Mileage Based Exits coming to CT

[Mergingtraffic]

From WINY Radio:

"FROM THE NEWSROOM: There are big changes on the way for Interstate 395, according to Thompson First Selectman Larry Groh.

Groh says he has been informed by officials out of the state Department of Transportation that exit numbers on the highway will be altered in the coming years.

According to Groh, the DOT will be working to shift the exit numbers to reflect the miles on the highway, with each ...exit number representing a mile marker.

Groh says the change is slated to occur next year, and plans should be finalized by July of 2013.

According to Groh, current signage on the interstate has not been replaced or tended to since 1986, so changing out the signs is a much needed update.

Tune in for the full report."

[vdeane]

Did hell freeze over?

I wonder if this change is a study to determine the feasibility of converting other roads.  A conversion of CT to mileage-based would essentially tell the other sequential states "you have no excuse".

[NE2]

A conversion of CT to mileage-based would essentially tell the other sequential states "you have no excuse".

Except Alaska. Because bears with guns.

[shadyjay]

Goodbye to one of the last remnants of the Connecticut Turnpike signed as a thru route.

But... wow... mileage-based exits in CT!  Seeing as there's a sign contract to be released later this year on I-395, it makes sense.  Hopefully, CT 15 will be in line next to get mile-based exits, as that starting with #27 thing is ridiculous. 

[jp the roadgeek]

If we're going to try it on a trial basis, then I-395 would be ideal because it is the mostly lightly traveled interstate in CT.  Might be a little fun in Downtown Hartford and New Haven, where exits are so close together.  Question is, will the directional suffixes on the exits (N,S,E,W) be disposed of?  Interesting, because I noticed they've started to replace (read: put in after it's been missing for 20 years) mile markers on I-84 east in Hartford.

[Beeper1]

So much for our area's only 3-digit exit #.  This would make Exit 100 something like Exit 54 now.

The real hell freezing over would be if RI ever changed.

[shadyjay]

So much for our area's only 3-digit exit #.  This would make Exit 100 something like Exit 54 now.

Define "area". 

Maine's highest exit number is in the 300s and they're mile-based.
Massachusetts has plans to go mile-based.  The Mass Pike would get a number of 100 or greater.

And if/when all of Connecticut goes mile-based, there still would be an Exit 100 in Eastern Connecticut, but it would be on I-95 and it would be Exit 111.

[roadman]

So much for our area's only 3-digit exit #.  This would make Exit 100 something like Exit 54 now.

Define "area". 

Maine's highest exit number is in the 300s and they're mile-based.
Massachusetts has plans to go mile-based.  The Mass Pike would get a number of 100 or greater.

And if/when all of Connecticut goes mile-based, there still would be an Exit 100 in Eastern Connecticut, but it would be on I-95 and it would be Exit 111.

A little birdie tells me that I-395 in MA will be one of the first routes to be converted to mileage-based exits when MassDOT begins changing numbers, which I understand is tentatively scheduled to begin in 2014.  If so, it makes sense that CT would do I-395 as their pilot route.

And on the MassPike, the first three digit exit number would be Westborough I-495 (currently Exit 11A, future exit 106).

[roadman]

If we're going to try it on a trial basis, then I-395 would be ideal because it is the mostly lightly traveled interstate in CT.  Might be a little fun in Downtown Hartford and New Haven, where exits are so close together.  Question is, will the directional suffixes on the exits (N,S,E,W) be disposed of?  Interesting, because I noticed they've started to replace (read: put in after it's been missing for 20 years) mile markers on I-84 east in Hartford.

I posed the issue of "how do you number multiple separate exits (as opposed to an A-B interchange) that are less than a mile apart" in my comments to FHWA on the NPA for the 2009 MUTCD.  It was never addressed in either the 2009 MUTCD nor in the NPA responses.

While using letter suffixes appears to be the logical solution to the problem, it also conflicts with the present convention of using "A-B" for same interchange.  As such, IMO, it should be at least clarified in the current MUTCD (if for no other reason than to head off those lawyers who will look for every excuse to divert fault from clients who smashed up their vehicles).

[hbelkins]

I posed the issue of "how do you number multiple separate exits (as opposed to an A-B interchange) that are less than a mile apart" in my comments to FHWA on the NPA for the 2009 MUTCD.  It was never addressed in either the 2009 MUTCD nor in the NPA responses.

While using letter suffixes appears to be the logical solution to the problem, it also conflicts with the present convention of using "A-B" for same interchange.  As such, IMO, it should be at least clarified in the current MUTCD (if for no other reason than to head off those lawyers who will look for every excuse to divert fault from clients who smashed up their vehicles).

Doesn't seem to be a problem on I-75 in Cincinnati.

[The High Plains Traveler]

I posed the issue of "how do you number multiple separate exits (as opposed to an A-B interchange) that are less than a mile apart" in my comments to FHWA on the NPA for the 2009 MUTCD.  It was never addressed in either the 2009 MUTCD nor in the NPA responses.

While using letter suffixes appears to be the logical solution to the problem, it also conflicts with the present convention of using "A-B" for same interchange.  As such, IMO, it should be at least clarified in the current MUTCD (if for no other reason than to head off those lawyers who will look for every excuse to divert fault from clients who smashed up their vehicles).

Doesn't seem to be a problem on I-75 in Cincinnati.

Nor in Kansas City.

[wytout]

If we're going to try it on a trial basis, then I-395 would be ideal because it is the mostly lightly traveled interstate in CT.  Might be a little fun in Downtown Hartford and New Haven, where exits are so close together.  Question is, will the directional suffixes on the exits (N,S,E,W) be disposed of?  Interesting, because I noticed they've started to replace (read: put in after it's been missing for 20 years) mile markers on I-84 east in Hartford.

I posed the issue of "how do you number multiple separate exits (as opposed to an A-B interchange) that are less than a mile apart" in my comments to FHWA on the NPA for the 2009 MUTCD.  It was never addressed in either the 2009 MUTCD nor in the NPA responses.

While using letter suffixes appears to be the logical solution to the problem, it also conflicts with the present convention of using "A-B" for same interchange.  As such, IMO, it should be at least clarified in the current MUTCD (if for no other reason than to head off those lawyers who will look for every excuse to divert fault from clients who smashed up their vehicles).

We have an example of (maybe unintended trial run) A/B/C/D in CT, and they are not for the same interchange.
CT 2 Exits 5A, 5B, 5C, 5D

https://maps.google.com/?ll=41.734574,-72.624092&spn=0.013258,0.027874&t=h&z=16

[Duke87]

While using letter suffixes appears to be the logical solution to the problem, it also conflicts with the present convention of using "A-B" for same interchange.  As such, IMO, it should be at least clarified in the current MUTCD (if for no other reason than to head off those lawyers who will look for every excuse to divert fault from clients who smashed up their vehicles).

What conflict? If exits 2S-N are at MP 1.77 and exit 3 is at MP 2.31, the former can be exits 2A-B and the latter 2C. Or, if the single exit comes first, it's 2A while the pair is 2B-C. Simple.


Nice to see Connecticut bending on this. Didn't expect that so soon.
It's interesting how the holdouts in the northeast seem to be more inclined to convert highway by highway on a "come as it may" basis, rather than go for the huge all at once changeover that other states have done. From a practical perspective it is seemingly more manageable that way.

[NE2]

What conflict? If exits 2S-N are at MP 1.77 and exit 3 is at MP 2.31, the former can be exits 2A-B and the latter 2C.

One problem: what if in the other direction you have only one exit 2? Then you either use the awkward 2AB for a single exit (Florida does this) or the incomplete 2A (using either 2B or 2C for the other). California went with the 2B approach, and in general assigned letters independently in each direction, leading to a lot of mismatching between the same exit in opposite directions.

Florida's sequential approach to this was that if a new exit was added between 2 and 3, it would be 2C (with the possibility of 2CA and 2CB). Then 2 could be reconfigured as 2A and 2B in the future with no issues.

[bob7374]

A little birdie tells me that I-395 in MA will be one of the first routes to be converted to mileage-based exits when MassDOT begins changing numbers, which I understand is tentatively scheduled to begin in 2014.  If so, it makes sense that CT would do I-395 as their pilot route.

And on the MassPike, the first three digit exit number would be Westborough I-495 (currently Exit 11A, future exit 106).

Makes sense to me too that I-395 would be first in MA since it is a relatively short distance (I-84 would be another good early switch candidate). What about the numbering of I-290? Currently the consecutive numbers simply continue I-395's after I-290 begins at the Mass Pike. It wouldn't be true milepost based numbers if they weren't reset, but any worry about some possible confusion with repeat exit numbers within a few miles of each other?

A spokesman for RIDOT in a column from 2010 said they were considering adopting mile-post based numbers as well. Meanwhile MUTCD suggests loop routes have one set of exit numbers even if they cross state lines. Would MassDOT want to consult with RI about the renumbering of I-295? It might make sense then for RI to switch at the same time as MA.

[ARMOURERERIC]

One local example from California:  Going WB on I-8 Greenfield Drive is Exit 20 and Main Street is 20A.  Going EB there is no Main Steet exit, but there is Greenfield Drive and it is just exit 20.

[Pete from Boston]

Finally, I am conflicted on mileage-based numbering, for purely selfish reasons.  I've always been pro mileage-based, but I've spent decades crossing Connecticut (about three months in the car in CT going between places at either end, very roughly calculated).  I still have a hard time remembering what the last exit on 84 is 25 years after it was changed (74? 106? 98?). 

I wonder if they would change the neon

EXIT
24

on the Super Duper Weenie billboard on the Connecticut Turnpike in Fairfield to 26 or 27.  It is decades old and advertised a motel for many years.  A lot of towns with the genteel air of  Fairfield don't allow new neon signs, but allow those grandfathered in. 

[jp the roadgeek]

One other issue that CT has to deal with is what to do about the 84 West and 91 South out of sequence exit numbers at exits 27/28. On I-84 Exit 27 (I-691) would be Exit 39, and Exit 28 (CT 322) would be Exit 40.  Would the exits on the westbound side go 41 (29), 39 (27), 40 (28), or do they just make 27 + 28 40A and 40B?  On, I-91, both exits are within the 36th mile, so my proposal to clear up a reverse number is 27 becomes 36, and 28 becomes 36S because it's for US 5/CT 15 South.

[KEVIN_224]

Vermont should be sequential already, since it's mostly a rural state like Maine. Starting with Brattleboro's three exits:

1- US Route 5 | BRATTLEBORO [new 7]
2- To VT 9 West | BENNINGTON [new 9]
3- US Route 5/VT 9 East | KEENE, NH [new 11]

I was so happy when Maine made their change! The old exits from Kittery to Saco on I-95 (portions Maine Turnpike) had been 1/2/3/4/2/3/4/5. Now they're 1/2/3/7/19/25/32/36, etc.

The three exits on Massachusetts I-84 would likely shift from 1/2/3 to 3/5/7. I can't speak for I-395 to the east of that, since I've never been on that road south of the US Route 20 exits in Auburn.

Getting this back to the Constitution State...

I totally agree about the exit numbers needing to be reset at the NY/CT line on CT Route 15 (Merritt Parkway)! Also, we can solve the missing exit 1 issue in Greenwich on I-95.

Now this is making me think of something: Would the Connecticut Turnpike now end at the I-95/I-395 split in Waterford? (I think it's really only on paper once the exits change.)

[PHLBOS]

One other issue that CT has to deal with is what to do about the 84 West and 91 South out of sequence exit numbers at exits 27/28. On I-84 Exit 27 (I-691) would be Exit 39, and Exit 28 (CT 322) would be Exit 40.  Would the exits on the westbound side go 41 (29), 39 (27), 40 (28), or do they just make 27 + 28 40A and 40B?  On, I-91, both exits are within the 36th mile, so my proposal to clear up a reverse number is 27 becomes 36, and 28 becomes 36S because it's for US 5/CT 15 South.

As with everything else, there will no doubt be some fudge factors involved when assigning mile-marker-based exit numbers in some areas; particularly where interchange ramps don't fall in the same order as those along the opposite direction.  That said, in the case of the two I-84 (Exits 27 & 28), I do not see the westbound ramp to I-691 carrying a completely different number than the eastbound ramp (40 vs. 41).  What ConnDOT could do in this area is redesignate Exits 27/28 as either 39A-B or 40A-B, depending on where the MILE 40 is actually located or use 39 and 40 for both directions.

Though off-topic in terms of state, MassDOT's going to have a similar challenge when it comes time to redesignate the exits numbers along I-95, Exits 22 through 25 (near I-90/Mass Pike).  The order of the exit ramps along the southbound direction indeed differ from the northbound ramps.

[roadman65]

Maybe they should follow the Garden State Parkway's type of a-b-c.  Look at the Springfield Avenue/ Lyons Avenue Exits in Irvington, NJ.  NB you have the Exit 143 for Lyons Avenue, but southbound you have Lyons Avenue for Exits 143A (West) and 143B (East) and plain 143 for Springfield Avenue to the north before a SB driver reaches Lyons Avenue. 

Now this works out real well because Exit 143 is for Springfield Avenue in both directions (as the NB Lyons Avenue acts as connection to that via local streets being there is no direct ramp at that location) and 143 A & B for the same Lyons Avenue NB that still has the whole number. 

I would have to see those CT locations  in person to see just exactly how you can incorporate this one that way, but something similar along the lines might work. Anyway, you cannot have everything perfect!  Hey look at concurrencies, you have to have one route sacrifice its exit numbers throwing the one route that does out of sequence hence I-85 in Atlanta.

[vdeane]

Now this is making me think of something: Would the Connecticut Turnpike now end at the I-95/I-395 split in Waterford? (I think it's really only on paper once the exits change.)

I think the Connecticut Turnpike has been officially dead for decades now, so probably not even a consideration.

[jp the roadgeek]

One other issue that CT has to deal with is what to do about the 84 West and 91 South out of sequence exit numbers at exits 27/28. On I-84 Exit 27 (I-691) would be Exit 39, and Exit 28 (CT 322) would be Exit 40.  Would the exits on the westbound side go 41 (29), 39 (27), 40 (28), or do they just make 27 + 28 40A and 40B?  On, I-91, both exits are within the 36th mile, so my proposal to clear up a reverse number is 27 becomes 36, and 28 becomes 36S because it's for US 5/CT 15 South.

As with everything else, there will no doubt be some fudge factors involved when assigning mile-marker-based exit numbers in some areas; particularly where interchange ramps don't fall in the same order as those along the opposite direction.  That said, in the case of the two I-84 (Exits 27 & 28), I do not see the westbound ramp to I-691 carrying a completely different number than the eastbound ramp (40 vs. 41).  What ConnDOT could do in this area is redesignate Exits 27/28 as either 39A-B or 40A-B, depending on where the MILE 40 is actually located or use 39 and 40 for both directions.

Though off-topic in terms of state, MassDOT's going to have a similar challenge when it comes time to redesignate the exits numbers along I-95, Exits 22 through 25 (near I-90/Mass Pike).  The order of the exit ramps along the southbound direction indeed differ from the northbound ramps.

For the 691/322 location, the 40 MM is just beyond the Exit 27 EB off ramp but before the 28 off ramp, which is about 500 ft. later, and near the Exit 28 WB on ramp; the 27 on ramp is at about 39.7.  The sequence both EB and WB is is 27 off, 28 off, 28 on, 27 on.  Here's an image of the two flyovers from I-84W to I-691 E, and from I-691W to I-84W

[roadman65]

Now this is making me think of something: Would the Connecticut Turnpike now end at the I-95/I-395 split in Waterford? (I think it's really only on paper once the exits change.)

I think the Connecticut Turnpike has been officially dead for decades now, so probably not even a consideration.

Does anyone even call it that anymore? 

[jeffandnicole]

On I-76 in NJ, which is less than 3 miles in length, nearly every conceivable issue mentioned above is accounted for on this highway.  Like many other states which don't use Exit 0, the Interchange with I-295 North is Exit 1B on I-76 West (Note: There is no 1A on the Westbound side, so the first exit one encounters is Exit 1B). On the EB side, I-295 North is again Exit 1B, and I-295 South is Exit 1A.

Then, US 130 in the true MP 1 area is a completely separate interchange.  US 130 South is Exit 1C for both 76 EB & WB, and on the 76 WB side only, there's Exit 1D for US 130 NB.

On I-676 in NJ, there are Interchanges 1, 2 and 3 in the area between MP 0.00 and 1.99.

So...if it can be done here, there's no reason to fret it can't be done in CT.