New York

[MASTERNC]

PA changed its work zone laws back in 2014. the "ACTIVE WORK ZONE WHEN FLASHING" sign was introduced with a little white light at the top.

Per PennDOT:

Active Work Zones:
Posting of active work zones. Active work zones must be designated as such to notify motorists when they enter and leave the work zone. A white flashing light attached to the "Active Work Zone When Flashing" sign will indicate an active work zone. The flashing light will only be activated when workers are present and turned off when workers are not present.

Fifteen-day loss of license for driving dangerously. Motorists caught driving 11 miles per hour or more above the posted speed limit in an active work zone, or who are involved in a crash in an active work zone and are convicted for failing to drive at a safe speed, automatically will lose their license for 15 days.

Fines doubled/jail time increased. Fines for certain traffic violations – including speeding, driving under the influence, and failure to obey traffic devices – are doubled for active work zones. Also, the law provides for up to five years of additional jail time for individuals convicted of homicide by vehicle for a crash that occurred in an active work zone.

In 2014, 377 suspensions were imposed on motorists for work zone violations.

Most times, the use of the white light seems accurate.  Not always. I don't know how widespread these are being used now, however.

I find they are used inconsistently in long-term work zones.  Sometimes they're not turned on or off when they should be.

PA's speed camera law blends Maryland and Illinois.  Like Illinois, speed cameras can only be used when workers are present and the vehicles sit out in the open (not hidden by objects) with two signs right before them.  Like Maryland, the vehicle owner is cited and the fines are low, especially for the first two offenses.

[froggie]

^ Does Pennsylvania have a minimum over-speed at which the speed camera will trigger?  Maryland does.  Outside Montgomery County, Maryland's speed cameras only trigger when the vehicle is going 12+ MPH over the limit.

[MASTERNC]

^ Does Pennsylvania have a minimum over-speed at which the speed camera will trigger?  Maryland does.  Outside Montgomery County, Maryland's speed cameras only trigger when the vehicle is going 12+ MPH over the limit.

Yes, it is 11 over the speed limit.  First violation is a warning.  There are some in the legislature who think that is too lenient, but it still seems to be reducing repeat offenders.

[vdeane]

https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Getting-There-Will-New-York-change-its-highway-16488756.php+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari

My X button can only take so much.

I don't see consistency.  I hear a lot of drivers looking for Exit 23 on I-87 to get to Albany, only to find themselves in Warrensburg.

Heh.  Brian gets an A for effort, there.  Poor guy having to tow the party line and not bring up the fact FHWA's pressure was behind the conversion in the places where it has happened.

It will be a great day in NY when people can tell how far they need to go on the Thruway just by simple subtraction.

Plus he's Region 1, and I don't believe Region 1 has had any large-scale guide sign rehabs since mile-based became required (at least not on a road with exit numbers; all the signs on NY 85 and half of them on NY 7 got replaced as part of other projects).  Additionally, I-890 is already mile-based, and I-787 is like those MassDOT roads that got left alone, so it might just be the Northway, free 90, and I-88 for us.

^ Does Pennsylvania have a minimum over-speed at which the speed camera will trigger?  Maryland does.  Outside Montgomery County, Maryland's speed cameras only trigger when the vehicle is going 12+ MPH over the limit.

Yes, it is 11 over the speed limit.  First violation is a warning.  There are some in the legislature who think that is too lenient, but it still seems to be reducing repeat offenders.

I'm curious how it will be here.  The NYC school cameras are also 11 over, so I imagine it would be the same for consistency, but it would be nice to see that confirmed.

[Rothman]

https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Getting-There-Will-New-York-change-its-highway-16488756.php+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari

My X button can only take so much.

I don't see consistency.  I hear a lot of drivers looking for Exit 23 on I-87 to get to Albany, only to find themselves in Warrensburg.

Heh.  Brian gets an A for effort, there.  Poor guy having to tow the party line and not bring up the fact FHWA's pressure was behind the conversion in the places where it has happened.

It will be a great day in NY when people can tell how far they need to go on the Thruway just by simple subtraction.

Plus he's Region 1, and I don't believe Region 1 has had any large-scale guide sign rehabs since mile-based became required (at least not on a road with exit numbers; all the signs on NY 85 and half of them on NY 7 got replaced as part of other projects).  Additionally, I-890 is already mile-based, and I-787 is like those MassDOT roads that got left alone, so it might just be the Northway, free 90, and I-88 for us.

Huh.  Weird that a Region 1 public relations guy got that assignment for a statewide question.  I suppose he was in the MO at one point, though.

[kalvado]

https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Getting-There-Will-New-York-change-its-highway-16488756.php+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari

My X button can only take so much.

I don't see consistency.  I hear a lot of drivers looking for Exit 23 on I-87 to get to Albany, only to find themselves in Warrensburg.

Heh.  Brian gets an A for effort, there.  Poor guy having to tow the party line and not bring up the fact FHWA's pressure was behind the conversion in the places where it has happened.

It will be a great day in NY when people can tell how far they need to go on the Thruway just by simple subtraction.

Plus he's Region 1, and I don't believe Region 1 has had any large-scale guide sign rehabs since mile-based became required (at least not on a road with exit numbers; all the signs on NY 85 and half of them on NY 7 got replaced as part of other projects).  Additionally, I-890 is already mile-based, and I-787 is like those MassDOT roads that got left alone, so it might just be the Northway, free 90, and I-88 for us.

Huh.  Weird that a Region 1 public relations guy got that assignment for a statewide question.  I suppose he was in the MO at one point, though.

TU is a local newspaper, which likely always contacted local office.
And I saw same question being answered in contradictory ways, I believe by the same person, within few years... So PR doesn't have to give an accurate answer anyway.

[machias]

https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Getting-There-Will-New-York-change-its-highway-16488756.php+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari

My X button can only take so much.

I don't see consistency.  I hear a lot of drivers looking for Exit 23 on I-87 to get to Albany, only to find themselves in Warrensburg.

That, however, is due to different exit sequences under different authorities, rather than a mixture of different numbering schemes.

The "urban areas" issue NYSDOT is always spouting about when defending sequential numbers is irritating. Chicago does just fine at I-94 MP 51 at the Jane Byrne Interchange (exits 51 A-J). No one is driving off the road in confusion.  Kansas City has plenty of suffixes without an issue. Philadelphia, Boston, Dallas, Phoenix, they all handle suffixed exits just fine. There is nothing special about the five boroughs. It's just a weak excuse.

[hotdogPi]

... Boston ... they all handle suffixed exits just fine.

Those were sequential suffixed exits.

[vdeane]

The "urban areas" issue NYSDOT is always spouting about when defending sequential numbers is irritating. Chicago does just fine at I-94 MP 51 at the Jane Byrne Interchange (exits 51 A-J). No one is driving off the road in confusion.  Kansas City has plenty of suffixes without an issue. Philadelphia, Boston, Dallas, Phoenix, they all handle suffixed exits just fine. There is nothing special about the five boroughs. It's just a weak excuse.

I suspect it basically boils down to "we don't want to convert NYC".

(personal opinion)

[SignBridge]

Wasn't I-95 in the Bronx (Cross Bronx Expwy.& Bruckner Expwy.) re-signed with mileage based numbers? I know I saw a lot of suffixed exits just east of the G.W. Bridge.

[shadyjay]

Wasn't I-95 in the Bronx (Cross Bronx Expwy.& Bruckner Expwy.) re-signed with mileage based numbers? I know I saw a lot of suffixed exits just east of the G.W. Bridge.

The Cross Bronx attempted to convert to sequential back in the 'naughts when the Bruckner interchange was rebuilt.  Exit 12 would've been I-295, but was switched back to Exit 6B.  Mileage-based exits continue up the Cross Bronx and the Bruckner section of I-95 to the New England Thruway.  The Thruway is sequential, though the numbers aren't that far off, and only a couple would need to be changed for true milepost accuracy. 

Maine didn't bother renumbering exits on I-295 in Portland when they converted, to avoid "alphabet soup".  New York could do something similar within the city, or fudge some numbers so that you're not diving any deeper than an "A" or "B" exit. 

The Trans-Manhattan Expressway also got new exit numbers at the same time (early 00s).. Northbound, Exit 1A became 1, Exit 1B became 2, and Exit 1C (I-87/Deegan) became Exit 3.  To this day, exit numbers northbound (compass eastbound) remain mile-based, but the Cross Bronx numbers retain the old #, so the Deegan has signs advertising "Exit 3", then "Exit 1C-D" at the exit itself.  Southbound there is only one exit on the "TMX" and its signed as Exit 1, but should be Exit 1A.

[vdeane]

The NYSDOT portions of I-95 were always mileage-based, part of an experiment in the 70s that would have led to conversion had NYSDOT not gotten cold feet at the prospect of changing things again when it was believed the US would switch to metric.  As was mentioned, for whatever reason it was decided in the 2000s to convert I-95 to sequential even though this would break continuity with the Thruway.  This was eventually abandoned and the numbers switched back, but the Port Authority never went along with that, thus beginning their trend of nonsensical exit numbers that they continued with I-278 in NJ.

[Alps]

The NYSDOT portions of I-95 were always mileage-based, part of an experiment in the 70s that would have led to conversion had NYSDOT not gotten cold feet at the prospect of changing things again when it was believed the US would switch to metric.  As was mentioned, for whatever reason it was decided in the 2000s to convert I-95 to sequential even though this would break continuity with the Thruway.  This was eventually abandoned and the numbers switched back, but the Port Authority never went along with that, thus beginning their trend of nonsensical exit numbers that they continued with I-278 in NJ.

You got a problem with exits 1-2-3-3?

[SignBridge]

And yet again I find myself thinking that sometimes exit numbering creates more problems than it solves. If the State of California was able to manage without exit numbers for as long as they did until the FHWA forced them to comply, then I don't know why we really need them especially in urban areas.

[empirestate]

And yet again I find myself thinking that sometimes exit numbering creates more problems than it solves. If the State of California was able to manage without exit numbers for as long as they did until the FHWA forced them to comply, then I don't know why we really need them especially in urban areas.

As GPS navigation proliferates and the need to refer to exit numbers when giving directions decreases, the importance of them will certainly diminish. While it's still helpful to have some kind of designation so that you can match your observation with your expectations, the details of how those designations are arrived at become less important as navigation apps start to provide lane-specific directions. Exit numbering then becomes more of a fallback than a primary means of navigation, and perhaps of greater interest to those keeping an inventory of interchanges rather than those actually traversing them.

[vdeane]

Don't GPS units give exit numbers as part of their directions?  I would think that would make exit numbers more important rather than less, especially as GPS directions can sometimes be phrased in a confusing way relative to what a driver is seeing, especially if there are a lot of ramps close together.

[empirestate]

Don't GPS units give exit numbers as part of their directions?  I would think that would make exit numbers more important rather than less, especially as GPS directions can sometimes be phrased in a confusing way relative to what a driver is seeing, especially if there are a lot of ramps close together.

They do. And it depends on the app of course, but they also give pretty specific indications of which lane to be in and which direction to go, along with detailed sign legends, so even if there weren't exit numbers you'd still have plenty of points of reference.

[storm2k]

Don't GPS units give exit numbers as part of their directions?  I would think that would make exit numbers more important rather than less, especially as GPS directions can sometimes be phrased in a confusing way relative to what a driver is seeing, especially if there are a lot of ramps close together.

They do. And it depends on the app of course, but they also give pretty specific indications of which lane to be in and which direction to go, along with detailed sign legends, so even if there weren't exit numbers you'd still have plenty of points of reference.

This is true, but it makes a lot more sense to hear the GPS say "use the right lane to take Exit 9", see Exit 9 on the sign you're driving past, and know you're going the right way. To me, it makes no sense to get rid of them.

[kalvado]

Don't GPS units give exit numbers as part of their directions?  I would think that would make exit numbers more important rather than less, especially as GPS directions can sometimes be phrased in a confusing way relative to what a driver is seeing, especially if there are a lot of ramps close together.

They do. And it depends on the app of course, but they also give pretty specific indications of which lane to be in and which direction to go, along with detailed sign legends, so even if there weren't exit numbers you'd still have plenty of points of reference.

It still makes sense to have visual labels. And - just for the sake of some brain gymnastics - I would argue that very dissimilar labels could be preferred. Like streets often having different names, and jay street would be distinctive from bluebird street just by the length of the sign. 41, 42 and 43d streets, or n.elmer and w.elmer streets are less functional for navigation.
So... Named exits anyone? In some sense, exit signs  already have  named destinations posted.

[machias]

And yet again I find myself thinking that sometimes exit numbering creates more problems than it solves. If the State of California was able to manage without exit numbers for as long as they did until the FHWA forced them to comply, then I don't know why we really need them especially in urban areas.

I never had an issue navigating around in California back in the days before they're exit numbering plan. It was *different* but it wasn't any less or more complicated than navigating in states with interchange numbering.  As I recall, interchange numbering wasn't a solid given in the early days of the interstate system. Plus, plenty of states don't number interchanges on (some of) their non-Interstate freeways.

I'm definitely in the distance-based interchange numbering scheme column when it comes to preference, and New York should make an effort to standardize across the state, which in turn should match the rest of the country.

[J N Winkler]

I remember the first time I drove to California, which was in 1998, four years before Calnexus rolled out exit numbering statewide.  I crossed the Colorado River on I-10, headed for Los Angeles.  Although Blythe is small, it has a number of closely spaced exits, so there was and still is no post-interchange confirmation sign that gives distances to forward destinations until after the SR 78 exit, which is six miles into California (Desert Center 43, Indio 92, Los Angeles 219).  That is a long way to go to correct a misapprehension that LA is "only" 100-140 miles away.  With exit numbering, a driver in my situation today knows I-10 in California is at least 242 miles long as soon as he or she clears the inspection station just past the Colorado River bridge, which is a huge improvement.

I did see there were postmiles, but those weren't helpful since I-10 doesn't have a terminus in Riverside County.  (California still doesn't use mileposts.)  This first trip was before Google Maps and widespread GPS, so in the absence of distance-based exit numbers, finding distance to end of route was a tedious business of adding up red or black numbers on a paper map.

[Alps]

And yet again I find myself thinking that sometimes exit numbering creates more problems than it solves. If the State of California was able to manage without exit numbers for as long as they did until the FHWA forced them to comply, then I don't know why we really need them especially in urban areas.

As someone non-native, it's a problem in CA. Some highways interchange multiple roads with similar or same names.

[Great Lakes Roads]

The Bear Mountain Bridge is going cashless starting tonight at midnight.

[empirestate]

Don't GPS units give exit numbers as part of their directions?  I would think that would make exit numbers more important rather than less, especially as GPS directions can sometimes be phrased in a confusing way relative to what a driver is seeing, especially if there are a lot of ramps close together.

They do. And it depends on the app of course, but they also give pretty specific indications of which lane to be in and which direction to go, along with detailed sign legends, so even if there weren't exit numbers you'd still have plenty of points of reference.

This is true, but it makes a lot more sense to hear the GPS say "use the right lane to take Exit 9", see Exit 9 on the sign you're driving past, and know you're going the right way. To me, it makes no sense to get rid of them.

Right. Nothing wrong with them, and they certainly aren't without their usefulness. And perhaps not quite as critical to navigation as they may once have been.

[kkt]

So row, row, row your boat, gently down the freeway?

If you row a boat down a turnpike, do you have to pay tolls?