AARoads Forum

Regional Boards => Northeast => Topic started by: dgolub on May 16, 2021, 10:30:17 AM

Title: Hutchinson Parkway milepost exit renumbering
Post by: dgolub on May 16, 2021, 10:30:17 AM
I took a trip up north yesterday, and along the way I discovered that the new milepost exit numbers on the Hutchinson Parkway in the Bronx are now in place.  Westchester hasn't happened yet, but it looks like work is in progress there.  Southbound photos are available on my site at https://www.eastcoastroads.com/states/ny/parkways/hutch/photogal/south/bronx.  I'll try to grab the northbound side some time over the next few weeks.
Title: Re: Hutchinson Parkway milepost exit renumbering
Post by: The Ghostbuster on May 17, 2021, 12:26:50 PM
Finally! I was beginning to think the HRP was going to keep the sequential exit numbers permanently. Wikipedia has been updated to show the new exit numbers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutchinson_River_Parkway. I wonder what highway will get mileage-based exits next?
Title: Re: Hutchinson Parkway milepost exit renumbering
Post by: Ketchup99 on May 17, 2021, 01:03:18 PM
Maybe I'm unique, but I don't like milepost numbering on roads like the parkways. Since everything's close together, distances don't matter quite as much, and it's better to have distinct numbers than 4A, 4B, and 4C for three different interchanges.
Title: Re: Hutchinson Parkway milepost exit renumbering
Post by: Alps on May 17, 2021, 07:15:27 PM
Maybe I'm unique, but I don't like milepost numbering on roads like the parkways. Since everything's close together, distances don't matter quite as much, and it's better to have distinct numbers than 4A, 4B, and 4C for three different interchanges.
if you can't tell the difference between 4A and 4C please don't drive
Title: Re: Hutchinson Parkway milepost exit renumbering
Post by: Ketchup99 on May 17, 2021, 07:46:00 PM
Maybe I'm unique, but I don't like milepost numbering on roads like the parkways. Since everything's close together, distances don't matter quite as much, and it's better to have distinct numbers than 4A, 4B, and 4C for three different interchanges.
if you can't tell the difference between 4A and 4C please don't drive
I can tell the difference between 4A and 4C but usually letters are (or should be) used within the same interchange, and it's entirely understandable for that to cause confusion. Never mind that someone coming south might assume 4A is before 4C, and panic if they see 4C first, thinking they'd missed their exit - especially with the bad signage on Westchester parkways. The number should be the interchange number, a letter - if needed - should designate the direction within that interchange. Surely this is no more nonsensical an argument than, say, that Interstates ought to be in their proper grid.
Title: Re: Hutchinson Parkway milepost exit renumbering
Post by: 1 on May 17, 2021, 07:48:37 PM
4C comes before 4A going south.
Title: Re: Hutchinson Parkway milepost exit renumbering
Post by: dgolub on May 17, 2021, 08:27:21 PM
Finally! I was beginning to think the HRP was going to keep the sequential exit numbers permanently. Wikipedia has been updated to show the new exit numbers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutchinson_River_Parkway. I wonder what highway will get mileage-based exits next?

I'd nominate I-684.  It's got the longest exit spacing in Westchester.  That said, I haven't heard anything about it being imminent.
Title: Re: Hutchinson Parkway milepost exit renumbering
Post by: Ketchup99 on May 17, 2021, 08:38:34 PM
4C comes before 4A going south.
Yes. But not everyone knows that, so it could cause confusion. I think the old adage is "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."
Title: Re: Hutchinson Parkway milepost exit renumbering
Post by: vdeane on May 17, 2021, 08:48:17 PM
How about the confusion that could happen if someone from the mile-based majority of the country sees ends up on a sequential road like this and thinks they have a lot further to go to get to their exit by the numbers than they actually do?  I'm not saying that a little fudging can't be done, but I think most of us here can agree that numbers that are off by 10 is too much.
Title: Re: Hutchinson Parkway milepost exit renumbering
Post by: roadman65 on May 17, 2021, 11:57:57 PM
What difference does it make here.  In all suburban an urban areas you get the alphabet soup thing.  What about when I-278 gets its mile based numbers.  Considering the sequence is more numbers than miles, A, B, C, D.....G...etc will be implemented there for sure.

I would like to know if they keep the M prefix on the Meadowbrook Parkway on Long Island or are they going to use plain numbers when its the time to change.
Title: Re: Hutchinson Parkway milepost exit renumbering
Post by: jp the roadgeek on May 18, 2021, 12:14:55 AM
What difference does it make here.  In all suburban an urban areas you get the alphabet soup thing.  What about when I-278 gets its mile based numbers.  Considering the sequence is more numbers than miles, A, B, C, D.....G...etc will be implemented there for sure.

I would like to know if they keep the M prefix on the Meadowbrook Parkway on Long Island or are they going to use plain numbers when its the time to change.

I-278 wouldn’t be as bad as you would think.  Unless you give separate numbers to all the ramps at the Bruckner interchange, the deepest you’d go in suffices would be C.  I’d also be interested to see the suffices on the NJTP for the eastern and western spurs. 
Title: Re: Hutchinson Parkway milepost exit renumbering
Post by: Alps on May 18, 2021, 12:35:22 AM
4C comes before 4A going south.
Yes. But not everyone knows that, so it could cause confusion. I think the old adage is "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."
You've barely even started driving. Give it a chance.
Title: Re: Hutchinson Parkway milepost exit renumbering
Post by: Duke87 on May 18, 2021, 08:52:46 PM
4C comes before 4A going south.
Yes. But not everyone knows that, so it could cause confusion.

Meh, this is how it works everywhere that alphabet soup exists. Besides, no one complains that exit 4 coming before exit 3 going south is confusing.

If we're going to complain about something causing confusion, let's point out how NYSDOT is numbering each direction independently and not following the best practice of one exit number = one destination.
For example, southbound, exit 8 will be for the Cross County Parkway. Northbound, exit 8 will be for Webster Ave. So you will not be able to talk about something being "off the Hutch at exit 8" without it being ambiguous as to which interchange that means.
Likewise, Purchase Street will be exit 16B northbound (because 16A is for 684), but only plain 16 southbound. So you will not be able to refer to this interchange by any specific exit number since which it is will depend on the direction.
Title: Re: Hutchinson Parkway milepost exit renumbering
Post by: roadman65 on May 19, 2021, 02:49:08 AM
Everyplace has its confusion with urban or suburban exits like that.  Plain number one way and a letter suffix the other, yet no big deal ever arises.  Look in NJ where you have Exit 143 NB on the Garden State Parkway for Springfield Avenue, yet SB it is Exit 143C for the same roadway.  Before the change of MUTCD exit numbers, it was easier cause 143 was for both as the Parkway did not due A & B simply.  They did whole number plus A (or B in the case of the three exits in Irvington). 

We have the issue in Florida too on I-4 where its one number one way and another the other way.  It can't be perfect.  Hey look at route concurrencies.  One route has to sacrifice numbers so the mileage and sequence gets distorted. 
Title: Re: Hutchinson Parkway milepost exit renumbering
Post by: jp the roadgeek on May 19, 2021, 12:19:56 PM
Finally! I was beginning to think the HRP was going to keep the sequential exit numbers permanently. Wikipedia has been updated to show the new exit numbers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutchinson_River_Parkway. I wonder what highway will get mileage-based exits next?

I'd nominate I-684.  It's got the longest exit spacing in Westchester.  That said, I haven't heard anything about it being imminent.

I’d say I-95 or I-287 (the standalone section) wouldn’t be too difficult either.  95 only needs one exit changed on the Cross Bronx (2 reverts to 1B northbound), which leaves only a few exits on the Westchester portion.  And 287 is only 11 miles.
Title: Re: Hutchinson Parkway milepost exit renumbering
Post by: storm2k on May 19, 2021, 12:37:29 PM
What difference does it make here.  In all suburban an urban areas you get the alphabet soup thing.  What about when I-278 gets its mile based numbers.  Considering the sequence is more numbers than miles, A, B, C, D.....G...etc will be implemented there for sure.

I would like to know if they keep the M prefix on the Meadowbrook Parkway on Long Island or are they going to use plain numbers when its the time to change.

I-278 wouldn’t be as bad as you would think.  Unless you give separate numbers to all the ramps at the Bruckner interchange, the deepest you’d go in suffices would be C.  I’d also be interested to see the suffices on the NJTP for the eastern and western spurs. 

Other than that I doubt the NJTA will ever move to mileage based exits unless basically forced at gunpoint (and since they're financed by toll revenue and not gas tax money, you can't threaten them with withholding funding to do it, which is what should happen with these recalcitrant northeastern states), I would figure that they would just keep the E and W designations. 15W becomes 108W, 15E becomes 106E, etc. Would also help be rid of 15X, which has always irked me.
Title: Re: Hutchinson Parkway milepost exit renumbering
Post by: roadman65 on May 19, 2021, 10:07:30 PM
The 19 W gets me when you have no 17W to be counterpart to 17. Just make 17 number 17E.

I know the NJTA will say it's north of 18W so it should be 19, however look where Exit 17 is compared to 18E.

I know 17 is an oddball due to it originally being it's own ticketed interchange separate from 16E (formerly 16) and later kept when a coin drop was added to the 1964 relocation for Exit 17 when the original 17 closed.  To me I would  been fine with another 16E and skip 17 like NYSDOT skipped Exit 10 on I-84 in Newburgh.
Title: Re: Hutchinson Parkway milepost exit renumbering
Post by: Roadgeekteen on May 19, 2021, 10:21:44 PM
Does New York plan to renumber all of its exits?
Title: Re: Hutchinson Parkway milepost exit renumbering
Post by: Alps on May 19, 2021, 11:24:19 PM
The 19 W gets me when you have no 17W to be counterpart to 17. Just make 17 number 17E.

I know the NJTA will say it's north of 18W so it should be 19, however look where Exit 17 is compared to 18E.

I know 17 is an oddball due to it originally being it's own ticketed interchange separate from 16E (formerly 16) and later kept when a coin drop was added to the 1964 relocation for Exit 17 when the original 17 closed.  To me I would  been fine with another 16E and skip 17 like NYSDOT skipped Exit 10 on I-84 in Newburgh.
For internal record-keeping they would prefer to keep the number consistent and separate from the other interchanges. I agree that 17 should be 17E, and to me, 19W should have therefore been 17W (or 17 should become 19E if "it's north of 18E").
Title: Re: Hutchinson Parkway milepost exit renumbering
Post by: machias on May 19, 2021, 11:47:35 PM
Does New York plan to renumber all of its exits?

"Eventually".

Of the 2-digit Interstates, I'm pretty certain I-81 is next on the list, especially with the rerouting in Syracuse.
Title: Re: Hutchinson Parkway milepost exit renumbering
Post by: Roadgeekteen on May 19, 2021, 11:51:09 PM
Does New York plan to renumber all of its exits?

"Eventually".

Of the 2-digit Interstates, I'm pretty certain I-81 is next on the list, especially with the rerouting in Syracuse.
Getting a bit off topic but I wonder how they will number the Thruway exits.
Title: Re: Hutchinson Parkway milepost exit renumbering
Post by: Alps on May 20, 2021, 06:04:19 PM
Does New York plan to renumber all of its exits?

"Eventually".

Of the 2-digit Interstates, I'm pretty certain I-81 is next on the list, especially with the rerouting in Syracuse.
Getting a bit off topic but I wonder how they will number the Thruway exits.
No. Not in this thread.
Title: Re: Hutchinson Parkway milepost exit renumbering
Post by: dgolub on May 22, 2021, 07:58:26 AM
4C comes before 4A going south.
Yes. But not everyone knows that, so it could cause confusion.

Meh, this is how it works everywhere that alphabet soup exists. Besides, no one complains that exit 4 coming before exit 3 going south is confusing.

If we're going to complain about something causing confusion, let's point out how NYSDOT is numbering each direction independently and not following the best practice of one exit number = one destination.
For example, southbound, exit 8 will be for the Cross County Parkway. Northbound, exit 8 will be for Webster Ave. So you will not be able to talk about something being "off the Hutch at exit 8" without it being ambiguous as to which interchange that means.
Likewise, Purchase Street will be exit 16B northbound (because 16A is for 684), but only plain 16 southbound. So you will not be able to refer to this interchange by any specific exit number since which it is will depend on the direction.

Yeah, that piece was definitely a bad idea.  It still hasn't happened yet, though, since they've only done the Bronx so far.
Title: Re: Hutchinson Parkway milepost exit renumbering
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 22, 2021, 08:26:46 AM
What difference does it make here.  In all suburban an urban areas you get the alphabet soup thing.  What about when I-278 gets its mile based numbers.  Considering the sequence is more numbers than miles, A, B, C, D.....G...etc will be implemented there for sure.

I would like to know if they keep the M prefix on the Meadowbrook Parkway on Long Island or are they going to use plain numbers when its the time to change.

I-278 wouldn’t be as bad as you would think.  Unless you give separate numbers to all the ramps at the Bruckner interchange, the deepest you’d go in suffices would be C.  I’d also be interested to see the suffices on the NJTP for the eastern and western spurs. 

Other than that I doubt the NJTA will ever move to mileage based exits unless basically forced at gunpoint (and since they're financed by toll revenue and not gas tax money, you can't threaten them with withholding funding to do it, which is what should happen with these recalcitrant northeastern states)...

Since the NJ Turnpike is an authority created by the state, if the Feds really wanted the Turnlike to go to milepost numbering, the feds could withhold federal dollars going to NJDOT to force their hand

Same goes to the Turnpike claiming both the East & West Spurs are I-95. The feds could require both to have a true, unique designation.
Title: Re: Hutchinson Parkway milepost exit renumbering
Post by: Mergingtraffic on May 22, 2021, 07:28:28 PM
I am still shocked when a mileage based exit thread comes up how many people respond to it.  All the time. Why is it so interesting?  IDK it just doesn't matter to me as much as other road related things.  But hey that's me.

However, I will go against myself and add this.....mileage based exits doesn't do a thing on short expressways.  Such as CT-2A in CT.  That short expressway has mileage based exits.  Why?  It doesn't help a thing?  I'd say just don't number the exit or leave it sequential.

Title: Re: Hutchinson Parkway milepost exit renumbering
Post by: Duke87 on May 24, 2021, 12:44:56 AM
We have the issue in Florida too on I-4 where its one number one way and another the other way.  It can't be perfect.

It... can be though. I literally described the correct way to do this.

Hell, New York themselves has done this correctly on other roads. Look at I-95. Northbound travelers will encounter exits 1A*, 1B*, 1C, 1D, 2A, 2B, 4A, 4B, 5A, 5B, 6A, 6B, 7C, 8B, 8C. Southbound travelers will encounter exits 8C, 8B, 8A, 7B, 7A, 6B, 6A, 5A, 4B, 3, 2A, 1D, 1C, 1B, 1A*.

Some letters are missing from the sequence where exit ramps don't exist, but they avoid reusing the same exit number for two unrelated destinations.

*for the sake of this argument we can ignore how Port Authority signage incorrectly labels exits 1A and 1B as 1 and 2
Title: Re: Hutchinson Parkway milepost exit renumbering
Post by: bluecountry on May 24, 2021, 12:30:00 PM
So the Hutch is being re-numbered?
This is the first I heard of it; what happens once it enters CT?
Title: Re: Hutchinson Parkway milepost exit renumbering
Post by: Roadgeekteen on May 24, 2021, 02:14:16 PM
So the Hutch is being re-numbered?
This is the first I heard of it; what happens once it enters CT?
It becomes CT 15.
Title: Re: Hutchinson Parkway milepost exit renumbering
Post by: MikeTheActuary on May 24, 2021, 03:12:39 PM
So the Hutch is being re-numbered?
This is the first I heard of it; what happens once it enters CT?

If we were talking about any other state, the answer would be that the exit numbering resets and starts over at 0 or 1.

However, because we're talking about Connecticut...the exit numbering resets and starts at 27, because to do otherwise would change the Merritt Parkway's historic essential character.  :)
Title: Re: Hutchinson Parkway milepost exit renumbering
Post by: The Ghostbuster on May 24, 2021, 03:24:05 PM
The first exit on CT 15 along the Merritt Parkway should have been Exit 1 from the get-go, not Exit 27. The JFK Memorial Highway in Maryland/Delaware and Interstate 195 in Rhode Island/Massachusetts used to do that (as did the eastern Interstate 86), and the Palisades Interstate Parkway still does it. Outside of Beltways, I haven't seen too many mileage-based roadways not restart their mileage and exit sequences when crossing state lines (save Interstate 24 in Tennessee and future Interstate 49 in Arkansas).
Title: Re: Hutchinson Parkway milepost exit renumbering
Post by: storm2k on May 24, 2021, 04:21:57 PM
The first exit on CT 15 along the Merritt Parkway should have been Exit 1 from the get-go, not Exit 27. The JFK Memorial Highway in Maryland/Delaware and Interstate 195 in Rhode Island/Massachusetts used to do that (as did the eastern Interstate 86), and the Palisades Interstate Parkway still does it. Outside of Beltways, I haven't seen too many mileage-based roadways not restart their mileage and exit sequences when crossing state lines (save Interstate 24 in Tennessee and future Interstate 49 in Arkansas).

278 does it as well. First exits on the Staten Island Expressway continue the numbering that started on the NJ side of the Goethals (even though the exits aren't numbered eastbound).
Title: Re: Hutchinson Parkway milepost exit renumbering
Post by: Roadgeekteen on May 24, 2021, 04:33:58 PM
So the Hutch is being re-numbered?
This is the first I heard of it; what happens once it enters CT?

If we were talking about any other state, the answer would be that the exit numbering resets and starts over at 0 or 1.

However, because we're talking about Connecticut...the exit numbering resets and starts at 27, because to do otherwise would change the Merritt Parkway's historic essential character.  :)
Why do the exits start at 27?
Title: Re: Hutchinson Parkway milepost exit renumbering
Post by: The Ghostbuster on May 24, 2021, 04:50:35 PM
Because the last exit number on the Hutchinson River Parkway was numbered Exit 26. It later became Exit 30, and is now Exit 19.
Title: Re: Hutchinson Parkway milepost exit renumbering
Post by: Roadgeekteen on May 24, 2021, 05:06:27 PM
Because the last exit number on the Hutchinson River Parkway was numbered Exit 26. It later became Exit 30, and is now Exit 19.
Doesn't surprise me that Connecticut would forget to change that.
Title: Re: Hutchinson Parkway milepost exit renumbering
Post by: Alps on May 24, 2021, 06:14:43 PM
The first exit on CT 15 along the Merritt Parkway should have been Exit 1 from the get-go, not Exit 27. The JFK Memorial Highway in Maryland/Delaware and Interstate 195 in Rhode Island/Massachusetts used to do that (as did the eastern Interstate 86), and the Palisades Interstate Parkway still does it. Outside of Beltways, I haven't seen too many mileage-based roadways not restart their mileage and exit sequences when crossing state lines (save Interstate 24 in Tennessee and future Interstate 49 in Arkansas).

278 does it as well. First exits on the Staten Island Expressway continue the numbering that started on the NJ side of the Goethals (even though the exits aren't numbered eastbound).
NJ and NY both have Exit 3 though.
Title: Re: Hutchinson Parkway milepost exit renumbering
Post by: vdeane on May 24, 2021, 09:28:12 PM
The first exit on CT 15 along the Merritt Parkway should have been Exit 1 from the get-go, not Exit 27. The JFK Memorial Highway in Maryland/Delaware and Interstate 195 in Rhode Island/Massachusetts used to do that (as did the eastern Interstate 86), and the Palisades Interstate Parkway still does it. Outside of Beltways, I haven't seen too many mileage-based roadways not restart their mileage and exit sequences when crossing state lines (save Interstate 24 in Tennessee and future Interstate 49 in Arkansas).

278 does it as well. First exits on the Staten Island Expressway continue the numbering that started on the NJ side of the Goethals (even though the exits aren't numbered eastbound).
I-278 is just in some kind of bizarro world.  The exit numbers signed by the Port Authority are actually new, and I have no idea where they came from; it doesn't appear to be based on anything that exists now, that was planned, or even what's signed in NY (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6261088,-74.1789796,3a,51.5y,323.11h,94.9t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1susGq7K4sYiZwJj8LBxh9RQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) (as Alps mentioned).  They're just random and nonsensical.  Given that the Port Authority not only didn't revert their sequential numbers on I-95 when that project was abandoned, but even did replacement in kind somewhat recently, such seems to be a trend with that agency.

We have the issue in Florida too on I-4 where its one number one way and another the other way.  It can't be perfect.

It... can be though. I literally described the correct way to do this.

Hell, New York themselves has done this correctly on other roads. Look at I-95. Northbound travelers will encounter exits 1A*, 1B*, 1C, 1D, 2A, 2B, 4A, 4B, 5A, 5B, 6A, 6B, 7C, 8B, 8C. Southbound travelers will encounter exits 8C, 8B, 8A, 7B, 7A, 6B, 6A, 5A, 4B, 3, 2A, 1D, 1C, 1B, 1A*.

Some letters are missing from the sequence where exit ramps don't exist, but they avoid reusing the same exit number for two unrelated destinations.

*for the sake of this argument we can ignore how Port Authority signage incorrectly labels exits 1A and 1B as 1 and 2
Such is also the reason exit 4C exists on I-890.

Of course, those I-95 exit numbers also have US 1 as 2B NB and 3 SB.
Title: Re: Hutchinson Parkway milepost exit renumbering
Post by: MikeTheActuary on May 25, 2021, 12:11:38 AM
Because the last exit number on the Hutchinson River Parkway was numbered Exit 26. It later became Exit 30, and is now Exit 19.
Doesn't surprise me that Connecticut would forget to change that.

They didn't forget.  Connecticut is "the Land of Steady Habits" after all.
Title: Re: Hutchinson Parkway milepost exit renumbering
Post by: crispy93 on May 25, 2021, 09:50:43 AM
Finally! I was beginning to think the HRP was going to keep the sequential exit numbers permanently. Wikipedia has been updated to show the new exit numbers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutchinson_River_Parkway. I wonder what highway will get mileage-based exits next?

I saw the northbound ones in the Bronx. The document with all the new signs were pretty much identical copies of the old one. So there were three different style of signs (one with the ALL CAPS STREET then a horizontal line, some have caps in a box, some are standard), and seeing new designs is a lot of the fun of new signs! haha

684 would be straightforward, but I'd be interested in redoing the Palisades Parkway. The first couple of miles are in NJ but the mile markers don't reset at the state line. Regardless, the NY section is about 27 miles long so mile exits are appropriate. More importantly, some of the signs are faded, illegible at night, and have different designs. Exit 14 is still button copy.

I'd love to start seeing proper mile markers in NYC and LI. I have no idea why they are not posted. I'm sure if I ask about NYC, the state and city will both tell me its the other agency's problem.
Title: Re: Hutchinson Parkway milepost exit renumbering
Post by: jp the roadgeek on May 25, 2021, 11:40:59 AM
For I-684, exits would be 1 A/B (I-287), 1C (Hutch; all SB only), 4, 7 (A/B NB), 12, 17 (SB only), 18, 20 (NB only), 22, 24, 28 A/B (I-84), 28C

Palisades in NJ would go 1 A/B/C (SB only) 2, 7 9 (NB via U-Turn), 10. 

If mileage didn’t reset at the NY line, NY would be 13 A/B, 14 A/B, 17, 18 A/B, 19 A/B (Thruway), 20, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 30, 33, 34 (US 6 West), and 35

If mileage did reset at the NY line, exits would be 2 A/B, 3 A/B, 6, 7 A/B, 8 A/B (Thruway), 9, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 23A, 23B (US 6 West), 24.  I did not give numbers for the Bear Mountain circle.
Title: Re: Hutchinson Parkway milepost exit renumbering
Post by: storm2k on May 25, 2021, 09:13:09 PM
The first exit on CT 15 along the Merritt Parkway should have been Exit 1 from the get-go, not Exit 27. The JFK Memorial Highway in Maryland/Delaware and Interstate 195 in Rhode Island/Massachusetts used to do that (as did the eastern Interstate 86), and the Palisades Interstate Parkway still does it. Outside of Beltways, I haven't seen too many mileage-based roadways not restart their mileage and exit sequences when crossing state lines (save Interstate 24 in Tennessee and future Interstate 49 in Arkansas).

278 does it as well. First exits on the Staten Island Expressway continue the numbering that started on the NJ side of the Goethals (even though the exits aren't numbered eastbound).
I-278 is just in some kind of bizarro world.  The exit numbers signed by the Port Authority are actually new, and I have no idea where they came from; it doesn't appear to be based on anything that exists now, that was planned, or even what's signed in NY (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6261088,-74.1789796,3a,51.5y,323.11h,94.9t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1susGq7K4sYiZwJj8LBxh9RQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) (as Alps mentioned).  They're just random and nonsensical.  Given that the Port Authority not only didn't revert their sequential numbers on I-95 when that project was abandoned, but even did replacement in kind somewhat recently, such seems to be a trend with that agency.

The Port Authority marches to the beat of its own drum and is less interested in doing it the right way than pretty much any other agency. All they needed to do is change those exit numbers to 2A-B-C and we're perfect. I wish I knew why they just invent their own way every time.
Title: Re: Hutchinson Parkway milepost exit renumbering
Post by: Alps on May 26, 2021, 12:13:28 AM
The first exit on CT 15 along the Merritt Parkway should have been Exit 1 from the get-go, not Exit 27. The JFK Memorial Highway in Maryland/Delaware and Interstate 195 in Rhode Island/Massachusetts used to do that (as did the eastern Interstate 86), and the Palisades Interstate Parkway still does it. Outside of Beltways, I haven't seen too many mileage-based roadways not restart their mileage and exit sequences when crossing state lines (save Interstate 24 in Tennessee and future Interstate 49 in Arkansas).

278 does it as well. First exits on the Staten Island Expressway continue the numbering that started on the NJ side of the Goethals (even though the exits aren't numbered eastbound).
I-278 is just in some kind of bizarro world.  The exit numbers signed by the Port Authority are actually new, and I have no idea where they came from; it doesn't appear to be based on anything that exists now, that was planned, or even what's signed in NY (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6261088,-74.1789796,3a,51.5y,323.11h,94.9t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1susGq7K4sYiZwJj8LBxh9RQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) (as Alps mentioned).  They're just random and nonsensical.  Given that the Port Authority not only didn't revert their sequential numbers on I-95 when that project was abandoned, but even did replacement in kind somewhat recently, such seems to be a trend with that agency.

The Port Authority marches to the beat of its own drum and is less interested in doing it the right way than pretty much any other agency. All they needed to do is change those exit numbers to 2A-B-C and we're perfect. I wish I knew why they just invent their own way every time.
1-2-3 are in the NJDOT Straight Line Diagrams, so it may not be that simple.
Title: Re: Hutchinson Parkway milepost exit renumbering
Post by: storm2k on May 26, 2021, 01:17:55 AM
The first exit on CT 15 along the Merritt Parkway should have been Exit 1 from the get-go, not Exit 27. The JFK Memorial Highway in Maryland/Delaware and Interstate 195 in Rhode Island/Massachusetts used to do that (as did the eastern Interstate 86), and the Palisades Interstate Parkway still does it. Outside of Beltways, I haven't seen too many mileage-based roadways not restart their mileage and exit sequences when crossing state lines (save Interstate 24 in Tennessee and future Interstate 49 in Arkansas).

278 does it as well. First exits on the Staten Island Expressway continue the numbering that started on the NJ side of the Goethals (even though the exits aren't numbered eastbound).
I-278 is just in some kind of bizarro world.  The exit numbers signed by the Port Authority are actually new, and I have no idea where they came from; it doesn't appear to be based on anything that exists now, that was planned, or even what's signed in NY (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6261088,-74.1789796,3a,51.5y,323.11h,94.9t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1susGq7K4sYiZwJj8LBxh9RQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) (as Alps mentioned).  They're just random and nonsensical.  Given that the Port Authority not only didn't revert their sequential numbers on I-95 when that project was abandoned, but even did replacement in kind somewhat recently, such seems to be a trend with that agency.

The Port Authority marches to the beat of its own drum and is less interested in doing it the right way than pretty much any other agency. All they needed to do is change those exit numbers to 2A-B-C and we're perfect. I wish I knew why they just invent their own way every time.
1-2-3 are in the NJDOT Straight Line Diagrams, so it may not be that simple.

So it is. Guess they consider the 2Y with 1-9 to be Exit 1 even if there's no signage and that doesn't really vibe with how NJDOT signs the ends of a lot of its roads (but sometimes does, because they're a frustrating agency sometimes). Still, 1 for Brunswick Ave, 2 for the Turnpike going EB (and 2A-B-C going WB for the Bayway exits and the Turnpike) works nicely.
Title: Re: Hutchinson Parkway milepost exit renumbering
Post by: ran4sh on May 26, 2021, 01:59:27 AM
4C comes before 4A going south.
Yes. But not everyone knows that, so it could cause confusion. I think the old adage is "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Did "A" exits come before "B" exits going south/west bound in the sequential system?

I think not, I remember back when my own state had sequential and the A/B exits were normal.

In all suburban an urban areas you get the alphabet soup thing.

Not necessarily. Especially in suburban areas in my part of the country, it is rare to see letter suffixes that arise from multiple interchanges being too close together.

The solution to "alphabet soup" is to close enough ramps such that proper spacing is achieved.
Title: Re: Hutchinson Parkway milepost exit renumbering
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 26, 2021, 08:43:07 AM
4C comes before 4A going south.
Yes. But not everyone knows that, so it could cause confusion. I think the old adage is "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Did "A" exits come before "B" exits going south/west bound in the sequential system?

I think not, I remember back when my own state had sequential and the A/B exits were normal.

In all suburban an urban areas you get the alphabet soup thing.

Not necessarily. Especially in suburban areas in my part of the country, it is rare to see letter suffixes that arise from multiple interchanges being too close together.

The solution to "alphabet soup" is to close enough ramps such that proper spacing is achieved.

In both sequential and milage based systems, the proper method is that in the direction where exit numbers are going in reverse order, letters go in reverse order as well.

If an interchange has 2 ramps, that's normal and not an alphabet soup issue. B should come before A when exits are numbered to current standards.
Title: Re: Hutchinson Parkway milepost exit renumbering
Post by: bluecountry on May 26, 2021, 11:06:54 AM
So the Hutch is being re-numbered?
This is the first I heard of it; what happens once it enters CT?

If we were talking about any other state, the answer would be that the exit numbering resets and starts over at 0 or 1.

However, because we're talking about Connecticut...the exit numbering resets and starts at 27, because to do otherwise would change the Merritt Parkway's historic essential character.  :)
Well that is going to be awfully confusing.
Title: Re: Hutchinson Parkway milepost exit renumbering
Post by: roadman65 on May 26, 2021, 11:21:58 AM
4C comes before 4A going south.
Yes. But not everyone knows that, so it could cause confusion. I think the old adage is "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Did "A" exits come before "B" exits going south/west bound in the sequential system?

I think not, I remember back when my own state had sequential and the A/B exits were normal.

In all suburban an urban areas you get the alphabet soup thing.

Not necessarily. Especially in suburban areas in my part of the country, it is rare to see letter suffixes that arise from multiple interchanges being too close together.

The solution to "alphabet soup" is to close enough ramps such that proper spacing is achieved.

In both sequential and milage based systems, the proper method is that in the direction where exit numbers are going in reverse order, letters go in reverse order as well.

If an interchange has 2 ramps, that's normal and not an alphabet soup issue. B should come before A when exits are numbered to current standards.

Did the NJTA fix the Garden State Parkway at Route 47 near Rio Grande, NJ?  I distinctly remember SB was 4A for Rt. 47 NB and 4B for SB Route 47 into Wildwood.
Title: Re: Hutchinson Parkway milepost exit renumbering
Post by: jp the roadgeek on May 26, 2021, 12:09:49 PM
4C comes before 4A going south.
Yes. But not everyone knows that, so it could cause confusion. I think the old adage is "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Did "A" exits come before "B" exits going south/west bound in the sequential system?

I think not, I remember back when my own state had sequential and the A/B exits were normal.

In all suburban an urban areas you get the alphabet soup thing.

Not necessarily. Especially in suburban areas in my part of the country, it is rare to see letter suffixes that arise from multiple interchanges being too close together.

The solution to "alphabet soup" is to close enough ramps such that proper spacing is achieved.

In both sequential and milage based systems, the proper method is that in the direction where exit numbers are going in reverse order, letters go in reverse order as well.

If an interchange has 2 ramps, that's normal and not an alphabet soup issue. B should come before A when exits are numbered to current standards.

Except that you may have a couple of instances in CT where A will come before B going South/Westbound.  The I-691 and CT 322 exits on I-84 are 27 and 28, respectively, and are backwards westbound, so it makes sense that you’ll have 40A before 40B.  Same with 27 and 28 on 91; 36A will come before 36B going southbound.
Title: Re: Hutchinson Parkway milepost exit renumbering
Post by: ran4sh on May 26, 2021, 05:01:52 PM
4C comes before 4A going south.
Yes. But not everyone knows that, so it could cause confusion. I think the old adage is "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Did "A" exits come before "B" exits going south/west bound in the sequential system?

I think not, I remember back when my own state had sequential and the A/B exits were normal.

In all suburban an urban areas you get the alphabet soup thing.

Not necessarily. Especially in suburban areas in my part of the country, it is rare to see letter suffixes that arise from multiple interchanges being too close together.

The solution to "alphabet soup" is to close enough ramps such that proper spacing is achieved.

In both sequential and milage based systems, the proper method is that in the direction where exit numbers are going in reverse order, letters go in reverse order as well.

If an interchange has 2 ramps, that's normal and not an alphabet soup issue. B should come before A when exits are numbered to current standards.

You're correct regarding single interchanges with multiple ramps. But "alphabet soup" usually refers to multiple closely-spaced interchanges that get suffix letters for that reason. Roadman suggested that they were in all suburban areas, but I think that's an exaggeration. Even urban areas in a lot of the country usually only have a handful of closely-spaced suffix exits (as opposed to multi-ramp interchanges).

I am still shocked when a mileage based exit thread comes up how many people respond to it.  All the time. Why is it so interesting?  IDK it just doesn't matter to me as much as other road related things.  But hey that's me.

However, I will go against myself and add this.....mileage based exits doesn't do a thing on short expressways.  Such as CT-2A in CT.  That short expressway has mileage based exits.  Why?  It doesn't help a thing?  I'd say just don't number the exit or leave it sequential.


Allowing different numbering systems causes confusion.

Sequential only exists as an exit numbering system because it was invented first. Distance/reference based is clearly a superior system and if a state changes to that system, there is no reason to leave some segments of the freeway network in the sequential numbering system.

In fact, one could argue that the proper solution is to close some of the closely-spaced ramps so that there is no issue where there are more ramps than there are mile numbers.

The first exit on CT 15 along the Merritt Parkway should have been Exit 1 from the get-go, not Exit 27. The JFK Memorial Highway in Maryland/Delaware and Interstate 195 in Rhode Island/Massachusetts used to do that (as did the eastern Interstate 86), and the Palisades Interstate Parkway still does it. Outside of Beltways, I haven't seen too many mileage-based roadways not restart their mileage and exit sequences when crossing state lines (save Interstate 24 in Tennessee and future Interstate 49 in Arkansas).

The MUTCD recommends that all auxiliary (3-digit) routes continue their mileage and exits even when crossing a state line. An example of a non-beltway that continues across a state line is I-205 in Oregon and Washington.
Title: Re: Hutchinson Parkway milepost exit renumbering
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 26, 2021, 10:52:31 PM
I am still shocked when a mileage based exit thread comes up how many people respond to it.  All the time. Why is it so interesting?  IDK it just doesn't matter to me as much as other road related things.  But hey that's me.

However, I will go against myself and add this.....mileage based exits doesn't do a thing on short expressways.  Such as CT-2A in CT.  That short expressway has mileage based exits.  Why?  It doesn't help a thing?  I'd say just don't number the exit or leave it sequential.


Allowing different numbering systems causes confusion.

Sequential only exists as an exit numbering system because it was invented first. Distance/reference based is clearly a superior system and if a state changes to that system, there is no reason to leave some segments of the freeway network in the sequential numbering system.

In fact, one could argue that the proper solution is to close some of the closely-spaced ramps so that there is no issue where there are more ramps than there are mile numbers.

Ramps are placed where they are needed for traffic purposes.

Closing ramps because someone doesn't like the exit number?  You try telling that with a serious face and see how well the public accepts that answer...
Title: Re: Hutchinson Parkway milepost exit renumbering
Post by: ran4sh on May 26, 2021, 10:59:44 PM
I am still shocked when a mileage based exit thread comes up how many people respond to it.  All the time. Why is it so interesting?  IDK it just doesn't matter to me as much as other road related things.  But hey that's me.

However, I will go against myself and add this.....mileage based exits doesn't do a thing on short expressways.  Such as CT-2A in CT.  That short expressway has mileage based exits.  Why?  It doesn't help a thing?  I'd say just don't number the exit or leave it sequential.


Allowing different numbering systems causes confusion.

Sequential only exists as an exit numbering system because it was invented first. Distance/reference based is clearly a superior system and if a state changes to that system, there is no reason to leave some segments of the freeway network in the sequential numbering system.

In fact, one could argue that the proper solution is to close some of the closely-spaced ramps so that there is no issue where there are more ramps than there are mile numbers.

Ramps are placed where they are needed for traffic purposes.

Closing ramps because someone doesn't like the exit number?  You try telling that with a serious face and see how well the public accepts that answer...

It's not because of the exit number, but because it is too close to other ramps. The exit number is the evidence of the ramp being too close, in other words it is the symptom rather than the disease.
Title: Re: Hutchinson Parkway milepost exit renumbering
Post by: roadman65 on May 26, 2021, 11:03:08 PM
You can't always get what you want.   In urban and suburban areas its sometimes impossible to keep ramps in an orderly fashion to serve the number sequence.  By your logic in Florida where both FL 429 and FL 50 exchange with the Turnpike with Exit 267A & B respectively in both directions the A ramp comes first with B second would have the SB roadway relocated the exit for Highway 50 so it diverges first. 

The 267A is for FL 429 which diverges in both directions from the Turnpike before the ramp to SR 50 diverges.  In a way it works out number wise and it uses the same number both ways for each. It was done as that was the best place to add ramps to the interchange needed to transfer motorists between the two freeways.  Tell FTE to relocate the SB ramp to SR 50, you will be looked at as an oddball.  Renumber the A & B southbound and you cause confusion for those giving out directions.
Title: Re: Hutchinson Parkway milepost exit renumbering
Post by: ran4sh on May 26, 2021, 11:06:41 PM
The standard for exit number order has always been the location of the intersecting road itself, rather than the location of the ramps used to reach it.
Title: Re: Hutchinson Parkway milepost exit renumbering
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 26, 2021, 11:10:55 PM
I am still shocked when a mileage based exit thread comes up how many people respond to it.  All the time. Why is it so interesting?  IDK it just doesn't matter to me as much as other road related things.  But hey that's me.

However, I will go against myself and add this.....mileage based exits doesn't do a thing on short expressways.  Such as CT-2A in CT.  That short expressway has mileage based exits.  Why?  It doesn't help a thing?  I'd say just don't number the exit or leave it sequential.


Allowing different numbering systems causes confusion.

Sequential only exists as an exit numbering system because it was invented first. Distance/reference based is clearly a superior system and if a state changes to that system, there is no reason to leave some segments of the freeway network in the sequential numbering system.

In fact, one could argue that the proper solution is to close some of the closely-spaced ramps so that there is no issue where there are more ramps than there are mile numbers.

Ramps are placed where they are needed for traffic purposes.

Closing ramps because someone doesn't like the exit number?  You try telling that with a serious face and see how well the public accepts that answer...

It's not because of the exit number, but because it is too close to other ramps. The exit number is the evidence of the ramp being too close, in other words it is the symptom rather than the disease.

That's not what you just said, and there are various engineering options to deal with closely spaced exits.
Title: Re: Hutchinson Parkway milepost exit renumbering
Post by: dgolub on May 29, 2021, 09:21:00 AM
So the Hutch is being re-numbered?
This is the first I heard of it; what happens once it enters CT?

If we were talking about any other state, the answer would be that the exit numbering resets and starts over at 0 or 1.

However, because we're talking about Connecticut...the exit numbering resets and starts at 27, because to do otherwise would change the Merritt Parkway's historic essential character.  :)

I'm pretty sure that they do plan to change that, but not for another few years.
Title: Re: Hutchinson Parkway milepost exit renumbering
Post by: roadman65 on May 29, 2021, 12:17:26 PM
The next signing replacement will rendered that. Connecticut says the mile based exit numbers will be done at next freeway guide replacement project. So when the Merit Parkway is scheduled for a full sign replacement, it will change.

That’s why only I-395 was just done. It was its place in time for overall replacing.
Title: Re: Hutchinson Parkway milepost exit renumbering
Post by: jp the roadgeek on May 30, 2021, 12:19:35 AM
And here's what the Merritt numbers will look like once converted (assuming round up convention for current projects):

27: 1
28: 3
29: 4
31: 6
33: 9A (at MP 8.89; could be fudged to 8 to avoid a suffix)
34: 9B (see above)
35: 10
36: 13
37: 14
38: 16
39 (A-B NB): 17 (A-B)
40 A/B: 18 A/B
41: 21
42: 22
44: 27
46: 28 (at MP 28.58; should be fudged down to avoid a suffix)
47: 29
48: 30
49 (N/S NB): 32 (A/B)
50 (SB ONLY): 33
51 (NB ONLY): 34A
52: 34C (NB); 34 C-B-A (SB; CT 8 is 34 C-B with each getting a directional suffix, exit to CT 108 numbered to match NB)
53: 37
Merritt/Wilbur Cross Changeover
54: 38A
55A: 38B
55B (NB ONLY): 39
56: 41
57-58: 43 A/B
59: 47
60: 50
61-62: 52 A/B
63: 53
64: 58
65: 59
66: 61
67 (W/S SB): 64 (B/A)
68: (N/E and W NB) 65 (A/B; NE goes single suffix)

Hartford portion
85: 79 (at MP 79.65, but fudged down to avoid major alphabet city at I-91)
86: 80A
87: 80B (and yes, 80A will come before 80B SB)
89 (NB ONLY): 81
90: 82 (A/B/C NB; each ramp should get a suffix; US 5 is 82A, CT 2 is 82 B/C
91 (NB ONLY): 83
Title: Re: Hutchinson Parkway milepost exit renumbering
Post by: vdeane on May 30, 2021, 12:47:46 PM
And here's what the Merritt numbers will look like once converted (assuming round up convention for current projects):

27: 1
Why have two numbers for one interchange?  Just use NY's number of 19.  It's right on the border and is for NY 120A.  It's practically a NY interchange that happens to cross into CT.  The only reason the numbers don't match now is because the numbering on the Hutch has changed (multiple times, once the conversion to mile-based numbers goes through) since they were initially set.
Title: Re: Hutchinson Parkway milepost exit renumbering
Post by: abqtraveler on May 30, 2021, 01:55:30 PM
The next signing replacement will rendered that. Connecticut says the mile based exit numbers will be done at next freeway guide replacement project. So when the Merit Parkway is scheduled for a full sign replacement, it will change.

That’s why only I-395 was just done. It was its place in time for overall replacing.
And they just replaced the signs on the Merritt a few years ago, so it'll probably be another 20 to 30 years before they replace those signs and renumber exits.
Title: Re: Hutchinson Parkway milepost exit renumbering
Post by: roadman65 on May 31, 2021, 12:30:58 PM
Maybe CT just plans to do interstates only in the conversion.  Virginia did that as even some 3 digits like I-395 and I-664 still use sequence order numbers.
Title: Re: Hutchinson Parkway milepost exit renumbering
Post by: jp the roadgeek on May 31, 2021, 12:33:30 PM
Maybe CT just plans to do interstates only in the conversion.  Virginia did that as even some 3 digits like I-395 and I-664 still use sequence order numbers.

Not true.  CT 72 will be converted soon (a couple signs were erected with one of the new exit numbers but have since been overlain), as will CT 2, and a couple of small sections of CT 3 and CT 17.
Title: Re: Hutchinson Parkway milepost exit renumbering
Post by: The Ghostbuster on May 31, 2021, 12:42:24 PM
If CT 15 does get new numbers, couldn't they just patch the new numbers over the old ones? That way the signs don't have to be replaced.
Title: Re: Hutchinson Parkway milepost exit renumbering
Post by: Alps on May 31, 2021, 04:35:24 PM
Well I was just on the Hutch, and that may be the last time I see it sequential. I thought it had already changed over but at least not SB.
Title: Re: Hutchinson Parkway milepost exit renumbering
Post by: Scott5114 on May 31, 2021, 06:05:05 PM
Maybe I'm unique, but I don't like milepost numbering on roads like the parkways. Since everything's close together, distances don't matter quite as much, and it's better to have distinct numbers than 4A, 4B, and 4C for three different interchanges.
if you can't tell the difference between 4A and 4C please don't drive
I can tell the difference between 4A and 4C but usually letters are (or should be) used within the same interchange, and it's entirely understandable for that to cause confusion. Never mind that someone coming south might assume 4A is before 4C, and panic if they see 4C first, thinking they'd missed their exit - especially with the bad signage on Westchester parkways. The number should be the interchange number, a letter - if needed - should designate the direction within that interchange. Surely this is no more nonsensical an argument than, say, that Interstates ought to be in their proper grid.

None of these made-up problems have ever happened in Oklahoma, and that's a state that sometimes causes unwarranted suffixes by refusing to use Exit 0s (the first two miles of exits are always Exit 1, meaning "mile 1" can rack up truly impressive suffix letters without particularly densely-placed interchanges).
Title: Re: Hutchinson Parkway milepost exit renumbering
Post by: vdeane on May 31, 2021, 09:22:37 PM
Maybe CT just plans to do interstates only in the conversion.  Virginia did that as even some 3 digits like I-395 and I-664 still use sequence order numbers.

Not true.  CT 72 will be converted soon (a couple signs were erected with one of the new exit numbers but have since been overlain), as will CT 2, and a couple of small sections of CT 3 and CT 17.
Plus CT 2A was converted along with I-395.

If CT 15 does get new numbers, couldn't they just patch the new numbers over the old ones? That way the signs don't have to be replaced.
In theory... in practice, CT seems to be replacing whole exit tabs instead.