Interstate 684

[Alps]

N-984J: I-984?

(Do us all a favor.)

CHM = Clinched Highway Mapping.

[shadyjay]

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

[empirestate]

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.

[Alps]

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.

[HighwayMaster]

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.

[kurumi]

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 :-)

[shadyjay]

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!

[southshore720]

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!

[PurdueBill]

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.)

[NJRoadfan]

NY State Police have jurisdiction on that small piece of I-684 in CT.

[PurdueBill]

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--NY does handle most routine matters but CT serious things, according to this anyway.

[kurumi]

ConnDOT missed a good opportunity for an April Fools prank.

PRESS RELEASE - Construction of Toll Booths on I-684

[dgolub]

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.

[PurdueBill]

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.

[roadman65]

 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?

[PurdueBill]

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?

[roadman65]

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. 

[SidS1045]

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

[KEVIN_224]

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.

[dgolub]

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.

[roadman65]

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.

[KEVIN_224]

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?

[_Simon]

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.

[jp the roadgeek]

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.

[hbelkins]

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.)