I was in Massachusetts this last week, drove I-93 several times and noticed the exit numbers an mileage signs didn't corespond, but off by 3 miles or so. What's up with that?
The exit numbers are sequential. That they have any resemblance to the local mile markers is just coincidence.
Quote from: ATLRedSoxFan on February 13, 2011, 06:07:08 PM
I was in Massachusetts this last week, drove I-93 several times and noticed the exit numbers an mileage signs didn't corespond, but off by 3 miles or so. What's up with that?
Are you by any chance a Red Sox fan from Atlanta? 'cause if so, you might be interested to know Georgia used sequential numbering until a decade or so ago too.
At this point, the sequential-numbering states are New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut and New York. Delaware's got a mixture of systems (even kilometers on Del. 1) When I started paying attention to this stuff 30 years ago, it was also true of Maine, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Georgia, Florida and Mississippi. Also some major toll roads like the Ohio Turnpike.
New Jersey (Turnpike) and Virginia (I-264, I-664, and I-581) still use sequential-numbering in a limited fashion.
Quote from: Michael in Philly on February 13, 2011, 11:59:29 PM
Quote from: ATLRedSoxFan on February 13, 2011, 06:07:08 PM
I was in Massachusetts this last week, drove I-93 several times and noticed the exit numbers an mileage signs didn't corespond, but off by 3 miles or so. What's up with that?
Are you by any chance a Red Sox fan from Atlanta? 'cause if so, you might be interested to know Georgia used sequential numbering until a decade or so ago too.
At this point, the sequential-numbering states are New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut and New York. Delaware's got a mixture of systems (even kilometers on Del. 1) When I started paying attention to this stuff 30 years ago, it was also true of Maine, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Georgia, Florida and Mississippi. Also some major toll roads like the Ohio Turnpike.
As a matter of fact, Red Sox Fan from Atlanta moving to Boston in about six weeks.
Yeah, I remember the sequential numbering in Georgia, and GA 400 still uses it.
Quote from: froggie on February 14, 2011, 06:48:47 AM
New Jersey (Turnpike) and Virginia (I-264, I-664, and I-581) still use sequential-numbering in a limited fashion.
I-464 in VA still uses sequential numbering too last I remembered.
Quote from: 74/171FAN on February 14, 2011, 08:33:35 AM
Quote from: froggie on February 14, 2011, 06:48:47 AM
New Jersey (Turnpike) and Virginia (I-264, I-664, and I-581) still use sequential-numbering in a limited fashion.
I-464 in VA still uses sequential nubering too last I remembered.
The only other example I can think of is I-695 around Baltimore. I-495 around Washington once used them, too, but the exits are now mileage-based, since a few numbers were repeated in both states, confusing motorists who were unfamiliar with the area.
Quote from: Henry on February 14, 2011, 08:45:05 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on February 14, 2011, 08:33:35 AM
Quote from: froggie on February 14, 2011, 06:48:47 AM
New Jersey (Turnpike) and Virginia (I-264, I-664, and I-581) still use sequential-numbering in a limited fashion.
I-464 in VA still uses sequential nubering too last I remembered.
The only other example I can think of is I-695 around Baltimore. I-495 around Washington once used them, too, but the exits are now mileage-based, since a few numbers were repeated in both states, confusing motorists who were unfamiliar with the area.
The thing about the Baltimore Beltway, if you watch the mileposts, is the exits are so close together that if they did officially switch to mileage-based numbering, some numbers would be tweaked by 1 in either direction, some wouldn't change at all.... which would probably be more confusing than it's worth.
I believe I-83 in the Baltimore city limits is actually consecutively numbered, then it switches to miles in Baltimore County. 83 was supposed to run farther south (really east) than it does now - it would have started at about the north end of the two tunnels, then run through now-gentrified areas of East Baltimore to downtown, where it starts now. That bit was killed by community opposition. But if I'm not mistaken, the starting point for mileposts is that original terminus. Last exit on the consecutively-numbered city section is 10, first in the mileage-based suburban section is 12, so no one notices.
The piece of I-295 in Maine that runs through Portland, as opposed to the part north of there that was designated as 95 until 2005 has also kept sequential numbering, but there again the exits are so close to a mile apart that changing would have been more confusing than significant and it flows smoothly into the mileage-based section farther north (which was designated as I-95 and got its exits renumbered in 2005, at the same time the state switched to mileage-based numbering on the rest of 95)....
[end of hopefully-not-too-incoherent stream of consciousness]
I-84 in Portland, believe it or not, is sequential going east between I-5 and the northern I-205 junction, and smoothly switches to mileage from there -- with a bonus. If you note the mile markers and the exit numbers, they're off by two miles.
Split the conversation about PA's State Highway Exit #'s to here:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4201.0
When reading Wikipedia for an update on I-93's progress of switching from sequential to mile based exits, I noticed (going south to north) the first 7 exits on I-93 are numbered exit 63-69, then the next 6 exits are un-numbered, then the numbers start back up at EXIT 13 (which will kinda stay the same once the renumber takes place). It has been years since I drove I-93 in this area and don't remember this bizarre exiting scheme. Is Wikipedia correct on this one?
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on February 15, 2021, 02:44:53 PM
When reading Wikipedia for an update on I-93's progress of switching from sequential to mile based exits, I noticed (going south to north) the first 7 exits on I-93 are numbered exit 63-69, then the next 6 exits are un-numbered, then the numbers start back up at EXIT 13 (which will kinda stay the same once the renumber takes place). It has been years since I drove I-93 in this area and don't remember this bizarre exiting scheme. Is Wikipedia correct on this one?
Exit 63-69?!? Are they starting the mileposts from the CT/RI state line on I-95?!? Or they might be going by the old numbering scheme for 128 from its pre-95 days (I remember seeing a picture from the Blizzard of 78 showing an Exit 65 in the area). According to MassDOT plans, The first 12 exits on I-93 are staying the same.
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on February 15, 2021, 02:44:53 PM
When reading Wikipedia for an update on I-93's progress of switching from sequential to mile based exits, I noticed (going south to north) the first 7 exits on I-93 are numbered exit 63-69, then the next 6 exits are un-numbered, then the numbers start back up at EXIT 13 (which will kinda stay the same once the renumber takes place). It has been years since I drove I-93 in this area and don't remember this bizarre exiting scheme. Is Wikipedia correct on this one?
It sounds like you're looking at the "old exit" column instead of the "new exit" one.
On the I-93 Wikipedia article the numbers in the "old" column are the old Route 128 exit numbers, continuing that road's sequence that began in Gloucester, and then north of there the old pre-Big Dig exit numbers. The six exits with no "old" number still have their pre-Big Dig exit numbers. The numbers in the "new" column are the current sequential numbers, since I-93 has not been converted to mileage-based yet.Disregard, I misread! :crazy:
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on February 15, 2021, 03:20:59 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on February 15, 2021, 02:44:53 PM
When reading Wikipedia for an update on I-93's progress of switching from sequential to mile based exits, I noticed (going south to north) the first 7 exits on I-93 are numbered exit 63-69, then the next 6 exits are un-numbered, then the numbers start back up at EXIT 13 (which will kinda stay the same once the renumber takes place). It has been years since I drove I-93 in this area and don't remember this bizarre exiting scheme. Is Wikipedia correct on this one?
It sounds like you're looking at the "old exit" column instead of the "new exit" one.
On the I-93 Wikipedia article the numbers in the "old" column are the old Route 128 exit numbers, continuing that road's sequence that began in Gloucester, and then north of there the old pre-Big Dig exit numbers. The six exits with no "old" number still have their pre-Big Dig exit numbers. The numbers in the "new" column are the current sequential numbers, since I-93 has not been converted to mileage-based yet.
No, south of Exit 12, the new numbers are the current ones, while north of Exit 12, the old ones are the current ones.
Quote from: 1 on February 15, 2021, 03:25:56 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on February 15, 2021, 03:20:59 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on February 15, 2021, 02:44:53 PM
When reading Wikipedia for an update on I-93's progress of switching from sequential to mile based exits, I noticed (going south to north) the first 7 exits on I-93 are numbered exit 63-69, then the next 6 exits are un-numbered, then the numbers start back up at EXIT 13 (which will kinda stay the same once the renumber takes place). It has been years since I drove I-93 in this area and don't remember this bizarre exiting scheme. Is Wikipedia correct on this one?
It sounds like you're looking at the "old exit" column instead of the "new exit" one.
On the I-93 Wikipedia article the numbers in the "old" column are the old Route 128 exit numbers, continuing that road's sequence that began in Gloucester, and then north of there the old pre-Big Dig exit numbers. The six exits with no "old" number still have their pre-Big Dig exit numbers. The numbers in the "new" column are the current sequential numbers, since I-93 has not been converted to mileage-based yet.
No, south of Exit 12, the new numbers are the current ones, while north of Exit 12, the old ones are the current ones.
This is why I was confused. From exit 13 north the OLD column is the sequential exit and the NEW column is the mile based exits. So I guess it threw in every version of "OLD " numbers??
With that being said, I was thinking all "OLD" exits are technically the current ones where "NEW" are the ones set to be installed.
Personally I would've omitted the "old exit #s" 63-69 for present Exits 1-7, since 63-69 represented one of about 4 different exit numbering sequences on I-93, none of which has been used since the 80s:
Exits 63-69 was for the east/west portion that was originally Route 128.
Once past Braintree, exits counted down from 25, as you went north. (There was a time when all roads intersecting 128 except the Mass Pike had the 128 exit as #25).
Then in Charlestown, the exits again counted up until reaching Exit 25 at Route 128 in Woburn/Redding.
I've also seen a RMcN atlas that had I-93 Exit 1 in Charlestown, with normal sequential system up to the NH state line.
In fact, maybe someone can remove those 63-69 numbers and replace them with just a "-". Every time I go to change a table in wiki, the cells go all wonky.
Quote from: Michael in Philly on February 13, 2011, 11:59:29 PM
Quote from: ATLRedSoxFan on February 13, 2011, 06:07:08 PM
I was in Massachusetts this last week, drove I-93 several times and noticed the exit numbers an mileage signs didn't corespond, but off by 3 miles or so. What's up with that?
Are you by any chance a Red Sox fan from Atlanta? 'cause if so, you might be interested to know Georgia used sequential numbering until a decade or so ago too.
I remember Georgia's sequential numbers. And Georgia went cold-turkey when they switched to mileage-based exit numbers, with no placards displaying the former exit numbers following the conversion.
Quote from: abqtraveler on February 15, 2021, 08:53:28 PM
Quote from: Michael in Philly on February 13, 2011, 11:59:29 PM
Quote from: ATLRedSoxFan on February 13, 2011, 06:07:08 PM
I was in Massachusetts this last week, drove I-93 several times and noticed the exit numbers an mileage signs didn't corespond, but off by 3 miles or so. What's up with that?
Are you by any chance a Red Sox fan from Atlanta? 'cause if so, you might be interested to know Georgia used sequential numbering until a decade or so ago too.
I remember Georgia's sequential numbers. And Georgia went cold-turkey when they switched to mileage-based exit numbers, with no placards displaying the former exit numbers following the conversion.
Really? Like one day you woke up and the exit number was way different? That's a tad shocking.
Quote from: 1 on February 15, 2021, 03:25:56 PM
No, south of Exit 12, the new numbers are the current ones, while north of Exit 12, the old ones are the current ones.
Shoot, you're right. Guess I needed a bit more caffeine before reading that yesterday!
Doesn't help that the change is so minor. And I think whoever changed them jumped the gun a bit.
Since yesterday the old exit numbers in the 60s have been removed.
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on February 16, 2021, 08:59:56 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on February 15, 2021, 08:53:28 PM
Quote from: Michael in Philly on February 13, 2011, 11:59:29 PM
Quote from: ATLRedSoxFan on February 13, 2011, 06:07:08 PM
I was in Massachusetts this last week, drove I-93 several times and noticed the exit numbers an mileage signs didn't corespond, but off by 3 miles or so. What's up with that?
Are you by any chance a Red Sox fan from Atlanta? 'cause if so, you might be interested to know Georgia used sequential numbering until a decade or so ago too.
I remember Georgia's sequential numbers. And Georgia went cold-turkey when they switched to mileage-based exit numbers, with no placards displaying the former exit numbers following the conversion.
Really? Like one day you woke up and the exit number was way different? That's a tad shocking.
Georgia sure did, and so did Virginia when they converted from sequential to mile-based. No "former exit" placards in either state to help smooth the transition. It was like jumping head first into the deep end of an ice-cold swimming pool. Other states that posted the former exit numbers for a few years following the transition is more like stepping down the stairs at the shallow end of said swimming pool, and eventually making your way to the deep end. In the case of Pennsylvania, it's been nearly 20 years since they converted from sequential to mileage-based exits, but a lot of interchange signage still have placards displaying the former sequential exit numbers.
Quote from: abqtraveler on February 16, 2021, 11:46:13 AM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on February 16, 2021, 08:59:56 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on February 15, 2021, 08:53:28 PM
Quote from: Michael in Philly on February 13, 2011, 11:59:29 PM
Quote from: ATLRedSoxFan on February 13, 2011, 06:07:08 PM
I was in Massachusetts this last week, drove I-93 several times and noticed the exit numbers an mileage signs didn't corespond, but off by 3 miles or so. What's up with that?
Are you by any chance a Red Sox fan from Atlanta? 'cause if so, you might be interested to know Georgia used sequential numbering until a decade or so ago too.
I remember Georgia's sequential numbers. And Georgia went cold-turkey when they switched to mileage-based exit numbers, with no placards displaying the former exit numbers following the conversion.
Really? Like one day you woke up and the exit number was way different? That's a tad shocking.
Georgia sure did, and so did Virginia when they converted from sequential to mile-based. No "former exit" placards in either state to help smooth the transition. It was like jumping head first into the deep end of an ice-cold swimming pool. Other states that posted the former exit numbers for a few years following the transition is more like stepping down the stairs at the shallow end of said swimming pool, and eventually making your way to the deep end. In the case of Pennsylvania, it's been nearly 20 years since they converted from sequential to mileage-based exits, but a lot of interchange signage still have placards displaying the former sequential exit numbers.
Yes, I was in Erie, PA in 2015 and saw the "OLD" placards still up on I-90.
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on February 16, 2021, 12:45:49 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on February 16, 2021, 11:46:13 AM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on February 16, 2021, 08:59:56 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on February 15, 2021, 08:53:28 PM
Quote from: Michael in Philly on February 13, 2011, 11:59:29 PM
Quote from: ATLRedSoxFan on February 13, 2011, 06:07:08 PM
I was in Massachusetts this last week, drove I-93 several times and noticed the exit numbers an mileage signs didn't corespond, but off by 3 miles or so. What's up with that?
Are you by any chance a Red Sox fan from Atlanta? 'cause if so, you might be interested to know Georgia used sequential numbering until a decade or so ago too.
I remember Georgia's sequential numbers. And Georgia went cold-turkey when they switched to mileage-based exit numbers, with no placards displaying the former exit numbers following the conversion.
Really? Like one day you woke up and the exit number was way different? That's a tad shocking.
Georgia sure did, and so did Virginia when they converted from sequential to mile-based. No "former exit" placards in either state to help smooth the transition. It was like jumping head first into the deep end of an ice-cold swimming pool. Other states that posted the former exit numbers for a few years following the transition is more like stepping down the stairs at the shallow end of said swimming pool, and eventually making your way to the deep end. In the case of Pennsylvania, it's been nearly 20 years since they converted from sequential to mileage-based exits, but a lot of interchange signage still have placards displaying the former sequential exit numbers.
Yes, I was in Erie, PA in 2015 and saw the "OLD" placards still up on I-90.
Or you can be like Florida and have "OLD" placards and have one highway (I-110) where you just said screw it and kept the sequential numbering. Although if I remember correctly, if I-110 were officially converted it would effect maybe 2 exits since the sequential and mile based exits are pretty close to being the same albeit some A-B situations.
What I find amusing is that with sequential exit numbering, there are more exits than miles on I-93 in Massachusetts! Okay, *were* more exits. Many were eliminated when the Big Dig tunnels were completed. And I believe exit 19 was eliminated well before the Big Dig.
Thankfully mile-based exits will fix this.
The upcoming mile-marker-based exit numbering along I-93 actually will have some of its northernmost interchanges decreasing from itheir old sequential numbers. The current Exit 48 will eventually become the new Exit 46.
I'm excited for a Boston that doesn't jump from exit 14 to 27 in about 3 miles.
Quote from: kramie13 on February 16, 2021, 05:06:22 PM
What I find amusing is that with sequential exit numbering, there are more exits than miles on I-93 in Massachusetts! Okay, *were* more exits. Many were eliminated when the Big Dig tunnels were completed. And I believe exit 19 was eliminated well before the Big Dig.
Thankfully mile-based exits will fix this.
Isn't I-95 through Connecticut very similar. I can't remember, but I thought the amount of miles and exit numbers were very close, or maybe more exits.
Quote from: kramie13 on February 16, 2021, 05:06:22 PM
And I believe exit 19 was eliminated well before the Big Dig.
Northbound yes, southbound no. The latter was for Albany St. More on that below.
Quote from: Alps on February 16, 2021, 10:25:03 PM
I'm excited for a Boston that doesn't jump from exit 14 to 27 in about 3 miles.
I've stated such in other threads in the past & it's worth repeating here. The Big Dig project would've been an excellent opportunity to have introduced mile-marker-based interchange numbers (at least) along I-93; especially given the reduction in interchange ramps through Downtown Boston as a result of said-project.
As most here know, the current sequential numbering along I-93 was based on the ramps that still existed along the old Central Artery circa 1987. It's worth noting, the Central Artery/South Station Tunnel/Pulaski Highway portions of the Fitzgerald Expressway had several additional ramps present/in-use when it originally opened in the late 50s. Many of those were closed/cut-off by the mid-to-late 70s.
Quote from: abqtraveler on February 16, 2021, 11:46:13 AM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on February 16, 2021, 08:59:56 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on February 15, 2021, 08:53:28 PM
Quote from: Michael in Philly on February 13, 2011, 11:59:29 PM
Quote from: ATLRedSoxFan on February 13, 2011, 06:07:08 PM
I was in Massachusetts this last week, drove I-93 several times and noticed the exit numbers an mileage signs didn't corespond, but off by 3 miles or so. What's up with that?
Are you by any chance a Red Sox fan from Atlanta? 'cause if so, you might be interested to know Georgia used sequential numbering until a decade or so ago too.
I remember Georgia's sequential numbers. And Georgia went cold-turkey when they switched to mileage-based exit numbers, with no placards displaying the former exit numbers following the conversion.
Really? Like one day you woke up and the exit number was way different? That's a tad shocking.
Georgia sure did, and so did Virginia when they converted from sequential to mile-based. No "former exit" placards in either state to help smooth the transition. It was like jumping head first into the deep end of an ice-cold swimming pool. Other states that posted the former exit numbers for a few years following the transition is more like stepping down the stairs at the shallow end of said swimming pool, and eventually making your way to the deep end. In the case of Pennsylvania, it's been nearly 20 years since they converted from sequential to mileage-based exits, but a lot of interchange signage still have placards displaying the former sequential exit numbers.
Georgia's signage changed to the new exit numbers without any additional "old exit" signage, but it wasn't "cold turkey" as some of you are describing. In fact I would say that Georgia's method is preferred, based on the MUTCD guidance/principles that simple signage is better and less-relevant information can often be left off of signs with that information being given in other ways.
The way that Georgia indicated the conversion of an old exit number to its new number, was by methods such as: (1) distributing brochures at the Welcome Centers that listed all old and new exit numbers in the state; (2) releasing this information to newspapers statewide, most of which published an article about the conversion as well as including the relevant exit numbers for the newspaper's area or even for the whole state, (3) including this information on its website.
The result is that, years later, there isn't any extra or unnecessary information on our exit signs, compared to other states such as Florida, Pennsylvania, etc. where I have noticed, even 5+ or 10+ years after exit number conversion, that there are still some "old exit #" signs which could potentially distract drivers.