I-95 NYC Exits Renumbered Again?

[shadyjay]

Several years ago, signs were replaced on the Trans-Manhattan Expy and the Bruckner interchange on I-95 which showed a switch from mile-based to sequential exit numbering.  Manhattan exits 1A, 1B, 1C became 1, 2, 3, and those at the Bruckner were renumbered, with I-678 becoming Exit 10 and I-295 becoming Exit 12.  Intermediate exits on the Cross Bronx, and those on the Throgs Neck portion of I-95 along with the NE Thruway were never renumbered.

Now, while browsing dougtone's images on Flickr... I notice this....

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dougtone/4290518608/sizes/l/in/set-72157623123440853/

.... which shows I-295 reverting back to Exit 6B.  Is this because of the majority of the signs still are on the old system?  Or is this a hint of New York going to mile-based exits, of which the old numbering system was based off?  It's been a while since I've traveled the roads down there and all I have is the pics to go by.  I just found the exit numbering/renumbering curious. 

Thoughts? 

[Roadgeek Adam]

Hmm, interesting thing to notice, its from 2009.

Its already going like 1-2-3-1C-2A-2B-3-4A-4B-5A-5B-11-12-8A-8B-8C-and so on.

Also this is the 2nd numbering system for the NE Thruway

[vdeane]

New York is indeed going to mile-based exits due to the MUTCD mandate.  When the rest of the state will see them, who knows.

[papaT10932]

Just curious... what are the implications of exit renumbering as far as things like GPS or Mapquest?

[shadyjay]

And how is the mile-based system going to work on the Thruway?  Are they going to change every single milepost or is Exit 1 still going to be at the NYC/NYS line? 

If they do change mileposts, that'd be about 700+ miles of mileposts to change (lengths of I-87 and I-90).

[Mergingtraffic]

I asked CT this question..considering that I-95 exits are closely spaced.  The response I got was CT has no plans to go to a mile based system because the exits are so close together and b/c of driver confusion.  I then asked won't the feds stop funding because CT won't do it? The response was there is about 5 years and then CT would lose some funding.  No mention of that they will do it.

I sure CT gets it's act together.  This state can't afford to lose anymore funding.  Then again CT is always late, we just started putting our exit tabs on the far right or left of BGS signs. 

Note: I don't see the need for mile based numbering.  With the pros and cons debated here before, I just don't see the need for it, the cons outweigh the pros.  I expect exit 2 to come after 1 if going north and expect exit 3 after 4 going south.  People usually say "well what happens when a new exit is added?"  The chances of a new exit being added are slim and if so it's ONE time.  Aren't there more pressing needs than exit numbering?

[Michael]

^^^ I couldn't have said it better myself.

[Duke87]

The exit numbers on NYSDOT's portion of I-95 are a vestige of their 1970's experiment with Milepost numbering. 890 was also used as a guinea pig.
Their conclusion, of course, was that they didn't like alphabet soup were sticking with sequential. As such, a few years ago when some of the old signs on the Cross Bronx started getting replaced, they were done with sequential numbers. Then, all of a sudden, this stopped and most of the milepost numbers were put back (all signs for 1B and some signs for 1C still mark them as exits 2 and 3, respectively). Perhaps they realized that their partial redo was causing confusion and just decided to revert to the established numbers. Or perhaps they got wind of the fact that they might in the near future be required to start ditching their sequential schemes and decided it prudent to put back the milepost numbers on those grounds.

At any rate, new signs being put up now are using the milepost numbers. Yes, there seems to be a project underway to replace a lot of the ancient signs on the Cross Bronx and around the Bruckner interchange. Many are already gone. Some, hilariously, have been replaced but not removed:

This particular setup has been in place for months now.

[shadyjay]

Maybe its just me, but the control city change to NEW HAVEN and TRENTON for I-95 in NYC irritates me.  I'd prefer NEW ENGLAND and NEW JERSEY. 

Notice in the sign assembly above, CT is added to the control city, something omitted from the Bruckner interchange. 

[akotchi]

I am not a real fan of alphabet soup when exit number suffixes get past C, especially when they are independent exits.  That seems confusing enough.

How palatable is this thought:  Where exits are clustered so closely, such as in NYC, keep them sequential, except for cloverleaf-type arrangements, and "catch up" on the outskirts where the exits are spaced further apart.  I don't think that distance is as much an issue in town as it is on the long-haul.

Thoughts?

[rawmustard]

I am not a real fan of alphabet soup when exit number suffixes get past C, especially when they are independent exits.  That seems confusing enough.

How palatable is this thought:  Where exits are clustered so closely, such as in NYC, keep them sequential, except for cloverleaf-type arrangements, and "catch up" on the outskirts where the exits are spaced further apart.  I don't think that distance is as much an issue in town as it is on the long-haul.

Thoughts?

In an ideal situation, the freeway should be designed so that there aren't a whole bunch of clustered exits within a mile anyway. Service drives and collector/distributor lanes have come a long way to help with that. As for situations where clustered exits exist, I can only hope that when the time comes for those stretches to be rebuilt that strong consideration is given to using either device, as that will obviously cut down on the exits that need to be numbered. As it stands now, however, it just isn't that wise to have a mileage-based system but then go to sequential if some of them fall within a mile. If I ever needed to use a clustered exit, I would rather have its number stick to the overall mileage of the highway than to realize the exit is a few to several miles short of where I would expect it. It is within urban areas where it is vital to keep expectations high.

[Sykotyk]

I'm a huge proponent of using mile-based exit numbers. On the New York Thruway, how many miles is it between exits 55 and 48?

If you're driving down the road, that's pertinent information that isn't readily available to you. But, if you know you're at Exit 338, and you're taking exit 138, you've got 200 miles to go without doing anything more than simple mathematics.

And, if that's too much for the GPS faithful, I'm rather afraid for my safety driving, anyways.

Sykotyk

[froggie]

How palatable is this thought:  Where exits are clustered so closely, such as in NYC, keep them sequential, except for cloverleaf-type arrangements, and "catch up" on the outskirts where the exits are spaced further apart.

The Garden State Parkway does something similar through Union County.

Another idea is the "Virginia solution".  While Virginia is nominally a milepost-based system, both I-581 and the Norfolk I-x64s still use sequential.  Using this idea, New York could retain sequential-based for the 3di routes, while allowing the use of milepost-based for the more rural and/or longer-distance routes (i.e. the 2-digit Interstates).  I-95 could go either way here.

[Alps]

How palatable is this thought:  Where exits are clustered so closely, such as in NYC, keep them sequential, except for cloverleaf-type arrangements, and "catch up" on the outskirts where the exits are spaced further apart.

The Garden State Parkway does something similar through Union County.

Not really, that actually got screwed up.  Milepost-wise, 136->137, 137->138, 138->140, 139->141, 140 and 141->142, 142->143... it goes on this way till about 157-159 when it suddenly comes back to normal.  It's just that somehow, when estimating the final length of the Parkway, someone screwed up.

[NJRoadfan]

. Some, hilariously, have been replaced but not removed:

This particular setup has been in place for months now.

I-278 is 54 miles long? If anything that project should actually sign some exit numbers on that road, most are missing. Using Trenton, NJ as a control city southbound would make sense if I-95 was built, but right now I-95 doesn't go near Trenton. Newark or New Brunswick might have worked better.

As for the GSP exits, I always thought they did that because there were more exits then miles of roadway. Also keep in mind the GSP is separately mileposted north and southbound and they car vary a bit depending on the area. Go figure, the country's first milepost based exits aren't even at the correct milepost.

[vdeane]

I'm guessing that only I-95 is getting mile-based exits right now.  54 is near the proper sequential number for that exit.

[Duke87]

I-278 is 54 miles long? If anything that project should actually sign some exit numbers on that road, most are missing.

I-278 runs about 33 miles in New York + 1 or 2 in New Jersey. The 54 exit number is "sequential".

I put that in quotation marks because the exit numbers on I-278 simply aren't in order or even signed consistently. 895/Sheridan Expressway, is it exit 46 or exit 49? Depends on which sign you look at. By milepost, it would be exit 31A.

[Lyle]

I really wish the MUTCD hadn't dropped support for sequential exit numbering. 

[jon daly]

^^^ I couldn't have said it better myself.

Same here.  I think that it's a Northeastern thing.

[NJRoadfan]

I-278 runs about 33 miles in New York + 1 or 2 in New Jersey. The 54 exit number is "sequential".

I put that in quotation marks because the exit numbers on I-278 simply aren't in order or even signed consistently. 895/Sheridan Expressway, is it exit 46 or exit 49? Depends on which sign you look at. By milepost, it would be exit 31A.

NY also starts the numbering from the beginning of the road in NJ. Thats why when you enter SI the first exit isn't 1.

[Scott5114]

I really wish the MUTCD hadn't dropped support for sequential exit numbering. 

Why?

[Lyle]

I really wish the MUTCD hadn't dropped support for sequential exit numbering. 

Why?

Well, for one thing, we just lost a lot of flexibility. Previously, each state could use purely sequential numbering, mileage-based numbering, or some combination of the two (for example, sequential numbering when exits are close together, and mileage-based numbering when exits are farther apart). Now, not only must exits be strictly based on mileage, but states that do not currently do so must renumber most of their exits, causing driver confusion and significant expense. Also, what about freeways that continue the exit numbers of other freeways, such as the Northern State Parkway continuing the exit numbers of the Grand Central Parkway in New York? Would exits numbers now have to be reset because of a simple highway name (and number) change? Yes, I know about all the advantages of mileage-based exit numbering, but is it really so important that we must be forced to adhere to it so strictly?

[Scott5114]

I really wish the MUTCD hadn't dropped support for sequential exit numbering.  

Why?

Well, for one thing, we just lost a lot of flexibility. Previously, each state could use purely sequential numbering, mileage-based numbering, or some combination of the two (for example, sequential numbering when exits are close together, and mileage-based numbering when exits are farther apart). Now, not only must exits be strictly based on mileage, but states that do not currently do so must renumber most of their exits, causing driver confusion and significant expense. [...] Yes, I know about all the advantages of mileage-based exit numbering, but is it really so important that we must be forced to adhere to it so strictly?

Yes, it is important for the entire country to be using the same thing... if you have three or four states doing something completely different from the others, but it looks the same, then you'll cause driver confusion that way too.

Expense shouldn't be a major issue since 1) a lot of these signs would have to be replaced anyway, because of the more stringent retroreflectivity standards in the 2009 MUTCD and of course general wear and tear and 2) the states affected have around a decade to get things done. If they schedule the changeover in an intelligent manner, they should be able to amortize the cost over the time period between now and the deadline.

You can add flexibility to the system if you allow yourself to fudge the number by a mile or so. Many states do that when they want to avoid an "Exit 0": you can number all of Mile 0's exits as if you had a really long Mile 1. Oklahoma does this, which is why there is an Exit 1G on I-35. (Some states will go ahead and post an Exit 0 if an exit occurs between the state line and Mile 1.) If needed, you can also do something like Kansas City, Missouri does around downtown: there, all the highways were intersecting around Mile 2, so to keep from conflicting exit numbers, they numbered the exits around downtown as 2A through 2Y. Sounds like it'd be confusing, but it's really not.

Also, what about freeways that continue the exit numbers of other freeways, such as the Northern State Parkway continuing the exit numbers of the Grand Central Parkway in New York? Would exits numbers now have to be reset because of a simple highway name (and number) change?

Not necessarily: the Kansas Turnpike carries I-35, I-335, I-470, and I-70, and keeps a consistent set of mileage-based numbers going (I-35's numbers, with the zero point at the Oklahoma state line).

I would argue that the exit numbers should reset when the names change anyway, since continuing numbers in that way really doesn't have any benefits (unless there would be multiple exits with the same number within close proximity), and breaks the reason for having two names in the first place. If there's a name or number change, that's a cue that they should be considered separate entities for some reason, and keeping the exit numbers going goes against whatever reason that may be.

[Duke87]

I would argue that the exit numbers should reset when the names change anyway, since continuing numbers in that way really doesn't have any benefits (unless there would be multiple exits with the same number within close proximity), and breaks the reason for having two names in the first place.

Not really. Using the Grand Central/Northern State example... it's the same highway. The name changes at the county line between Queens and Nassau just kinda "because".

I would say that logically continuous pieces of the same highway should have a consistent exit numbering scheme even if the name (or the number!) changes. Otherwise, you create confusion and necessitate instructions "take this highway to exit 4.... no, not the first exit 4, the second exit 4". Only time the numbers should ever reset is at a state line.

[TheStranger]

Only time the numbers should ever reset is at a state line.

Even then I think this should be handled a certain way - if a route starts off for less than x amount of miles in one state, it shouldn't get new exit numbers in the other one (this is specifically true for 3dis).

I know I-86 spends very few miles in PA (eventually at Waverly, and presently towards the western terminus) and in both cases, the exit numbers are in line along with the New York milage.