Exit numbers: Distance based number or sequential?

[WolfGuy100]

Which do you prefer? Personally, I like both, but sequential seem to make more sense to me because it helps me to find an exit better than distance based kind. What about you, guys?

[cjk374]

Distance based for me.  I use exit numbers as an identity, and to judge how far into a state I will be going.

[relaxok]

Which do you prefer? Personally, I like both, but sequential seem to make more sense to me because it helps me to find an exit better than distance based kind. What about you, guys?

Perhaps it's just that I grew up with it, but I FAR prefer sequential.  Considering I never go anywhere without google maps (or similar) directions, for me personally the extra information provided by the mile marker count is totally superfluous.

The only good thing I can see about it is that if/when a new exit is put in between two existing ones, the mile marker gives you a ready-to-use value and you don't have to worry about unpleasant contingencies like renumbering or adding letters to the exit (unless the new exit is right where the neighboring one is)

[Kacie Jane]

Personally, mileage-based actually helps me to find an exit better.  If I'm in Washington, and I'm at Exit 230, I know I'm about 22 miles from Exit 252.  If I'm in New York and I'm at Exit 12, I know it's 4 exits until Exit 16, but that doesn't really tell me how far away it is.  (Plus, if I'm on the Thruway, I'd be wrong.  It's actually 8 exits from 12 to 16 - 9 if you count 13N&S separately.)

[Ian]

Distance based I think is better, but I don't totally hate sequential exits, as I am used to seeing it in places like New York and most of New England.

[Eth]

I grew up in a state that (until I was 13 or so) used sequential numbers, but I'm in the mileage-based camp.

If I'm in New York and I'm at Exit 12, I know it's 4 exits until Exit 16, but that doesn't really tell me how far away it is.  (Plus, if I'm on the Thruway, I'd be wrong.  It's actually 8 exits from 12 to 16 - 9 if you count 13N&S separately.)

This is one of the big reasons why.  When sequential exits aren't sequential, the numbers are frankly useless.  When the exit number sequence goes something like 81, 80, 78, 77, 76, 75A, 75, 73, 72* it sort of defeats the purpose.  More important, though, is the on-the-fly distance measurement ability.

* Real-world example; GA I-75 SB, current exits 238-222

[kurumi]

Distance based (even though I grew up in sequential country).

"X miles from start of freeway" is more useful information than "Xth exit from start of freeway (after accounting for missing and additional interchanges)"

Sequential does have one advantage for roadgeeks: a gap in the numbering can indicate where another interchange was planned and never built (or, less likely, removed). Exit 43 on the Merritt Parkway and Exit 14 on CT 2 (the 66 freeway???) are good examples.

[Quillz]

Much, much prefer distance-based, and it seems the MUTCD is now making this required, disallowing sequential-based numbering entirely.

As already stated, what happens if a new offramp is to be added to a freeway between Exits 1 and 2? It might be called Exit 1A, but sooner or later things are just going to fall out of order. I recall reading about a real-life example where there was an Exit 2 before an Exit 1E or something like that.

Also, since sequential exit numbers increase from south to north and west to east, it's useful to figure out roughly how far you are from a state border. For example, California is about 800 miles south to north, so if I'm on I-5 at Exit 780, I know I'm almost to Oregon.

[agentsteel53]

I've never liked sequential - it seems like it was an early development which was quickly supplanted by mileage-based in several places but not in others.  

(and don't even get me started on California's un-numbered exits.  They should've let that 1971 experiment be a permanent thing.)

[Quillz]

I've never liked sequential - it seems like it was an early development which was quickly supplanted by mileage-based in several places but not in others. 

(and don't even get me started on California's un-numbered exits.  They should've let that 1971 experiment be a permanent thing.)

Seems a lot of CA interstates are finally getting their exit numbers. Last time I drove all the way through the state on I-5 it seemed everything north of Sacramento was numbered.

[agentsteel53]

at the cost of so many porcelain signs, though...

[AZDude]

I too much prefer distance based exit numbering.

[shadyjay]

Sequential does have one advantage for roadgeeks: a gap in the numbering can indicate where another interchange was planned and never built (or, less likely, removed). Exit 43 on the Merritt Parkway and Exit 14 on CT 2 (the 66 freeway???) are good examples.

Yes, that may be true, but don't forget the granddaddy of 'em all... the first exit on the Merritt in CT is #27.  Sure, it would make more sense if NY didn't renumber the exits on the 'Hutch, but since they did, the last NY exit is now #30 and the next/same exit is #27 in CT. 

I say start the renumbering of exits in CT with the Merritt/WCP/Berlin Tpke/WCH, and watch the chaos unfold! 

Hopefully the day will come soon, not just CT, but also VT and the rest of the Northeast!

[Sykotyk]

Definitely mileage-based. Sequential only works, barely, in small states (NH, VT, MA, RI, CT) where the plethora of exits-to-miles ratio is close. On the NY Thruway, it can get boring not knowing exactly how many miles to go before your exit. Sure, you might be at Exit 61 and going to 47, but that means absolutely nothing in terms of how long it will take, how many miles will you travel, etc.

Mileage-based does two things: ID the exit, and give near accurate driving distance to said exit without the use of an additional sign indicating distances to city.

Sequential does one thing: ID the exit. it does not give any clue as to how far to said exit.

Anyone who claims they like 'sequential', I feel, haven't really thought out why they like it.

Sykotyk

[Quillz]

One thing I've found odd, though, is that some states, like Oregon, increase the mileposts from north to south, while mileage-based exits increase from south to north. So sometimes, the exit mileage will still not match up with the highway mileage.

[national highway 1]

I'd prefer mileage-based exit numbers.

[Dr Frankenstein]

Distance based, for the reasons mentioned above.

[OracleUsr]

Having lived part-time in a sequential-numbered state (Georgia in the early 90's), the rest in distance-numbered (NC/SC/MD) I much prefer the distance number.

Those 84 miles from the GA/SC line (Milepost 179) to Spaghetti Junction (Exit 95) sure seem faster when I know how many miles I have to drive.  ANd, from where the band bus (Clemson) gets on I-75 to where it gets off to go to Tallahassee (Exit 251 at the northern 75/85 split to Exit 62 for US 319 South) now we know it's 189 miles, rather than 65 exits (Exit 103 at the split to Exit 18 for US 319 South).

[rickmastfan67]

Mileage based hands down.  It's annoying when sequential exit numbers get out of wack like this 64 > 65 > 65C > 65A/B > 66 all because they had to add a new exit between 65 and 65A and all three exits are 5 miles apart from each other.

[relaxok]

wow, guess i'm definitely in the minority.. something like 16-1   -- I can't really explain it myself, either.

Maybe it's just that i like the numbers staying lower overall?   Is it easier to remember smaller numbers?  I dunno --  but that doesn't really apply in a large state where even sequential exits could reach a very high number.

I just hope they never change the exits on my old stomping grounds (I-95, I-84, CT-8, etc).. that would feel too, too weird.   Every time I would see the signs I'd think i was in a totally different part of the state just because I connect the exit numbers SO closely with an area and even their on/off ramps.

In a smaller state with closer together exits, it might be even more confusing because areas might have ALMOST the same exit numbers as they used to have, but now signifying mileage instead. 

[Quillz]

I just hope they never change the exits on my old stomping grounds (I-95, I-84, CT-8, etc).. that would feel too, too weird.   Every time I would see the signs I'd think i was in a totally different part of the state just because I connect the exit numbers SO closely with an area and even their on/off ramps.

Aren't all states supposed to switch to mileage-based exit numbering by 2020 or so? Most states have already switched, but a few haven't.

[Grzrd]

Aren't all states supposed to switch to mileage-based exit numbering by 2020 or so? Most states have already switched, but a few haven't.

2009 MUTCD section 2E.31 (04-05) requires states to switch to mileage-based exit numbering, but does not mandate a specific deadline for doing so:

"04 Interchange exit numbering shall use the reference location sign exit numbering method. The
consecutive exit numbering method shall not be used.
Support:
05 Reference location sign exit numbering assists road users in determining their destination distances and travel
mileage, and assists highway agencies because the exit numbering sequence does not have to be changed if new
interchanges are added to a route."

[Henry]

It would be great if all states used the mileage-based exits. And so, I support it all the way! Easier to know how far along you are within a given state.

[The Premier]

Distance-based. Not only for those reasons stated above, but for safety reasons in the event that your car breaks down.

[Kacie Jane]

I don't really think safety concerns apply here. If you're on a mileage based highway, but you're not paying attention to the little mileposts, then all you can tell the dispatcher is that you're between Exits 270 and 274. Had the exits been numbered 99 and 100 instead, you'd still be giving them the same information.

Or,if you are paying attention to mileposts, you could give them a more specific location in either case.