News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

Rhode Island mileage based exit numbers?

Started by vdeane, April 27, 2014, 05:17:27 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

roadman65

One thing you have when you have a two state interstate in one metro area.  Many locals do not see the variation between states so to reset exit numbers at state lines can cause confusion for those.  That may be why 3 digits interstates are being asked to use one milepost system.

The Palisades interstate Parkway is one road that keeps the same sequence of numbers in both states NJ and NY.  1-4 is NJ's four interchanges, and 5 to whatever (its numbers on NY side has changed as 15 used to be for Perkins Drive [7 Lakes Drive], but later the A suffixed add ons were renumbered a whole number and both US 6 and the Anthony Wayne Recreation Area were given numbers). Nonetheless, if both states used their own system of exit numbers it would confuse most Bergen and Rockland motorists who use the road daily.
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe


PHLBOS

Quote from: roadman65 on May 01, 2014, 01:44:20 PM
One thing you have when you have a two state interstate in one metro area.  Many locals do not see the variation between states so to reset exit numbers at state lines can cause confusion for those.  That may be why 3 digits interstates are being asked to use one milepost system.

I believe that the keep one milepost system rule/standard only applies towards 3di loops or beltways and not necessarily any 3di that crosses state lines.  Per Bob7374's earlier comment (reposted below):

Quote from: bob7374 on April 27, 2014, 10:44:04 PMhowever the 2009 MUTCD recommends that 3di loop or semi-circular routes that cross state lines use one milepost system throughout
GPS does NOT equal GOD

roadman65

Well it really should.  Look at I-395 in CT/MA for example.  It not only is a road where people cross state lines like its nothing, but it has little mileage in MA.  Therefore for MA to continue CT's mileage would be most practical.  In fact more plausible than NJ using PA exit numbers for I-76 at the exit for I-676 and NJ 76C off the Walt Whitman Bridge where that to me is more confusing than anything considering I-76 continues for two more miles with other exit numbers from I-676's scheme.
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

spooky

Quote from: roadman65 on May 02, 2014, 06:41:32 AM
Well it really should.  Look at I-395 in CT/MA for example.  It not only is a road where people cross state lines like its nothing, but it has little mileage in MA.  Therefore for MA to continue CT's mileage would be most practical.

Well, the mileage already resets at the Pike when I-395 becomes I-290. It might be more confusing to have it continue CT mileage into MA, but then reset at zero halfway into MA.


vdeane

Quote from: roadman65 on May 02, 2014, 06:41:32 AM
Well it really should.  Look at I-395 in CT/MA for example.  It not only is a road where people cross state lines like its nothing, but it has little mileage in MA.  Therefore for MA to continue CT's mileage would be most practical.  In fact more plausible than NJ using PA exit numbers for I-76 at the exit for I-676 and NJ 76C off the Walt Whitman Bridge where that to me is more confusing than anything considering I-76 continues for two more miles with other exit numbers from I-676's scheme.
Like this? http://goo.gl/maps/o5hS6
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

mrsman

Quote from: spooky on May 02, 2014, 07:43:06 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 02, 2014, 06:41:32 AM
Well it really should.  Look at I-395 in CT/MA for example.  It not only is a road where people cross state lines like its nothing, but it has little mileage in MA.  Therefore for MA to continue CT's mileage would be most practical.

Well, the mileage already resets at the Pike when I-395 becomes I-290. It might be more confusing to have it continue CT mileage into MA, but then reset at zero halfway into MA.

I think the point is that when selecting exit numbers, you have to be really smart about it and make sure that you choose a system that makes sense for the context.  Normally, resetting at the state lines make sense, otherwise you'd have exit numbers that are 4 digit long on transcontinental routes.  But here for these examples, they say that it makes no sense to reset to zero if the highway only continues a few miles into the next state.

Mileage based exit numbers are great as they let you know how far you need to travel, but there isn't always a necessity to reset to zero at state lines, if a more dramatic point (like a bridge or an interchange) would be a more dramatic transition.

jp the roadgeek

#31
Quote from: mrsman on May 18, 2014, 07:25:54 AM
Quote from: spooky on May 02, 2014, 07:43:06 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 02, 2014, 06:41:32 AM
Well it really should.  Look at I-395 in CT/MA for example.  It not only is a road where people cross state lines like its nothing, but it has little mileage in MA.  Therefore for MA to continue CT's mileage would be most practical.

Well, the mileage already resets at the Pike when I-395 becomes I-290. It might be more confusing to have it continue CT mileage into MA, but then reset at zero halfway into MA.

I think the point is that when selecting exit numbers, you have to be really smart about it and make sure that you choose a system that makes sense for the context.  Normally, resetting at the state lines make sense, otherwise you'd have exit numbers that are 4 digit long on transcontinental routes.  But here for these examples, they say that it makes no sense to reset to zero if the highway only continues a few miles into the next state.

Mileage based exit numbers are great as they let you know how far you need to travel, but there isn't always a necessity to reset to zero at state lines, if a more dramatic point (like a bridge or an interchange) would be a more dramatic transition.

By that argument, why not just continue I-84's CT based exit system into MA, since it's only 7 miles and there's only 3 exits, and has ZERO chance of being extended beyond the Mass Pike (although I have a fantasy of it extending up MA 49 and winding around to meet the E/W portion of I-290 in Worcester)?
Interstates I've clinched: 97, 290 (MA), 291 (CT), 291 (MA), 293, 295 (DE-NJ-PA), 295 (RI-MA), 384, 391, 395 (CT-MA), 395 (MD), 495 (DE), 610 (LA), 684, 691, 695 (MD), 695 (NY), 795 (MD)

doogie1303

Quote from: southshore720 on April 28, 2014, 02:08:11 PM
Prior to I-295's sign replacement in the mid-to-late 2000's, old BGSs between Exits 7-10 contained exit tabs that had both the sequential exit number and the mile marker.  A road geek out there may have more historical background on the significance of that... ;-)

I remember those signs, always thought they were kind of odd considering none of the other freeways in RI were like that. If I remember correctly, before they were taken down in the 2000's, they took off the mileage portion on some of the signs just leaving a very long exit stub on top.

Back to the main topic of renumbering, I don't think we are going to see a renumbering anytime soon, RI just re-signed BGS on the interstates a few years ago, so I don't think they are in a hurry to re-sign again. DOT has more pressing projects like the I-95 viaduct or the exit 8 (or would that be exit 24) overpass that's about ready to fall down. I think those projects might take precedence over renumbering the exits on the interstates.

Personally, I'm don't see whats wrong with sequential exits and I'll admit to being one of those stubborn New Englanders who hates change. On top of that, being a Rhode Islander, when I give directions, I'll still use the old exit numbers and landmarks that don't exist anymore (ex: take a right past where the old Almacs used to be).

Alps

Quote from: doogie1303 on May 28, 2014, 09:04:19 PM
Quote from: southshore720 on April 28, 2014, 02:08:11 PM
Prior to I-295's sign replacement in the mid-to-late 2000's, old BGSs between Exits 7-10 contained exit tabs that had both the sequential exit number and the mile marker.  A road geek out there may have more historical background on the significance of that... ;-)

I remember those signs, always thought they were kind of odd considering none of the other freeways in RI were like that. If I remember correctly, before they were taken down in the 2000's, they took off the mileage portion on some of the signs just leaving a very long exit stub on top.

Back to the main topic of renumbering, I don't think we are going to see a renumbering anytime soon, RI just re-signed BGS on the interstates a few years ago, so I don't think they are in a hurry to re-sign again. DOT has more pressing projects like the I-95 viaduct or the exit 8 (or would that be exit 24) overpass that's about ready to fall down. I think those projects might take precedence over renumbering the exits on the interstates.

Personally, I'm don't see whats wrong with sequential exits and I'll admit to being one of those stubborn New Englanders who hates change. On top of that, being a Rhode Islander, when I give directions, I'll still use the old exit numbers and landmarks that don't exist anymore (ex: take a right past where the old Almacs used to be).

Exit numbering can be as simple as a $50 patch of reflective tape on each sign. 30 exits, figure roughly 200 signs total, $10,000 for I-95, figure $20,000 to get 295 and 195 in. That's a pittance compared to any real project.

southshore720

Reflective tape patching is ugly...it looks wretched on the Maine Turnpike signage.  I don't think it would be that labor intensive to remove the old digits and post new digits to the existing signage.

spooky

Quote from: doogie1303 on May 28, 2014, 09:04:19 PM
On top of that, being a Rhode Islander, when I give directions, I'll still use the old exit numbers and landmarks that don't exist anymore (ex: take a right past where the old Almacs used to be).


I haven't lived in RI in almost 20 years, but I still do this.

Brandon

Quote from: Alps on May 28, 2014, 10:52:52 PM
Quote from: doogie1303 on May 28, 2014, 09:04:19 PM
Quote from: southshore720 on April 28, 2014, 02:08:11 PM
Prior to I-295's sign replacement in the mid-to-late 2000's, old BGSs between Exits 7-10 contained exit tabs that had both the sequential exit number and the mile marker.  A road geek out there may have more historical background on the significance of that... ;-)

I remember those signs, always thought they were kind of odd considering none of the other freeways in RI were like that. If I remember correctly, before they were taken down in the 2000's, they took off the mileage portion on some of the signs just leaving a very long exit stub on top.

Back to the main topic of renumbering, I don't think we are going to see a renumbering anytime soon, RI just re-signed BGS on the interstates a few years ago, so I don't think they are in a hurry to re-sign again. DOT has more pressing projects like the I-95 viaduct or the exit 8 (or would that be exit 24) overpass that's about ready to fall down. I think those projects might take precedence over renumbering the exits on the interstates.

Personally, I'm don't see whats wrong with sequential exits and I'll admit to being one of those stubborn New Englanders who hates change. On top of that, being a Rhode Islander, when I give directions, I'll still use the old exit numbers and landmarks that don't exist anymore (ex: take a right past where the old Almacs used to be).

Exit numbering can be as simple as a $50 patch of reflective tape on each sign. 30 exits, figure roughly 200 signs total, $10,000 for I-95, figure $20,000 to get 295 and 195 in. That's a pittance compared to any real project.

Or just adding/replacing a tab on the top of the signs.  That's all ISTHA (Illinois Tollway) is doing around here to add exit numbers to their system.

Regardless, changing the exit numbers to a distance-based system should not be all that difficult.
"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." - Ramsay Bolton

"Symbolic of his struggle against reality." - Reg

roadman

#37
Quote from: southshore720 on May 28, 2014, 11:50:47 PM
Reflective tape patching is ugly...it looks wretched on the Maine Turnpike signage.  I don't think it would be that labor intensive to remove the old digits and post new digits to the existing signage.

Replacing individual digits takes longer than installing overlay panels, and is also more prone to errors (because the crew is handling individual digits).  Also, unless the signs you are retro-fitting are relatively new, you will get a shadowing effect where the old digits were.  As unappealing to the eye as you think a bright new "reflective" patch on an old sign is, consider the case where a driver is trying to read a new exit number that's intermingled with the shadows of the old number.
"And ninety-five is the route you were on.  It was not the speed limit sign."  - Jim Croce (from Speedball Tucker)

"My life has been a tapestry
Of years of roads and highway signs" (with apologies to Carole King and Tom Rush)

PHLBOS

Quote from: roadman on May 29, 2014, 04:26:26 PMReplacing individual digits takes longer than installing overlay panels, and is also more prone to errors (because the crew is handling individual digits).  Also, unless the signs you are retro-fitting are relatively new, you will get a shadowing effect where the old digits were.  As unappealing to the eye as you think a bright new "reflective" patch on an old sign is, consider the case where a driver is trying to read a new exit number that's intermingled with the shadows of the old number.
Hence one reason why MassDOT is replacing many of their BGS' prior to the exit number changes taking place... less of a contrast between the original panel vs. the overlay.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

roadman

Quote from: PHLBOS on May 29, 2014, 04:48:56 PM
Quote from: roadman on May 29, 2014, 04:26:26 PMReplacing individual digits takes longer than installing overlay panels, and is also more prone to errors (because the crew is handling individual digits).  Also, unless the signs you are retro-fitting are relatively new, you will get a shadowing effect where the old digits were.  As unappealing to the eye as you think a bright new "reflective" patch on an old sign is, consider the case where a driver is trying to read a new exit number that's intermingled with the shadows of the old number.
Hence one reason why MassDOT is replacing many of their BGS' prior to the exit number changes taking place... less of a contrast between the original panel vs. the overlay.
Bingo!  We have a winner!
"And ninety-five is the route you were on.  It was not the speed limit sign."  - Jim Croce (from Speedball Tucker)

"My life has been a tapestry
Of years of roads and highway signs" (with apologies to Carole King and Tom Rush)

ctrabs74

Quote from: dgolub on April 28, 2014, 08:50:51 AM
Yeah, having the I-295 exit numbers start over at the state line really doesn't make sense considering how short I-295 is in Massachusetts.  Certainly, if the Hutchinson Parkway/Merritt Parkway exit numbers can (sort of) continue across a state line, then there's certainly no reason why it can't happen here.  There are some other places where it happens not involving a three-digit interstate.  I'm pretty sure that I-86 uses a single exit numbering scheme across the New York-Pennsylvania border.

Yes and no. Pennsylvania uses mileage-based exit numbering for their segment of I-86, but New York State uses sequential exit numbering, (ie. I-86 goes from Pennsylvania's Exit 1 and 3 to New York's Exit 4 (which is about 8 miles from the western terminus at I-90).

vdeane

Back when PA was sequential, the exit numbers in NY were indeed a continuation of PA's (3 was skipped for reasons unknown).  The fact that they still do is now just a coincidence.  If NY ever goes mile-based they'll likely reset at the state line just like the mile markers.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

bob7374

I'm reviving this thread due to the upcoming project to re-number exits on I-295 and RI 99 that RIDOT announced the winning bid on yesterday (8/25/17). There are steps the contractor (Liddell Bros.) must take before the contract is officially awarded, so the official go-ahead for the project may take awhile.

Meanwhile, in looking through some of RIDOT's reports, I came upon an entry in the latest quarterly performance report:
http://www.dot.ri.gov/documents/performance/RWQR_Full_Report_7-28-17.pdf

that indicates the first phase on the RI 146 Guide Sign Replacement contract will take place in FY 2018 with the project to   be advertised for bids in December 2017. There is no mention in the report of any other sign contracts, even the I-295/RI 99 one just bid on, so what this means for a timeline for the renumbering of other highways and interstates is unknown.

Mergingtraffic

Quote from: mrsman on May 18, 2014, 07:25:54 AM
Quote from: spooky on May 02, 2014, 07:43:06 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 02, 2014, 06:41:32 AM
Well it really should.  Look at I-395 in CT/MA for example.  It not only is a road where people cross state lines like its nothing, but it has little mileage in MA.  Therefore for MA to continue CT's mileage would be most practical.

Well, the mileage already resets at the Pike when I-395 becomes I-290. It might be more confusing to have it continue CT mileage into MA, but then reset at zero halfway into MA.

I think the point is that when selecting exit numbers, you have to be really smart about it and make sure that you choose a system that makes sense for the context.  Normally, resetting at the state lines make sense, otherwise you'd have exit numbers that are 4 digit long on transcontinental routes.  But here for these examples, they say that it makes no sense to reset to zero if the highway only continues a few miles into the next state.

Mileage based exit numbers are great as they let you know how far you need to travel, but there isn't always a necessity to reset to zero at state lines, if a more dramatic point (like a bridge or an interchange) would be a more dramatic transition.

Right so to have mileage based exit numbers on CT-2A makes no sense. The expressway portion is so short, to have mile based adds no value.
I only take pics of good looking signs. Long live non-reflective button copy!
MergingTraffic https://www.flickr.com/photos/98731835@N05/

kurumi

Quote from: Mergingtraffic on August 26, 2017, 11:00:02 PM
Right so to have mileage based exit numbers on CT-2A makes no sense. The expressway portion is so short, to have mile based adds no value.

Also, the zero-point on CT 2A (the end of the overlap at CT 2 / I-395) is not what most drivers would even consider part of CT 2A. So it starts at Exit 5.
My first SF/horror short story collection is available: "Young Man, Open Your Winter Eye"

jp the roadgeek

The funny thing is SR 695 having an Exit 1.  In an upcoming sign replacement project, CT 184's 1 exit (on what amounts to an exit ramp itself off of I-95) will get a number (1).   This is the same thing that will happen on RI 99.  Now, I wonder if even SR 571 will get a number.
Interstates I've clinched: 97, 290 (MA), 291 (CT), 291 (MA), 293, 295 (DE-NJ-PA), 295 (RI-MA), 384, 391, 395 (CT-MA), 395 (MD), 495 (DE), 610 (LA), 684, 691, 695 (MD), 695 (NY), 795 (MD)

KEVIN_224

SR 571 being the so-called Willow Brook Connector in Berlin, near the New Britain city line. It barely runs a mile east/west. The only exit is for CT Route 71.

As for I-295 in RI/MA, this is how the end is signed in Massachusetts now:


The RI mileage is 23.4 at the Massachusetts border:

JJBers

Quote from: jp the roadgeek on August 27, 2017, 01:24:10 AM
The funny thing is SR 695 having an Exit 1.  In an upcoming sign replacement project, CT 184's 1 exit (on what amounts to an exit ramp itself off of I-95) will get a number (1).   This is the same thing that will happen on RI 99.  Now, I wonder if even SR 571 will get a number.
What about RI 78?
*for Connecticut
Clinched Stats,
Flickr,
(2di:I-24, I-76, I-80, I-84, I-95 [ME-GA], I-91)

bob7374

Providence TV station reports renumbering of I-295 exit numbers will start in November and be finished in 6 weeks. All highway numbers to be changed by 2020:
http://wpri.com/2017/09/22/ridot-to-renumber-i-295-exits/

jp the roadgeek

Quote from: JJBers on August 27, 2017, 03:34:15 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on August 27, 2017, 01:24:10 AM
The funny thing is SR 695 having an Exit 1.  In an upcoming sign replacement project, CT 184's 1 exit (on what amounts to an exit ramp itself off of I-95) will get a number (1).   This is the same thing that will happen on RI 99.  Now, I wonder if even SR 571 will get a number.
What about RI 78?

Current Exit 3 EB becomes Exit 1, current Exit 4 WB becomes Exit 2A, and Exit 5 becomes Exit 2 EB, Exit 2B WB.  No numbers for the termini at CT 2 and US 1. CT 2 would become Exit 1 only if CT 78 were ever extended to I-95 (assuming the I-95 interchange is a partial interchange with 95N -> 78E and 78W -> 95S)
Interstates I've clinched: 97, 290 (MA), 291 (CT), 291 (MA), 293, 295 (DE-NJ-PA), 295 (RI-MA), 384, 391, 395 (CT-MA), 395 (MD), 495 (DE), 610 (LA), 684, 691, 695 (MD), 695 (NY), 795 (MD)



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.