CT Governor Malloy wants I-84 and I-95 widened in the state

[vdeane]

Probably quite a few... CT drivers do use the interstates for trans-CT travel, right?  They're not really meant for people who would get on and then get off at the next exit.

[spmkam]

But for it to actually improve traffic flow you would have to eliminate at least one exit and/or entrance every few miles.

[cpzilliacus]

Probably quite a few... CT drivers do use the interstates for trans-CT travel, right?  They're not really meant for people who would get on and then get off at the next exit.

As you may know, when most of I-95 across Connecticut was tolled as the Connecticut Turnpike, it used a barrier system (every 10 or 15 miles you had to throw 25¢ in the basket), not a Thruway- or NJTP-style ticket system for tolling.

I don't believe the Connecticut Turnpike had any "side" or "ramp" tolls (common even now on the Garden State Parkway and the Dulles Toll Road). 

The Connecticut Turnpike toll barriers were carefully positioned to not toll most local trips.

Even though it was detolled in the 1980's, I believe the legacy of encouraging local, short trips to use the Turnpike remains.

[vdeane]

Yeah, the idea would be to turn that on its head.

[froggie]

It's been well-documented that closely spaced exits like such encourage traffic to use the freeway for one-or-two-exit trips.  And the reduced efficiency it creates on freeways is also well-documented.

[ctsignguy]

If i recall, when the Turnpike was built in the 1950s, it was built in segments that made some sense (hence all the US 1 interchanges....traffic would be funneled onto the Post Road, to the next open section of the Turnpike, unlike many of the Interstates what would end in the middle of nowhere, and traffic would be funneled most any which-way to the next Interstate).  Also, many of the interchanges were there to serve the locals (remember, this road was designed and engineered before the Interstate system, so making it as useful for the locals as possible was a high priority...even if that meant you jumped on the Turnpike at Exit 68 (US 1) and bailed out at Exit 70 (CONN 156/ (CONN 51) US1) to visit a family member, that was one purpose of the road. 

What we are running into here is that 1950s engineering philosophy running into mid-2010 realities, and something somewhere may have to give to make i-95 continue to be somewhat usable not just to the locals, but the other traffic served... 

[hotdogPi]

Would it work if only the route numbers had exits?

Also, would it upset people that their exit was removed?




handheld electronic Sorry game

[Brandon]

Would it work if only the route numbers had exits?

Also, would it upset people that their exit was removed?

Well, I think it would have to be the important roads regardless of them being numbered routes or not.  An exit for a street close to a numbered route should be sufficient, I would think, in some instances.

As for people being pissy about their exit being removed, that would not be first time.  When the Dan Ryan Expressway (I-90/94) was rebuilt through Chicago, a few exits and entrances were removed.  There was a shitstorm about their removal from the locals.

[cpzilliacus]

It's been well-documented that closely spaced exits like such encourage traffic to use the freeway for one-or-two-exit trips.  And the reduced efficiency it creates on freeways is also well-documented.

I strongly agree. 

If persons making policy decisions want  a freeway used for local and longer trips, then C-D lanes are probably a good idea - ideally with the "thru" lanes being charged a toll in exchange for higher speeds (and higher posted speed limits).

[ctsignguy]

Would it work if only the route numbers had exits?

Also, would it upset people that their exit was removed?

Well, I think it would have to be the important roads regardless of them being numbered routes or not.  An exit for a street close to a numbered route should be sufficient, I would think, in some instances.

As for people being pissy about their exit being removed, that would not be first time.  When the Dan Ryan Expressway (I-90/94) was rebuilt through Chicago, a few exits and entrances were removed.  There was a shitstorm about their removal from the locals.

Ahhh, while that might be true for Chicago, the SW part of Connecticut is laced with fairly well-off folk who would follow their anger with direct action against the local and State officials that removed the local exits during the next elections....NIMBYism in reverse, if you like. 

There may simply be too many local political factors to be able to remove exits off I-95 (i do recall that Exit 49 Stiles Rd was closed but only after much local hand-wringing, and that it was accepted after it was shown that it could not safely stay open after the rebuild of the I-91-1-95 interchanges....)   

The other factor too, was that the speed limits west of East Haven were far lower than east, because you had something like 54 exits in the first 50+ miles....even once you get to the Old Lyme exit 70 (US 1-CONN 156), you are still only on Mile 78...and while the east exits are a bit more spaced out, you seldom had more than three miles between them