Exit numbers: Distance based number or sequential?

[Brandon]

Mileage based is most preferable.

However, Kacie, the emergency services know that there is only a four mile stretch you can be in between exits 270 and 274.  With exits 99 and 100 in a sequential numbering scheme, it could be anywhere from 1/2 mile to 40 miles to search.

Anyway, I personally like the newer 1/4 mile posts the ISTHA has been using over the older one milepost per mile scheme or the silly decimal point that FHWA is pushing.  Fractions are good.

[akotchi]

I am in the mileage-based camp.  Like some who have already posted, I grew up in a sequential state (Pa), but moved to a mileage state (Md).  I work in a state that uses both (NJ) -- the turnpike is sequential, but the rest of the state is mileage-based.

Mileage-based exits are especially helpful entering a state or highway eastbound or northbound, when exit numbers increase.  If I am unfamiliar with an area, I can better gauge time to a destination.

An interesting item -- In New Jersey, I-295 and the Turnpike roughly parallel each other to just north of Trenton.  They meet a mile or so from the Delaware Memorial Bridge, so distances are roughly the same.  Exit 60 on I-295 (mileage-based) and Exit 7A (sequential, at about mile 58) of the Turnpike intersect the same roughly east-west roadway (I-195), so the pros and cons of both methods are in full display in a small area.

[golden eagle]

I much prefer mileage-based exits.

[Kacie Jane]

However, Kacie, the emergency services know that there is only a four mile stretch you can be in between exits 270 and 274.  With exits 99 and 100 in a sequential numbering scheme, it could be anywhere from 1/2 mile to 40 miles to search.

Not exactly.

If I tell you I'm between exits 99 and 100, without giving you any other information, then you're right, you'd really have no idea how big a range that is.

But - and switching to real world numbers here - I'd make sure to tell 911 what highway I was on. (Plus, if it's a moderately advanced system, they'd already be looking at a map locating my cell phone.) So if I told them I was between exits 4 and 5 on the New Jersey Turnpike, they'd know to search the 10-mile range between mileposts 34.5 and 44.1. So it wouldn't really make a difference if I'd been able to tell them I was between exits 34 and 44 instead.

[Michael in Philly]

Definitely mileage-based. Sequential only works, barely, in small states (NH, VT, MA, RI, CT) where the plethora of exits-to-miles ratio is close. On the NY Thruway, it can get boring not knowing exactly how many miles to go before your exit. Sure, you might be at Exit 61 and going to 47, but that means absolutely nothing in terms of how long it will take, how many miles will you travel, etc.

Mileage-based does two things: ID the exit, and give near accurate driving distance to said exit without the use of an additional sign indicating distances to city.

Sequential does one thing: ID the exit. it does not give any clue as to how far to said exit.

Anyone who claims they like 'sequential', I feel, haven't really thought out why they like it.

Sykotyk

Doesn't the New York Thruway include little panels saying things like "next exit 20 miles"?
But, yes, I prefer distance-based (miles in the U.S., please).  But it's not something I get worked up about, if only because I tend to over-value the little quirks that help you tell one place from another.

[agentsteel53]

the bigger question is: if it's 40 miles between exits - sequential or mile-based - do I still remember the last exit number when I find myself splattered all over the road with much more important things on my mind?

[xcellntbuy]

Having grown up and lived in the Northeast, I was used to sequentially numbered exits.  Since traveling and moving to south Florida, I have to not only appreciate mileage-based exits, but prefer them.

[iwishiwascanadian]

I've always have had the sequential based exit numbers and I don't see anything wrong with them.  If one pays attentions to where they're going then one wouldn't have to worry about trying to identify their location to emergency services.  Also, the excessive gaps that come with mileage based system annoy me. 

[Duke87]

What I expect is for the difference in exit numbers to be roughly proportional to the distance between them... especially true of long hauls. Sequentially numbered exits that are spaced out really make highways drag on... it's only 70 miles from the MA/VT state line to White River Junction on I-91, but it feels like it takes hours to get there because the lack of advancement in exit numbers (mile 70 and it's only exit 10. 10!) makes it seem like you aren't moving much. (I find it helpful to look at the mileposts and say "this should be exit XX").

On the other hand, on relatively short freeways or freeways with closely spaced exits, it matters a lot less. I-95 in Connecticut goes up to exit 93 sequentially; by milepost that would be 111. Not enough of a difference to notice.

Of course, you can start to have the opposite problem if the exits are too close. The Hutchinson River Parkway has 30 exits in 19 miles. Based on the exit numbers you tend to think it's further between them than it actually is. This is a case in which a little alphabet soup would be quite welcome... although, I'd also argue that they really ought to continue I-678's numbers rather than starting over The two highways are entirely continuous with each other, a change in designation should not warrant a reset. Same goes double for the Henry Hudson/Saw Mill, where there isn't even a change in class! And, while I'm ranting... NYSDOT would also be well advised to stop giving exit numbers to at grade intersections, and to actually number all their real exits (Taconic... )

[relaxok]

On the other hand, on relatively short freeways or freeways with closely spaced exits, it matters a lot less. I-95 in Connecticut goes up to exit 93 sequentially; by milepost that would be 111. Not enough of a difference to notice.

That's one thing I feel like would happen in CT -- imagine if all your exits changed numbers but many of them only 1-3 numbers in either direction - talk about confusion.

[mightyace]

Anyone who claims they like 'sequential', I feel, haven't really thought out why they like it.

Sykotyk

I do like sequential, and yes, I have thought it out.

There are two reasons one rational and one not:
The irrational one is simply, it's what I grew up with in PA.
The rational one is that I know roughly how many exits I have to pass before I get somewhere.  If I'm headed to exit 12 on a sequential system and I'm at exit 22 then there are about 9 exits in between.  Plus or minus given missing or added exits.  However, if I'm headed to exit 42 on a mileage system and am at exit 85, who knows how many exits I'll have to pass.

But, even so, the what I'm used to applies even in states that have always been mileage based.  I know that the easternmost exit in Ohio on I-80 is 234 and that TN 96 in Franklin is exit 65 on I-65.  But, even after conversion, I can't get the numbers right on I-80 in PA or the Ohio Turnpike.  Now, is the exit for US 11 now 240 or 241 (it's 241 btw) and what is the exit for Pocono Raceway now?  It was 43 just like Richard Petty's number, I had to look at my atlas to see that it's now 284.

[WillWeaverRVA]

Distance-based, simply because it's much easier for navigational purposes. If you're passing by Exit 3 and you're looking to get off at Exit 21, you know you have to drive about 18 miles to get there.

[ctsignguy]

I think those of us who like or prefer sequential exits numbers are in the minority...

but it does need to be mentioned that on many northeast roads, to do the switch would make little sense for the expense of swapping out signs, especially given the current budgets/economies of several states...i-95 in Connecticut was built before the Interstate days, so it would definitely be non-standard in terms of how many exits (70+ within the first 79 miles)...and in an instance like that, it would be confusing to many locals who may be used to getting off the Turnpike at Exit 50 to get off at renumbered exit 52....if nothing else, two generations if not three in the New England and Northeast are used to sequential numbers....it wont be pretty to change things over to accommodate 'out-of-towners', as they might see it.

Ohio went from sequential to mileage based but in that instance the sequential numbers hadnt been on long enough for people to get used to them....if my memory serves me, the exit number first cropped up very early in the 70s and it wasnt more than just a couple of years later they went to mileage-numbers...but in a place with a lot of miles and comparatively few exits, the mileage system makes more sense....but, in the tightly knit Northeast?  Leave it alone...not too many places left to add exits anyway on the majority of highways there

[relaxok]

Ohio went from sequential to mileage based but in that instance the sequential numbers hadnt been on long enough for people to get used to them....if my memory serves me, the exit number first cropped up very early in the 70s and it wasnt more than just a couple of years later they went to mileage-numbers...but in a place with a lot of miles and comparatively few exits, the mileage system makes more sense....but, in the tightly knit Northeast?  Leave it alone...not too many places left to add exits anyway on the majority of highways there

I felt exactly as you do, however I'm a bit less optimistic as some have mentioned it's been somewhat 'mandated' - though without a deadline.  

Regardless of whether or not one or the other makes more sense as a travel aid, I'll be sad to see the systems I know so well completely change and in a deceptively subtle way (as we both stated, numbers changing slightly and confusingly - quite different than a long interstate whose numbers would be unrecognizable).

That being said, I'm kind of confused what business the locals or state would have going against it?  I can understand re-routing and such needing to jump through a lot of legal hoops, but couldn't the fed govt just send a contractor in to change them with no recourse?

[rickmastfan67]

but it does need to be mentioned that on many northeast roads, to do the switch would make little sense for the expense of swapping out signs, especially given the current budgets/economies of several states...

It's called small greenouts with new numbers.  No need to put up new signs (unless they were already planned to be replaced) except for a small plaque saying "OLD EXIT XX" like PA did.

[froggie]

but, in the tightly knit Northeast?

Which, in reality, is mostly limited to Connecticut, Rhode Island, and eastern Massachusetts.

[xcellntbuy]

Florida had the same small signs indicating the old exit number when they converted from sequential to mileage-based.  Many of the Interstate 95 "old exit XX" signs did not last long since they began the conversion a year or so before Hurricanes Frances, Jeanne and Wilma on the Atlantic Coast.  I would imagine it was much the same on the Gulf Coast where Hurricane Charlie wrecked heavy damage to signs, gantries and very tall light poles on Interstate 75.  Since the "old exit XX" signs were often mounted above the new or greened-out exit tabs on overhead sign gantries or placed off to the right on ground-mounted posts, the Hurricane force winds tore them away.

[Michael in Philly]

I think those of us who like or prefer sequential exits numbers are in the minority...

but it does need to be mentioned that on many northeast roads, to do the switch would make little sense for the expense of swapping out signs, especially given the current budgets/economies of several states...i-95 in Connecticut was built before the Interstate days, so it would definitely be non-standard in terms of how many exits (70+ within the first 79 miles)...and in an instance like that, it would be confusing to many locals who may be used to getting off the Turnpike at Exit 50 to get off at renumbered exit 52....if nothing else, two generations if not three in the New England and Northeast are used to sequential numbers....it wont be pretty to change things over to accommodate 'out-of-towners', as they might see it.

Ohio went from sequential to mileage based but in that instance the sequential numbers hadnt been on long enough for people to get used to them....if my memory serves me, the exit number first cropped up very early in the 70s and it wasnt more than just a couple of years later they went to mileage-numbers...but in a place with a lot of miles and comparatively few exits, the mileage system makes more sense....but, in the tightly knit Northeast?  Leave it alone...not too many places left to add exits anyway on the majority of highways there

Agreed.  I don't see why standardization of this sort of thing is so important (and I'm skeptical the MUTCD can, constitutionally, bind the states).

[Michael in Philly]

Florida had the same small signs indicating the old exit number when they converted from sequential to mileage-based.  Many of the Interstate 95 "old exit XX" signs did not last long since they began the conversion a year or so before Hurricanes Frances, Jeanne and Wilma on the Atlantic Coast.  I would imagine it was much the same on the Gulf Coast where Hurricane Charlie wrecked heavy damage to signs, gantries and very tall light poles on Interstate 75.  Since the "old exit XX" signs were often mounted above the new or greened-out exit tabs on overhead sign gantries or placed off to the right on ground-mounted posts, the Hurricane force winds tore them away.

Most "old exit" tabs in Pennsylvania (well, at least the parts I drive in) are still there a decade after the conversion.  At this point, I wonder if it's a matter of having it both ways (not that there's anything wrong with that....)  I still have the Turnpike's old numbers in my head - can't get my head around the new ones.  Come to think of it, memorizing exit numbers may be the one context where sequential is helpful - because it's obvious if you're missing one - but it's a fairly silly exercise....

[Mr_Northside]

Most "old exit" tabs in Pennsylvania (well, at least the parts I drive in) are still there a decade after the conversion.  At this point, I wonder if it's a matter of having it both ways (not that there's anything wrong with that....) 

Yeah... I remember reading that, when they started, the old numbers were supposed to be around for about 2 years.  I suppose once they were put up, until they really look like crap, it's cheaper to leave them up.

And, of course, here in PGH, with the I-376 extension, there's a whole new crop of "old exit" signs for the former mileage of the local interstates, that directly replaced the sequential "old exit" signs.

[Eth]

The Connecticut I-95 point is a good one; having driven it, I can see why a switchover might arguably not be a good idea there.  Perhaps there could be some sort of grandfather clause allowing a currently-sequential freeway to keep its existing numbers if there really wouldn't be much of a difference.  Maybe something like "if the average distance between exits is less than 1.5 miles" or something.

[Sykotyk]

There can be some leeway in numbering, in my mind.

For instance, if there's exits at 1.0, 2.8, 4.2, 4.8, 5.2, and 8 they could sign them 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 and not bother me. No need for 1, 2, 4A 4B, 5, and 8 in that circumstance. In CT, the first 50+ miles of I-95 are almost spot-on with the mile markers before starting to get further and further apart.

Sykotyk

[Ian]

In some cases (like I-95 in Connecticut), switching from sequential to distance would have no effect on the exit numbers, as all the exits are in place. I remember when Maine made the switch, the numbers didn't change along I-295 through Portland, leaving a few of these rather amusing set ups (this isn't on I-295, but it shows the same example):

[cjk374]

 ^^                

Can you imagine the conversation between the state highway people putting this sign up?  

[vdeane]

If/when New York switches from sequential to distance, for example, the exit numbers along I-890 in Schenectady would need no changing.

That isn't a case of a switchover having no effect.  I-890 was numbered according to distance as part of an experiment in the 70s.  Though apart from exit 4C, you really can't tell.