 984J as the reference route number because of association with I-84's 3DI 684? I know that the first two digits were given, since all the reference routes begin with 9 and Westchester is in Region 8, but being 984J and not something like 982T or something without an apparent relationship to 84 suggests that the ending in -84 was deliberate. If so, then no wonder the mistaken I-shield would show up eventually.
Doubtful; Region 8 has a lot of reference routes and the list is pretty well full through the 980s-983s. It was probably just the next available number.
Quote from: empirestate on June 14, 2012, 02:51:06 PM
Quote from: PurdueBill on March 12, 2012, 11:49:30 AM
Did they pick 984J as the reference route number because of association with I-84's 3DI 684? I know that the first two digits were given, since all the reference routes begin with 9 and Westchester is in Region 8, but being 984J and not something like 982T or something without an apparent relationship to 84 suggests that the ending in -84 was deliberate. If so, then no wonder the mistaken I-shield would show up eventually.
Doubtful; Region 8 has a lot of reference routes and the list is pretty well full through the 980s-983s. It was probably just the next available number.
I'm going to take the opposite tack and say "likely." I have never seen anything disproving NJ 152 is pure coincidence next to NJ 52, but it's one heck of a coincidence.
Quote from: shadyjay on March 12, 2012, 09:12:40 PM
Reminds me of CT 695 which is the far eastern leg of the Connecticut Turnpike. 695 is not signposted, though it would seem that it is a logical numbering since its a "spur" off I-395 (and the rest of the turnpike), but according to Kurumi's site, the 695 numbering pre-dated the I-395 signing of the turnpike by almost 20 years, so its pure coincidence.
See: http://www.kurumi.com/roads/ct/ctx600.html#d_695_route
SR-693 is the Montville connector to CT-32, so you can see the scheme.
Quote from: HighwayMaster on June 22, 2012, 09:24:12 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on March 12, 2012, 09:12:40 PM
Reminds me of CT 695 which is the far eastern leg of the Connecticut Turnpike. 695 is not signposted, though it would seem that it is a logical numbering since its a "spur" off I-395 (and the rest of the turnpike), but according to Kurumi's site, the 695 numbering pre-dated the I-395 signing of the turnpike by almost 20 years, so its pure coincidence.
See: http://www.kurumi.com/roads/ct/ctx600.html#d_695_route
SR-693 is the Montville connector to CT-32, so you can see the scheme.
Connecticut had a very short-lived numbering convention where some spurs off the CT Turnpike would have unposted numbers in the 990s: http://www.kurumi.com/roads/ct/secretlist.html#d_988_route
SR 693, 794, 695 and 796 were once 993, 994, 995, 996.
The Merritt Parkway was SR 999, which is a more awesome number than 15 and should have been signed :-)
The latest ConnDOT press release I found interesting:
http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?A=2135&Q=508016
I have NEVER seen a ConnDOT press release for I-684!
Great find! I always forget that I-684 enters CT for a little over a mile. It's funny that NY doesn't assume that portion for maintenance considering there is no access within CT to that highway. But then again, cash strapped states aren't going to pay for something that they don't have to!
Isn't routine maintenance (plowing, striping, stuff like that) handled by NYSDOT through some arrangement with ConnDOT, while the highway within Connecticut is technically Connecticut's still so major projects are up to them to do? (And if there were God forbid a fatal accident along that stretch it would have course be Greenwich and Connecticut authorities in charge, although likely some agency from New York might be first on the scene.)
NY State Police have jurisdiction on that small piece of I-684 in CT.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on July 16, 2012, 07:40:42 PM
NY State Police have jurisdiction on that small piece of I-684 in CT.
Guess I read something that was mistaken once--I thought I had read that routine matters on that stretch were up to NY but something like a murder, fatal accident, etc. on CT soil would revert to CT.
Added:
Here is where I read that (http://www.nycroads.com/roads/I-684_NY/)--NY does handle most routine matters but CT serious things, according to this anyway.
ConnDOT missed a good opportunity for an April Fools prank.
PRESS RELEASE - Construction of Toll Booths on I-684
Quote from: PurdueBill on March 12, 2012, 11:49:30 AM
Did they pick 984J as the reference route number because of association with I-84's 3DI 684? I know that the first two digits were given, since all the reference routes begin with 9 and Westchester is in Region 8, but being 984J and not something like 982T or something without an apparent relationship to 84 suggests that the ending in -84 was deliberate. If so, then no wonder the mistaken I-shield would show up eventually.
As you said, it's not really an interstate and the milepost sign is an error. Everything in the 900s in New York State is a reference route, except for I-990 and NY 990V (which is numbered as a reference route but signed as a state route). I'm not aware of any record indicating whether it was deliberately numbered 984J to match I-84 and I-684, but there are a number of other reference routes in the area, so it may be just a coincidence.
Quote from: dgolub on July 22, 2012, 11:03:17 AM
Quote from: PurdueBill on March 12, 2012, 11:49:30 AM
Did they pick 984J as the reference route number because of association with I-84's 3DI 684? I know that the first two digits were given, since all the reference routes begin with 9 and Westchester is in Region 8, but being 984J and not something like 982T or something without an apparent relationship to 84 suggests that the ending in -84 was deliberate. If so, then no wonder the mistaken I-shield would show up eventually.
As you said, it's not really an interstate and the milepost sign is an error. Everything in the 900s in New York State is a reference route, except for I-990 and NY 990V (which is numbered as a reference route but signed as a state route). I'm not aware of any record indicating whether it was deliberately numbered 984J to match I-84 and I-684, but there are a number of other reference routes in the area, so it may be just a coincidence.
I thought that 961F, 962J, 990V, and 990L (the reference routes with touring route shields) were both signed with regular shields by mistake and should only be reference routes. I-990 would have markers with 990I on the top line which is a separate thing anyway.
Since by location the spur had to have a reference route number of nine-eighty-something, it wouldn't be totally shocking (a 1/10 chance) if the numbering were a total coincidence, but it wouldn't be surprising to find that it was deliberately made to be a member of a family of 84s either.
I noticed that there is a sign (shown on Wikipedia) that has the words ENTERING Greenwich Connecticut either NB or SB on the route . I know that NYSDOT always leaves out the "ENTERING" part on their municipal border signing, so the State of Connecticut must of put the sign up spite NY has jurisdiction here?
Quote from: roadman65 on July 22, 2012, 12:22:30 PM
I noticed that there is a sign (shown on Wikipedia) that has the words ENTERING Greenwich Connecticut either NB or SB on the route . I know that NYSDOT always leaves out the "ENTERING" part on their municipal border signing, so the State of Connecticut must of put the sign up spite NY has jurisdiction here?
I remember "entering" signage from frequent trips on I-684 for several years starting 20 years ago, but it was smaller and had an outline of the state on it like on smaller roads. Does standard ConnDOT town line BGS signage still read as follows?
Greenwich
-------------
TOWN LINE
with "Next X Exits" below the town name if there are exits?
Connecticut is similar to Ontario minus the population listing it appears. You know you may be right there. Of course, I am not too familiar with CT's signing practices, but NY just lists the type of municipality followed by proper name as well as their counties use just the (NAME) County on county line signs.
I have seen what you are talking about on alpsroads and vaguely from what I remember back in 03 on I-84. I was there, too, in 98 along US 7 and cannot remember how non freeways mark town lines. I do remember that only the freeway sections of US 7 in CT have higher speed limits than 40 mph. I remember it took forever to go through the state as soon as you entered from MA it pretty much was 40 mph.
Quote from: roadman65 on July 22, 2012, 12:22:30 PM
I noticed that there is a sign (shown on Wikipedia) that has the words ENTERING Greenwich Connecticut either NB or SB on the route . I know that NYSDOT always leaves out the "ENTERING" part on their municipal border signing, so the State of Connecticut must of put the sign up spite NY has jurisdiction here?
The picture faces northbound from the NY120 overpass.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CT_state_line_signs_on_I-684.jpg
That sign wasn't there in 2011. It used to be a smaller white-on-green sign, with the state outline and "ENTERING GREENWICH CONNECTICUT" within that outline.
Quote from: PurdueBill on July 22, 2012, 11:46:51 AM
I thought that 961F, 962J, 990V, and 990L (the reference routes with touring route shields) were both signed with regular shields by mistake and should only be reference routes. I-990 would have markers with 990I on the top line which is a separate thing anyway.
Well, they're numbered as reference routes but signed as touring routes. Whether it's intentional or not I can't say. I would guess that if it was just an accident then they would have taken down the shields by now, but I'm just speculating.
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on July 22, 2012, 08:40:27 PM
That sign wasn't there in 2011. It used to be a smaller white-on-green sign, with the state outline and "ENTERING GREENWICH CONNECTICUT" within that outline.
Street view shows the outlined CT map sign as you say you saw in 11.
In either event, the sign in the above picture was NOT there the last time I rode on I-684 in either direction. Maybe Greenwich was done at the same time as greater Danbury, since they're both in Fairfield County?
Quote from: kurumi on July 16, 2012, 10:33:42 PM
ConnDOT missed a good opportunity for an April Fools prank.
PRESS RELEASE - Construction of Toll Booths on I-684
No one would believe it because they're well-known to be banned by legislation.
Quote from: roadman65 on July 22, 2012, 02:28:27 PM
Connecticut is similar to Ontario minus the population listing it appears. You know you may be right there. Of course, I am not too familiar with CT's signing practices, but NY just lists the type of municipality followed by proper name as well as their counties use just the (NAME) County on county line signs.
I have seen what you are talking about on alpsroads and vaguely from what I remember back in 03 on I-84. I was there, too, in 98 along US 7 and cannot remember how non freeways mark town lines. I do remember that only the freeway sections of US 7 in CT have higher speed limits than 40 mph. I remember it took forever to go through the state as soon as you entered from MA it pretty much was 40 mph.
Typical Freeway sign is 3 line medium size green sign: 1. Name of Town/City 2. Next xx Exit(s) 3. Town/City Line
Typical non-freeway sign is a little green sign that has: 1. Name of Town 2. Year of Incorporation 3. Town/City Line
Signs that mark a town or village center (same size as town line signs) are the name of the community in a state outline, and a script "Connecticut" in the lower right hand corner.
Looks like the opportunity to clinch 684 (and the New York portion of 287) is back in the realm of possibility for me.
This would be done on my way home from the Portsmouth, NH meet. I have no desire to use the Cross-Bronx and the GW Bridge, as Google Maps wants me to do (I'll be driving from the Worcester, Mass. area to Staunton, Va.).
So I've come up with this: I-84 west to I-684 south to I-287 south (east) to I-95, make a U-turn and head back north (west) on I-287 and work my way around to either I-80 or I-78 to hit I-81 south.
Sounds like I need to do this:
Exit north onto NY 22 and then make a U-turn to head south on I-684, and then take the exit to I-287 instead of going on down 984J to the Hutch and I-287.
Right? This will clinch both I-684 in its entirety and I-287 in New York?
(Recommendations on the best route from the western split of I-87 to I-287 to I-81 near Harrisburg are welcome. I've driven both I-80 and I-78 before and favor neither.)
You can take NY-17 to I-84, with (exit 16) or without (Exit 15A) the Harriman toll.
Quote from: hbelkins on May 17, 2013, 03:40:02 PM
Sounds like I need to do this:
Exit north onto NY 22 and then make a U-turn to head south on I-684, and then take the exit to I-287 instead of going on down 984J to the Hutch and I-287.
Right? This will clinch both I-684 in its entirety and I-287 in New York?
No, you don't have to do the first thing; I-684 doesn't extend north of I-84 (that's another reference route). Although it wouldn't hurt, if you want to say you've cliched the whole freeway.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on May 17, 2013, 03:48:43 PM
You can take NY-17 to I-84, with (exit 16) or without (Exit 15A) the Harriman toll.
But that goes back north too far; my goal is to head south. Since I've already dipped south on 684, I won't want to go back to 84.
I was on 84 from Middletown to Scranton back in March, anyway. I've done 78 both east and west but have only done 80 eastbound between 287 and 81.
I feel like I'm pointing out the obvious here, but when you say "clinch 287 in New York", you do realize there's another few miles of it east of I-684, right? So unless you've already done that you're missing some pavement unless you do another side trip.
As for the side trip north of 84, it's necessary if you're a CHM stickler like I am because they show the route ending at exit 10 and they have it as an extra waypoint. Signage in the field is consistent with this. However, as was discussed on the first page, NYSDOT's internal route log shows 684 ending at 84, and FHWA documentation implies likewise. So, officially, no, 684 does not go north of 84 and that side trip is not purely necessary. Although it'll cost you 2 minutes to do it, just take exit 10 and make two right turns to get back onto the freeway southbound.
Or, you can exit I-84 at CT exit 4 (or NY exit 21) and take US6/202 over to there and not have to make u-turn.
Hate to say it, but given that you're "in a hurry", your best bet to Harrisburg given your origin is still 287 to 78. If you had more time, there are plenty of non-freeway routes to choose from.
Quote from: Duke87 on May 17, 2013, 10:23:40 PM
I feel like I'm pointing out the obvious here, but when you say "clinch 287 in New York", you do realize there's another few miles of it east of I-684, right? So unless you've already done that you're missing some pavement unless you do another side trip.
Part of his plan was to head east on 287 to 95 and then back again. Looks like that will involve a little bit of Connecticut as well.
Quote from: Duke87 on May 17, 2013, 10:23:40 PMAs for the side trip north of 84, it's necessary if you're a CHM stickler like I am because they show the route ending at exit 10 and they have it as an extra waypoint. Signage in the field is consistent with this. However, as was discussed on the first page, NYSDOT's internal route log shows 684 ending at 84, and FHWA documentation implies likewise. So, officially, no, 684 does not go north of 84 and that side trip is not purely necessary. Although it'll cost you 2 minutes to do it, just take exit 10 and make two right turns to get back onto the freeway southbound.
Better do it just to be safe. Although I-684 definitely doesn't quite reach NY 22 (and contrary to Wikipedia, it's reference route 981
B that does), NYSDOT's inventory file seems to show a few tenths of a mile of pavement north of "ACC I-84 WB"–whether that's the actual ramp to I-84, or the overpass "with access" I'm not sure, but the NYSDOT topo map also seems to show that the dividing line is north of I-84, perhaps at the US 6/202 overpass.
Quote from: hbelkins on May 17, 2013, 09:40:38 PM
I was on 84 from Middletown to Scranton back in March, anyway. I've done 78 both east and west but have only done 80 eastbound between 287 and 81.
That might be your answer: if clinching I-80 WB is a priority, then that's the best route. If just getting to Harrisburg expeditiously is the aim, then I-78. Both are pretty unpleasant through NJ; I-78 at least is a nice ride west of Allentown. For fun, you can take US 22, the original I-78 through ABE. Also, any worthy roadgeek should know how to escape New Jersey without paying a toll via the free bridge to Easton, provided your conveyance is under the 3-ton limit. After all, you may need to get off in Phillipsburg anyway for your last chance at NJ-price gas (though of course you can get cheaper by staying away from the state line).
I-80 to US 46 to NJ 57 to Phillipsburg is a halfway-decent cutoff, at least in off-hours, if you're jonesing for a substantially new experience.
Quote from: froggie on May 18, 2013, 03:31:44 AM
Hate to say it, but given that you're "in a hurry", your best bet to Harrisburg given your origin is still 287 to 78. If you had more time, there are plenty of non-freeway routes to choose from.
That's fine. I just hope I-81 in Harrisburg is back to full strength by then.