NY - Sequential vs. Mile Based Exits

[machias]

Mileage based and sequential exit numbering each have their pros and cons. While mileage based numbering is useful for the reasons already described, in a way it defeats the purpose of sequential exit numbering where you know that Exit-10 is the next after after Exit-9, etc. Sequential numbering seems more logical to me because skipping numbers destroys the whole concept of numbering the exits in the first place.

But again, it's pros and cons and whichever concept you feel is more useful. 

Except when the exits are numbered 21-21B-21A-22.

[seicer]

^ That - was just about to chime in about how confusing many of the interchanges are because of the additions over the years.

--

In other news:

New York docked $14M for I Love NY highway signs

The federal government has docked New York $14 million in highway funds for installing more than 500 I Love NY road signs that violate federal highway rules and state law.

The Federal Highway Administration unveiled the penalty in a letter Thursday to transportation officials in Gov. Andrew Cuomo's administration, which installed the blue signs across the state in recent years despite a 2013 federal order prohibiting it from doing so.

The letter from Brandye Hendrickson, FHWA's acting administrator, gives the state until Sept. 30 to come into compliance with federal rules.

(Don't worry, if the state doesn't come into compliance, the $14 million penalty sticks. Otherwise, it will be refunded. But given the state won't install mile-based exit signs...)

[kalvado]

^ That - was just about to chime in about how confusing many of the interchanges are because of the additions over the years.

--

In other news:

New York docked $14M for I Love NY highway signs

The federal government has docked New York $14 million in highway funds for installing more than 500 I Love NY road signs that violate federal highway rules and state law.

The Federal Highway Administration unveiled the penalty in a letter Thursday to transportation officials in Gov. Andrew Cuomo's administration, which installed the blue signs across the state in recent years despite a 2013 federal order prohibiting it from doing so.

The letter from Brandye Hendrickson, FHWA's acting administrator, gives the state until Sept. 30 to come into compliance with federal rules.

(Don't worry, if the state doesn't come into compliance, the $14 million penalty sticks. Otherwise, it will be refunded. But given the state won't install mile-based exit signs...)

I don't really have a dog in this fight.  The New York transportation authorities will either reach this decision on their own, or be forced into it by FHWA.

So it took FHWA 5 years to start acting on something that is as bad as actively doing something FHWA objects? 
OK, we'll wait for that nasty warning letter from FHWA in 2050 requesting exit number conversion to actually start by 2070 - or else!.....

[vdeane]

In terms of direct cost of signing, the added cost of going to mileage-based exits is essentially nil because Thruway exits are already signed by number; only the numbers would change.  (I am ignoring for the moment the whole debate about whether milepointing should be revised to match Interstate route designations rather than administrative control.  I agree that any change to existing milepointing would entail significant costs.)  And frankly, the Thruway needs pretty much all of its signs replaced as a result of botched conversions to Clearview and high-performance sheetings--when I drove the Thruway last summer for the first time in 20 years, much of it was at night and on many signs the border was the only element that could be easily recognized.

The main indirect cost of any exit number conversion falls on road-dependent businesses (motels, truck stops, etc.) that advertise themselves by exit number rather than informal interchange name (e.g., "Exit 33" rather than "Verona Exit" or similar).  This is less of an issue with the Thruway because, as a traditional public-authority turnpike rather than a free Interstate, it has less road-oriented adjacent development, since there are fewer exits to begin with.  Moreover, exits are grouped around towns and crossing state highways in a way that allows businesses to advertise their locations by crossroad/city rather than exit number.  (Because free Interstates are more porous in terms of access points, it is often easier for businesses to advertise by mileage-based exit number rather than a highly forgettable county or local road name.)

There are actually quite a few large billboards on the edge of the ROW with businesses advertising themselves by exit number, probably because logo signs for food and gas are not used on the Thruway.

Still quite a few signs from before the Clearview/bad sheeting issue.  In fact, outside of Buffalo, they're the majority.  There are also a couple FHWA/bad sheeting ones installed within the past year.

[seicer]

Billboards are a non-issue. Much like how people get all charged up when their address changes - and how "expensive" it is to replace business cards and other stationary, and change email signatures, it's overblown. Billboards are changed out all the time, so it's really no issue for the exit number to simply be replaced with a patch or have a new advert placed when the current one expires.

[empirestate]

As I said upthread, using a distance-based system gives the motorist the most possible information in the most non-intrusive way possible.

But, as I added less far upthread, that's not so–using a naming system and a distance-based system gives even more information.

You must have missed it, but I said "non-intrusive"

OK. Is it too intrusive to include the name? (Check the Penna Turnpike for an example.) If so, then we can leave off the name–let's face it, most people assign some kind of name to interchanges anyway. ("Take the Circleville exit", "Get off at Church Street", and so forth.)

Motorists don't need to know the name of an interchange; they do need to know where it's located.

But they need to refer to it in some way. They need to say, "Take the Circleville exit" or "Take exit 226". So, I'm arguing that the first makes more sense, and I'm not seeing why the second is better. You've explained the advantage of mile-based numbering, and I don't dispute those, but I don't see how they assist in identifying the thing?

It's the relevance, and extrapolate-ability (homemade word), of the information that matters, much more so than the sheer volume of information.

Exactly. So, it seems to me that a name would particularize the interchange more than an arbitrary number would, and if that's the case, then the additional volume of information would not, as you say, matter so much.

The problem is how to identify interchanges,in the way most helpful to motorists. With that said, it doesn't matter how unique the identification is, it matters how easy it is to relate that identification to other important information, such as what turn they need to take, how far away it is, etc.

Ah–so there's the problem. It does indeed matter how unique it is, because we're dealing with the specific situation where you might have an "exit 106" on one part of the Thruway, and another "exit 106" on another part of it. So we see that mile-based numbering isn't completely unique. However, if the first exit were instead called "Circleville Interchange" and the other were called "Squaretown Interchange", then the identification is unique.

"Circleville Interchange" tells me nothing about the location of the interchange, and location is indeed the aspect that the motorist needs to know most about.

You're right (other than that the interchange is in Circleville, obviously). But that's not what it needs to tell you–the name doesn't have that function.

The milepost can be shown on signs and maps, just as exit numbers are.

That presents some practical challenges. Do you think every map maker on the planet would jump on board immediately?

Why would they need to jump on board? Those that already show the numbers would simply continue to do so.

Mileage-based isn't necessarily better when it comes to distinguishing. But I think you're overstating the importance of that aspect.

I'm not really making any judgment on the importance of it. Distinguishing is simply the thing we're discussing, and naming the interchanges is a way of distinguishing. How important that is, I haven't really said (but note that I'm pretty willing to drop the naming idea and just go with the status quo, so that might give you some idea of importance).

Anyone who can tell the difference between "circleville" and "jane byrne" can also tell the difference between "101" and "110".

But they cannot tell the difference between "106" and "106".

I'm not one to comment on whether it's worth the investment - maybe it isn't, strictly speaking. But considering that a change will someday be implemented, it's still clear that the change should be to mileage-based, as that's the system that, as I've been saying, conveys the most in the most concise manner possible.

Mileage-based, on the contrary, doesn't seem to help the Thruway situation much at all; indeed, it seems to greatly confuse the issue, as we have perpetually discussed over the years. So I don't think it's clear at all that that's the right change for that problem.

Speaking more generally, I don't know that I have a strong opinion on what the change should be to, only that a change isn't warranted. There doesn't seem to be any current problem that would be solved by changing the exit identifiers, regardless of what new system might be selected.

[hotdogPi]

If we name interchanges, expect many to be named after local politicians (or corporations, if they pay for it).

[empirestate]

But what if the exits don't have numbers? Then there's no need to relate anything–the exit's milepost is its milepost, one and the same.

Mileage-based exits still need to be explicitly signed for map relatability, since the vast majority of maps show exit numbers but not mileposts, and mileposts are often hard to find even in online mapping services that offer driver's-eye photography of the physical roadway (like StreetView).

I'm confused about why that would be a problem. In a mile-based system, the exit's identifier is the same as its milepost; the map just shows that number, whatever it is. If the exit's identifier were not its milepost, its milepost would still be the same and the map would still show that same number. And if the identifier is a name, I suppose the map would also show the name; and you discuss that below.

Ultimately you start running into KISS issues.  Let's say I want to find the NY 365/Thruway interchange and that it has been named "Verona" (rather than the arguably equally apt "Rome West") for simplicity.  "Verona" as an interchange name is a lot harder to show on a single-sheet map of New York State than a simple exit number (33 in this case).  And "Verona" + "252," or even "33" + "252," is harder to show (this is after StreetView search for the relevant milepost, BTW--there are many Thruway users who will not even realize that the Thruway has an exit number/milepost cross-reference).  And "Verona" and "33" are themselves layers removed from "252," which corresponds to what a driver would see both on the map and in the field if mileage-based exit numbering is used.  The less cross-referencing is necessary, the less memorization or looking-up the driver needs to do (and of course some drivers will inevitably try to look things up on their phones while behind the wheel), and the more intuitive the guide signing is.

Well, that's only a problem if the mapmaker chooses to show the milepost in addition to the identifier, of course. Still, even if they do, I'm not sure it's an insurmountable problem to label an interchange as "252 Verona". But if it is, again, I'm perfectly willing to drop the name, and just stick with calling it "33". (And many people will call it "Verona" anyway.)

Agreed. So, now we come to the question of whether that additional layer of benefit is worth the cost of implementing the change. I haven't yet been persuaded that it is.

In terms of direct cost of signing, the added cost of going to mileage-based exits is essentially nil because Thruway exits are already signed by number; only the numbers would change.  (I am ignoring for the moment the whole debate about whether milepointing should be revised to match Interstate route designations rather than administrative control.  I agree that any change to existing milepointing would entail significant costs.)  And frankly, the Thruway needs pretty much all of its signs replaced as a result of botched conversions to Clearview and high-performance sheetings--when I drove the Thruway last summer for the first time in 20 years, much of it was at night and on many signs the border was the only element that could be easily recognized.

Right, if the conversion could happen as signs are replaced anyway, my objection goes away. But I don't think you can roll out the change piecemeal; you'd have to change everything at once. Again, if the Thruway happened to replace every one of its exit signs at one time for some other reason, fine. But I don't think there's ever going to be a time when a whole state just happens to need new exit signs, so the only way to change to a different system is to do so deliberately. And as far as I can see, doing so would be an invention of which necessity is not the mother.

The main indirect cost of any exit number conversion falls on road-dependent businesses (motels, truck stops, etc.) that advertise themselves by exit number rather than informal interchange name (e.g., "Exit 33" rather than "Verona Exit" or similar).  This is less of an issue with the Thruway because, as a traditional public-authority turnpike rather than a free Interstate, it has less road-oriented adjacent development, since there are fewer exits to begin with.  Moreover, exits are grouped around towns and crossing state highways in a way that allows businesses to advertise their locations by crossroad/city rather than exit number.  (Because free Interstates are more porous in terms of access points, it is often easier for businesses to advertise by mileage-based exit number rather than a highly forgettable county or local road name.)

And if hardship to mapmakers is enough reason to drop exit names, then hardship to advertisers should be enough to drop a conversion of numbering systems. (I was going to say a conversion to mile-based, but it would be the same objection if a conversion from mile-based to sequential were proposed; no need, and considerable expense.)

I don't really have a dog in this fight.  The New York transportation authorities will either reach this decision on their own, or be forced into it by FHWA.  I would just observe that while I am aware of many instances of sequential-to-distance-based conversion, I am not aware of any examples of distance-based-to-sequential conversion even in cases where distance-based exit numbers have had to be revised to eliminate differently located zero points (e.g., I-15 in Utah about ten years ago).

Right, because there is no problem to be solved by converting from mile-based to sequential. Likewise, there doesn't appear to be a problem in New York that would be solved by converting from sequential to mile-based (or any other system), other than, as you say, being forced into it. And being forced into it is a cause; it isn't a reason.

Mileage based and sequential exit numbering each have their pros and cons. While mileage based numbering is useful for the reasons already described, in a way it defeats the purpose of sequential exit numbering where you know that Exit-10 is the next after after Exit-9, etc. Sequential numbering seems more logical to me because skipping numbers destroys the whole concept of numbering the exits in the first place.

But again, it's pros and cons and whichever concept you feel is more useful. 

Except when the exits are numbered 21-21B-21A-22.

Now there's a case where spending some money might be justified to correct it. (Although I do always appreciate "quirks", so I mightn't be inclined to change even this, but I would certainly understand the rationale.)

If we name interchanges, expect many to be named after local politicians (or corporations, if they pay for it).

Hasn't happened in PA so far.

[J N Winkler]

I'm confused about why that would be a problem. In a mile-based system, the exit's identifier is the same as its milepost; the map just shows that number, whatever it is. If the exit's identifier were not its milepost, its milepost would still be the same and the map would still show that same number.

Nope.  In the Verona example, the map would show "33" instead of "252."  I would then have to refer to a separate resource (such as the Thruway cross-reference) to get the milepost.

The advantage of distance-based exits is that if you know the number for your desired exit, then you can refer to the last milepost passed to estimate your distance to the exit.  This is not possible with a sequential system.

Right, if the conversion could happen as signs are replaced anyway, my objection goes away. But I don't think you can roll out the change piecemeal; you'd have to change everything at once. Again, if the Thruway happened to replace every one of its exit signs at one time for some other reason, fine. But I don't think there's ever going to be a time when a whole state just happens to need new exit signs, so the only way to change to a different system is to do so deliberately. And as far as I can see, doing so would be an invention of which necessity is not the mother.

You might be surprised.  I follow signing construction (downloading and archiving plans, etc.) and every so often I encounter large contracts that are corridor-wide in scope, with literally hundreds of sign panel detail sheets.  Missouri I-49 received this treatment (one contract), as did the New Jersey Turnpike (two contracts).

And if hardship to mapmakers is enough reason to drop exit names, then hardship to advertisers should be enough to drop a conversion of numbering systems. (I was going to say a conversion to mile-based, but it would be the same objection if a conversion from mile-based to sequential were proposed; no need, and considerable expense.)

Actually, where maps are concerned, the hardships fall on the users (added map clutter) as well as the makers (added effort to find room for all the information that needs to be displayed).

And mileage-based to sequential is not quite the same as sequential to mileage-based from the roadside businesses' point of view.  In principle, they benefit from improved relatability between maps and signing making their establishments easier to find, and this is an ongoing gain that arguably offsets the onetime cost of changing from sequential to mileage-based.  Going in the other direction (mileage-based to sequential) is the same onetime cost, with no offset from better relatability.  And changing from one distance-based system to another (the situation in Arizona with I-19 and the proposed conversion from kilometer- to mile-based exit numbers) is similarly a worthless cost.

Right, because there is no problem to be solved by converting from mile-based to sequential. Likewise, there doesn't appear to be a problem in New York that would be solved by converting from sequential to mile-based (or any other system), other than, as you say, being forced into it. And being forced into it is a cause; it isn't a reason.

Whether a given set of circumstances represents a problem is, to an extent, a value judgment.  For example, I drive a 24-year-old car that lacks airbags other than a full-power one for the driver, and does not have automatic emergency braking, lane keeping assist, a backup camera, adaptive cruise control, or any of the other safety features that are increasingly becoming standard.  If I bought a new car equipped with these, I would derive ongoing gains from them, albeit at a steep upfront cost (about $30,000).  Is it a problem that I am foregoing both the expense and the benefits?  I do not consider it to be one, but I am sure plenty of others would disagree.

So it is with converting from sequential to mileage-based.  We have described benefits to this change that are separate from MUTCD compliance.  NYSDOT and NYSTA have the option of forgoing them if they can persuade FHWA not to enforce the distance-based exit numbering requirement.  I do not drive in New York often, so I will not be greatly inconvenienced if they continue to stick to sequential numbering, but it is not a course I would advise them to take.  Caltrans eventually had to fold on exit numbering after 30 years.

So it took FHWA 5 years to start acting on something that is as bad as actively doing something FHWA objects?  OK, we'll wait for that nasty warning letter from FHWA in 2050 requesting exit number conversion to actually start by 2070 - or else!.....

It's been nine years since the latest MUTCD came out and KDOT still doesn't have exit numbering on non-Interstate freeways.  I'm waiting (admittedly not with bated breath) for FHWA to drop the hammer.

[seicer]

Hasn't happened in PA so far.

See how it gets abused in other states:

Hal Rogers Parkway (from the Daniel Boone Parkway)
Robert C. Byrd Interchange (x2)
Robert C. Byrd Appalachian Highway System
Robert C. Byrd Bridge (x2)
Robert C. Byrd Drive
Robert C. Byrd Expressway
Robert C. Byrd Freeway
Robert C. Byrd Highway

And the countless exits, roads, and bridges named after people in the military who hold no significance outside of local recognization. It's gotten to the point that when a bridge's sign falls, it's not replaced because those records are simply not kept - or in the worst case scenarios, are simply replaced with the name of another individual. There was an instance of the latter happening to what was essentially a culvert near my hometown.

[webny99]

You've got a full time job between me and JNWinkler - are you enjoying this yet? 

OK. Is it too intrusive to include the name? (Check the Penna Turnpike for an example.) If so, then we can leave off the name–let's face it, most people assign some kind of name to interchanges anyway. ("Take the Circleville exit", "Get off at Church Street", and so forth.)

Aside from the fact that I was partially joking with my "non-intrusive" comment, I do feel including interchange names would typically be excessive. With regards to the Penna Turnpike, most (if not all) interchanges share names with the exit's destinations, which are in the body of the sign anyways. I view the wasting of sign space to say the same thing twice as rather cumbersome and inefficient.

But they need to refer to it in some way. They need to say, "Take the Circleville exit" or "Take exit 226". So, I'm arguing that the first makes more sense, and I'm not seeing why the second is better. You've explained the advantage of mile-based numbering, and I don't dispute those, but I don't see how they assist in identifying the thing?

Here, it's of utmost importance that we distinguish between discussion and signage. In casual conversation, or even when giving directions, "get off at Circleville" works fine, and you could even argue that it's preferred. But when it comes to the motorist actually executing the plan and driving from A to B, they no longer care whether it's "Circleville" or "Squaretown" - it doesn't matter - they only care where it is, and how far away it is. It's therefore in the best interest of the motoring public to sign interchanges to that end.

Ah–so there's the problem. It does indeed matter how unique it is, because we're dealing with the specific situation where you might have an "exit 106" on one part of the Thruway, and another "exit 106" on another part of it. So we see that mile-based numbering isn't completely unique. However, if the first exit were instead called "Circleville Interchange" and the other were called "Squaretown Interchange", then the identification is unique.

While true, that must be prefaced by the following:
1] The thruway is extremely unique in this regard. This is not at all reflective of the average mileage-based scenario. As such, the thruway alone is not substantial evidence against a numbering system that works perfectly well across the country.
2] No one would travel using solely the thruway from Batavia to downstate. I can't even imagine a scenario in which there is potential for confusion, given that all involved parties have at least a remote degree of contextual knowledge.
3] Most importantly, there are two different route numbers; I-87 and I-90. If there's one case in the whole nation where the route number (in addition to the road name, "thruway") must be specified, then so be it.

You're right (other than that the interchange is in Circleville, obviously). But that's not what it needs to tell you–the name doesn't have that function.

But therein lies my point; simply by using a number instead of a name, voila! you now know the approximate location. That's still not the function of the number, but it's very handy to have that additional information built right in.

Why would they need to jump on board? Those that already show the numbers would simply continue to do so.

I was under the impression you were advocating the inclusion of a name and a number. JN has discussed this in greater detail, so either way I'll let it be 

Mileage-based, on the contrary, doesn't seem to help the Thruway situation much at all; indeed, it seems to greatly confuse the issue, as we have perpetually discussed over the years. So I don't think it's clear at all that that's the right change for that problem.

To this, I say the system that's both optimal and recommended across the country can work for the thruway. People (and perhaps roadgeeks especially) tend to over-hype this hypothetical. The confusing implications (which, let's be honest, really aren't all that confusing, nor are they likely to come into play) would dissipate both with AET and with time itself.

Speaking more generally, I don't know that I have a strong opinion on what the change should be to, only that a change isn't warranted. There doesn't seem to be any current problem that would be solved by changing the exit identifiers, regardless of what new system might be selected.

There's two problems, to the extent you call them problems:
1] NY does not conform to the MUTCD or the nationwide precedent. As someone who places a very high premium on consistency, that's a major problem.
2] Motorists can't calculate the distance to their exit. At this point, I'll leave that as a standalone statement, presume the implications are self-explanatory, and call it a day 

[Buffaboy]

If we name interchanges, expect many to be named after local politicians (or corporations, if they pay for it).

Is this even a thing? I know there's the Circle Interchange in Chicago, but this other stuff is foreign to me.

[Rothman]

No, naming interchanges is not a thing outside of some turnpikes (e.g., Penna Turnpike and I believe the Massachusetts Turnpike named their interchanges on their tickets back in the early 1980s (maybe?)).

Just empirestate and other arguing hypotheticals that will never come to fruition.

(for the record, naming intetchanges clutters up signage )

Then again, interchanges have been dedicated (e.g., Sgt. So-and-So Interchange) but in those cases not used for navigation.

[cl94]

Then again, interchanges have been dedicated (e.g., Sgt. So-and-So Interchange) but in those cases not used for navigation.

Every flipping interchange in Pennsylvania. Just look at their official map.

[kalvado]

No, naming interchanges is not a thing outside of some turnpikes (e.g., Penna Turnpike and I believe the Massachusetts Turnpike named their interchanges on their tickets back in the early 1980s (maybe?)).

Just empirestate and other arguing hypotheticals that will never come to fruition.

(for the record, naming intetchanges clutters up signage )

Then again, interchanges have been dedicated (e.g., Sgt. So-and-So Interchange) but in those cases not used for navigation.

Never come? C'mon!

[Rothman]

No, naming interchanges is not a thing outside of some turnpikes (e.g., Penna Turnpike and I believe the Massachusetts Turnpike named their interchanges on their tickets back in the early 1980s (maybe?)).

Just empirestate and other arguing hypotheticals that will never come to fruition.

(for the record, naming intetchanges clutters up signage )

Then again, interchanges have been dedicated (e.g., Sgt. So-and-So Interchange) but in those cases not used for navigation.

Never come? C'mon!

Nope.  Never given current federal guidance and no impetus whatsoever to run around naming interchanges for signage.

[02 Park Ave]

Why was Station No. 15 called "Woodbury"?  Woodbury Twp. is actually at Exit 16 and Exit 15 is at Suffern.

[froggie]

^ My guess is "Station 15" refers to the mainline booth just south of the Harriman interchange, since it's clear from the ticket that personal automobiles don't pay a toll south of there, as is the case today (Tappan Zee notwithstanding).

[empirestate]

I'm confused about why that would be a problem. In a mile-based system, the exit's identifier is the same as its milepost; the map just shows that number, whatever it is. If the exit's identifier were not its milepost, its milepost would still be the same and the map would still show that same number.

Nope.  In the Verona example, the map would show "33" instead of "252."  I would then have to refer to a separate resource (such as the Thruway cross-reference) to get the milepost.

Why would it show "33"? That's its current (sequential) exit number. But in the case where exits don't have numbers–they're named instead–the map would not show "33", it would show "Verona" (or whatever name is chosen). If the map also showed the exit's milepost, it would show "252" for that. Now, if we decide not to use names because of map clutter, then the map doesn't show the exit's name ("Verona"), it doesn't show its number ("33"), and all that's left is its milepost ("252").

The advantage of distance-based exits is that if you know the number for your desired exit, then you can refer to the last milepost passed to estimate your distance to the exit.  This is not possible with a sequential system.

Of course. And if the exit doesn't have a number, but you know its milepost, the same applies. But that's not in dispute, is it? People keep mentioning this advantage of mile-based numbering, but I'm not sure why–we all agree that it has this advantage.

Right, if the conversion could happen as signs are replaced anyway, my objection goes away. But I don't think you can roll out the change piecemeal; you'd have to change everything at once. Again, if the Thruway happened to replace every one of its exit signs at one time for some other reason, fine. But I don't think there's ever going to be a time when a whole state just happens to need new exit signs, so the only way to change to a different system is to do so deliberately. And as far as I can see, doing so would be an invention of which necessity is not the mother.

You might be surprised.  I follow signing construction (downloading and archiving plans, etc.) and every so often I encounter large contracts that are corridor-wide in scope, with literally hundreds of sign panel detail sheets.  Missouri I-49 received this treatment (one contract), as did the New Jersey Turnpike (two contracts).

Any entire states, though?

Actually, where maps are concerned, the hardships fall on the users (added map clutter) as well as the makers (added effort to find room for all the information that needs to be displayed).

And mileage-based to sequential is not quite the same as sequential to mileage-based from the roadside businesses' point of view.  In principle, they benefit from improved relatability between maps and signing making their establishments easier to find, and this is an ongoing gain that arguably offsets the onetime cost of changing from sequential to mileage-based.  Going in the other direction (mileage-based to sequential) is the same onetime cost, with no offset from better relatability.  And changing from one distance-based system to another (the situation in Arizona with I-19 and the proposed conversion from kilometer- to mile-based exit numbers) is similarly a worthless cost.

Well, OK, if you like. But now we've hit the point where we seem to really be reaching for both hardships and benefits. The hardship of having to read a map with names on it does not, to me, offset the benefit of them having names. And the benefit of "relatability" does not, to me, offset the undertaking of changing systems. Since this basically boils down to a subjective value judgement, that's probably the end of the line for the possibility of persuading me.

Whether a given set of circumstances represents a problem is, to an extent, a value judgment.  For example, I drive a 24-year-old car that lacks airbags other than a full-power one for the driver, and does not have automatic emergency braking, lane keeping assist, a backup camera, adaptive cruise control, or any of the other safety features that are increasingly becoming standard.  If I bought a new car equipped with these, I would derive ongoing gains from them, albeit at a steep upfront cost (about $30,000).  Is it a problem that I am foregoing both the expense and the benefits?  I do not consider it to be one, but I am sure plenty of others would disagree.

So it is with converting from sequential to mileage-based.  We have described benefits to this change that are separate from MUTCD compliance.  NYSDOT and NYSTA have the option of forgoing them if they can persuade FHWA not to enforce the distance-based exit numbering requirement.  I do not drive in New York often, so I will not be greatly inconvenienced if they continue to stick to sequential numbering, but it is not a course I would advise them to take.  Caltrans eventually had to fold on exit numbering after 30 years.

Ha! I hadn't yet read this part of your response when I wrote what I did above. Yes, we're thinking about this in exactly the same way (aside from one or two points where we're maybe not discussing quite the same situation). You've mentioned various advantages and disadvantages of both interchange naming and conversion of numbering systems, and I recognize them and find them not to be persuasive. (And in the case of naming, persuasion isn't necessary, as I can really take it or leave it either way.) If New York, ultimately, is forced to "fold" on this issue, it will likely be due to external pressure from the Federal government, not from any demonstrable necessity.

[webny99]

and every so often I encounter large contracts that are corridor-wide in scope, with literally hundreds of sign panel detail sheets.  Missouri I-49 received this treatment (one contract), as did the New Jersey Turnpike (two contracts).

Any entire states, though?

The key here is that states do not all have to convert at once. Roads do, but states don't.

[empirestate]

Hasn't happened in PA so far.

See how it gets abused in other states:

Hal Rogers Parkway (from the Daniel Boone Parkway)
Robert C. Byrd Interchange (x2)
Robert C. Byrd Appalachian Highway System
Robert C. Byrd Bridge (x2)
Robert C. Byrd Drive
Robert C. Byrd Expressway
Robert C. Byrd Freeway
Robert C. Byrd Highway

Almost none of those are interchange names. And the one (two) that is, is it actually used, or is it ceremonial? Are the other interchanges on the same highway(s) named as well?

But yes, if the implementation of interchange names permitted this kind of abuse, that would be an erroneous implementation. In most cases, ceremonial or memorial names wold not sufficiently particularize the identity of an interchange.

You've got a full time job between me and JNWinkler - are you enjoying this yet? 

Well sure; shouldn't I be? I'm happy to explain why my view is what it is, and I certainly don't mind your attempt to persuade me to a different one. So far, that's been unsuccessful, but I don't in any way object to it.

Aside from the fact that I was partially joking with my "non-intrusive" comment, I do feel including interchange names would typically be excessive. With regards to the Penna Turnpike, most (if not all) interchanges share names with the exit's destinations, which are in the body of the sign anyways. I view the wasting of sign space to say the same thing twice as rather cumbersome and inefficient.

OK, that's fine. As I've said, if naming is excessive, then leave it at that. I don't happen to believe it's excessive, but I also don't hold this view so strongly that I can't accept a different rationale. And, as we've both said, names happen anyway, because people do call the interchanges by some kind of name, whether it's deliberately devised or just comes from common usage. As such, it doesn't represent a problem that badly needs a solution.

Here, it's of utmost importance that we distinguish between discussion and signage. In casual conversation, or even when giving directions, "get off at Circleville" works fine, and you could even argue that it's preferred. But when it comes to the motorist actually executing the plan and driving from A to B, they no longer care whether it's "Circleville" or "Squaretown" - it doesn't matter - they only care where it is, and how far away it is. It's therefore in the best interest of the motoring public to sign interchanges to that end.

That's right–and I realize I haven't been so good at keeping the two strands of discussion clear and separate as we go along. The issue of names goes with the first part: discussion, reference, identification, cal it what you like. The issue of whether to convert to a mile-based system (or really, whether to convert at all) goes with the second part: navigation, executing the plan. My suggestion addresses both: give the interchanges names to solve part 1, and indicate their mileposts on signage to solve part 2.

Now, what's important about part 2 is this: changing the exit identifier from sequential numbers to mile-based numbers doesn't address part 1. It doesn't do a better job of identifying or referring to the interchanges. If you make the conversion, people will still refer to the "Circleville Interchange" and the "Squaretown Interchange", even if their official identifiers are "Exit 226" and "Exit 226", because there's a need to distinguish the two.

And while making the conversion does address part 2, it is not necessary to address. In my observation, there exists no problem with navigating from A to B; or, if it does exist, it isn't nearly important enough to justify the undertaking. It's not that I don't realize what the advantage of converting would be, it's that I don't care. You're welcome to rebut that, if you like, but I can't imagine it going very far–you would have to make the case that, in fact, I do care, and that of course is simply false.

While true, that must be prefaced by the following:
1] The thruway is extremely unique in this regard. This is not at all reflective of the average mileage-based scenario. As such, the thruway alone is not substantial evidence against a numbering system that works perfectly well across the country.
2] No one would travel using solely the thruway from Batavia to downstate. I can't even imagine a scenario in which there is potential for confusion, given that all involved parties have at least a remote degree of contextual knowledge.
3] Most importantly, there are two different route numbers; I-87 and I-90. If there's one case in the whole nation where the route number (in addition to the road name, "thruway") must be specified, then so be it.

Here, you seem to be arguing the question itself out of existence. We are specifically concerned with the Thruway system in this thread, and by extension, any hypothetical similar scenario. It's as if I asked the question, "How do you cross a river that has no bridge?" and you answered, "It doesn't matter, because most rivers have bridges."

You're right (other than that the interchange is in Circleville, obviously). But that's not what it needs to tell you–the name doesn't have that function.

But therein lies my point; simply by using a number instead of a name, voila! you now know the approximate location. That's still not the function of the number, but it's very handy to have that additional information built right in.

But why does it have to be "instead"? OK–clutter, too much information, etc. But still, whether or not you choose to call the interchange "Circleville", people will call it "Circleville" anyway, when they need to distinguish it from "Squaretown". And when they need to know what milepost it's at, they'll say "226".

I guess what I'm saying is, I get your point, but I don't see how it applies. For part 1 (naming), why does being able to know the distance mean you can't also identify the interchange? (Other points address this, such as map clutter/too much info, but I don't see how this point does.) And for the second part (navigation), while the point does apply, you have to not only explain the benefit, but also show that it's important enough to justify the conversion. My view is that it isn't worth it, and since that's a subjective value judgement, I'm not sure how you can convince me otherwise, at least not without adding some new information.

Why would they need to jump on board? Those that already show the numbers would simply continue to do so.

I was under the impression you were advocating the inclusion of a name and a number. JN has discussed this in greater detail, so either way I'll let it be 

I advocated that in the field; I didn't state whether mapmakers should follow suit. As you say, others brought up maps in response to the idea, but I didn't myself advocate for mapmakers to do (or not do) any particular thing.

Mileage-based, on the contrary, doesn't seem to help the Thruway situation much at all; indeed, it seems to greatly confuse the issue, as we have perpetually discussed over the years. So I don't think it's clear at all that that's the right change for that problem.

To this, I say the system that's both optimal and recommended across the country can work for the thruway. People (and perhaps roadgeeks especially) tend to over-hype this hypothetical. The confusing implications (which, let's be honest, really aren't all that confusing, nor are they likely to come into play) would dissipate both with AET and with time itself.

Yes; again, now we're talking about the merits of the question itself. While I offered a possible solution, I didn't get into whether the question itself was terribly consequential, and I agree with you that it's probably less so than it's typically made out to be.

Speaking more generally, I don't know that I have a strong opinion on what the change should be to, only that a change isn't warranted. There doesn't seem to be any current problem that would be solved by changing the exit identifiers, regardless of what new system might be selected.

There's two problems, to the extent you call them problems:
1] NY does not conform to the MUTCD or the nationwide precedent. As someone who places a very high premium on consistency, that's a major problem.
2] Motorists can't calculate the distance to their exit. At this point, I'll leave that as a standalone statement, presume the implications are self-explanatory, and call it a day 

Yep, that pretty well sums it up. For [1], I don't place that high value on consistency, so I don't regard this problem to exist to any consequential extent. And for [2], well, actually that's just not true. Motorists have been calculating the distance to their exit in New York and other states for a long time, and they now have the aid of computers to do so. That they need additional help in doing so by converting to mile-based exit numbers is not a statement I agree with.

No, naming interchanges is not a thing outside of some turnpikes (e.g., Penna Turnpike and I believe the Massachusetts Turnpike named their interchanges on their tickets back in the early 1980s (maybe?)).

Just empirestate and other arguing hypotheticals that will never come to fruition.

That's right, it's not a "thing" as it stands today, it's an idea I put out in response to a possible duplication of exit numbers within the same toll system, and by extension, across any system where there is a need to distinguish two or more interchanges.

Though you may be overstating my position to say that I'm arguing for it...if you've followed the discussion, you'll see I haven't clung very tenaciously to the idea. For one thing, interchanges get de facto names as it is, whether or not they also have de jure names. (In light of which, it's also not entirely accurate to say it won't come to fruition–since it's already the case in certain respects, and as you've mentioned, even in some official situations.)

[vdeane]

Whenever I think of named exits, this comically redundant example is what comes to mind.

As for calculating distance in NY, I can do so on most of the Thruway's main ticket system as well as the occasional exit on I-81 north of Syracuse, I-88, and the southern part of the Northway, but otherwise no, I don't know what exits match up with what mile markers.  And if a roadgeek doesn't know, you can bet the general public doesn't.

[roadman]

So it is with converting from sequential to mileage-based.  NYSDOT and NYSTA have the option of forgoing them if they can persuade FHWA not to enforce the distance-based exit numbering requirement.

As I've noted in other threads on milepost exit numbering, that ship has already sailed.  As soon as the Final Rule for the 2009 MUTCD was enacted, New York, Massachusetts, and the other remaining sequential states jointly sent a letter to FHWA requesting a waiver from the new requirement to convert to reference-based numbering.  This request was flatly denied.

[J N Winkler]

No, naming interchanges is not a thing outside of some turnpikes (e.g., Penna Turnpike and I believe the Massachusetts Turnpike named their interchanges on their tickets back in the early 1980s (maybe?)).

Actually, it is not that uncommon for interchanges on untolled freeways to have names.  Arizona DOT, for example, names interchanges and references them by those names in construction plans sets.  On I-19, for example, the Continental TI (TI = traffic interchange) has Continental Road as the crossroad and gives access to the hamlet of Continental, which gets its name from a World War I-era attempt by the Continental Rubber Company to set up a grove of rubber-producing trees in case the US lost access to its supply of South American rubber.

What is unusual is to reference interchange names on signs, maps, toll tickets, and other customer-facing resources.  Arguably the Pennsylvania Turnpike should no longer be signing interchange names because relatability even to PennDOT's own official state map--let alone third-party commercial mapping--is poor.

Why would it show "33"? That's its current (sequential) exit number.

It would show "33" precisely because that is its signed exit number and maps undertake to display the exit numbers that are actually signed in the field.

But in the case where exits don't have numbers–they're named instead–the map would not show "33", it would show "Verona" (or whatever name is chosen).

It would not.  I know of no third-party commercial mapping service that shows interchange names on a single-sheet state map.  The Pennsylvania Turnpike has interchange names and I have never seen those shown in either commercial mapping or on the PennDOT official state map.

If the map also showed the exit's milepost, it would show "252" for that.

I know of no map that shows a milepost for an exit unless it is signed as the exit number.  For example, in Kansas non-Interstate freeways have milepointing with MUTCD-style mileposts, but because their exits are not numbered, exit mileposts are not shown on maps.

The advantage of distance-based exits is that if you know the number for your desired exit, then you can refer to the last milepost passed to estimate your distance to the exit.  This is not possible with a sequential system.

Of course. And if the exit doesn't have a number, but you know its milepost, the same applies. But that's not in dispute, is it? People keep mentioning this advantage of mile-based numbering, but I'm not sure why–we all agree that it has this advantage.

The problem is simply this:  if all mapping that is easily available to the customer shows just the sequential exit number ("33" in the Verona case), then how is a customer to learn the exit milepost so that he or she can commit it to memory for purposes of distance-to-exit estimation while driving?  The advantage of distance-based exit numbering is that it relieves customers of the obligation to find and check obscure resources to convert a sequential exit number to an exit milepost.

Well, OK, if you like. But now we've hit the point where we seem to really be reaching for both hardships and benefits. The hardship of having to read a map with names on it does not, to me, offset the benefit of them having names. And the benefit of "relatability" does not, to me, offset the undertaking of changing systems. Since this basically boils down to a subjective value judgement, that's probably the end of the line for the possibility of persuading me.

Strictly speaking, I only have to persuade a majority of New Yorkers.  And, frankly, many of the  counterarguments to converting to mileage-based exit numbering that you have raised perplex me, not at a conceptual level but simply because they are raised at all.  How much and what type of highway travelling have you done in states that have mileage-based exit numbering?  There is, after all, such a thing as the "Not Invented Here" syndrome.

I grew up in a state that has had mileage-based exit numbering for as long as I have been able to read guide signs.  (The Kansas Turnpike originally had exit numbers, and these were in sequence for the original exits, but out-of-sequence numbers were assigned to exits added after initial construction, and it is unclear whether exit numbers were signed at all before mileage-based exit numbering was introduced.)  I have also had non-roadgeek friends similarly positioned.  Our first contact with sequential numbering has been generally when crossing the Pennsylvania-Ohio border at a time when Pennsylvania still had sequential exit numbers, and we immediately realized we had lost the ability to use exit numbers for localization by distance.  In every case the reaction has been the same:  why are these (sequential-numbering) states still sticking to an inferior system?

You've mentioned various advantages and disadvantages of both interchange naming and conversion of numbering systems, and I recognize them and find them not to be persuasive. (And in the case of naming, persuasion isn't necessary, as I can really take it or leave it either way.) If New York, ultimately, is forced to "fold" on this issue, it will likely be due to external pressure from the Federal government, not from any demonstrable necessity.

That may very well be true.  There are nevertheless demonstrable benefits to mileage-based exit numbering versus sequential numbering.

[webny99]

You've got a full time job between me and JNWinkler - are you enjoying this yet? 

Well sure; shouldn't I be? I'm happy to explain why my view is what it is, and I certainly don't mind your attempt to persuade me to a different one. So far, that's been unsuccessful, but I don't in any way object to it.

Of course - I can tell I didn't expect you to have objections, I was simply noting that you're making two posts to my one.

OK, that's fine. As I've said, if naming is excessive, then leave it at that... it doesn't represent a problem that badly needs a solution.

I've condensed what you said here, as I agree.

That's right–and I realize I haven't been so good at keeping the two strands of discussion clear and separate as we go along. The issue of names goes with the first part: discussion, reference, identification, call it what you like. The issue of whether to convert to a mile-based system (or really, whether to convert at all) goes with the second part: navigation, executing the plan. My suggestion addresses both: give the interchanges names to solve part 1, and indicate their mileposts on signage to solve part 2.

To a certain extent, part 1 happens anyways - people will use whatever they want to refer to and identify the interchange. But I fail to see why, in any context, signage is needed specifically to aid motorists with this. It doesn't ever matter to the motorist what it's called or if it even has a name - the name is just a reference point that happens to be used, that the DOT has no obligation (or reason) to sign.

Now, what's important about part 2 is this: changing the exit identifier from sequential numbers to mile-based numbers doesn't address part 1. It doesn't do a better job of identifying or referring to the interchanges. If you make the conversion, people will still refer to the "Circleville Interchange" and the "Squaretown Interchange", even if their official identifiers are "Exit 226" and "Exit 226", because there's a need to distinguish the two.

Related to what I said above, the DOT's obligation is totally unrelated to part 1 - however the average person wants to refer to the interchange in non-road settings is up to them. It doesn't matter if people still call them "Circletown" and "Squaretown" - if that's what they've always been called, so be it. The DOT's responsibility with regards to signage is to aid motorists in finding, and ultimately reaching, their destination, and using names or sequential numbers are both inferior ways to achieve this objective. In the case of a double "Exit 226", the exits can still be easily distinguished, even in the case of the thruway, by specifying either a]the general area, or b]the route number.

And while making the conversion does address part 2, it is not necessary to address. In my observation, there exists no problem with navigating from A to B; or, if it does exist, it isn't nearly important enough to justify the undertaking.

I view part 2 as the only part that has to be addressed by the DOT. Whether or not you approve of their handling it in New York state is, by nature, a very subjective matter. I don't believe sequential numbers are any great hindrance to motorists, but using them prevents the benefits of mileage-based numbering from being unleashed. As such, in my mind it's more of an obstacle than a real problem.

It's not that I don't realize what the advantage of converting would be, it's that I don't care. You're welcome to rebut that, if you like, but I can't imagine it going very far–you would have to make the case that, in fact, I do care, and that of course is simply false.

If you don't care, that's fine; you have no reason to. But NYSDOT itself, as the true responsible party here, should definitely care enough to take the initiative; both to improve motorist guidance and to comply with the MUTCD.

Here, you seem to be arguing the question itself out of existence. We are specifically concerned with the Thruway system in this thread, and by extension, any hypothetical similar scenario. It's as if I asked the question, "How do you cross a river that has no bridge?" and you answered, "It doesn't matter, because most rivers have bridges."

No, my answer is, "you're dreaming - you missed the bridge sitting right before your eyes"  The fact that the bridge is more obscure than most (hidden by trees, perhaps?) is not really relevant, because the bridge is most definitely there. Maybe there's just a bit more groundwork that needs to be done before it's ready for use, but that's not by any means a show-stopper.
Also, this thread is not specific to the thruway, but the state as a whole. Addressing a re-numbering of the thruway presents a unique set of challenges; challenges that appear larger-than-life, that are insignificant in the big picture, and that can be fairly easily overcome.

But therein lies my point; simply by using a number instead of a name, voila! you now know the approximate location. That's still not the function of the number, but it's very handy to have that additional information built right in.

But why does it have to be "instead"? OK–clutter, too much information, etc. But still, whether or not you choose to call the interchange "Circleville", people will call it "Circleville" anyway, when they need to distinguish it from "Squaretown". And when they need to know what milepost it's at, they'll say "226".

There's an off chance they'll say "226". More likely, you get looked at like you have three heads, and get a guesstimate - "200?"
And again, there really aren't that many cases where they need to distinguish - and if they do, there are other means, such as the route number or general area. 

I guess what I'm saying is, I get your point, but I don't see how it applies. For part 1 (naming), why does being able to know the distance mean you can't also identify the interchange?

It doesn't, but there's no reason for signage to identify the interchange, so why should it?

And for the second part (navigation), while the point does apply, you have to not only explain the benefit, but also show that it's important enough to justify the conversion. My view is that it isn't worth it, and since that's a subjective value judgement, I'm not sure how you can convince me otherwise, at least not without adding some new information.

You tend to view conformance as less of an issue than me. Because of this, I'll probably never convince you that it's worth the cost. I personally think it's important enough to justify the change, but a good chunk of that is just me being a roadgeek, and being nitpicky, and having an appreciation for consistency.

There's two problems, to the extent you call them problems:
1] NY does not conform to the MUTCD or the nationwide precedent. As someone who places a very high premium on consistency, that's a major problem.
2] Motorists can't calculate the distance to their exit. At this point, I'll leave that as a standalone statement, presume the implications are self-explanatory, and call it a day 

Yep, that pretty well sums it up. For [1], I don't place that high value on consistency, so I don't regard this problem to exist to any consequential extent. And for [2], well, actually that's just not true. Motorists have been calculating the distance to their exit in New York and other states for a long time, and they now have the aid of computers to do so. That they need additional help in doing so by converting to mile-based exit numbers is not a statement I agree with.

Motorists shouldn't need additional help to find their destination, but not everyone has the knowledge that you and I have. It's only acceptable that the DOT should provide that additional information when possible (and when it doesn't hinder the message being conveyed - which it doesn't, as we've established). Though it may not be true in either of our cases specifically, it's not incorrect to say the vast majority of motorists can't calculate the distance to their exit on their own based on head knowledge, nor can they do so with the combination of head knowledge and a sequential number.

And that concludes Round 3