According to the Providence Journal, via AA Roads on FB, Rhode Island will start switching from sequential exit numbering to mileage-based numbering, beginning with I-395. The project will take three years, as it joins other New England states making the switch.
http://www.providencejournal.com/news/20171004/rhode-island-set-to-renumber-all-highway-exits
Quote from: theroadwayone on October 12, 2017, 02:18:34 PM
According to the Providence Journal, via AA Roads on FB, Rhode Island will start switching from sequential exit numbering to mileage-based numbering, beginning with I-295. The project will take three years, as it joins other New England states making the switch.
http://www.providencejournal.com/news/20171004/rhode-island-set-to-renumber-all-highway-exits
FIFY. The RIDOT exit renumbering web page is at http://www.dot.ri.gov/projects/exitnumbers/index.php
^^ Presuming you meant I-295 will be first, as there is no I-395 in Rhode Island.
Quote from: froggie on October 12, 2017, 05:41:38 PM
^^ Presuming you meant I-295 will be first, as there is no I-395 in Rhode Island.
Yeah, it says 295 in the article.
R-99: I-395?
DUAAF.
Ironically, a Google search gives "Describe Underused Abbreviations and Acronyms in Full", but I'm having trouble seeing how that fits in context.
I think it's "Do Us All A Favor", back from the days of mtr.
Yeah...I kinda f**ked this one up.
I know this may sound silly, but why does it take 3 years to change all the exit numbers in a state with only 3 interstates and not that much mileage? :confused: Heck some city metro areas have more interchanges than the whole entire freeway network in a state so small that some US counties are larger than it.
Ok, I see that some other state routes are part of it, but still considering Route 295 is only 11 exits and its going to take till the end of 2018 to replace all the signs. In FL on I-4 which is way longer than the whole length of RI, took only a couple of weeks to accomplish and had about 60 or so exits almost six times the amount this interstate has.
Quote from: roadman65 on October 16, 2017, 10:20:21 PM
I know this may sound silly, but why does it take 3 years to change all the exit numbers in a state with only 3 interstates and not that much mileage? :confused: Heck some city metro areas have more interchanges than the whole entire freeway network in a state so small that some US counties are larger than it.
They have more freeways than just those three Interstates.
Quote from: 1 on October 16, 2017, 10:22:11 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 16, 2017, 10:20:21 PM
I know this may sound silly, but why does it take 3 years to change all the exit numbers in a state with only 3 interstates and not that much mileage? :confused: Heck some city metro areas have more interchanges than the whole entire freeway network in a state so small that some US counties are larger than it.
They have more freeways than just those three Interstates.
Did not see my edit. Yes I read the article and unlike most states who usually do not do off interstates, RI is one of the few that do. Heck even VA left out I-395 and I-664 and still both are sequential.
Quote from: 1 on October 16, 2017, 10:22:11 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 16, 2017, 10:20:21 PM
I know this may sound silly, but why does it take 3 years to change all the exit numbers in a state with only 3 interstates and not that much mileage? :confused: Heck some city metro areas have more interchanges than the whole entire freeway network in a state so small that some US counties are larger than it.
They have more freeways than just those three Interstates.
CT is doing it over
20 years. Third smallest state in the union and they're only doing it as signing contracts are completed for an entire highway. I-395 was the first, along with CT 2A (all 2 exits, which the mileage includes an almost 4 mile unnecessary duplex with I-395 from CT 2 at Exit 13 (former Exit 81) to where it breaks off to go to Mohegan Sun at Exit 9 (former Exit 79A). Explaining why the exits on CT 2A are numbered 5 and 6 instead of 1 and 2 won't often make sense to the common non-roadgeek. The next highways to integrate are the unnumbered exits of CT 349 (all 2), and CT 184 (all 1), which are part of the I-95 contract from Groton to the RI border. However, you won't see I-95 even consider changing until all 111 miles worth of signs are completely changed over.
CT is doing it when the signs wear out or need replacing. They are not doing it for the sake of renumbering them like GA, PA, FL, and some others did at the time.
^ You just answered your own question on why it'll take Rhode Island 3 years.
Do we need to have two threads on the same topic?
Quote from: southshore720 on October 17, 2017, 11:27:39 AM
Do we need to have two threads on the same topic?
No. We need ten.
Quote from: roadman65 on October 16, 2017, 10:37:03 PM
Quote from: 1 on October 16, 2017, 10:22:11 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 16, 2017, 10:20:21 PM
I know this may sound silly, but why does it take 3 years to change all the exit numbers in a state with only 3 interstates and not that much mileage? :confused: Heck some city metro areas have more interchanges than the whole entire freeway network in a state so small that some US counties are larger than it.
They have more freeways than just those three Interstates.
Did not see my edit. Yes I read the article and unlike most states who usually do not do off interstates, RI is one of the few that do. Heck even VA left out I-395 and I-664 and still both are sequential.
I-395 is debatable whether it counts as sequential or not still since every exit is right on or off by one. Yuck to I-664 though... it's understandable with the earlier exists, but the later ones are WAY off and should be converted.
Quote from: ixnay on October 13, 2017, 05:43:14 AM
Quote from: Alps on October 12, 2017, 09:05:37 PM
R-99: I-395?
DUAAF.
What's DUAAF?
ixnay
Quote from: Kacie Jane on October 13, 2017, 08:22:45 PM
Ironically, a Google search gives "Describe Underused Abbreviations and Acronyms in Full", but I'm having trouble seeing how that fits in context.
He should have said "Interstate-395" instead of "I-395."
Alps was being ironic.
could this thread be merged with this one (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=12215.0)? seems silly to have two threads on this topic.
Quote from: storm2k on October 17, 2017, 04:37:23 PM
could this thread be merged with this one (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=12215.0)? seems silly to have two threads on this topic.
↓ See below
↓Quote from: NE2 on October 17, 2017, 12:53:44 PM
No. We need ten.
Quote from: froggie on October 17, 2017, 10:46:46 AM
^ You just answered your own question on why it'll take Rhode Island 3 years.
Did I? Where?
Quote from: roadman65 on October 17, 2017, 08:54:09 PM
Quote from: froggie on October 17, 2017, 10:46:46 AM
^ You just answered your own question on why it'll take Rhode Island 3 years.
Did I? Where?
I think froggie is referring to this statement:
Quote from: roadman65
CT is doing it when the signs wear out or need replacing.
If I'm correct, what he was trying to convey is that RI is taking the same approach.
Pretty much.
Quote from: roadman65 on October 16, 2017, 10:47:31 PM
CT is doing it when the signs wear out or need replacing. They are not doing it for the sake of renumbering them like GA, PA, FL, and some others did at the time.
Isn't that a little confusing? To see one exit signed an old number, then suddenly the next one jump to a random higher number and the next one two numbers away from the first would be very unusual indeed.
Quote from: Henry on October 18, 2017, 09:54:19 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 16, 2017, 10:47:31 PM
CT is doing it when the signs wear out or need replacing. They are not doing it for the sake of renumbering them like GA, PA, FL, and some others did at the time.
Isn't that a little confusing? To see one exit signed an old number, then suddenly the next one jump to a random higher number and the next one two numbers away from the first would be very unusual indeed.
As I explained a little earlier, CT waits for the whole highway to be re-signed, then will convert it. I-395 and CT 2A were both done all at once, so they were converted. CT 184 and CT 349 are being re-signed as part of an I-95 section project, but both have no numbers currently, so the learning curve there is minimal. The last section of CT 8 is about to be re-signed, so that and CT 25 will probably be the next to convert. CT 15 could also convert (at least the parkway sections) once the Merritt Parkway signs are replaced, since the Wilbur Cross portion signage is rather new. Not converting the Hartford section until that section is re-signed would create minimal confusion since exit numbers jump from 68 to 85 anyway. The heavy hitters like I-84, I-91, and I-95 still have long sections of old signage, so the process will be slower (although most of I-84 except in the East Hartford/Manchester area will be done in the next couple of years).
I-95 is actually almost good to go... the last of the old signage is between Exits 54-59 and between Exits 68-70*, all installed in 1993 (ironically, those signs between Exits 54-59 replaced the original 1958 turnpike signage). Exits 60-67 and Exits 70-83 got replaced in 2000. So one contract could cover the last of the old signage, or could be extended to update coverage between Exits 54-83 (about 45 miles worth of signage). Then slap on the new numbers. I-91 has about 20 miles worth of button copy from Hartford, northward, and almost everything to the south is newer, but still probably late 1990s era. I-84 just has old signage from Exits 40-63*. The heavy hitters are more than halfway there, at present, but who knows. Would the first-generation "Phase IV" be replaced on I-91 south of Hartford and I-84 east of Vernon? No idea.
* current resigning contracts are converting I-84 Exits 30-39A and I-95 Exits 86-93
I would think that there might need to be some spot signage replacement south of Hartford on I-91 to become MUTCD compliant. Exit 23 (CT 3/West St/Rocky Hill) is not compliant because the exit is in Rocky Hill. There is also some old Phase III signage between Exits 16-22, and a couple of non-compliant left exit signs for Exit 13 northbound, but all of the highway from I-95 to the MA border has MUTCD compliant mileposts. The Exit 30-39A project on I-84 is underway, as I've seen some of the cement pilings have been poured for the new ground mounted signage that are part of the project. There is one inconsistency in the project of MUTCD compliancy: the eastbound signage for CT 372 (CT 372/Crooked St/Plainville) will be replaced to exclude Plainville, but the westbound exit to CT 372 on CT 72 (CT 372/New Britain Ave/Plainville) did not omit Plainville in the contract despite being in Plainville. Mileposts on I-84 have only been updated to NUTCD posts in Fairfield County, while there is some older style 2/10's mileposts between Southbury and CT 8. East of there, milepost markings are few and far between up to the MA border. Not sure if ConnDOT would wait until an option for replacing the Hartford viaduct is chosen before converting; options other than lowering it to grade level would add or reduce mileage.
QuoteExit 23 (CT 3/West St/Rocky Hill) is not compliant because the exit is in Rocky Hill.
Not compliant? While having a route, street name, and community on the same sign is unusual, I don't see anything in the MUTCD explicitly prohibiting the practice. Even the "prohibition" of having a street name and a city name on the same sign is only a recommendation ("should be avoided"), and not a mandate.
There are times when blindly following the MUTCD gets in the way of providing good signing.
Quote from: roadman on October 19, 2017, 09:50:10 AM
QuoteExit 23 (CT 3/West St/Rocky Hill) is not compliant because the exit is in Rocky Hill.
Not compliant? While having a route, street name, and community on the same sign is unusual, I don't see anything in the MUTCD explicitly prohibiting the practice. Even the "prohibition" of having a street name and a city name on the same sign is only a recommendation ("should be avoided"), and not a mandate.
There are times when blindly following the MUTCD gets in the way of providing good signing.
We had this discussion in the CT thread. An example of a couple of switches that were pointed out: Exit 3 on I-95 used to say "Arch St/Greenwich". When signs were replaced, Greenwich was omitted because it is in Greenwich. However, any signs that include Old Greenwich, Cos Cob, or Byram were duplicated because they are villages within the town. Another one is I-84 Exit 30. The sign used to say "Marion Ave/West Main St/Southington". Southington was eliminated in a recent replacement because the exit is within town limits. I went on to ask why, in an upcoming project, that a sign for Exit 31 Eastbound that says "CT 229/West St/Bristol" is allowed to stand, and the response was that because the exit isn't in Bristol itself, it is allowed. So my Exit 23 example would be allowed if: A. The exit were in another town (which it isn't); B. If it said "CT 3/Rocky Hill/Cromwell"; C. If it said "CT 3/West St/Cromwell Ave"; or D. Rocky Hill was just a section of town and not the name of the town itself. If you want to get technical, it should be like the old signage and say "TO CT 3" because the exit does not lead directly to CT 3, and Cromwell Ave is optional in scenario C; I just put it because CT 3 is Cromwell Ave.
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on October 19, 2017, 10:25:12 AM
Quote from: roadman on October 19, 2017, 09:50:10 AM
QuoteExit 23 (CT 3/West St/Rocky Hill) is not compliant because the exit is in Rocky Hill.
Not compliant? While having a route, street name, and community on the same sign is unusual, I don't see anything in the MUTCD explicitly prohibiting the practice. Even the "prohibition" of having a street name and a city name on the same sign is only a recommendation ("should be avoided"), and not a mandate.
There are times when blindly following the MUTCD gets in the way of providing good signing.
We had this discussion in the CT thread. An example of a couple of switches that were pointed out: Exit 3 on I-95 used to say "Arch St/Greenwich". When signs were replaced, Greenwich was omitted because it is in Greenwich. However, any signs that include Old Greenwich, Cos Cob, or Byram were duplicated because they are villages within the town. Another one is I-84 Exit 30. The sign used to say "Marion Ave/West Main St/Southington". Southington was eliminated in a recent replacement because the exit is within town limits. I went on to ask why, in an upcoming project, that a sign for Exit 31 Eastbound that says "CT 229/West St/Bristol" is allowed to stand, and the response was that because the exit isn't in Bristol itself, it is allowed. So my Exit 23 example would be allowed if: A. The exit were in another town (which it isn't); B. If it said "CT 3/Rocky Hill/Cromwell"; C. If it said "CT 3/West St/Cromwell Ave"; or D. Rocky Hill was just a section of town and not the name of the town itself. If you want to get technical, it should be like the old signage and say "TO CT 3" because the exit does not lead directly to CT 3, and Cromwell Ave is optional in scenario C; I just put it because CT 3 is Cromwell Ave.
OK, so what you're saying here is that CT is not consistent in applying their own standards. Got it!
I-91 south of Hartford only has older Phase III reflective button copy for Exits 21-22 and Exits 25-26. Exits 21-22 signage was put up in 1990 just as Route 9 was extended west of I-91. Signage around that pretty much is the same vintage as that on I-84 from Vernon out to Mass. The exit services are still denoted with text. That puts the vintage at around the late 1990s. Not sure the non-compliant-ness of 91NB Exit 13. Is it because it doesn't have "LEFT" built into the exit tab? It has prominent LEFT EXIT banners at the bottom of the advance signage. And the whole "street name/town" thing can't be too important. A sign was replaced within the last year on I-91 NB Exit 23 1 mile, and they kept the same "destinations".
I really don't understand why CT can't just go right to mile-based exits now on all routes (or within the next couple of years). Is waiting for a blanket sign replacement project necessary? Just slap on some overlays! But they like to waste money. They're replacing signs on I-95 and I-84 in the areas I stated above. And next year, a contract is going out for Exits 40-56 (not sure why, with the viaduct project in the horizon.. I'd tackle Exits 56-65 first). Then when the time comes to go mile-based, they'll have to change all the exit numbers on the panels. Why they don't construct the signs within projects that are currently underway with the new numbers, then overlay the existing numbers. Then when the time comes, just remove the overlays, and presto! New numbers!
Taking it back to RI... are they overlaying the new numbers on I-295? Signage through there is pretty recent, IIRC. Same with I-95 and I-195. Westerly Bypass signage could have used replacement... 20 years ago!
Quote from: froggie on October 18, 2017, 09:52:44 AM
Pretty much.
That is not what you said. But thanks for clarifying that RI is doing what CT is doing as the OP did not state it.
Also some states have done it all in far less time like FL. We changed ours in a month as we did not do it as a project when the signs needed to be replaced as it was all by greenout the old with the new.
Quote from: shadyjay on October 19, 2017, 05:00:25 PM
Taking it back to RI... are they overlaying the new numbers on I-295? Signage through there is pretty recent, IIRC. Same with I-95 and I-195. Westerly Bypass signage could have used replacement... 20 years ago!
They are removing and replacing exit tabs. Supplemental BGS will have demountable numerals removed and replaced.
Quote from: roadman65 on October 24, 2017, 05:55:44 PMAlso some states have done it all in far less time like FL. We changed ours in a month as we did not do it as a project when the signs needed to be replaced as it was all by greenout the old with the new.
PA, a much larger state than either RI & CT, changed their interchange numbers within a short time (months) as well. However, many of the small
OLD EXIT XX signs have still lingered on.