Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[kramie13]

It's nice to see RI finally get around to re-numbering I-95!  But looking at the new exit number list, I noticed some oddities:

-RI 2 (current exit 8) should only be exit 24 going south, not 24A, especially when taking into account there will be an exit 24A and an exit 24B going north for the same route.
-RI 4 (southbound only exit) should be exit 25, not 24B, especially when taking into account that exit 24B going northbound is for RI 2.
-Going south, I-295 should be exit 28A, RI 113 East should be exit 28B, and RI 113 West should be exit 28C.  I know the lettering is out of order, but it maintains consistency with the northbound numbering.
-Branch Ave should be exit 39, not 39A.
-RI 126 should be exits 40A-B northbound, not 39B-C.  Especially when going south there's only 1 exit for this road.  Southbound this should be exit 40.
-RI 122 (current exit 26) gets a whole numbered exit when it's northbound only.  It should be exit 40C.

I guess RI likes alphabet soup when MA doesn't?

[bob7374]

It somewhat surprised me that RIDOT decided to start the project during the summer travel months. Past contracts have started in the fall and winter when contractors are typically idle, therefore potentially reducing costs. The contract, awarded for $925.5 K back in October, allows for work not to be completed until the spring of 2023. Hopefully, this does not mean it will take 8 months to complete it. I assume, like with the past contracts, that they will start at the northern end and work south. Will they coordinate with MassDOT in placing new numbers on the new sign planned for the first 2 RI exits on I-95 South across the border?

[The Ghostbuster]

Now if only New Hampshire, Vermont (the milepoint signs are a half-assed measure in my opinion) and Delaware would get with the program and convert to mileage-based as well (no more excuses). Somehow, I doubt the FHWA will penalize them for staying sequential, though they really should.

[BlueOutback7]

Now if only New Hampshire, Vermont (the milepoint signs are a half-assed measure in my opinion) and Delaware would get with the program and convert to mileage-based as well (no more excuses). Somehow, I doubt the FHWA will penalize them for staying sequential, though they really should.

Don’t forget New York (I know they’re doing it slowly). And New Hampshire probably won’t be switching any time soon as long as Governor Sununu continues to shut the idea down.

[jp the roadgeek]

Now if only New Hampshire, Vermont (the milepoint signs are a half-assed measure in my opinion) and Delaware would get with the program and convert to mileage-based as well (no more excuses). Somehow, I doubt the FHWA will penalize them for staying sequential, though they really should.

Don’t forget New York (I know they’re doing it slowly). And New Hampshire probably won’t be switching any time soon as long as Governor Sununu continues to shut the idea down.

And lest us forget CT and it’s ass dragging 16 year process of waiting for the re-signing of an entire highway before changing the numbers.  Kids born when I-395 was converted will be old enough to drive when the final highway is completed.

[Ted$8roadFan]

It’s not surprising to me that the states that have held out the longest are in the Northeast.

[The Ghostbuster]

How did the other former sequential states manage to pull off conversions to mileage-based exits? Were all of those conversions fought tooth-and-nail the way the last few straggler states have resisted converting?

[shadyjay]

IIRC, Maine didn't really put up a fight when they converted.  Some businesses who were named after their exit had to be changed, but it was pretty much welcome, considering I-95 had about 4 different numbering series in its first 110 miles in the Pine Tree State (1-4, 2-9, 15-28, 14, 30-62). 

So what's left... VT and NH are 100% interstate sequential (only VT 289 has mile based exits).  NJ just has the turnpike as sequential.  And there's a good 95% of New York to convert (only I-84, the Hutch, Taconic, and I-481 are mile based).  I'm guessing by 2030, CT "may" be fully converted, but NY will probably have at least a couple roads still sequential.

[Ted$8roadFan]

It's nice to see RI finally get around to re-numbering I-95!  But looking at the new exit number list, I noticed some oddities:

-RI 2 (current exit 8) should only be exit 24 going south, not 24A, especially when taking into account there will be an exit 24A and an exit 24B going north for the same route.
-RI 4 (southbound only exit) should be exit 25, not 24B, especially when taking into account that exit 24B going northbound is for RI 2.
-Going south, I-295 should be exit 28A, RI 113 East should be exit 28B, and RI 113 West should be exit 28C.  I know the lettering is out of order, but it maintains consistency with the northbound numbering.
-Branch Ave should be exit 39, not 39A.
-RI 126 should be exits 40A-B northbound, not 39B-C.  Especially when going south there's only 1 exit for this road.  Southbound this should be exit 40.
-RI 122 (current exit 26) gets a whole numbered exit when it's northbound only.  It should be exit 40C.

I guess RI likes alphabet soup when MA doesn't?

There are so many exits on and off of 95, esp. north of Warwick, so alphabet soup may be the best way to go, perhaps to RIDOT. I agree that RI-4 (perhaps the most important interchange of 95 in RI) needs to be 25. Unless the future 95 N to 4 S is ever completed, in which case 24B makes sense.

http://www.dot.ri.gov/projects/MissingMove/

[jp the roadgeek]

It's nice to see RI finally get around to re-numbering I-95!  But looking at the new exit number list, I noticed some oddities:

-RI 2 (current exit 8) should only be exit 24 going south, not 24A, especially when taking into account there will be an exit 24A and an exit 24B going north for the same route.
-RI 4 (southbound only exit) should be exit 25, not 24B, especially when taking into account that exit 24B going northbound is for RI 2.
-Going south, I-295 should be exit 28A, RI 113 East should be exit 28B, and RI 113 West should be exit 28C.  I know the lettering is out of order, but it maintains consistency with the northbound numbering.
-Branch Ave should be exit 39, not 39A.
-RI 126 should be exits 40A-B northbound, not 39B-C.  Especially when going south there's only 1 exit for this road.  Southbound this should be exit 40.
-RI 122 (current exit 26) gets a whole numbered exit when it's northbound only.  It should be exit 40C.

I guess RI likes alphabet soup when MA doesn't?

There are so many exits on and off of 95, esp. north of Warwick, so alphabet soup may be the best way to go, perhaps to RIDOT. I agree that RI-4 (perhaps the most important interchange of 95 in RI) needs to be 25. Unless the future 95 N to 4 S is ever completed, in which case 24B makes sense.

http://www.dot.ri.gov/projects/MissingMove/

Still wouldn’t make sense, because that exit would have to be 24C unless the RI 2 interchange is consolidated into a single ramp.

Another difference I noticed between RI and CT is that on split ramps, RI is giving a suffixed number to each movement (for example, the RI 10/RI 12 ramp).  CTDOT has said that ramps with multiple movements will be assigned a single exit number (for example, the exit from CT 15 South to CT 8 and CT 108 would be a single number).

[Alps]

Now if only New Hampshire, Vermont (the milepoint signs are a half-assed measure in my opinion) and Delaware would get with the program and convert to mileage-based as well (no more excuses). Somehow, I doubt the FHWA will penalize them for staying sequential, though they really should.

Delaware is KM based... when not an Interstate

[cockroachking]

So what's left... VT and NH are 100% interstate sequential (only VT 289 has mile based exits).  NJ just has the turnpike as sequential.  And there's a good 95% of New York to convert (only I-84, the Hutch, Taconic, and I-481 are mile based).  I'm guessing by 2030, CT "may" be fully converted, but NY will probably have at least a couple roads still sequential.

I-890, I-781, and I-95 through (most of) the Bronx are all mile based, and the Belt/Cross Island Parkway is close enough. I-481 has not converted yet, but it will with I-81 and BL I-81 once the Syracuse project is done (and I-481 goes by the wayside itself). I'm hoping NYSDOT is done by 2040, but that may be a stretch, not even factoring in Region 11 (NYC) or NYSTA.

Delaware is KM based... when not an Interstate

But is it really though? 

[jp the roadgeek]

Now if only New Hampshire, Vermont (the milepoint signs are a half-assed measure in my opinion) and Delaware would get with the program and convert to mileage-based as well (no more excuses). Somehow, I doubt the FHWA will penalize them for staying sequential, though they really should.

Delaware is KM based... when not an Interstate

DE 141 is sequential.

[jmacswimmer]

Now if only New Hampshire, Vermont (the milepoint signs are a half-assed measure in my opinion) and Delaware would get with the program and convert to mileage-based as well (no more excuses). Somehow, I doubt the FHWA will penalize them for staying sequential, though they really should.

Delaware is KM based... when not an Interstate

DE 141 is sequential.

And US 301 is mileage based 

[Rothman]

IIRC, Maine didn't really put up a fight when they converted.  Some businesses who were named after their exit had to be changed, but it was pretty much welcome, considering I-95 had about 4 different numbering series in its first 110 miles in the Pine Tree State (1-4, 2-9, 15-28, 14, 30-62). 

So what's left... VT and NH are 100% interstate sequential (only VT 289 has mile based exits).  NJ just has the turnpike as sequential.  And there's a good 95% of New York to convert (only I-84, the Hutch, Taconic, and I-481 are mile based).  I'm guessing by 2030, CT "may" be fully converted, but NY will probably have at least a couple roads still sequential.

VT isn't 100% sequential since they have the bottom banner new exit numbers now.

[BlueOutback7]

IIRC, Maine didn't really put up a fight when they converted.  Some businesses who were named after their exit had to be changed, but it was pretty much welcome, considering I-95 had about 4 different numbering series in its first 110 miles in the Pine Tree State (1-4, 2-9, 15-28, 14, 30-62). 

So what's left... VT and NH are 100% interstate sequential (only VT 289 has mile based exits).  NJ just has the turnpike as sequential.  And there's a good 95% of New York to convert (only I-84, the Hutch, Taconic, and I-481 are mile based).  I'm guessing by 2030, CT "may" be fully converted, but NY will probably have at least a couple roads still sequential.

VT isn't 100% sequential since they have the bottom banner new exit numbers now.

I don’t think that really counts. Vermont needs to do a proper conversion. The milepoint exit numbers are barely even signed and the mile based numbers on VT 289 were removed.

[vdeane]

I would say VT's "milepoint exit XX" panels don't count.  They're barely posted and one cannot navigate by them.  I feel like the "next exit X miles" panels on the Thruway are more prominent (probably because those are at least consistent with which sign in the sequence they're on).

For DE:
-I-95 and I-495 are sequential
-DE 141 is close enough
-US 301 is mile-based
-DE 1 is a huge mess of km-based numbers on the older exits (despite all distance signs and mile markers being in miles) and mile-based subtracted from the last km-based number on the newer exits.  In short, it's  a hybrid mess where the numbers match nothing.

For DC:
-I-295 is close enough
-I-395 is sequential (we'll see what happens when the changes from I-395/I-695 to I-395/I-195 happen)
-I-695 and DC 295 (what few numbers exist) are mile-based.

For NY, I-890/NY 890, the NYSDOT part of I-95, I-781, I-99, I-84, the Taconic, and the Hutch are mile-based, and I-81, BL 81, NY 481, and I-690 (not sure if NY 690 is getting numbers) are planned to convert within the decade.  I am aware of no other plans for conversion at this time.

NH, meanwhile, wants to convert, but needs to replace their governor before said conversion can happen.

[Rothman]

VT isn't 100% sequential.  It's more like 85% with those banners.

[The Ghostbuster]

The Providence Journal has a story on the conversion of Interstate 95 to mileage-based exits: https://www.providencejournal.com/story/news/local/2022/07/14/rhode-island-renumber-route-95-exits-starting-july-31-2022-comply-federal-highway-standards/10046610002/.

As for New Hampshire getting a new governor, I suspect Governor Sununu will recieve a fourth term in office, and will be around for a while. Is there any way New Hampsire could undergo a sequential-to-mileage-based conversion without the governor's approval, perhaps by going through the legistlature first?

[shadyjay]

So what's left... VT and NH are 100% interstate sequential (only VT 289 has mile based exits).  NJ just has the turnpike as sequential.  And there's a good 95% of New York to convert (only I-84, the Hutch, Taconic, and I-481 are mile based).  I'm guessing by 2030, CT "may" be fully converted, but NY will probably have at least a couple roads still sequential.

I-890, I-781, and I-95 through (most of) the Bronx are all mile based, and the Belt/Cross Island Parkway is close enough. I-481 has not converted yet, but it will with I-81 and BL I-81 once the Syracuse project is done (and I-481 goes by the wayside itself). I'm hoping NYSDOT is done by 2040, but that may be a stretch, not even factoring in Region 11 (NYC) or NYSTA.

Did I say I-481?  I meant the one up by Fort Drum near Watertown.  That's I-781.  Yeah... that's the ticket!

[SidS1045]

As for New Hampshire getting a new governor, I suspect Governor Sununu will recieve a fourth term in office, and will be around for a while. Is there any way New Hampsire could undergo a sequential-to-mileage-based conversion without the governor's approval, perhaps by going through the legistlature first?

Legislative bills in NH work just like they do in all other states:  They require either the governor's signature or passage with veto-proof majorities.  Considering that NH has the second-largest legislative body in the US (their House of Representatives has 400 members), it's most likely a non-starter without Gov. Sununu's OK.

[Ted$8roadFan]

The variable message signs on 95 and 295 are notifying drivers about the coming changes.

[roadman]

As for New Hampshire getting a new governor, I suspect Governor Sununu will recieve a fourth term in office, and will be around for a while. Is there any way New Hampsire could undergo a sequential-to-mileage-based conversion without the governor's approval, perhaps by going through the legistlature first?

Legislative bills in NH work just like they do in all other states:  They require either the governor's signature or passage with veto-proof majorities.  Considering that NH has the second-largest legislative body in the US (their House of Representatives has 400 members), it's most likely a non-starter without Gov. Sununu's OK.

The basic problem with New Hampshire is that, even if the legislature were to approve or mandate the conversion, the funding for the contracts to do the actual work must still be approved by the Governor's Executive Finance Council - or whatever they call it.  Such approval or denial, which is literally done on a project by project basis, is not subject to legislative action, and denial of funding cannot be overturned by the Legislature.  And, realistically, I'd seriously doubt you'd find a majority of legislators who would be willing to spar with the Governor over such a mundane matter as exit renumbering, let alone try to make it an election issue.

[Ted$8roadFan]

As for New Hampshire getting a new governor, I suspect Governor Sununu will recieve a fourth term in office, and will be around for a while. Is there any way New Hampsire could undergo a sequential-to-mileage-based conversion without the governor's approval, perhaps by going through the legistlature first?

Legislative bills in NH work just like they do in all other states:  They require either the governor's signature or passage with veto-proof majorities.  Considering that NH has the second-largest legislative body in the US (their House of Representatives has 400 members), it's most likely a non-starter without Gov. Sununu's OK.

The basic problem with New Hampshire is that, even if the legislature were to approve or mandate the conversion, the funding for the contracts to do the actual work must still be approved by the Governor's Executive Finance Council - or whatever they call it.  Such approval or denial, which is literally done on a project by project basis, is not subject to legislative action, and denial of funding cannot be overturned by the Legislature.  And, realistically, I'd seriously doubt you'd find a majority of legislators who would be willing to spar with the Governor over such a mundane matter as exit renumbering, let alone try to make it an election issue.

The “Live Free or Die” ethos works in so many ways in NH.

[fwydriver405]

IIRC, Maine didn't really put up a fight when they converted.  Some businesses who were named after their exit had to be changed, but it was pretty much welcome, considering I-95 had about 4 different numbering series in its first 110 miles in the Pine Tree State (1-4, 2-9, 15-28, 14, 30-62). 

So what's left... VT and NH are 100% interstate sequential (only VT 289 has mile based exits).  NJ just has the turnpike as sequential.  And there's a good 95% of New York to convert (only I-84, the Hutch, Taconic, and I-481 are mile based).  I'm guessing by 2030, CT "may" be fully converted, but NY will probably have at least a couple roads still sequential.

VT isn't 100% sequential since they have the bottom banner new exit numbers now.

I don’t think that really counts. Vermont needs to do a proper conversion. The milepoint exit numbers are barely even signed and the mile based numbers on VT 289 were removed.

The last time I drove thru there in June 2022, VT 289 still had exit numbers at all of its interchanges.