Throwback Thursday I-95 CT Tpke through the years

[SignBridge]

Yep, that original Conn. Tpk. signing was actually pretty good. Clear and logical, especially that slanted lettering for the action info. Sort of primitive by today's MUTCD standards but it probably worked fine from 1958 to 1985 when the replacement program began.

[ctsignguy]

Also, I see there's been no exit 1 from the beginning either, assuming "Exit 1" meant you were exiting the Connecticut Turnpike. Weird!

Actually, you assumed correctly. Exit 1 was westbound I-95 to New York City

[PHLBOS]

It looks to be from the late 1960s or so.

Judging by the cars in the photo, it looks to be from the early 1960s... at the earliest.

Cars are going to lag the photo by a couple of years (:

True, but people were buying new cars more frequently back then (thereby increasing their presence on the roads).  It was a lot more common for people to trade in their cars for a new model every 2 to 3 years vs. every 5 to 7 years today.  Plus, cars changed their styling/appearance a lot more frequently back then; making it easier to identify the exact vintage.

Nonetheless, I have since modified my earlier post w/the appropriate quantifier (see above). 

[ctsignguy]

Neato! That's the Byram River bridge, heading north into Greenwich from Port Chester, NY. It looks to be from the late 1960s or so. Any idea what that little "T-I-S" sign could've been for? (It's not the state line, since that would be behind the photographer.) Also, I'm almost certain there's a LGS for distances in the background (likely for Bridgeport and New Haven).

Not sure about the T-I-S, but that one little sign further down the road i think reads "BYRAM TOWN LINE".   On the western half of the Turnpike back in those years, they didn't have too many BBS (big blue signs) with town and distance. (I dont recall too many until you got past East Haven in either direction, and even then, there weren't many on the eastern half of the Turnpike)  That sign over the closest trailer is actually facing westbound traffic. 

If i recall correctly, typical signing practices back then had the start of each on-ramp with BBS with the legends like "New Haven and West", "Providence and East"  or "Westbound New Haven".  mounted on the post would be one or two white directional boards indicating the next town ad distance and one with the next large town and distance  (top board "Old Saybrook   5  --->" lower board  "New Haven    35   --->")

[SignBridge]

Yes, those old entrance ramp signs for the Conn. Tpk. used to read "Eastbound, New London" and "Westbound, New Haven", etc. Interesting that the Turnpike was originally signed as east/west, but today as I-95 it's signed north/south even though it actually runs east/west in Connecticut.

[connroadgeek]

Yes, those old entrance ramp signs for the Conn. Tpk. used to read "Eastbound, New London" and "Westbound, New Haven", etc. Interesting that the Turnpike was originally signed as east/west, but today as I-95 it's signed north/south even though it actually runs east/west in Connecticut.

I-95 runs SW to NE through Connecticut. One could make an argument either way I suppose. The east-west references are due to pictures of the state being shown as a square such that the south border runs strictly west to east.

[shadyjay]

Entrance signage I remember saying between East Haven and Madison (the last original signage holdout, lasting until 1992) stated:
RHODE ISLAND AND EAST and NEW YORK AND WEST.  Signage at some onramps in East Haven I recall saying TURNPIKE EASTBOUND.

[ctsignguy]

All those are correct for various spots on the Turnpike entrances.....the ones i DONT remember were the ones after I-95 jumped off and CONN 52 took over.....

[KEVIN_224]

Why did I-395 ever get signed as CT Route 52 prior in the first place? Wasn't that road built with an interstate designation in mind the whole time?

[ctsignguy]

Why did I-395 ever get signed as CT Route 52 prior in the first place? Wasn't that road built with an interstate designation in mind the whole time?

If i recall correctly, the Turnpike was designed before the Interstate system.  That part of the Turnpike, if i recall correctly, was supposed to be a re-aligned CONN 12 before it was tagged as CONN 52.

Kurumi, can you clarify this?

[kurumi]

True, the Turnpike (earlier called the Greenwich - Killingly Expressway) was conceived and designed before I-95. And today's I-395 was completed long before the idea of calling it an interstate was taken seriously. Here's a quick timeline (from http://www.kurumi.com/roads/ct/i395.html):

1958: Connecticut Turnpike opens. This is part of today's I-95 and I-395, and all of SR 695, leading from Greenwich to the RI state line. The portion of today's I-95 from I-395 to the RI state line via New London and Groton is not yet complete. For a few years, the roads are signed state route 95 for continuity: one of the few times a signed interstate and signed state route share the same number.

1962: Segment of expressway opens from Danielson (SR 695) to CT 101. This is part of today's I-395. At the time, it is not signed as any number, but internally it's considered part of Relocated Route 12.

1964: All of today's I-395 (built and unbuilt) gets a new designation: CT 52

1968: CT 52 is completed in Connecticut, to the Mass. state line (the designation continues north as MA 52).

1973: Massachusetts asks for interstate funding for Route 52

1982: Connecticut politician suggests renumbering CT 52 as an extension of I-290. (This would have created an "orphan" 3di where the parent route does not enter the state.)

1983: CT 52 is instead given the designation I-395.

So why 52 and not 12? I didn't see an explicit reason. I believe this is the earliest example of the state using a new number for a relocated version of an older route, instead of moving the older number. Let's look at the other situations where the state had to make a similar decision for numbering freeway upgrades:
* CT 2, Hartford to Norwich: freeway takes the number. Most of old Route 2 becomes unsigned "secret routes", some of which were deleted after a few years.
* CT 2, Stonington: to avoid motorist confusion, CT/RI come up with a new number for the CT 2 freeway in that area: Route 78
* CT 8: freeway takes the number.
* CT 9: freeway takes the number (and strays pretty far from the original alignment). Old segments of 9 become 99, 9A, 154, etc.
* CT 10, Hamden: becomes CT 40
* CT 12, north of Norwich: becomes CT 52 instead, in 1964.
* CT 72: freeway takes the number
* CT 85, Colchester to New London: becomes CT 11 instead, in 1971. Stated reason: avoid confusion and avoid changing existing signs

My guess? As in the 85 example, the old route 12 remained important enough to be signed (instead of bypassed and made secret or turned over to the towns), meaning a relocation of that designation would be more disruptive than something like CT 2, where there really isn't a signed route along the old one for any length.

[Brandon]

Yes, those old entrance ramp signs for the Conn. Tpk. used to read "Eastbound, New London" and "Westbound, New Haven", etc. Interesting that the Turnpike was originally signed as east/west, but today as I-95 it's signed north/south even though it actually runs east/west in Connecticut.

It's not unlike the routing of I-94 in Illinois in that regard.  The Calumet, Ryan, Kennedy, and Edens Expressways, and the I-94 section of the Tri-State Tollway all run north-south.  In fact, the Tri-State was signed for north-south until a few years ago.

[Alps]

* CT 10, Hamden: becomes CT 40

One bone to pick - Pretty sure the CT 10 freeway was intended to follow 10 down to 95, and actually be where 40 ended.

[cpzilliacus]

Yes, those old entrance ramp signs for the Conn. Tpk. used to read "Eastbound, New London" and "Westbound, New Haven", etc. Interesting that the Turnpike was originally signed as east/west, but today as I-95 it's signed north/south even though it actually runs east/west in Connecticut.

In the 1970's, I recall at least some sign panels entering/approaching the Connecticut Turnpike reading something like "Connecticut Turnpike East" along with an MUTCD-compliant "North I-95" and "Connecticut Turnpike West" and "I-95 South."

That may be what the signs read coming south on I-91 in New Haven.

I have not driven on this road much (and only this past summer did I drive I-95 in Connecticut north (east?) of New Haven).

[kurumi]

* CT 10, Hamden: becomes CT 40

One bone to pick - Pretty sure the CT 10 freeway was intended to follow 10 down to 95, and actually be where 40 ended.

That was one of the proposals. (To further muddy the picture, circa 1970 the state planned to sign part of Boulevard in New Haven as Route 40; Route 10 would have connected to I-91. The Boulevard stretch, including a new bridge over the Metro North railway, is now signed as Route 10.)

[doogie1303]

Yes, those old entrance ramp signs for the Conn. Tpk. used to read "Eastbound, New London" and "Westbound, New Haven", etc. Interesting that the Turnpike was originally signed as east/west, but today as I-95 it's signed north/south even though it actually runs east/west in Connecticut.

In the 1970's, I recall at least some sign panels entering/approaching the Connecticut Turnpike reading something like "Connecticut Turnpike East" along with an MUTCD-compliant "North I-95" and "Connecticut Turnpike West" and "I-95 South."

That may be what the signs read coming south on I-91 in New Haven.

I have not driven on this road much (and only this past summer did I drive I-95 in Connecticut north (east?) of New Haven).

I think that would have been acceptable, it's the same analogy as two different routes sharing the same road (example: US 1 North and RI 138 East). If you think of the Conn Tpke as one road and I-95 as the other, then it makes perfect sense.

What doesn't make as much sense is where the Conn Tpke and I-95 split, the Conn Tpke heads due North (now I-395) towards MA and I-95 heads East to RI. So the Eastward marked road heads north and the Northbound road heads East. 

[Pete from Boston]

Yes, those old entrance ramp signs for the Conn. Tpk. used to read "Eastbound, New London" and "Westbound, New Haven", etc. Interesting that the Turnpike was originally signed as east/west, but today as I-95 it's signed north/south even though it actually runs east/west in Connecticut.

In the 1970's, I recall at least some sign panels entering/approaching the Connecticut Turnpike reading something like "Connecticut Turnpike East" along with an MUTCD-compliant "North I-95" and "Connecticut Turnpike West" and "I-95 South."

That may be what the signs read coming south on I-91 in New Haven.

I have not driven on this road much (and only this past summer did I drive I-95 in Connecticut north (east?) of New Haven).

The parallel US 1 is signed east-west in places (someplace in Norwalk comes to mind), even though I don't think it's by any official sanction.

[Alps]

Yes, those old entrance ramp signs for the Conn. Tpk. used to read "Eastbound, New London" and "Westbound, New Haven", etc. Interesting that the Turnpike was originally signed as east/west, but today as I-95 it's signed north/south even though it actually runs east/west in Connecticut.

In the 1970's, I recall at least some sign panels entering/approaching the Connecticut Turnpike reading something like "Connecticut Turnpike East" along with an MUTCD-compliant "North I-95" and "Connecticut Turnpike West" and "I-95 South."

That may be what the signs read coming south on I-91 in New Haven.

I have not driven on this road much (and only this past summer did I drive I-95 in Connecticut north (east?) of New Haven).

The parallel US 1 is signed east-west in places (someplace in Norwalk comes to mind), even though I don't think it's by any official sanction.

US 1 is signed north-south for its entire length. Anything signed east-west is a remnant from former practices, when such was indeed official. They replaced most signs west of New Haven in one shot about a decade ago, then most signs east of there a couple of years after, but obviously they missed a few spots.

[ctsignguy]

Neato! That's the Byram River bridge, heading north into Greenwich from Port Chester, NY. It looks to be from the late 1960s or so. Any idea what that little "T-I-S" sign could've been for? (It's not the state line, since that would be behind the photographer.) Also, I'm almost certain there's a LGS for distances in the background (likely for Bridgeport and New Haven).

Got the answer for you from the legendary Mike Summa regarding the T-I-S signs...

"Hi, John---I was looking at the AAR forum earlier today when I read about the mystery of the small "T-1-S" sign in the photo. If you notice the wires going from the light pole to the right, they are headed for a small transformer station along the Turnpike right of way for the illumination system. Thus the sign indicates the location of the transformer station ( T- ) , the first one ( -1- ), located on the south side of the roadway, ( -S ).  When I first noticed those I could figure out what they meant, having traveled on the turnpike so often as a kid.  The numbers increased eastbound, and an "-N" meant on the north side of the roadway. So anyone else who wonders what those signs were for you can pass along the info."

[KEVIN_224]

Thanks for the info! I don't think I was on that part of I-95 myself until about 1990 or so.

[Mergingtraffic]

I saw on the "Connecticut Turnpike" Wikipedia page, that there allegedly is an old tpke trailblazer on Center St in Southport, CT.  I would assume this is incorrect....or is it?

[Alps]

I saw on the "Connecticut Turnpike" Wikipedia page, that there allegedly is an old tpke trailblazer on Center St in Southport, CT.  I would assume this is incorrect....or is it?

GSV shows nothing on the road or at any intersection.