Should I-19 BGS be All metric or standard?

[mapman1071]

 
Should I-19 BGS Stay metric or be replaced with standard Or Both On BGS?

Metric should stay, however I think that Both Metric and Standard measures should be displayed.

[corco]

Stay metric- it is funny, living down here a lot of people think the reason for the metric signs is "so the Mexicans will know what's going on'" and they should be changed because of that.

I like it- since I pay attention to mileposts to determine how far I  have to go, driving I-19 feels much faster than driving any mileage-based road, because I see posts 1.62 times as often.

The novelty is cool though.

[Bickendan]

Stay metric... and convert I-17 and while they're at it...

[allniter89]

The unit of measure in the US is standard so why should this interstate be signed metric?
The other interstates that begin/end at the Mezican border aren't signed metric, are they?
I could live with both standard and metric being displayed for a few hundred miles to aid our "southern neighbours".

[Takumi]

My answer is "yes" 

[corco]

I could live with both standard and metric being displayed for a few hundred miles to aid our "southern neighbours".

The problem is that that's not and never was the point- I agree that we don't do it just to help Mexicans navigate, that's stupid. The freeway was signed that way because Arizona believed we'd be going metric very shortly. As it stands, it's a unique anomaly- anomalies are cool

[J N Winkler]

The unit of measure in the US is standard so why should this interstate be signed metric?

Touristic interest.

The other interstates that begin/end at the Mexican border aren't signed metric, are they?

No.  There is limited use of bilingual and dual-unit signing on I-5 at San Ysidro and I-35 at Laredo.  (I-19 used to have some bilingual signing as well as metric-unit signing; the bilingual signs, which were mainly for tourist information, were installed in the 1981 metric signing contract but removed as part of the 1998 sign refurbishment.  The 1998 refurbishment did not add any new signs with the lone exception of a Spanish translation of "NO FIREARMS OR AMMO.")

Examples of the 1981 bilingual signing on I-19:









Bilingual signing as used in 1998:

I could live with both standard and metric being displayed for a few hundred miles to aid our "southern neighbours".

Where I-19 is concerned, my position is fairly simple:

*  Metric signing done according to the design rules in force in 1981, not 1998 (this would actually result in explicit metric units disappearing from a number of signs--primarily distance signs and interchange sequence signs--which now have them)

*  Provision of bilingual signing expanded to match 1981 (including a Spanish-language version of the current copper-star Arizona welcome sign)

*  Reinstatement of metric signing up to the I-10/I-19 wye interchange

*  "Think customary" signing (not currently provided) to make it unambiguous that although distance signing on I-19 (guide signs, exit numbers, distance posts, etc.) is fully metric, speed limits continue to be signed in customary units

*  Complete abandonment of any and all plans to sign I-19 in English units

Where bilingual signing is concerned, my feeling is that the scope for it is not that great on I-19, and that it is better to try to be "multiple language friendly" within existing signing norms by relying more on symbol signs.  Expanded provision of bilingual signing would be controversial not only because it would inflame an anti-immigrant tendency in Arizona that already thinks (incorrectly!) that I-19 was signed in metric to hang out the welcome mat to Mexicans, but also because it could be attacked on message-loading grounds.  There is no strong political constituency in favor of Spanish-language signing in Arizona, let alone one which is sufficiently militant to demand it solely on language parity grounds as in Wales and in Canadian provinces which have compulsory official bilingualism.

Because Arizona has been characterized by very high population growth through the 20th century, it is likely that a majority of current Arizonans were not in the state in 1981 and so do not know that metric signing on I-19 is a leftover of the 1970's metric push rather than, say, a special accommodation to illegal immigrants.  (The high growth rate has caused problems in other contexts as well.  It was a factor in Evan Mecham winning the governorship, and caused Carl Hayden--whose seniority and wheeling-dealing approach made the Central Arizona Project possible--almost to lose elections.)

[Alps]

Anomalies are cool, but if all the button copy is to be replaced, it's time to catch up and go mileage-based again. I feel the same way about DE 1.

[J N Winkler]

I don't think I-19 ever had milepointing and mileage-based exit numbers.

[vdeane]

The unit of measure in the US is standard so why should this interstate be signed metric?

Because it's cool!

[NE2]

The unit of measure in the US is standard so why should this interstate be signed metric?

Because it's cool!

Like pooing!

[1995hoo]

I think all US highway signs, not just I-19, ought to be converted to metric, but I also recognize it's not likely to happen in my lifetime.

[agentsteel53]

Like pooing!

what are you talking about?  pooing is shit!

[NE2]

And FUNNY!

[thenetwork]

I don't think I-19 ever had milepointing and mileage-based exit numbers.

I-19 did/does have milepointing!  It's just that the official mile markers are posted perpendicular to the highway along the boundary fences off the shoulders (if that makes any sense).

[kphoger]

IMO, switch back from kilometers to miles.  As much as I prefer the metric system, I'd say the dream of our nation switching over is long gone.  It makes no sense to have one lone highway signed in a different system, especially when speed limits etc. are still posted in miles.

As far as bilingual signing goes, I say let demographics rule that.  If it's needed, then it's needed; if it's not, then it's not.  But I too would much prefer using pictorial symbols as a means of crossing the language barrier.

[deathtopumpkins]

I am torn as to what to vote for in the poll - while I like the idea of metric signage and think the U.S. should begin the transition to metric as a whole, I feel that doing so JUST with I-19 is detrimental. Conversion should be all-or-nothing. So as long as the other freeways remain non-metric, I-19 should do so as well.

[J N Winkler]

A lot of commenters in this thread seem to have made their decisions on the basis that a local exception to a ruling units scheme is not permissible.  Why not?  If I-19 remains metric while the rest of the Interstate system is signed in customary units, what is wrong with that?

[deathtopumpkins]

Well, in my opinion, standards are standards for a reason. "Uniqueness" alone should be no reason to purposefully keep a road from conforming to standards. Ideally I would like to see the entire system in metric, but so long as the entire system is in customary units, the ENTIRE system should be.

[J N Winkler]

Well, in my opinion, standards are standards for a reason. "Uniqueness" alone should be no reason to purposefully keep a road from conforming to standards. Ideally I would like to see the entire system in metric, but so long as the entire system is in customary units, the ENTIRE system should be.

But what standard requires signing in customary units?

Also, it is a well-established fact that conformity to the MUTCD is poorer in some states (and some regions within states) than in others.  Why do metric signs on I-19 merit rectification as a supposed nonconformity, while the well-attested excursions from standard elsewhere don't?

[Scott5114]

I think the reluctance to allow I-19 to "get away" with having metric has to do with a desire to keep the Interstate System as uniform as possible. A driver sees every other Interstate with standard units, then expects I-19 to have the familiar units seen elsewhere.

[J N Winkler]

That is the point of view I am trying to question.  There is a distinction between standards and practice; as far as I am aware, there is no published standard which requires that guide signing on Interstates be in customary units, although that is the normal practice on the overwhelming majority of Interstate mileage.

We insist that traffic control devices follow uniform standards in order to allow them to be recognized readily as official signs, to allow them to be interpreted and reacted to as quickly as practicable, and to allow drivers to "read" the road reliably and fluently.  I would argue that none of these aims is better served by changing signing on I-19 from metric to customary.  Aside from the different units, it is pretty much plain-vanilla Chapter 2E signing and is processed by drivers in the same way as the signing on any other rural Interstate.  It uses the official typefaces in the officially approved color combinations at the officially approved letter and shield heights.  In fact its conformity to MUTCD prescriptions in this respect is a good bit better than on many other Interstates with the vanilla units treatment.  The "metric push" began almost 40 years ago, and the majority of US drivers have now had a metric education, even if they are not necessarily accustomed to working with metric units in a driving context.  The metric treatment applies only to the guide signing, not to regulatory signs of standardized design (e.g., the 75 MPH speed limit signs), or signs which are definitely safety-critical and have led to documented unit-system-related problems elsewhere (e.g., bridge clearance signs).

There is always an excellent case for conformity to standards whose scope and reach has been fixed with regard to public safety.  Uniformity for uniformity's sake, however, not only is a first cousin to tall-poppy syndrome, but also opens the door to heavy switching costs.

There is actually a significant degree of local opposition to changing signing on I-19 from metric to customary units, not just because of the tourism aspect, but also because businesses in the I-19 corridor have long advertised themselves by proximity to particular exits with km-based numbers.  Arizona DOT's Tucson district was gung-ho about converting to customary units seven years ago, but I think they have since retreated from this position, since draft plans for the upcoming I-19 sign replacement I have seen show every sign with explicit metric units tagged as "retain in place."

[Alps]

Notwithstanding your florid language (you know who you are), I just think all highways should be in English. The MUTCD no longer is written in dual units, although it does contain standards and guidance for signing in metric. I'm not opposed to metric signing, but I think it's confusing to have one roadway in metric and no other ones. If Arizona wants to make a more concerted effort as a state, or at least on Interstates if not all freeways, to provide metric signage, then I would reverse my decision and support Arizona's efforts.

[corco]

I agree that units are pretty important as far as standards are concerned- the general traveler may not notice the difference in an off-shaped shield or a weird green sign, but different units fundamentally change the driving experience.

Assuming the objective is to have standardized roadways, I agree that English units are the only way to go. I'm not really sure how you argue with a straight face that the general public is more likely to be affected by green signs that are slightly disproportional than an entirely different measurement system.

My desire for metric is selfish- I just like the uniqueness.

[J N Winkler]

I'm not opposed to metric signing, but I think it's confusing to have one roadway in metric and no other ones.

I agree that units are pretty important as far as standards are concerned- the general traveler may not notice the difference in an off-shaped shield or a weird green sign, but different units fundamentally change the driving experience.

But where are all the people that are confused by metric signing?  If you yourself have driven on I-19, can you truthfully say you have been confused by the metric signing?

I'm not really sure how you argue with a straight face that the general public is more likely to be affected by green signs that are slightly disproportional than an entirely different measurement system.

Lack of conformity goes well beyond instances of signs being "slightly disproportional."  I have seen Interstate guide signs intended for 75 MPH rural contexts with 10 2/3" UC/8" LC primary destination legend (violates MUTCD sizing rules).  Exit numbers on SH 130 in Texas increase in the wrong direction (violates MUTCD rules for progression of distance posts and exit numbers).  We still have holdouts with sequentially numbered exits (violates new MUTCD ban on sequential numbers).  Many states do not use exit numbers on non-Interstate freeways (violates new MUTCD requirement for exit numbers on all freeways).  Need I go on?

My desire for metric is selfish- I just like the uniqueness.

I like the metric signs on I-19 and I would like to see them replaced in kind.  But why resort to special pleading when there are perfectly rational arguments that can be made in favor of the current arrangement?  As the only Interstate with metric guide signing in a country where English units rule, I-19 is an anomaly, but we do not have traffic engineering standards merely to eliminate anomalies; instead, we have them to ensure that any which are allowed to exist do not interfere with safety.