Major Cities (or States) Which Lack Interchange Sequence Signage

[wriddle082]

In TN I've only seen them used in Memphis along the 6-lane portion on TN 385 near Germantown.  Nowhere else.  They are desperately needed throughout the state.

Never seen them anywhere in KY, but WV seems to use them in Huntington, Charleston, and Beckley.

In NC I've seen them in Charlotte mostly, but I think I've seen one or two in Winston-Salem as well.

In SC they're fairly common in Columbia, Charleston, and Greenville, and maybe along SC 31 in the Myrtle Beach area.  They also have advanced signage for a town's exits for Newberry and Manning, though the signs for each exit still mention the town.

[Tom958]

They're used kind of spottily around Atlanta, mostly on and inside 285. Actually, I shouldn't say that: I find them so irritating that I tend to ignore them. This photo that afone took shows why:

1. Georgia includes a pointless NEXT THREE EXITS plaque at the top of the sign. Dude, we already know that.

2. As shown here, the closest destination is already referenced twice in this one photo on the standard signage, and the standard signage is already awfully wordy for reasons beyond GDOT's control. OT, but IMO sequential signage should cover the next three (or two) exits that aren't already appearing on the standard signage.

[jakeroot]

IMO sequential signage should cover the next three (or two) exits that aren't already appearing on the standard signage.

That would be fine with me as well, as long as GDOT stopped using the "NEXT 3 EXITS" wording, because as-is, GDOT would be required to display Peachtree Rd on the sequence signage since it is one of the next three exits.

[Duke87]

You're lucky to get more than 1 advance in New York City. Stuff is just too close.

Which is why you put advance warning for multiple exits on a single sign.

With regards to New York City specifically, the reason we don't have such signs is because they weren't in general use back when all of our highways were built, and there is a striking lack of initiative amongst NYSDOT R11 and NYCDOT to really rethink how they sign things. New signs very often simply carbon copy the ones they replace, or change some text but don't really rethink the overall design, preserving such historical oddities as center tabbing, putting a route shield and highway name on the same sign, using single arrows to point to ramps which are multiple lanes, and the use of "RIGHT LANE" as advance text for exits instead of a distance or arrow. And yes, that is a left-aligned tab for a right-hand exit.

It also doesn't help that the culture in New York City is simultaneously quite parochial and quite exceptionalist. There is a strong mindset of "if it wasn't invented here, it must be inferior". Exit list signage is a good idea, but it was someone else's idea so we're not eager to use it.


At the same time, though, this attitude produces some unique local flavor to the roads, which I appreciate simply for its stand in defiance of the genericization of America. 

[roadman65]

IMHO, I think I-4 should use them like Caltrans does after every interchange to denote the next 3 interchanges instead of using more panels.   Even the Garden State Parkway with its latest sign change in Middlesex County is using way too many panels to alert motorists of NJ 27, Wood Ave. S, and US 1 where a sequential sequence sign would be simpler and safer as motorists have to worry about other things while driving.

[Kacie Jane]

You're lucky to get more than 1 advance in New York City. Stuff is just too close.

Which is why you put advance warning for multiple exits on a single sign.

With regards to New York City specifically, the reason we don't have such signs is because they weren't in general use back when all of our highways were built, and there is a striking lack of initiative amongst NYSDOT R11 and NYCDOT to really rethink how they sign things. New signs very often simply carbon copy the ones they replace, or change some text but don't really rethink the overall design, preserving such historical oddities as center tabbing, putting a route shield and highway name on the same sign, using single arrows to point to ramps which are multiple lanes, and the use of "RIGHT LANE" as advance text for exits instead of a distance or arrow. And yes, that is a left-aligned tab for a right-hand exit.

It also doesn't help that the culture in New York City is simultaneously quite parochial and quite exceptionalist. There is a strong mindset of "if it wasn't invented here, it must be inferior". Exit list signage is a good idea, but it was someone else's idea so we're not eager to use it.


At the same time, though, this attitude produces some unique local flavor to the roads, which I appreciate simply for its stand in defiance of the genericization of America. 

Valid points mostly.  My point isn't that NYC (or S) DOT should be shamed or flogged for not using Interchange Sequence Signage.  Just that New York being too big or the exits too close, as was said on the first page, isn't valid logic.  Those aren't reasons these signs can't be used there, and in fact may be good reasons why they should be.

[cl94]

You're lucky to get more than 1 advance in New York City. Stuff is just too close.

Which is why you put advance warning for multiple exits on a single sign.

With regards to New York City specifically, the reason we don't have such signs is because they weren't in general use back when all of our highways were built, and there is a striking lack of initiative amongst NYSDOT R11 and NYCDOT to really rethink how they sign things. New signs very often simply carbon copy the ones they replace, or change some text but don't really rethink the overall design, preserving such historical oddities as center tabbing, putting a route shield and highway name on the same sign, using single arrows to point to ramps which are multiple lanes, and the use of "RIGHT LANE" as advance text for exits instead of a distance or arrow. And yes, that is a left-aligned tab for a right-hand exit.

It also doesn't help that the culture in New York City is simultaneously quite parochial and quite exceptionalist. There is a strong mindset of "if it wasn't invented here, it must be inferior". Exit list signage is a good idea, but it was someone else's idea so we're not eager to use it.


At the same time, though, this attitude produces some unique local flavor to the roads, which I appreciate simply for its stand in defiance of the genericization of America. 

Valid points mostly.  My point isn't that NYC (or S) DOT should be shamed or flogged for not using Interchange Sequence Signage.  Just that New York being too big or the exits too close, as was said on the first page, isn't valid logic.  Those aren't reasons these signs can't be used there, and in fact may be good reasons why they should be.

We're also talking money that New York doesn't have. Adding interchange sequence signage to what already exists would nearly double the amount of signage. Transportation funding is being slashed and there's barely enough funding to maintain what highway infrastructure exists or what must be replaced immediately. Under the streets, the MTA isn't even getting enough state funding to keep the subway and commuter rail systems running. It's getting pretty bad out here.

[Scott5114]

Oklahoma is very spotty at using them. They have installed some in Norman with the recent construction on I-35, but elsewhere in the metro, they are occasionally posted at best.

[SSOWorld]

Chicago doesn't use them at all.  In fact, I don't know anywhere in Illinois that does. 

There's some around Peoria and a few scattered ones downstate.  That said, IDOT District 1 completely shuns the things.  Now, ISTHA has a different solution to it.  Instead of having sequence signage, they tend to post the BGSs of the next two exits, even if those exits are miles away.

InDOT does use them extensively in NW Indiana (even including Illinois exits on the last few in the state).

District 1 Does follow - somewhat - the pattern that ISHTA uses on Chicago's expressways.   I say "somewhat" because it depends on the density of interchanges and the presence of a freeway-to-freeway interchange which would take up all the room on the sign gantries - an example is on the Kennedy between Ohio Street and the (don't call me Jane Byrne) Circle.  the signage shows the next two exits, but is interrupted at times by the signing of the upcoming Circle connections.  That's their alternative to these sequencing signs - it's effective, but not ideal in the least.  CDOT doesn't even bother on the LSD and Skyway. 

WisDOT uses some form of them in several places.  Madison (Interstates and the Beltline) hast them used extensively as does the greater Milwaukee area (southern Washington and Ozaukee Counties, Milwaukee County and eastern Waukesha County).  I-94 in Racine and Kenosha counties also uses them - rural or urban.  The signs also include Russell Road and the US-41 split in Illinois, but not south of WIS 165 so the first ISTHA interchange is not listed.

Other areas having the same scheme as Madison and Milwaukee are: WIS 29 and US-51 in Wausau metro area, US-53 in Eau Claire/Chippewa falls, I-94 through Hudson, and the urban freeways of Green Bay, Appleton, Oshkosh and Fond du Lac.  Most of these were installed after rebuilds of the freeway(s) in recent years.

Most other cities are fitted with a "[City name here] next # [Exits|Interchanges]" or list of exits (up to 3) - prominent ones are Stevens Point (doesn't include Plover), Portage, La Crosse, Chippewa Falls (WIS-29 only - see above for US-53), Eau Claire (I-94 only - see above for US-53), Sheboygan and Manitowoc.

[thenetwork]

When I was driving in Metro Detroit for the first time, or even my first time in SoCal, f I had a ways to go, I'd be traveling in one of the leftmost lanes.

When my exit first appeared on the third (bottom) row of upcoming exits on the sequential sign, I would move one lane to the right.  When it was the 2nd listed exit on the sign, I would move one lane to the right again.  When it was the next exit (usually would then be the top exit on the ISS) I would now be in the rightmost lane to prepare to exit. 

That is how I perceive the use of those signs and how I treated them.  Like previous posters have said, in cities where exits often sneak up on an unsuspecting driver who is not in position to exit, you have someone in a far left lane slowing down traffic for all so they can get all the way over to the exit lane in time.  If the ISS was used more often in urban areas, or areas where exits are closely spaced, there is a greater chance these drivers will start moving over earlier with plenty of time as not to impede the traffic flow as much as they (hopefully) will have better notice their exit is coming up.

[Walleye2013]

I know that Albuquerque uses them on I-25 from Tramway (NM 556) to the Airport (Support Boulevard).