Mileage Based Exits coming to CT

[KEVIN_224]

Another tricky area would be where CT Route 15 briefly runs outside of I-91 on either side in Meriden. Heading north is Exit 16 (East Main Street) and Exit 17 for CT Route 15 North. I believe Exit 18 involves I-691 (heading west) and CT Route 66 (heading east), while Exit 19 is for Baldwin and Preston Avenue (westbound exit only). Exit 20 for Country Club Road in Middletown could be either be the new Exit 21 or 22. Exit 21 in Cromwell (CT Route 372) could become Exit 26 while Exit 22 NS (CT Route 9) could become Exit 27.

[Alps]

Note that for mile x.00 through x.99, Connecticut tends to use Exit X, while California tends to use Exit X+1 (see http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/signtech/calnexus/). I favor California's approach, mainly for its treatment of exits in the first mile of freeway (CT uses exit 1A, 1B, etc. for mile 0.00 through 1.99).

Ugh. Apparently nobody taught either DOT how rounding works.

Logically, wouldn't it make most sense to follow what is the standard procedure for everything else and round x.50 and above up and round x.49 and below down?

I would also "spot" the exit at the midpoint between the two gore points, rather than at one gore point or the other.

Of course, to the general public, this level of precision is unimportant, so meh.

But still, seeing an exit that is blatantly right at the beginning of a freeway or right at the state line signed as exit 1 rather than exit 0 always bugs the hell out of me. I will never understand the aversion some states have to posting exit 0s.

Is there any state that does it that way? I've seen numbering according to the milepost before the exit or the milepost before the bridge even if the exit comes first. I've certainly seen fudging one way or another, but I've never seen consistent rounding up/down.

[roadman]

This thread still needs an off-topic post about NH, so here I go:
Once they get their act together, maybe all their Interstate-to-Interstate junctions will finally be numbered...

That'll mean NHDOT will have to remove the "exit tabs" for Manchester Airport from the diagrammatic signs on I-93 and I-293.

[vdeane]

Exit 2 is actually both.  Since I round, here's how I'd do them:
1: 1A (or 0A)
2: 1B (or 0B; it's actually both directions)
3: 1C (or 1A)
4: 1D (or 1B)
5: 1D (or 1B; 4 is southbound only, 5 northbound only)
6: 2A
7: 2B
8: 3
9: 5
10: 6
11: 8
12: 9
13: 11
14: 12 and 13
15: 16
16: 19A
17: 19B
18: 20

That's where I decided to stop calculating the mileage.

[Duke87]

Logically, wouldn't it make most sense to follow what is the standard procedure for everything else and round x.50 and above up and round x.49 and below down?

Is there any state that does it that way? I've seen numbering according to the milepost before the exit or the milepost before the bridge even if the exit comes first. I've certainly seen fudging one way or another, but I've never seen consistent rounding up/down.

I-95 in Pennsylvania. In Maryland it seems to follow this further south but then changes to "just round up" north of Baltimore (differing SHA/MdTA policy?). Florida has up/down rounding but there are several that are rounded the wrong way (no consistency as to which).

[jp the roadgeek]

Continuing I-91:

19: 21                      36: 43
20: 23                      37: 44
21: 26                      38: 46 (A+B SB)
22: 27 A+B               39+41 NB: 47
23: 29                      40: 48
24: 32                      41 + 39 SB: 49
25: 34 A+B               42: 49A
26: 34C                    44: 50
27: 36                      45: 51
28: 36A                    46: 53
29: 37                      47: 55 A+B
29A: 38                    48: 56
30 (sb): 39C             49: 57
31: 39D
32: 39 A & B
33: 40
34: 41
35: 42 A+B

The fun part is the whole I-84 cross over where you have 3 1/2 exits within 500 ft. southbound.

[jp the roadgeek]

I 84 Exit List:

1: 0                                                   27: 40                                                    51/52 (EB): 62B+C                                               
2: 1                                                   28: 40A                                                  52 (WB): 62
3: 4                                                  29: 41 (WB Only)                                    53: 63 (EB Only)
4: 4A                                                 30: 42                                                    54: 63 (WB Only)
5: 5                                                   31: 44                                                    55: 64
6: 6                                                   32: 46                                                    56: 64A
7: 7                                                   33: 49                                                    57: 65A (WB Only)
8: 8                                                   34: 49A (EB Only)                                   58: 65             
9: 11                                                 35: 50                                                    59: 66
10: 15                                               36: 51                                                    60: 67
11: 16                                              37: 53                                                    61: 68
13: 19                                               38: 54A (WB Only)                                  62: 69 (Signed as Exit 69+67 WB)
14: 20                                               39: 54                                                    63: 71
15: 22                                               39A: 55                                                  64-65 EB: 73 A+B
16: 25                                               40: 56                                                    64 (WB): 73
17: 30                                               41: 57                                                    65 (WB): 74
18: 31                                               42: 58A (WB Only)                                  66: 75
19/20: 32 A+B                                   43: 58                                                    67: 77
21: 32C                                             44: 59                                                    68: 81
22: 33                                               45: 60A (WB Only)                                  69: 84
23: 34                                               46: 60                                                    70: 85
24: 35 (WB Only)                             47: 61A (WB Only)                                     71: 87
25: 35 (EB), 36(WB)                        48: 61 A+B (EB), 61 (WB)                          72: 91
25A: 37                                            49: 62 (EB Only)                                      73: 92
26: 38                                              50: 62A                                                  74: 97     

[PHLBOS]

I 84 Exit List:
1: 0               
2: 1                     

You're assuming that ConnDOT will actually use 0 for an exit number.  Do we know that for sure?  How many states actually practice such?  If not, I can easily see Exits 1, 2A & 2B not changing.  Truth be told, I could easily see ConnDOT keeping the exit numbers the same through Exit 8.  Kind of like what PennDOT did w/I-95 through Exit 9 (actually 9A & 9B) when they converted.  The Highland Ave. & US 322 Exits were originally planned to change numbers from the current 3 (northbound), 3B-A (southbound) to 2A (Highland Ave. - both directions) and 3 (southbound only exit for US 322 West).  Such a move was scrubbed.

The Lansdale exit (Exit 31) off I-476/NE Extension was originally planned to be redesignated as Exit 30 (the mile marker's right at the interchange) but PTC backed off on that change as well.

As stated earlier, there will be some fudge factors enacted in certain areas; especially if the new exit number differs only by 1.

Back to I-84 in CT: since there is a MILE 98 marker just prior to Exit 74, that exit will likely become Exit 98.
There's also no way that the current Exits 62 & 64 will be assigned completely different exit numbers for each direction.  Exit 62 will likely be signed as Exit 68 while Exit 64 will be signed as either Exit 72 or 73 for both directions.  Again, the fudge factor will be in play.

[jp the roadgeek]

                     

Back to I-84 in CT: since there is a MILE 98 marker just prior to Exit 74, that exit will likely become Exit 98.
There's also no way that the current Exits 62 & 64 will be assigned completely different exit numbers for each direction.  Exit 62 will likely be signed as Exit 68 while Exit 64 will be signed as either Exit 72 or 73 for both directions.  Again, the fudge factor will be in play.

Only reason why I worked it this way is the way it is signed now.  Westbound on 84, Exits 62 and 60 use a  c/d road where the exit ramps are about 2 miles apart along the road (there's even a backdoor exit to I-384 east on the c/d road).  Exit 61 does not use the c/d road.  Eastbound, everything is in sequence.  For the eastbound exit 64/65, it's a split exit ramp with 64 being for CT 83/CT 30 S, and 65 being for CT 30 N.  Westbound, they are separate exits about a mile apart with 65 being for CT 30 and 64 for CT 83/30.

[kurumi]

I'd like to see exit numbers on US 6.

In Willimantic: 88, 90, 92, 93
In Killingly: 112, 114

[machias]

I'd like to see exit numbers on US 6.

In Willimantic: 88, 90, 92, 93
In Killingly: 112, 114

I second that. I believe every interchange should be numbered, even if it's just one interchange on an isolated portion of freeway/expressway. A numbered point of reference is much easier to work with when it comes to giving directions.

[PHLBOS]

Only reason why I worked it this way is the way it is signed now.  Westbound on 84, Exits 62 and 60 use a  c/d road where the exit ramps are about 2 miles apart along the road (there's even a backdoor exit to I-384 east on the c/d road).  Exit 61 does not use the c/d road.  Eastbound, everything is in sequence.  For the eastbound exit 64/65, it's a split exit ramp with 64 being for CT 83/CT 30 S, and 65 being for CT 30 N.  Westbound, they are separate exits about a mile apart with 65 being for CT 30 and 64 for CT 83/30.

Fair enough, but one needs to keep in mind that the mile marker-based exit number for a particular interchange should be based on where the actual interchange crossing is and not necessarily where the exit ramps break off the mainline highway.

Again, like anywhere else, there will be some abnormalities (in terms of numbering) that have likely existed elsewhere.  My earlier example of I-95 in Weston, MA near the I-90 & MA 30 interchanges (Exits 24 & 25) is similar to your E. Hartford I-84 example where in one direction the exit numbers are not in direct sequence (Exit 25 comes before Exit 24 along I-95 northbound).

As mentioned before, an interchange will typically have the same primary number for both directions regardless of where the interchange ramps start.

[hbelkins]

I was reminded today of just how much I wish the northeastern states had mileage-based exits. I'm planning my trip to Portsmouth, NH, and that trip will include an effort to clinch New Hampshire's counties. The trip will require my use of I-91 north from Massachusetts to I-93, then a trip south on I-93 to the Boston area. If NH and MA had mileage-based exits, I'd be able to better calculate how long it will take me.

[shadyjay]

Figure approx. 3 hours from the CT/MA border to I-93 in St J... that's estimating 1 hour between CT/MA and MA/VT (at approx 53 miles), 1 hour between MA/VT border and I-89 in White River Jct (approx 70 miles), and another hour from there up to I-93 (St J).  Can't help you for distances/drive times for that state "on the other side of the river".  I-93 travels through major construction zones and a much larger metro area, so approx. drive times are tough there. 

A few years ago I sent an email to VTrans asking them if they had plans to switch over to mileage-based exits.  They said they had no plans.  But then again, that was in '05.  I'm sure CT didn't really have any plans for such in '05, let alone any signs with aligned exit tabs... now look at 'em. 

[hbelkins]

Figure approx. 3 hours from the CT/MA border to I-93 in St J... that's estimating 1 hour between CT/MA and MA/VT (at approx 53 miles), 1 hour between MA/VT border and I-89 in White River Jct (approx 70 miles), and another hour from there up to I-93 (St J).

Google Maps said something similar, and it usually overestimates travel times (and underestimates how fast I drive with my Valentine One as my co-pilot).

I'll end up posting my route plans in either the "Road Trips" or "meets" threads.

[froggie]

Going slightly off-topic with this, but if Vermont had mileage-based exits, the I-91/I-93 junction would be Exits 128 and 11 for the two routes, respectively.

IIRC, I-93 has somewhere between 128 and 133 miles in New Hampshire...this includes the Franconia Notch.

[KEVIN_224]

@ PHLBOS: If I-84 in Connecticut is 98 miles long, then the mile marker is missing. Whether it was in 1996 or August of 2012 (my last time in Union), I have NEVER seen mile marker 98. With that said, I would make the last exit in Connecticut as Exit 97. I know the MM 97 sign lies not far south of the present exit 74. The three Massachusetts exits of I-84 could become 3 (1), 5 (2) and 7A/B (3 A/B).

@ SHADYJAY: I believe the last mile sign on I-91 in Bernardston, MA is 54.8, seeing how MA and NH just love that 1/5 mile signing!

[PHLBOS]

If I-84 in Connecticut is 98 miles long, then the mile marker is missing. Whether it was in 1996 or August of 2012 (my last time in Union), I have NEVER seen mile marker 98.  With that said, I would make the last exit in Connecticut as Exit 97. I know the MM 97 sign lies not far south of the present exit 74.

I'll be passing through that area next Thursday (5/23) night so I can verify. Looking at Google Earth Street View in the area along I-84 Eastbound, there is indeed a mile marker of sorts just before the BGS for Exit 74.  Unfortunately, the image of it (at least on my computer) is a bit blurred to read the actual number (if it's a 97 or 98).  Again, I will confirm next week or someone else who happens to be in the area beforehand can confirm.  Maybe the Mile marker I saw and am referring to is indeed MM 97 per your post.

If I'm mistaken, I'm mistaken.

The three Massachusetts exits of I-84 could become 3 (1), 5 (2) and 7A/B (3 A/B).

FWIW, Mile 7 (no marker present, at least per Google Earth Street View) is actually located beyond the US 20 interchange; there's a MILE 6.6 marker just east of the US 20 Eastbound underpass and a MILE 6.8 marker is located bewteen said-underpass and the US 20 West overpass, prior to the exit ramp for US 20 West (Exit 3B).

That said, MassDOT could redesignate Exits 3A-B as Exits 6A-B and not be wrong (per MUTCD standards).  If the toll plaza wasn't there (another topic for another thread), the ramp to I-90 West would've likely been marked as Exit 4 or MM-based Exit 7.

[connroadgeek]

Why are we doing this again? State has too much money and time on its hands? I'd rather more lane-miles of highway (or even better return all that extra money to the tax payers if there's such a big surplus) rather than new exit tabs, but maybe that's just me.

[shadyjay]

Why are we doing this again? State has too much money and time on its hands? I'd rather more lane-miles of highway (or even better return all that extra money to the tax payers if there's such a big surplus) rather than new exit tabs, but maybe that's just me.

Pretty sure that the FHWA or the MUTCD is mandating that the remaining states that have sequential-based exits (CT, RI, NY, MA, VT, NH, NJ tpke) convert over to distance-based exits at some point in the not-too-distant future.  Since signs on I-395 are up for replacement, it makes sense to change over the exit numbers at the same time.  It also makes sense since all of I-395's signs are up for replacement, vs the present piecemeal replacement of signs in sections along I-84 and I-95. 

In addition to I-395, other routes which are most likely to have signs replaced "in total" in the years ahead are:  CT 2, CT 8, CT 9, and CT 11.  Signage on these routes was installed in the late 1980s timeframe. 

I would love to see more lanes added to I-95 east of New Haven, or the completion of CT 11 over the replacement of exit numbers, but I'm pretty sure the exit number conversion is a federal mandate.  On signs not up for replacement, it wouldn't involve new exit tabs for the new numbers, but rather overlays on existing tabs.  Maybe ConnDOT would take that opportunity to properly align the existing exit tabs.  Just look at what they've been doing to the old signs on I-95 in New Haven.... properly aligning the exit tabs when they've been moving signs to new gantries and such. 

Then again, knowing ConnDOT, they would replace the entire exit tab.  Anyone remember what they did when the speed limit changed from 55 to 65 in 1998?  A few months before the changeover, they went and replaced EVERY SINGLE SPEED LIMIT SIGN in a future 65 zone with a brand new "SPEED LIMIT 65" sign, then put "5" overlays over the "6" until October 1, 1998.  All other states I've seen change their speed limit signs have kept the existing sign, and just stick a "6" over the "5" when the limit increased.

[connroadgeek]

Why are we doing this again? State has too much money and time on its hands? I'd rather more lane-miles of highway (or even better return all that extra money to the tax payers if there's such a big surplus) rather than new exit tabs, but maybe that's just me.

Pretty sure that the FHWA or the MUTCD is mandating that the remaining states that have sequential-based exits (CT, RI, NY, MA, VT, NH, NJ tpke) convert over to distance-based exits at some point in the not-too-distant future.  Since signs on I-395 are up for replacement, it makes sense to change over the exit numbers at the same time.  It also makes sense since all of I-395's signs are up for replacement, vs the present piecemeal replacement of signs in sections along I-84 and I-95. 

I know. Just a waste of time in my opinion. There are so many better ways to spend that money that will make a real impact to users of the transportation infrastructure rather than changing all the exit numbers by 1 or 2 numbers just to match the mile markers.

[Pete from Boston]

If I-84 in Connecticut is 98 miles long, then the mile marker is missing. Whether it was in 1996 or August of 2012 (my last time in Union), I have NEVER seen mile marker 98.  With that said, I would make the last exit in Connecticut as Exit 97. I know the MM 97 sign lies not far south of the present exit 74.

I'll be passing through that area next Thursday (5/23) night so I can verify. Looking at Google Earth Street View in the area along I-84 Eastbound, there is indeed a mile marker of sorts just before the BGS for Exit 74.  Unfortunately, the image of it (at least on my computer) is a bit blurred to read the actual number (if it's a 97 or 98).  Again, I will confirm next week or someone else who happens to be in the area beforehand can confirm.  Maybe the Mile marker I saw and am referring to is indeed MM 97 per your post.

If I'm mistaken, I'm mistaken.

There is a 97.8 or 97.9.  I don't think there's a 98 mile marker.  I'll be there Monday and will confirm.

[froggie]

Depends how you look at it.  In the grand scheme of things, the cost of that sign replacement wouldn't get you much otherwise.  At best, a few miles of road resurfacing (more if it's on a smaller, less busy road) or, if you're really lucky, a mile of road widening.

You're also underestimating what the impact of mile-based exit numbers can do.  Makes it a lot easier to add interchanges without gumming up a sequential-based system.  Also makes it a lot easier to figure out how much farther you have to go to get to your exit.  These are impacts that aren't easily quantifiable, but are real nonetheless.

[PHLBOS]

There are so many better ways to spend that money that will make a real impact to users of the transportation infrastructure rather than changing all the exit numbers by 1 or 2 numbers just to match the mile markers.

The changing all the exit numbers by 1 or 2 numbers to match the mile markers, in most instances, only occurs along the routes westernmost's or southernmost's areas.  As on travels further north or east, the numeric difference between the sequential exit number and mile marker expands greater; especially if the route in question doesn't have an interchange located at nearly every mile along the entire distance.

That's why in the case of I-84 in CT; the exit number conversion (IMHO) will likely only impact Exits 9 through 74, Exits 1 through 8 will probably remain as is.  Similar to what happened w/I-95 in PA; Exits 1 through 9A-B southbound (1 through 10 northbound) did not change even though one or two interchanges fell slightly outside the nearest mile marker threshold.

[KEVIN_224]

IF Connecticut Route 9 went mileage based? Hmmmm! The road is a hair over 40 miles long, when it ends at I-84/US Route 6 in Farmington:

32- I-84/US 6 West | Waterbury (new 40 B) [US Route 6 not signed]
31- I-84/US 6 East | Hartford (new 40 A)
30- CT 71 | Corbin's Corner (new 39)
29- CT 175 | Newington
28A - Downtown New Britain
28- CT 72 West/to I-84 | Bristol/Waterbury
27- Chestnut Street | New Britain [Southbound Only]
26- Columbus Boulevard |Downtown New Britain [Northbound Only]
25- Ellis Street/To CT 71 | New Britain (new 35) [MM 35 is about 100 feet north of the Ellis Street overpass, but on and off ramps are on the southern side of the street: http://goo.gl/maps/PwSRx and http://goo.gl/maps/pJ0ud ]
24- To CT 71/CT 372 (Willow Brook Connector) |Kensington [Northbound Only] (new 34)
23- Christian Lane | Berlin [Southbound Only] (new 33)
22- CT 372
21- US 5/CT 15 Berlin Turnpike
20NS - I-91 | Hartford/New Haven (new 30)