Enhanced Mile Markers

[roadfro]

Nevada has some enhanced postmiles that show a shield but otherwise contain the same by-county information that their small postmiles have. California has a few MUTCD-standard enhanced markers on one road but I think the mileage is still by-county.

Nevada DOT adopted the MUTCD enhanced reference location signs several years ago (showing statewide mileage on interstate highways only). This happened simultaneously with their deployment of enhanced county-based white milepost signs (what Caltrans calls a postmile) for US and state highways in rural areas, which were first trialed in 2014 and adopted circa 2015. (The enhanced Nevada milepost was discussed in the New style of mileposts in test trials on Nevada highways thread on the Pacific Southwest board, with pic examples in thread.)

Most deployments of the green enhanced reference location signs thus far have only been in places where major (re-)construction projects have taken place. Thus far, this has included some installations on I-580 and on I-80 near Reno. The ones on I-80 in Reno and the few on I-580 in Carson City ended up being installed with a small white standard milepost (postmile) panel adjacent with the same mile info–this is because NDOT mileposting guidelines still call for a standard county-based milepost at all county-based integer mile locations, and these locations happen to be coincident with the beginning points of the interstates in Nevada. I haven't been on significant stretches of I-80 and I-15 outside of their major urban areas lately to see if NDOT has been better about getting these out to other parts of the interstates...

However, Nevada's white enhanced mileposts have proliferated to decently-traveled rural highways by now. It's become a lot easier to have an idea of where you are when you're out in the middle of nowhere.

[US 89]

However, Nevada's white enhanced mileposts have proliferated to decently-traveled rural highways by now. It's become a lot easier to have an idea of where you are when you're out in the middle of nowhere.

When I was in Nevada a couple years ago last it seemed totally random which segments of highway had been upgraded to white enhanced mileposts and which parts still had the old ones. All of SR 487 and 488 had the enhanced posts... but US 6/50 and US 93 in that same area largely did not, and I didn't see any on the non-interstate parts of US 93A.

[crispy93]

New York (Long Island)
No mileage markers used, nys roads use reference markers which are tiny green signs every 1/10th mile or close to it. The system makes no sense to those who aren't in the know of how the system works.

As a dot employee, I wish we would install enhanced markers on our highways and major routes on Long Island. Probably will never happen while we still use consecutive based exits with no indication of switching to mileage base in my lifetime as well as funding allocated to other necessary improvements.

I have no idea why R10 and R11 don't use mile markers at all. I asked NYSDOT R8 (who seems to be the point-of-contact for the Hutchinson River Parkway conversion to mile exits) and was told that the Bronx section (which is in R11) will indeed be getting proper mile markers. Remains to be seen

[roadfro]

However, Nevada's white enhanced mileposts have proliferated to decently-traveled rural highways by now. It's become a lot easier to have an idea of where you are when you're out in the middle of nowhere.

When I was in Nevada a couple years ago last it seemed totally random which segments of highway had been upgraded to white enhanced mileposts and which parts still had the old ones. All of SR 487 and 488 had the enhanced posts... but US 6/50 and US 93 in that same area largely did not, and I didn't see any on the non-interstate parts of US 93A.

Well, the implementation has certainly been a bit random at times. At first, they were really only installed coincident with a major reconstruction project. Lately, there have been instances where it looks like no major or even minor projects have gone happened but the stretch will have enhanced mileposts. So it's kinda hard to predict.

The area you're describing is near Great Basin National Park, most of the highways in that area are in NDOT's District 3 (northeastern Nevada). That district probably sees less maintenance and construction dollars than the other two districts (District 1 has Las Vegas, District 2 has Reno/Carson/Tahoe). Thus, so it wouldn't surprise me to learn that region has seen less enhanced mileposts deployed than other areas (by contrast; they're almost constant now on US 95 between Vegas and roughly Hawthorne, spread over Districts 1 & 2). I'd guess there was a more recent minor repaving or safety enhancement project (shoulder flattening, center rumble strip installation, etc.) along SR 487 & 488 that may have bumped the priority for installing enhanced mileposts there...otherwise, I'd expect to have seen them on US 6/50 and US 93 long before SR 488.

[SkyPesos]

Found a wide variant with the I-271 and I-480 shields side by side in Cleveland. With a width like this, I would prefer the numbers to be written in one line, like "25.2", and make the sign shorter in height, also reducing the empty blue space.
Also this one on I-69 in Bloomington, with the oversized route shield and tiny milepost number, looks obnoxious.

[JoePCool14]

Found a wide variant with the I-271 and I-480 shields side by side in Cleveland. With a width like this, I would prefer the numbers to be written in one line, like "25.2", and make the sign shorter in height, also reducing the empty blue space.
Also this one on I-69 in Bloomington, with the oversized route shield and tiny milepost number, looks obnoxious.

That wide one in Cleveland looks so stupid. That sign has absolutely no reason to be that big. Either stack everything vertically, or only show one route number. It's also hilarious that they couldn't be bothered to write out the word "SOUTH" with all that space that they had.

The I-69 example... I actually find it interesting. It's totally a waste of space like the first example, but if it were better proportioned, it actually could look decent.

[DRMan]

I don't think Arizona typically uses enhanced mile markers, but they are starting to install memorial mile markers for fallen officers. They are essentially enhanced mile markers with a memorial plaque that are placed near the location of their death.

https://www.eacourier.com/news/dps-honoring-fallen-officers-with-roadside-markers/article_022793c4-ae88-11eb-9535-47ec479904df.html

[SkyPesos]

Found a wide variant with the I-271 and I-480 shields side by side in Cleveland. With a width like this, I would prefer the numbers to be written in one line, like "25.2", and make the sign shorter in height, also reducing the empty blue space.
Also this one on I-69 in Bloomington, with the oversized route shield and tiny milepost number, looks obnoxious.

That wide one in Cleveland looks so stupid. That sign has absolutely no reason to be that big. Either stack everything vertically, or only show one route number. It's also hilarious that they couldn't be bothered to write out the word "SOUTH" with all that space that they had.

The old style wide ones in Ohio and Kentucky, like this one at I-70/71 and I-71/75, actually looked great imo. Maybe it's the two 3di shields, opposed to the two 2di in those two examples, that makes the I-271/480 one looks off to me. As for stacking the route shields instead of placing them side by side, I see that Wisconsin does that with I-43/94, and it looks good too. Ohio could follow that example, after all, both states are one of the handful of "blue states" when it comes to enhanced mile markers. Ohio sometimes also only use the dominant route only (one with exit number continuity) on mile markers in concurrencies, like using I-76 only on the I-76/77 concurrency in Akron.

The I-69 example... I actually find it interesting. It's totally a waste of space like the first example, but if it were better proportioned, it actually could look decent.

You mean with the ".0" for integer miles gone? A better proportioned example would be like this one on I-75 in Toledo, which I like.

[SkyPesos]

I don't think Arizona typically uses enhanced mile markers, but they are starting to install memorial mile markers for fallen officers. They are essentially enhanced mile markers with a memorial plaque that are placed near the location of their death.

https://www.eacourier.com/news/dps-honoring-fallen-officers-with-roadside-markers/article_022793c4-ae88-11eb-9535-47ec479904df.html

Normally, enhanced mile markers are used for navigation, though using them for roadside memorials have to be one of the most interesting uses for them I've seen so far.

[ran4sh]

Found a wide variant with the I-271 and I-480 shields side by side in Cleveland. With a width like this, I would prefer the numbers to be written in one line, like "25.2", and make the sign shorter in height, also reducing the empty blue space.
Also this one on I-69 in Bloomington, with the oversized route shield and tiny milepost number, looks obnoxious.

I don't think I agree with showing both/all routes of an overlap especially since the mileage usually is only correct for one of them. (The I-71/75 in Ohio is a rare case that they do match) Georgia only includes the shield for the dominant route (example https://goo.gl/maps/S2JSGKddquAL41TW8 ).

Although this gives me the idea that there could be enhanced MM for both routes of an overlap, by having most of the MM be for the dominant route but when the lesser route reaches a whole number mile, remove the corresponding dominant MM and install a MM for the lesser route instead.

For example, route A is dominant, routes A & B have a multiplex that begins at mile 20.0 on A, mile 10.6 on B. So the mile markers could be "North A 20", "North A 20.2", "North B 11" (instead of A 20.4), "North A 20.6", etc

[SkyPesos]

Although this gives me the idea that there could be enhanced MM for both routes of an overlap, by having most of the MM be for the dominant route but when the lesser route reaches a whole number mile, remove the corresponding dominant MM and install a MM for the lesser route instead.

For example, route A is dominant, routes A & B have a multiplex that begins at mile 20.0 on A, mile 10.6 on B. So the mile markers could be "North A 20", "North A 20.2", "North B 11" (instead of A 20.4), "North A 20.6", etc

I don't think I like this idea, as I think the numbers should be consistent all the way down for navigation purposes. Out of your two preferred options, I'll take the using the dominant route and mile markers in a concurrency only.

Also, I found one that is worse looking than the I-271/480 example: I-55/70 in a single route shield.

[ran4sh]

I don't think anyone is actually navigating with decimal mile markers. Those are to refer to locations. Navigation is done with the regular signage

[SkyPesos]

I don't think anyone is actually navigating with decimal mile markers. Those are to refer to locations. Navigation is done with the regular signage

That's what I meant. Poor word choice on my part.

[JoePCool14]

I don't think Arizona typically uses enhanced mile markers, but they are starting to install memorial mile markers for fallen officers. They are essentially enhanced mile markers with a memorial plaque that are placed near the location of their death.

https://www.eacourier.com/news/dps-honoring-fallen-officers-with-roadside-markers/article_022793c4-ae88-11eb-9535-47ec479904df.html

That's a neat concept, though it may be a bit unnerving if you have to make an emergency stop somewhere and see a memorial and think that someone was killed in that spot. I guess it's no different than all the crosses or wreaths people put out.

[Bickendan]

OR 126 has .1 mileposts for a couple miles between Eugene and Florence, likely related to a construction project through the area.

[SkyPesos]

Found some green enhanced mile markers in Ohio. Besides the Ohio Turnpike ones, these generally only last for a couple of miles before the blue ones take over again.
- Ohio Turnpike
- I-75 Dayton
- I-90 Cleveland

[JoePCool14]

Have we even come up with a consensus on whether most of us here prefer blue or green mile markers? While I still think the blue ones look good, I think green makes more sense and fits in better.

Maybe a thread poll would be useful.

[SkyPesos]

Have we even come up with a consensus on whether most of us here prefer blue or green mile markers? While I still think the blue ones look good, I think green makes more sense and fits in better.

Maybe a thread poll would be useful.

I prefer blue, mainly because I'm in a state that uses blue, and near two other states that also uses blue, so I'm a bit more used to the color.

I'll create a poll. First poll I made on this forum too!

[SkyPesos]

Both the EB 70 mile 95.6 and EB 670 mile 0 markers are posted at the same point here. Besides that there's no reason to post both route's mile markers in a concurrency, this point isn't even part of I-670 at all, as it's 0.4 miles before I-670 exits off I-70.

[ran4sh]

The proposed new MUTCD requires green for enhanced mile markers (the current MUTCD is that either green or blue can be used, but the same agency [state, local, etc] has to use one color for all their enhanced mile markers)

Do states with blue enhanced MMs use regular MMs (which have to be green)? That would seem to be a remarkable change when a motorist starts seeing blue MMs after having seen green ones along the route.

[Scott5114]

When Kansas used blue enhanced milemarkers (which was before the MUTCD added enhanced milemarkers; I believe they are in the process of changing over to the MUTCD-standard enhanced markers now), they posted blue enhanced markers in the median and green standard markers on the right shoulder.

[SkyPesos]

The proposed new MUTCD requires green for enhanced mile markers (the current MUTCD is that either green or blue can be used, but the same agency [state, local, etc] has to use one color for all their enhanced mile markers)

Do states with blue enhanced MMs use regular MMs (which have to be green)? That would seem to be a remarkable change when a motorist starts seeing blue MMs after having seen green ones along the route.

In Ohio, yes. The state only uses green regular integer mile markers on the right side on rural interstates, and the blue enhanced mile markers (generally in intervals of 0.2, exception is Cincinnati with 0.1) start appearing in the median in urban/suburban areas, along with the green regular ones. So at whole miles in a city, you see, for example, a blue "North (75) Mile 10.0"  in the median, as well as a standard "Mile 10"  with stacked digits on the right.

Kentucky is similar to Ohio in terms of how mile markers are done, so they have both at integer miles when enhanced mile markers are used too. 

In Indiana, the green regular mile markers aren't used when enhanced mile markers (in intervals of 0.1, also placed in the median) are used in the urban areas. In rural areas, the green regular mile markers are used every 0.5 miles.

I drove through Tennessee a month ago, and iirc, don't think I saw regular mile markers when enhanced ones are used. Though you might know about TN's practices more, as one of your border states.

[amroad17]

Both the EB 70 mile 95.6 and EB 670 mile 0 markers are posted at the same point here. Besides that there's no reason to post both route's mile markers in a concurrency, this point isn't even part of I-670 at all, as it's 0.4 miles before I-670 exits off I-70.

I have noticed that before.  I guess the Ohio DOT considers the ramp from I-670 WB to where it meets I-70 WB as part of I-670 (notice the reverse gore area on the WB side in the googlemaps capture above).

[SkyPesos]

"West (76) 240 Mile .4"

[roadfro]

I don't think I agree with showing both/all routes of an overlap especially since the mileage usually is only correct for one of them. (The I-71/75 in Ohio is a rare case that they do match) Georgia only includes the shield for the dominant route (example https://goo.gl/maps/S2JSGKddquAL41TW8 ).

Although this gives me the idea that there could be enhanced MM for both routes of an overlap, by having most of the MM be for the dominant route but when the lesser route reaches a whole number mile, remove the corresponding dominant MM and install a MM for the lesser route instead.

For example, route A is dominant, routes A & B have a multiplex that begins at mile 20.0 on A, mile 10.6 on B. So the mile markers could be "North A 20", "North A 20.2", "North B 11" (instead of A 20.4), "North A 20.6", etc

I agree with only showing one route on mile markers in a multiplex.

But if you had to post both, removing A when B reaches an integer mile point would be a bit weird. I'd suggest posting the A miles normally, with a small all-text placard beneath showing the equivalent B mileage at that point–this keeps the dominant mileage prominent and provides the secondary mile info.