AARoads Forum

With regards to exit numbering, one thing NYSTA could do to keep peace with FHWA is add "Old Exit XX" to these new mileage based signs, like they do in PA.

Quote from: Buffaboy on January 25, 2018, 02:38:55 AM
With regards to exit numbering, one thing NYSTA could do to keep peace with FHWA is add "Old Exit XX" to these new mileage based signs, like they do in PA.

Just about every state that changes their exit numberings (regardless of the reason(s)) places either OLD EXIT XX or FORMERLY EXIT XX supplemental signs nearby.  However, such are normally removed after roughly 2 years.  PA simply never got around to taking their signs down unless the surrounding signs were later replaced (and even that wasn't always consistent).

The funny thing is that when there was an upswell to switch over at NYSDOT some years ago, a rather...singularly intelligent... office director suggested NEW EXIT XX signage, I kid you not.

Quote from: Buffaboy on January 25, 2018, 02:38:55 AM
With regards to exit numbering, one thing NYSTA could do to keep peace with FHWA is add "Old Exit XX" to these new mileage based signs, like they do in PA.

Not a bad idea. I've pondered that myself. They could just be temporarily tacked on and taken down within a few years.

Quote from: PHLBOS on January 25, 2018, 09:12:39 AM
PA simply never got around to taking their signs down unless the surrounding signs were later replaced.

Yeah, I-90 near Erie says hello  :wave: :pan:

Why do I feel like we'll eventually end up with every Thruway exit marked with both existing Thruway exit numbers and I-87/I-90 mileage based exit numbers, and not just for a couple of years of a conversion period?

Each tab something like:

Thruway Exit 27/I-90 Exit 322

Maybe with the NYT logo and an I-90 shield.

Quote from: Jim on January 25, 2018, 10:36:52 AM
Why do I feel like we'll eventually end up with every Thruway exit marked with both existing Thruway exit numbers and I-87/I-90 mileage based exit numbers, and not just for a couple of years of a conversion period?

Each tab something like:

Thruway Exit 27/I-90 Exit 322

Maybe with the NYT logo and an I-90 shield.

I'm pretty sure I've suggested something similar, before the AET news came out. We could have "Exit 106/Toll Plaza 48". Not totally against that idea with the current setup, but with AET, it's either all mileage-based or all sequential. Definitely not both, and preferably all mileage-based (duh).

Quote from: Buffaboy on January 25, 2018, 02:38:55 AM
With regards to exit numbering, one thing NYSTA could do to keep peace with FHWA is add "Old Exit XX" to these new mileage based signs, like they do in PA.

Actually, the MUTCD is totally silent as regards to informing drivers about the previous exit numbers when you change to reference (milepost) based numbers.

Quote from: roadman on January 25, 2018, 11:53:07 AMActually, the MUTCD is totally silent as regards to informing drivers about the previous exit numbers when you change to reference (milepost) based numbers.

Which is the main reason why there have been different variations of OLD EXIT XX of FORMERLY EXIT XX signage from state to state.

See this polling thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=21749.0)  :)

Quote from: PHLBOS on January 25, 2018, 01:26:50 PM

Quote from: roadman on January 25, 2018, 11:53:07 AMActually, the MUTCD is totally silent as regards to informing drivers about the previous exit numbers when you change to reference (milepost) based numbers.

Which is the main reason why there have been different variations of OLD EXIT XX of FORMERLY EXIT XX signage from state to state.

See this polling thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=21749.0)  :)

The MUTCD is probably silent on that because if it was done right the first time, there would be no need to change the numbers  :pan:

Quote from: webny99 on January 25, 2018, 01:32:38 PM

Quote from: PHLBOS on January 25, 2018, 01:26:50 PM

Quote from: roadman on January 25, 2018, 11:53:07 AMActually, the MUTCD is totally silent as regards to informing drivers about the previous exit numbers when you change to reference (milepost) based numbers.

Which is the main reason why there have been different variations of OLD EXIT XX of FORMERLY EXIT XX signage from state to state.

See this polling thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=21749.0)  :)

The MUTCD is probably silent on that because if it was done right the first time, there would be no need to change the numbers  :pan:

Exit/interchange numbers changes have occurred before; regardless of them sequential or mile-marker-based.

Several highways in the Greater Boston area have had their exit numbers change at least once over the past 55 years.

Quote from: PHLBOS on January 25, 2018, 02:20:46 PM

Quote from: webny99 on January 25, 2018, 01:32:38 PM

Quote from: PHLBOS on January 25, 2018, 01:26:50 PM

Quote from: roadman on January 25, 2018, 11:53:07 AMActually, the MUTCD is totally silent as regards to informing drivers about the previous exit numbers when you change to reference (milepost) based numbers.

Which is the main reason why there have been different variations of OLD EXIT XX of FORMERLY EXIT XX signage from state to state.

See this polling thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=21749.0)  :)

The MUTCD is probably silent on that because if it was done right the first time, there would be no need to change the numbers  :pan:

Exit/interchange numbers changes have occurred before; regardless of them sequential or mile-marker-based.

Several highways in the Greater Boston area have had their exit numbers change at least once over the past 55 years.

Ah, yes. Because someone at MassDPW was smart enough to realize that making Route 128 Exit 25 on every expressway may not have been a good idea.  :-D

Quote from: cl94 on January 25, 2018, 02:50:35 PM

Quote from: PHLBOS on January 25, 2018, 02:20:46 PM

Quote from: webny99 on January 25, 2018, 01:32:38 PM

Quote from: PHLBOS on January 25, 2018, 01:26:50 PM

Quote from: roadman on January 25, 2018, 11:53:07 AMActually, the MUTCD is totally silent as regards to informing drivers about the previous exit numbers when you change to reference (milepost) based numbers.

Which is the main reason why there have been different variations of OLD EXIT XX of FORMERLY EXIT XX signage from state to state.

See this polling thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=21749.0)  :)

The MUTCD is probably silent on that because if it was done right the first time, there would be no need to change the numbers  :pan:

Exit/interchange numbers changes have occurred before; regardless of them sequential or mile-marker-based.

Several highways in the Greater Boston area have had their exit numbers change at least once over the past 55 years.

Ah, yes. Because someone at MassDPW was smart enough to realize that making Route 128 Exit 25 on every expressway may not have been a good idea.  :-D

While such did impact several highways in the region; that wasn't the only reason for other changes made.  Several renumberings were made due to either extensions or redesignations of routes.

Quote from: Rothman on January 25, 2018, 09:21:51 AM
The funny thing is that when there was an upswell to switch over at NYSDOT some years ago, a rather...singularly intelligent... office director suggested NEW EXIT XX signage, I kid you not.

I remember hearing that and discussing it with some folks I know in NYSDOT. Wasn't that plan to post NEW EXIT XX for like 5 years and then switch them around and post FORMERLY EXIT XX for the next five or something like that?

I don't remember it getting that specific.  All I remember was this one office director that ran around spouting this stupidity back then for a while.  The plan was never fleshed out very specifically insofar as I am aware.  He would just bring it up in meetings with Regions across the state.

He got kicked down a notch a year or two afterwards, anyway.

(personal opinion expressed)

Quote from: upstatenyroads on January 25, 2018, 10:08:13 PM

Quote from: Rothman on January 25, 2018, 09:21:51 AM
The funny thing is that when there was an upswell to switch over at NYSDOT some years ago, a rather...singularly intelligent... office director suggested NEW EXIT XX signage, I kid you not.

I remember hearing that and discussing it with some folks I know in NYSDOT. Wasn't that plan to post NEW EXIT XX for like 5 years and then switch them around and post FORMERLY EXIT XX for the next five or something like that?

Heck, why not just name the interchanges instead of numbering them? Seems like it would be a lot easier to keep the designations unique, and it probably matches more closely the way we actually navigate these days.


iPhone

Quote from: empirestate on January 30, 2018, 09:07:57 AM

Quote from: upstatenyroads on January 25, 2018, 10:08:13 PM

Quote from: Rothman on January 25, 2018, 09:21:51 AM
The funny thing is that when there was an upswell to switch over at NYSDOT some years ago, a rather...singularly intelligent... office director suggested NEW EXIT XX signage, I kid you not.

I remember hearing that and discussing it with some folks I know in NYSDOT. Wasn't that plan to post NEW EXIT XX for like 5 years and then switch them around and post FORMERLY EXIT XX for the next five or something like that?

Heck, why not just name the interchanges instead of numbering them? Seems like it would be a lot easier to keep the designations unique, and it probably matches more closely the way we actually navigate these days.


iPhone

Then we can't estimate how far away the exit is.

Quote from: 1 on January 30, 2018, 09:08:44 AM

Quote from: empirestate on January 30, 2018, 09:07:57 AM

Quote from: upstatenyroads on January 25, 2018, 10:08:13 PM

Quote from: Rothman on January 25, 2018, 09:21:51 AM
The funny thing is that when there was an upswell to switch over at NYSDOT some years ago, a rather...singularly intelligent... office director suggested NEW EXIT XX signage, I kid you not.

I remember hearing that and discussing it with some folks I know in NYSDOT. Wasn't that plan to post NEW EXIT XX for like 5 years and then switch them around and post FORMERLY EXIT XX for the next five or something like that?

Heck, why not just name the interchanges instead of numbering them? Seems like it would be a lot easier to keep the designations unique, and it probably matches more closely the way we actually navigate these days.


iPhone

Then we can't estimate how far away the exit is.

Okay, I accept that condition. Names it is! :-D

(Kidding aside, the Thruway already indicates the distance to the next exit, so that problem is easily solved.)


iPhone

Didn't the Illinois Tollway System (or some other state in the upper Midwest) actually operate that way years ago? Named interchanges with no exit numbers?

Quote from: SignBridge on January 30, 2018, 07:44:50 PM
Didn't the Illinois Tollway System (or some other state in the upper Midwest) actually operate that way years ago? Named interchanges with no exit numbers?

The Penna Turnpike once did; I don't believe its exits were numbered initially.


iPhone

Quote from: empirestate on January 30, 2018, 05:44:45 PM

Quote from: 1 on January 30, 2018, 09:08:44 AM

Quote from: empirestate on January 30, 2018, 09:07:57 AM

Quote from: upstatenyroads on January 25, 2018, 10:08:13 PM

Quote from: Rothman on January 25, 2018, 09:21:51 AM
The funny thing is that when there was an upswell to switch over at NYSDOT some years ago, a rather...singularly intelligent... office director suggested NEW EXIT XX signage, I kid you not.

I remember hearing that and discussing it with some folks I know in NYSDOT. Wasn't that plan to post NEW EXIT XX for like 5 years and then switch them around and post FORMERLY EXIT XX for the next five or something like that?

Heck, why not just name the interchanges instead of numbering them? Seems like it would be a lot easier to keep the designations unique, and it probably matches more closely the way we actually navigate these days.


iPhone

Then we can't estimate how far away the exit is.

Okay, I accept that condition. Names it is! :-D

(Kidding aside, the Thruway already indicates the distance to the next exit, so that problem is easily solved.)


iPhone

I find those NEXT EXIT XX MILES not as useful as mileage-based exit numbers, since I can calculate the distance between any exit with the latter.

Quote from: Rothman on January 31, 2018, 10:01:18 AMI find those NEXT EXIT XX MILES not as useful as mileage-based exit numbers, since I can calculate the distance between any exit with the latter.

I'm a little confused here.  If you don't have a map or paper toll ticket with you and you have not committed mileage-based exit numbers to memory, then how do you know what the exit number is for the next interchange?

Quote from: J N Winkler on January 31, 2018, 10:49:47 AM

Quote from: Rothman on January 31, 2018, 10:01:18 AMI find those NEXT EXIT XX MILES not as useful as mileage-based exit numbers, since I can calculate the distance between any exit with the latter.

I'm a little confused here.  If you don't have a map or paper toll ticket with you and you have not committed mileage-based exit numbers to memory, then how do you know what the exit number is for the next interchange?

My point is that if you know what exit you have to take to get off the highway, you always know how much further you have to go. 

When I am on the Thruway and know I am getting off at, say, Exit 60, there is no shortcut way of calculating the distance.

Quote from: Rothman on January 31, 2018, 10:52:35 AMMy point is that if you know what exit you have to take to get off the highway, you always know how much further you have to go. 

When I am on the Thruway and know I am getting off at, say, Exit 60, there is no shortcut way of calculating the distance.

Thanks for the elucidation.  There are free Interstates that have mileage-based exit numbers as well as "Next Exit X Miles" signs, and I suspect the latter will remain on the Thruway even after it goes to mileage-based exit numbers because it is a closed corridor with wide exit spacing in rural areas.  The two are not full substitutes for each other.

Quote from: J N Winkler on January 31, 2018, 11:12:21 AM

Quote from: Rothman on January 31, 2018, 10:52:35 AMMy point is that if you know what exit you have to take to get off the highway, you always know how much further you have to go. 

When I am on the Thruway and know I am getting off at, say, Exit 60, there is no shortcut way of calculating the distance.

Thanks for the elucidation.  There are free Interstates that have mileage-based exit numbers as well as "Next Exit X Miles" signs, and I suspect the latter will remain on the Thruway even if it ever goes to mileage-based exit numbers because it is a closed corridor with wide exit spacing in rural areas.  The two are not full substitutes for each other.

Fixed a typo.

Quote from: J N Winkler on January 31, 2018, 11:12:21 AM

Quote from: Rothman on January 31, 2018, 10:52:35 AMMy point is that if you know what exit you have to take to get off the highway, you always know how much further you have to go. 

When I am on the Thruway and know I am getting off at, say, Exit 60, there is no shortcut way of calculating the distance.

Thanks for the elucidation.  There are free Interstates that have mileage-based exit numbers as well as "Next Exit X Miles" signs, and I suspect the latter will remain on the Thruway even after it goes to mileage-based exit numbers because it is a closed corridor with wide exit spacing in rural areas.  The two are not full substitutes for each other.

Agreed that they are not substitutes for each other. But if forced to choose between the two, I'll take the mileage-based exit numbers.

Quote from: empirestate on January 30, 2018, 05:44:45 PM

Quote from: 1 on January 30, 2018, 09:08:44 AM

Quote from: empirestate on January 30, 2018, 09:07:57 AM

Quote from: upstatenyroads on January 25, 2018, 10:08:13 PM

Quote from: Rothman on January 25, 2018, 09:21:51 AM
The funny thing is that when there was an upswell to switch over at NYSDOT some years ago, a rather...singularly intelligent... office director suggested NEW EXIT XX signage, I kid you not.

I remember hearing that and discussing it with some folks I know in NYSDOT. Wasn't that plan to post NEW EXIT XX for like 5 years and then switch them around and post FORMERLY EXIT XX for the next five or something like that?

Heck, why not just name the interchanges instead of numbering them? Seems like it would be a lot easier to keep the designations unique, and it probably matches more closely the way we actually navigate these days.


iPhone

Then we can't estimate how far away the exit is.

Okay, I accept that condition. Names it is! :-D

(Kidding aside, the Thruway already indicates the distance to the next exit, so that problem is easily solved.)


iPhone

No, because when you're off the side of the road in a blinding snowstorm in Upstate New York near milepost 200, you don't really know how close you are to the next exit when they're named or numbered sequentially, whereas if you know Little Falls is Exit 210, you know that you're 10 miles from the next exit.

Quote from: upstatenyroads on January 31, 2018, 01:20:14 PM
No, because when you're off the side of the road in a blinding snowstorm in Upstate New York near milepost 200, you don't really know how close you are to the next exit when they're named or numbered sequentially, whereas if you know Little Falls is Exit 210, you know that you're 10 miles from the next exit.

And that information is helpful because... ? AAA will not bill you for excess towing mileage if there closest approved repair shop is further than default tow distance.
BTW, how did you manage to find a milepost in a blinding snowstorm to begin with?

Quote from: kalvado on January 31, 2018, 01:40:29 PM
BTW, how did you manage to find a milepost in a blinding snowstorm to begin with?

Probably using your eyes, same way you find mileposts in July  :clap:

Quote from: webny99 on January 31, 2018, 01:54:08 PM

Quote from: kalvado on January 31, 2018, 01:40:29 PM
BTW, how did you manage to find a milepost in a blinding snowstorm to begin with?

Probably using your eyes, same way you find mileposts in July  :clap:

Well, getting out of a warm car and walking in a blinding snowstorm to the nearest milepost?...OK..
Do you always have a pen and a piece of paper in a car?

Quote from: kalvado on January 31, 2018, 03:20:42 PM
Do you always have a pen and a piece of paper in a car?

Maybe I'm unique, in that I have the mental capacity to store a three or four digit number within the confines of my brain for as long as necessary :biggrin:

Anyways, this is going nowhere, so I'm out.

Quote from: webny99 on January 31, 2018, 03:44:02 PM

Quote from: kalvado on January 31, 2018, 03:20:42 PM
Do you always have a pen and a piece of paper in a car?

Maybe I'm unique, in that I have the mental capacity to store a three or four digit number within the confines of my brain for as long as necessary :biggrin:

Anyways, this is going nowhere, so I'm out.

No, I am thinking about writing a will before venturing from warm car into the blinding blizzard on a remote highway... Or maybe you would like to write a last note to your loved ones? That would be a nice touch... 
Common recommendation is not to walk away from the broken car on a highway, especially in those conditions as getting lost and freezing is quite easy.

You don't remember the last milepost you passed when you drive?  I always know within 2-5 miles whenever I'm on a road that had visible mile markers posted.

Quote from: vdeane on January 31, 2018, 07:12:03 PM
You don't remember the last milepost you passed when you drive?  I always know within 2-5 miles whenever I'm on a road that had visible mile markers posted.

5 miles is a good approximation for duration of trip, but pretty much useless in the situation we're talking about ("car went off road in blinding blizzard") - especially since mileposts often covered with snow in such weather. Walking to nearest exit, especially if exit ramp is not clearly visible, is quite dangerous in a good weather - and almost a suicide in a blizzard.
Talking with 911 dispatcher,  "past Warrensburg exit" or "past exit 19" is probably better than "milepost 65" - and GPS coordinate may be the ultimate option.

What happened here basically, is that "it is a safety issue!" card was pulled. OK, fine, it is a good argument - IF safety aspect can be proven. If not, we have a boy who cried "wolf".

Well, you'd be able to say "10 miles from exit XX" just "before exit XX", so that would be more specific.  Also, it was never specified if the car spun out or was just pulled off on the shoulder due to poor conditions.

On another note, it does surprise me how few dispatchers know mileposts.  You'd think AAA/911 would be fluent in mileposts and reference markers.  I'm usually able to give my location in more precise terms than the dispatchers can understand.

I was taught it's a good idea to report your location via a mile marker if you're in distress in a rural area. This identifies your location very specifically, and is legitimately helpful - if they know you're at MM 227 and they get on going west at Exit 234, they know they can floor it for six miles before they need to slow down and start looking for you. Or they might even realize it's easier to get on going east at exit 225 and then U-turn to get to you. If all they know is "I'm heading westbound and somewhere past exit 234", they have to expend more time and effort finding you since they only have a vaguer idea of your whereabouts.

Meanwhile the benefit of this is reduced if the exit numbers don't match the mile markers. In a sequential system it's a lot more difficult for the dispatcher to determine that MM 227 is 2 miles east of exit 53 and 7 miles west of exit 54.

I wish there was an option in Google Maps that turns mike markers on, to the tenth. Ironically, I have more experience counting the milepost stones along the CSX mainline from a train window than accurately following along with mileposts on state and US highways.

Mileage based and sequential exit numbering each have their pros and cons. While mileage based numbering is useful for the reasons already described, in a way it defeats the purpose of sequential exit numbering where you know that Exit-10 is the next after after Exit-9, etc. Sequential numbering seems more logical to me because skipping numbers destroys the whole concept of numbering the exits in the first place.

But again, it's pros and cons and whichever concept you feel is more useful. 

Quote from: SignBridge on January 31, 2018, 09:49:45 PM
While mileage based numbering is useful for the reasons already described, in a way it defeats the purpose of sequential exit numbering where you know that Exit-10 is the next after after Exit-9, etc.

If you're a roadgeek, you should also know that Exit 117 is next after Exit 106, etc.  :)

It also depends on your reasoning for why exits are numbered in the first place. Number order tends to be more valuable in urban areas, mileage based in rural areas.

Quote from: SignBridge on January 31, 2018, 09:49:45 PM
Mileage based and sequential exit numbering each have their pros and cons. While mileage based numbering is useful for the reasons already described, in a way it defeats the purpose of sequential exit numbering where you know that Exit-10 is the next after after Exit-9, etc. Sequential numbering seems more logical to me because skipping numbers destroys the whole concept of numbering the exits in the first place.

But again, it's pros and cons and whichever concept you feel is more useful.

I find useful information in mileage-based exit numbers, whereas sequential exit numbering is just dogmatic.

Quote from: SignBridge on January 31, 2018, 09:49:45 PM
Mileage based and sequential exit numbering each have their pros and cons. While mileage based numbering is useful for the reasons already described, in a way it defeats the purpose of sequential exit numbering where you know that Exit-10 is the next after after Exit-9, etc. Sequential numbering seems more logical to me because skipping numbers destroys the whole concept of numbering the exits in the first place.

But again, it's pros and cons and whichever concept you feel is more useful. 

What is the use of knowing that 10 comes after 9 if you don't know where it is? What if there's a 9A? There is truly no use and that's why it has been eliminated by the MUTCD.

Quote from: upstatenyroads on January 31, 2018, 01:20:14 PM

Quote from: empirestate on January 30, 2018, 05:44:45 PM

Quote from: 1 on January 30, 2018, 09:08:44 AM

Quote from: empirestate on January 30, 2018, 09:07:57 AM

Quote from: upstatenyroads on January 25, 2018, 10:08:13 PM

Quote from: Rothman on January 25, 2018, 09:21:51 AM
The funny thing is that when there was an upswell to switch over at NYSDOT some years ago, a rather...singularly intelligent... office director suggested NEW EXIT XX signage, I kid you not.

I remember hearing that and discussing it with some folks I know in NYSDOT. Wasn't that plan to post NEW EXIT XX for like 5 years and then switch them around and post FORMERLY EXIT XX for the next five or something like that?

Heck, why not just name the interchanges instead of numbering them? Seems like it would be a lot easier to keep the designations unique, and it probably matches more closely the way we actually navigate these days.


iPhone

Then we can't estimate how far away the exit is.

Okay, I accept that condition. Names it is! :-D

(Kidding aside, the Thruway already indicates the distance to the next exit, so that problem is easily solved.)


iPhone

No, because when you're off the side of the road in a blinding snowstorm in Upstate New York near milepost 200, you don't really know how close you are to the next exit when they're named or numbered sequentially, whereas if you know Little Falls is Exit 210, you know that you're 10 miles from the next exit.

Well, even so, I'll willingly accept that trade-off, if naming interchanges proves to be a better means of identifying them.

Quote from: webny99 on January 31, 2018, 09:58:19 PM
It also depends on your reasoning for why exits are numbered in the first place. Number order tends to be more valuable in urban areas, mileage based in rural areas.

Exactly. I guess the part I don't get is, who says that indicating distance has to be a characteristic of the system that identifies interchanges? We already have mile markers for that.

Quote from: empirestate on January 31, 2018, 10:16:48 PM

Quote from: webny99 on January 31, 2018, 09:58:19 PM
It also depends on your reasoning for why exits are numbered in the first place. Number order tends to be more valuable in urban areas, mileage based in rural areas.

Exactly. I guess the part I don't get is, who says that indicating distance has to be a characteristic of the system that identifies interchanges? We already have mile markers for that.

FHWA in the MUTCD. [emoji14]

Most people use route number/street name or exit number to indicate where to get on and off a highway.  Using mileage-based exit numbering adds another level of information to the exit number.  Sequential doesn't do that, naming interchanges is a step removed even from that.

FHWA should have branded mileage-based exit numbers as smart numbering. :D

Quote from: empirestate on January 31, 2018, 10:16:48 PM

Quote from: webny99 on January 31, 2018, 09:58:19 PM
It also depends on your reasoning for why exits are numbered in the first place. Number order tends to be more valuable in urban areas, mileage based in rural areas.

Exactly. I guess the part I don't get is, who says that indicating distance has to be a characteristic of the system that identifies interchanges? We already have mile markers for that.

To answer literally, the MUTCD says so  :-P

Of course, based on the assumption that the only objective of a numbering system is to identify interchanges, then the specifics of that system hardly matter to the average motorist. We might as well use random letters for each exit, or names as you suggested upthread, or different colors for each exit tab  ;-)

However, this assumption overlooks the secondary objective(s) of exit numbering - to aid the motorist in calculating the distance to their destination, to signify the location of an exit, the location of an exit within a state, the distance until the next turn or major junction, and so on.

In the eyes of many (if not most) roadgeeks, the system used should be the one that provides the best combination of valuable information, simplicity, and message clarity. Given the options, mileage-based provides by far the most external information to the motorist in the most non-intrusive way possible. As such, it is the way forward :thumbsup:

Quote from: Alps on January 31, 2018, 10:02:57 PM

Quote from: SignBridge on January 31, 2018, 09:49:45 PM
Mileage based and sequential exit numbering each have their pros and cons. While mileage based numbering is useful for the reasons already described, in a way it defeats the purpose of sequential exit numbering where you know that Exit-10 is the next after after Exit-9, etc. Sequential numbering seems more logical to me because skipping numbers destroys the whole concept of numbering the exits in the first place.

But again, it's pros and cons and whichever concept you feel is more useful. 

What is the use of knowing that 10 comes after 9 if you don't know where it is? What if there's a 9A? There is truly no use and that's why it has been eliminated by the MUTCD.

Good point. Exit 57 and Exit 57a are 8 miles apart, while Exit 50 and Exit 50a are a stone's throw apart.

Quote from: Rothman on January 31, 2018, 10:50:21 PM

Quote from: empirestate on January 31, 2018, 10:16:48 PM

Quote from: webny99 on January 31, 2018, 09:58:19 PM
It also depends on your reasoning for why exits are numbered in the first place. Number order tends to be more valuable in urban areas, mileage based in rural areas.

Exactly. I guess the part I don't get is, who says that indicating distance has to be a characteristic of the system that identifies interchanges? We already have mile markers for that.

FHWA in the MUTCD. [emoji14]

Good. And why, in their view, does the distance itself have to be the identifying mark, rather than being an additional piece of information?

QuoteMost people use route number/street name or exit number to indicate where to get on and off a highway.  Using mileage-based exit numbering adds another level of information to the exit number.  Sequential doesn't do that, naming interchanges is a step removed even from that.

But why just the one? Because neither option solves the specific problem we're looking at here, where different interchanges aren't identified uniquely using numbers alone, because we have overlapping and contradictory jurisdictions and nomenclatures. Why give only the interchange's distance on signs? Why not identify it using its name, and give its location by indicating which milepost it's at?

Quote from: webny99 on January 31, 2018, 11:17:39 PM
In the eyes of many (if not most) roadgeeks, the system used should be the one that provides the best combination of valuable information, simplicity, and message clarity. Given the options, mileage-based provides by far the most external information to the motorist in the most non-intrusive way possible. As such, it is the way forward :thumbsup:

But again, remember that we're addressing the specific problem of overlapping systems (I-90, I-87, Thruway, Northway, etc.).

Also, if the most information is the best choice, why leave some out? Why not say "The Circleville Interchange, which is at milepost 226" rather than "Exit 226, which is at milepost 226"? It seems that the first way gives the most information, not the second, and thus is actually "the way forward".

Quote from: empirestate on February 01, 2018, 08:10:25 AM
And why, in their view, does the distance itself have to be the identifying mark, rather than being an additional piece of information?

Because, as I said upthread, using a distance-based system gives the motorist the most possible information in the most non-intrusive way possible. It seems you're assuming that identification is the only purpose to a numbering system, which is far from the case.

QuoteWhy not identify it using its name, and give its location by indicating which milepost it's at?

Because, how is the average joe-bloe traveler going to know what milepost their exit is at? They aren't, and as such, they won't be able to figure out as specifically how far away it is.

Quote
Also, if the most information is the best choice, why leave some out? Why not say "The Circleville Interchange, which is at milepost 226" rather than "Exit 226, which is at milepost 226"? It seems that the first way gives the most information, not the second, and thus is actually "the way forward".

Because again, the motorist will have no way of knowing the milepost of a given interchange. If you happen to already know that, then that's all well and fine, but long-distance or out-of-state travelers are highly unlikely to learn/memorize all that.

At least in my opinion, naming would add another level of confusion; as it is certainly information, I fail to see where it is information that will actually help the motorist in reaching their destination, calculating remaining distances, etc. And, as it's not strictly necessary information, it might be on the border of information overload for the average motorist.

Quote from: empirestate on February 01, 2018, 08:10:25 AMExactly. I guess the part I don't get is, who says that indicating distance has to be a characteristic of the system that identifies interchanges? We already have mile markers for that.

Numbering the exits by milepost (or, to maintain generality, distance-based reference post) improves relatability between exit numbers and mileposts.  This is a positive benefit.

As to why exit numbers are exclusively mileage-based, part of the reason is message loading.  Back in the late 1960's/early 1970's, when exit numbering in general was still relatively novel, FHWA promoted a dual system where exits would have both sequential numbers (indicated by tabs with the word "Exit") and mileage-based numbers (indicated by tabs with the word "Mile").  The two tabs were stacked on top of each other for each sign, which is a cumbersome arrangement with two added units of message load per sign.  I know from studying old as-builts that Colorado went for this system in the early 1970's, and I believe Roadman has mentioned elsewhere on this forum that it was popular in some of the New England states, but I am not aware it was widely adopted.

As a very broad generalization, the jurisdictions that have been most resistant to distance-based exit numbering or to exit numbering in general have had issues that claw back some of the benefits typically associated with such systems.  California, for example, resisted exit numbering for over 30 years because MUTCD mileposts are not used at all--instead, even Interstates have postmiles that reset by county.  Kansas resisted exit numbering until about 1980, at which approximate time it also converted from a county-based reference post system to MUTCD mileposts on Interstates.  Britain sticks to sequential junction numbering on motorways and has reference posts that are km-based (despite distances on motorway signs being given in miles or fractions thereof) and use small letters and digits in a cryptic format not intended to be deciphered at speed or without training (similar to NYSDOT reference plates).

The northeastern states in the US are actually fairly unusual in blending mileage-based reference posts (for purposes of MUTCD compliance) with sequential exit numbers.  Changing to mileage-based exit numbers unlocks an additional layer of benefit, at least in rural areas.

Quote from: empirestate on February 01, 2018, 08:10:25 AMGood. And why, in their view, does the distance itself have to be the identifying mark, rather than being an additional piece of information?

In the past, a variety of state DOTs have tried confirmation and interchange sequence signs that include exit numbers as well as the cross streets/destinations at the next few exits and the mileages to each.  There are a few scattered examples still standing around the country.  The main issue is message loading--including exit numbers adds at least one unit per line.

Quote from: webny99 on February 01, 2018, 08:35:11 AM

Quote from: empirestate on February 01, 2018, 08:10:25 AM
And why, in their view, does the distance itself have to be the identifying mark, rather than being an additional piece of information?

Because, as I said upthread, using a distance-based system gives the motorist the most possible information in the most non-intrusive way possible.

But, as I added less far upthread, that's not so–using a naming system and a distance-based system gives even more information.

QuoteIt seems you're assuming that identification is the only purpose to a numbering system, which is far from the case.

No, but that's the specific problem before us: how to identify interchanges. Naming them does that more uniquely than numbering them.

Quote

QuoteWhy not identify it using its name, and give its location by indicating which milepost it's at?

Because, how is the average joe-bloe traveler going to know what milepost their exit is at? They aren't, and as such, they won't be able to figure out as specifically how far away it is.

Why aren't they? The milepost can be shown on signs and maps, just as exit numbers are. So they would know what milepost their exit is at by the same method they currently know what number it has.

Quote
Also, if the most information is the best choice, why leave some out? Why not say "The Circleville Interchange, which is at milepost 226" rather than "Exit 226, which is at milepost 226"? It seems that the first way gives the most information, not the second, and thus is actually "the way forward".

Because again, the motorist will have no way of knowing the milepost of a given interchange. If you happen to already know that, then that's all well and fine, but long-distance or out-of-state travelers are highly unlikely to learn/memorize all that.[/quote]

Again; why can't they know the milepost?

QuoteAt least in my opinion, naming would add another level of confusion; as it is certainly information, I fail to see where it is information that will actually help the motorist in reaching their destination, calculating remaining distances, etc. And, as it's not strictly necessary information, it might be on the border of information overload for the average motorist.

But the problem to be solved isn't calculating remaining distances, etc.–it's unambiguously identifying the interchanges. So, you would need to show how mileage-based numbering is better at identifying an interchange and distinguishing it from other interchanges.

Quote from: J N Winkler on February 01, 2018, 10:23:07 AM
Numbering the exits by milepost (or, to maintain generality, distance-based reference post) improves relatability between exit numbers and mileposts.  This is a positive benefit.

But what if the exits don't have numbers? Then there's no need to relate anything–the exit's milepost is its milepost, one and the same.

QuoteAs to why exit numbers are exclusively mileage-based, part of the reason is message loading.  Back in the late 1960's/early 1970's, when exit numbering in general was still relatively novel, FHWA promoted a dual system where exits would have both sequential numbers (indicated by tabs with the word "Exit") and mileage-based numbers (indicated by tabs with the word "Mile").  The two tabs were stacked on top of each other for each sign, which is a cumbersome arrangement with two added units of message load per sign.  I know from studying old as-builts that Colorado went for this system in the early 1970's, and I believe Roadman has mentioned elsewhere on this forum that it was popular in some of the New England states, but I am not aware it was widely adopted.

OK. Using names would eliminate the dual-line numbering problem there; you'd know the interchange's name, and what mile it's at. It's still more information, but it's not two piece of information as likely to be confused with each other. It would be easier for the motorist to select the bit he needs–does he need to know which interchange it is? Use the name. Does he need to know how far away it is? Use its mile.

QuoteThe northeastern states in the US are actually fairly unusual in blending mileage-based reference posts (for purposes of MUTCD compliance) with sequential exit numbers.  Changing to mileage-based exit numbers unlocks an additional layer of benefit, at least in rural areas.

Agreed. So, now we come to the question of whether that additional layer of benefit is worth the cost of implementing the change. I haven't yet been persuaded that it is.

Quote

Quote from: empirestate on February 01, 2018, 08:10:25 AMGood. And why, in their view, does the distance itself have to be the identifying mark, rather than being an additional piece of information?

In the past, a variety of state DOTs have tried confirmation and interchange sequence signs that include exit numbers as well as the cross streets/destinations at the next few exits and the mileages to each.  There are a few scattered examples still standing around the country.  The main issue is message loading--including exit numbers adds at least one unit per line.

OK; so, if the mere fact of being an additional piece of information is undesirable, then that suggests that adding names to numbers isn't the answer. That bring us back to the status quo in New York, which is numbers only, and for the most part sequential ones. And since the benefit of mileage-based numbering doesn't offset the implementation of it, then it seems that the best choice is the "no-build" option–keep things as they are. We can use existing destination legends and intersecting routes as the way to identify the interchanges, and ordinary navigation skills along with typical maps for estimating distances. (Or, you know...just Google it.)

So that's pretty much where my mind ends up on this; it's okay as is. Any other considerations I may have missed?

Quote from: empirestate on February 01, 2018, 11:32:45 AM

Quote from: webny99 on February 01, 2018, 08:35:11 AM
As I said upthread, using a distance-based system gives the motorist the most possible information in the most non-intrusive way possible.

But, as I added less far upthread, that's not so–using a naming system and a distance-based system gives even more information.

You must have missed it, but I said "non-intrusive" :-D Motorists don't need to know the name of an interchange; they do need to know where it's located. It's the relevance, and extrapolate-ability (homemade word), of the information that matters, much more so than the sheer volume of information.

Quote

QuoteIt seems you're assuming that identification is the only purpose to a numbering system, which is far from the case.

No, but that's the specific problem before us: how to identify interchanges. Naming them does that more uniquely than numbering them.

The problem is how to identify interchanges,in the way most helpful to motorists. With that said, it doesn't matter how unique the identification is, it matters how easy it is to relate that identification to other important information, such as what turn they need to take, how far away it is, etc. "Circleville Interchange" tells me nothing about the location of the interchange, and location is indeed the aspect that the motorist needs to know most about.

QuoteThe milepost can be shown on signs and maps, just as exit numbers are.

That presents some practical challenges. Do you think every map maker on the planet would jump on board immediately?
Most maps already have enough, if not too much, information packed in a small area . :pan:

Quote
But the problem to be solved isn't calculating remaining distances, etc.–it's unambiguously identifying the interchanges. So, you would need to show how mileage-based numbering is better at identifying an interchange and distinguishing it from other interchanges.

Mileage-based isn't necessarily better when it comes to distinguishing. But I think you're overstating the importance of that aspect. Anyone who can tell the difference between "circleville" and "jane byrne" can also tell the difference between "101" and "110". That's somewhat irrelevant here; as in many cases, the problem is calculating remaining distances, etc. It doesn't matter if it takes the motorist 2 seconds or 5 seconds to distinguish between interchanges, it matters how they can use, extrapolate, and act upon, that information.

Quote
So that's pretty much where my mind ends up on this; it's okay as is. Any other considerations I may have missed?

I'm not one to comment on whether it's worth the investment - maybe it isn't, strictly speaking. But considering that a change will someday be implemented, it's still clear that the change should be to mileage-based, as that's the system that, as I've been saying, conveys the most in the most concise manner possible.

Quote from: empirestate on February 01, 2018, 11:32:45 AMBut what if the exits don't have numbers? Then there's no need to relate anything–the exit's milepost is its milepost, one and the same.

Mileage-based exits still need to be explicitly signed for map relatability, since the vast majority of maps show exit numbers but not mileposts, and mileposts are often hard to find even in online mapping services that offer driver's-eye photography of the physical roadway (like StreetView).

Quote from: empirestate on February 01, 2018, 11:32:45 AMOK. Using names would eliminate the dual-line numbering problem there; you'd know the interchange's name, and what mile it's at. It's still more information, but it's not two piece of information as likely to be confused with each other. It would be easier for the motorist to select the bit he needs–does he need to know which interchange it is? Use the name. Does he need to know how far away it is? Use its mile.

Ultimately you start running into KISS issues.  Let's say I want to find the NY 365/Thruway interchange and that it has been named "Verona" (rather than the arguably equally apt "Rome West") for simplicity.  "Verona" as an interchange name is a lot harder to show on a single-sheet map of New York State than a simple exit number (33 in this case).  And "Verona" + "252," or even "33" + "252," is harder to show (this is after StreetView search for the relevant milepost, BTW--there are many Thruway users who will not even realize that the Thruway has an exit number/milepost cross-reference (http://www.thruway.ny.gov/travelers/interchanges/index.html)).  And "Verona" and "33" are themselves layers removed from "252," which corresponds to what a driver would see both on the map and in the field if mileage-based exit numbering is used.  The less cross-referencing is necessary, the less memorization or looking-up the driver needs to do (and of course some drivers will inevitably try to look things up on their phones while behind the wheel), and the more intuitive the guide signing is.

Quote from: empirestate on February 01, 2018, 11:32:45 AMAgreed. So, now we come to the question of whether that additional layer of benefit is worth the cost of implementing the change. I haven't yet been persuaded that it is.

In terms of direct cost of signing, the added cost of going to mileage-based exits is essentially nil because Thruway exits are already signed by number; only the numbers would change.  (I am ignoring for the moment the whole debate about whether milepointing should be revised to match Interstate route designations rather than administrative control.  I agree that any change to existing milepointing would entail significant costs.)  And frankly, the Thruway needs pretty much all of its signs replaced as a result of botched conversions to Clearview and high-performance sheetings--when I drove the Thruway last summer for the first time in 20 years, much of it was at night and on many signs the border was the only element that could be easily recognized.

The main indirect cost of any exit number conversion falls on road-dependent businesses (motels, truck stops, etc.) that advertise themselves by exit number rather than informal interchange name (e.g., "Exit 33" rather than "Verona Exit" or similar).  This is less of an issue with the Thruway because, as a traditional public-authority turnpike rather than a free Interstate, it has less road-oriented adjacent development, since there are fewer exits to begin with.  Moreover, exits are grouped around towns and crossing state highways in a way that allows businesses to advertise their locations by crossroad/city rather than exit number.  (Because free Interstates are more porous in terms of access points, it is often easier for businesses to advertise by mileage-based exit number rather than a highly forgettable county or local road name.)

What would be a showstopper in the case of Arizona I-19, for example, where the effect on roadside businesses is an obstacle to converting from kilometer-based to mile-based exits, would be at most a short-lived inconvenience on the Thruway.

I don't really have a dog in this fight.  The New York transportation authorities will either reach this decision on their own, or be forced into it by FHWA.  I would just observe that while I am aware of many instances of sequential-to-distance-based conversion, I am not aware of any examples of distance-based-to-sequential conversion even in cases where distance-based exit numbers have had to be revised to eliminate differently located zero points (e.g., I-15 in Utah about ten years ago).

Quote from: SignBridge on January 31, 2018, 09:49:45 PM
Mileage based and sequential exit numbering each have their pros and cons. While mileage based numbering is useful for the reasons already described, in a way it defeats the purpose of sequential exit numbering where you know that Exit-10 is the next after after Exit-9, etc. Sequential numbering seems more logical to me because skipping numbers destroys the whole concept of numbering the exits in the first place.

But again, it's pros and cons and whichever concept you feel is more useful. 

Except when the exits are numbered 21-21B-21A-22.

^ That - was just about to chime in about how confusing many of the interchanges are because of the additions over the years.

--

In other news:

New York docked $14M for I Love NY highway signs (http://www.ithacajournal.com/story/news/politics/albany/2018/02/01/feds-dock-new-york-love-ny-signs/1087117001/)

The federal government has docked New York $14 million in highway funds for installing more than 500 I Love NY road signs that violate federal highway rules and state law.

The Federal Highway Administration unveiled the penalty in a letter Thursday to transportation officials in Gov. Andrew Cuomo's administration, which installed the blue signs across the state in recent years despite a 2013 federal order prohibiting it from doing so.

The letter from Brandye Hendrickson, FHWA's acting administrator, gives the state until Sept. 30 to come into compliance with federal rules.

(Don't worry, if the state doesn't come into compliance, the $14 million penalty sticks. Otherwise, it will be refunded. But given the state won't install mile-based exit signs...)

Quote from: seicer on February 01, 2018, 01:29:46 PM
^ That - was just about to chime in about how confusing many of the interchanges are because of the additions over the years.

--

In other news:

New York docked $14M for I Love NY highway signs (http://www.ithacajournal.com/story/news/politics/albany/2018/02/01/feds-dock-new-york-love-ny-signs/1087117001/)

The federal government has docked New York $14 million in highway funds for installing more than 500 I Love NY road signs that violate federal highway rules and state law.

The Federal Highway Administration unveiled the penalty in a letter Thursday to transportation officials in Gov. Andrew Cuomo's administration, which installed the blue signs across the state in recent years despite a 2013 federal order prohibiting it from doing so.

The letter from Brandye Hendrickson, FHWA's acting administrator, gives the state until Sept. 30 to come into compliance with federal rules.

(Don't worry, if the state doesn't come into compliance, the $14 million penalty sticks. Otherwise, it will be refunded. But given the state won't install mile-based exit signs...)

Quote from: J N Winkler on February 01, 2018, 01:08:08 PM
I don't really have a dog in this fight.  The New York transportation authorities will either reach this decision on their own, or be forced into it by FHWA.

So it took FHWA 5 years to start acting on something that is as bad as actively doing something FHWA objects? 
OK, we'll wait for that nasty warning letter from FHWA in 2050 requesting exit number conversion to actually start by 2070 - or else!.....

Quote from: J N Winkler on February 01, 2018, 01:08:08 PM
In terms of direct cost of signing, the added cost of going to mileage-based exits is essentially nil because Thruway exits are already signed by number; only the numbers would change.  (I am ignoring for the moment the whole debate about whether milepointing should be revised to match Interstate route designations rather than administrative control.  I agree that any change to existing milepointing would entail significant costs.)  And frankly, the Thruway needs pretty much all of its signs replaced as a result of botched conversions to Clearview and high-performance sheetings--when I drove the Thruway last summer for the first time in 20 years, much of it was at night and on many signs the border was the only element that could be easily recognized.

The main indirect cost of any exit number conversion falls on road-dependent businesses (motels, truck stops, etc.) that advertise themselves by exit number rather than informal interchange name (e.g., "Exit 33" rather than "Verona Exit" or similar).  This is less of an issue with the Thruway because, as a traditional public-authority turnpike rather than a free Interstate, it has less road-oriented adjacent development, since there are fewer exits to begin with.  Moreover, exits are grouped around towns and crossing state highways in a way that allows businesses to advertise their locations by crossroad/city rather than exit number.  (Because free Interstates are more porous in terms of access points, it is often easier for businesses to advertise by mileage-based exit number rather than a highly forgettable county or local road name.)

There are actually quite a few large billboards on the edge of the ROW with businesses advertising themselves by exit number, probably because logo signs for food and gas are not used on the Thruway.

Still quite a few signs from before the Clearview/bad sheeting issue.  In fact, outside of Buffalo, they're the majority.  There are also a couple FHWA/bad sheeting ones installed within the past year.

Billboards are a non-issue. Much like how people get all charged up when their address changes - and how "expensive" it is to replace business cards and other stationary, and change email signatures, it's overblown. Billboards are changed out all the time, so it's really no issue for the exit number to simply be replaced with a patch or have a new advert placed when the current one expires.

Quote from: webny99 on February 01, 2018, 12:29:29 PM

Quote from: empirestate on February 01, 2018, 11:32:45 AM

Quote from: webny99 on February 01, 2018, 08:35:11 AM
As I said upthread, using a distance-based system gives the motorist the most possible information in the most non-intrusive way possible.

But, as I added less far upthread, that's not so–using a naming system and a distance-based system gives even more information.

You must have missed it, but I said "non-intrusive"

OK. Is it too intrusive to include the name? (Check the Penna Turnpike for an example.) If so, then we can leave off the name–let's face it, most people assign some kind of name to interchanges anyway. ("Take the Circleville exit", "Get off at Church Street", and so forth.)

QuoteMotorists don't need to know the name of an interchange; they do need to know where it's located.

But they need to refer to it in some way. They need to say, "Take the Circleville exit" or "Take exit 226". So, I'm arguing that the first makes more sense, and I'm not seeing why the second is better. You've explained the advantage of mile-based numbering, and I don't dispute those, but I don't see how they assist in identifying the thing?

QuoteIt's the relevance, and extrapolate-ability (homemade word), of the information that matters, much more so than the sheer volume of information.

Exactly. So, it seems to me that a name would particularize the interchange more than an arbitrary number would, and if that's the case, then the additional volume of information would not, as you say, matter so much.

QuoteThe problem is how to identify interchanges,in the way most helpful to motorists. With that said, it doesn't matter how unique the identification is, it matters how easy it is to relate that identification to other important information, such as what turn they need to take, how far away it is, etc.

Ah–so there's the problem. It does indeed matter how unique it is, because we're dealing with the specific situation where you might have an "exit 106" on one part of the Thruway, and another "exit 106" on another part of it. So we see that mile-based numbering isn't completely unique. However, if the first exit were instead called "Circleville Interchange" and the other were called "Squaretown Interchange", then the identification is unique.

Quote"Circleville Interchange" tells me nothing about the location of the interchange, and location is indeed the aspect that the motorist needs to know most about.

You're right (other than that the interchange is in Circleville, obviously). But that's not what it needs to tell you–the name doesn't have that function.

Quote

QuoteThe milepost can be shown on signs and maps, just as exit numbers are.

That presents some practical challenges. Do you think every map maker on the planet would jump on board immediately?

Why would they need to jump on board? Those that already show the numbers would simply continue to do so.

Quote
Mileage-based isn't necessarily better when it comes to distinguishing. But I think you're overstating the importance of that aspect.

I'm not really making any judgment on the importance of it. Distinguishing is simply the thing we're discussing, and naming the interchanges is a way of distinguishing. How important that is, I haven't really said (but note that I'm pretty willing to drop the naming idea and just go with the status quo, so that might give you some idea of importance).

QuoteAnyone who can tell the difference between "circleville" and "jane byrne" can also tell the difference between "101" and "110".

But they cannot tell the difference between "106" and "106".

QuoteI'm not one to comment on whether it's worth the investment - maybe it isn't, strictly speaking. But considering that a change will someday be implemented, it's still clear that the change should be to mileage-based, as that's the system that, as I've been saying, conveys the most in the most concise manner possible.

Mileage-based, on the contrary, doesn't seem to help the Thruway situation much at all; indeed, it seems to greatly confuse the issue, as we have perpetually discussed over the years. So I don't think it's clear at all that that's the right change for that problem.

Speaking more generally, I don't know that I have a strong opinion on what the change should be to, only that a change isn't warranted. There doesn't seem to be any current problem that would be solved by changing the exit identifiers, regardless of what new system might be selected.

If we name interchanges, expect many to be named after local politicians (or corporations, if they pay for it).

Quote from: J N Winkler on February 01, 2018, 01:08:08 PM

Quote from: empirestate on February 01, 2018, 11:32:45 AMBut what if the exits don't have numbers? Then there's no need to relate anything–the exit's milepost is its milepost, one and the same.

Mileage-based exits still need to be explicitly signed for map relatability, since the vast majority of maps show exit numbers but not mileposts, and mileposts are often hard to find even in online mapping services that offer driver's-eye photography of the physical roadway (like StreetView).

I'm confused about why that would be a problem. In a mile-based system, the exit's identifier is the same as its milepost; the map just shows that number, whatever it is. If the exit's identifier were not its milepost, its milepost would still be the same and the map would still show that same number. And if the identifier is a name, I suppose the map would also show the name; and you discuss that below.

QuoteUltimately you start running into KISS issues.  Let's say I want to find the NY 365/Thruway interchange and that it has been named "Verona" (rather than the arguably equally apt "Rome West") for simplicity.  "Verona" as an interchange name is a lot harder to show on a single-sheet map of New York State than a simple exit number (33 in this case).  And "Verona" + "252," or even "33" + "252," is harder to show (this is after StreetView search for the relevant milepost, BTW--there are many Thruway users who will not even realize that the Thruway has an exit number/milepost cross-reference (http://www.thruway.ny.gov/travelers/interchanges/index.html)).  And "Verona" and "33" are themselves layers removed from "252," which corresponds to what a driver would see both on the map and in the field if mileage-based exit numbering is used.  The less cross-referencing is necessary, the less memorization or looking-up the driver needs to do (and of course some drivers will inevitably try to look things up on their phones while behind the wheel), and the more intuitive the guide signing is.

Well, that's only a problem if the mapmaker chooses to show the milepost in addition to the identifier, of course. Still, even if they do, I'm not sure it's an insurmountable problem to label an interchange as "252 Verona". But if it is, again, I'm perfectly willing to drop the name, and just stick with calling it "33". (And many people will call it "Verona" anyway.)

Quote

Quote from: empirestate on February 01, 2018, 11:32:45 AMAgreed. So, now we come to the question of whether that additional layer of benefit is worth the cost of implementing the change. I haven't yet been persuaded that it is.

In terms of direct cost of signing, the added cost of going to mileage-based exits is essentially nil because Thruway exits are already signed by number; only the numbers would change.  (I am ignoring for the moment the whole debate about whether milepointing should be revised to match Interstate route designations rather than administrative control.  I agree that any change to existing milepointing would entail significant costs.)  And frankly, the Thruway needs pretty much all of its signs replaced as a result of botched conversions to Clearview and high-performance sheetings--when I drove the Thruway last summer for the first time in 20 years, much of it was at night and on many signs the border was the only element that could be easily recognized.

Right, if the conversion could happen as signs are replaced anyway, my objection goes away. But I don't think you can roll out the change piecemeal; you'd have to change everything at once. Again, if the Thruway happened to replace every one of its exit signs at one time for some other reason, fine. But I don't think there's ever going to be a time when a whole state just happens to need new exit signs, so the only way to change to a different system is to do so deliberately. And as far as I can see, doing so would be an invention of which necessity is not the mother. ;-)

QuoteThe main indirect cost of any exit number conversion falls on road-dependent businesses (motels, truck stops, etc.) that advertise themselves by exit number rather than informal interchange name (e.g., "Exit 33" rather than "Verona Exit" or similar).  This is less of an issue with the Thruway because, as a traditional public-authority turnpike rather than a free Interstate, it has less road-oriented adjacent development, since there are fewer exits to begin with.  Moreover, exits are grouped around towns and crossing state highways in a way that allows businesses to advertise their locations by crossroad/city rather than exit number.  (Because free Interstates are more porous in terms of access points, it is often easier for businesses to advertise by mileage-based exit number rather than a highly forgettable county or local road name.)

And if hardship to mapmakers is enough reason to drop exit names, then hardship to advertisers should be enough to drop a conversion of numbering systems. (I was going to say a conversion to mile-based, but it would be the same objection if a conversion from mile-based to sequential were proposed; no need, and considerable expense.)

QuoteI don't really have a dog in this fight.  The New York transportation authorities will either reach this decision on their own, or be forced into it by FHWA.  I would just observe that while I am aware of many instances of sequential-to-distance-based conversion, I am not aware of any examples of distance-based-to-sequential conversion even in cases where distance-based exit numbers have had to be revised to eliminate differently located zero points (e.g., I-15 in Utah about ten years ago).

Right, because there is no problem to be solved by converting from mile-based to sequential. Likewise, there doesn't appear to be a problem in New York that would be solved by converting from sequential to mile-based (or any other system), other than, as you say, being forced into it. And being forced into it is a cause; it isn't a reason.

Quote from: upstatenyroads on February 01, 2018, 01:26:11 PM

Quote from: SignBridge on January 31, 2018, 09:49:45 PM
Mileage based and sequential exit numbering each have their pros and cons. While mileage based numbering is useful for the reasons already described, in a way it defeats the purpose of sequential exit numbering where you know that Exit-10 is the next after after Exit-9, etc. Sequential numbering seems more logical to me because skipping numbers destroys the whole concept of numbering the exits in the first place.

But again, it's pros and cons and whichever concept you feel is more useful. 

Except when the exits are numbered 21-21B-21A-22.

Now there's a case where spending some money might be justified to correct it. (Although I do always appreciate "quirks", so I mightn't be inclined to change even this, but I would certainly understand the rationale.)

Quote from: 1 on February 01, 2018, 04:36:13 PM
If we name interchanges, expect many to be named after local politicians (or corporations, if they pay for it).

Hasn't happened in PA so far.

Quote from: empirestate on February 01, 2018, 04:48:38 PMI'm confused about why that would be a problem. In a mile-based system, the exit's identifier is the same as its milepost; the map just shows that number, whatever it is. If the exit's identifier were not its milepost, its milepost would still be the same and the map would still show that same number.

Nope.  In the Verona example, the map would show "33" instead of "252."  I would then have to refer to a separate resource (such as the Thruway cross-reference) to get the milepost.

The advantage of distance-based exits is that if you know the number for your desired exit, then you can refer to the last milepost passed to estimate your distance to the exit.  This is not possible with a sequential system.

Quote from: empirestate on February 01, 2018, 04:48:38 PMRight, if the conversion could happen as signs are replaced anyway, my objection goes away. But I don't think you can roll out the change piecemeal; you'd have to change everything at once. Again, if the Thruway happened to replace every one of its exit signs at one time for some other reason, fine. But I don't think there's ever going to be a time when a whole state just happens to need new exit signs, so the only way to change to a different system is to do so deliberately. And as far as I can see, doing so would be an invention of which necessity is not the mother. ;-)

You might be surprised.  I follow signing construction (downloading and archiving plans, etc.) and every so often I encounter large contracts that are corridor-wide in scope, with literally hundreds of sign panel detail sheets.  Missouri I-49 received this treatment (one contract), as did the New Jersey Turnpike (two contracts).

Quote from: empirestate on February 01, 2018, 04:48:38 PMAnd if hardship to mapmakers is enough reason to drop exit names, then hardship to advertisers should be enough to drop a conversion of numbering systems. (I was going to say a conversion to mile-based, but it would be the same objection if a conversion from mile-based to sequential were proposed; no need, and considerable expense.)

Actually, where maps are concerned, the hardships fall on the users (added map clutter) as well as the makers (added effort to find room for all the information that needs to be displayed).

And mileage-based to sequential is not quite the same as sequential to mileage-based from the roadside businesses' point of view.  In principle, they benefit from improved relatability between maps and signing making their establishments easier to find, and this is an ongoing gain that arguably offsets the onetime cost of changing from sequential to mileage-based.  Going in the other direction (mileage-based to sequential) is the same onetime cost, with no offset from better relatability.  And changing from one distance-based system to another (the situation in Arizona with I-19 and the proposed conversion from kilometer- to mile-based exit numbers) is similarly a worthless cost.

Quote from: empirestate on February 01, 2018, 04:48:38 PMRight, because there is no problem to be solved by converting from mile-based to sequential. Likewise, there doesn't appear to be a problem in New York that would be solved by converting from sequential to mile-based (or any other system), other than, as you say, being forced into it. And being forced into it is a cause; it isn't a reason.

Whether a given set of circumstances represents a problem is, to an extent, a value judgment.  For example, I drive a 24-year-old car that lacks airbags other than a full-power one for the driver, and does not have automatic emergency braking, lane keeping assist, a backup camera, adaptive cruise control, or any of the other safety features that are increasingly becoming standard.  If I bought a new car equipped with these, I would derive ongoing gains from them, albeit at a steep upfront cost (about $30,000).  Is it a problem that I am foregoing both the expense and the benefits?  I do not consider it to be one, but I am sure plenty of others would disagree.

So it is with converting from sequential to mileage-based.  We have described benefits to this change that are separate from MUTCD compliance.  NYSDOT and NYSTA have the option of forgoing them if they can persuade FHWA not to enforce the distance-based exit numbering requirement.  I do not drive in New York often, so I will not be greatly inconvenienced if they continue to stick to sequential numbering, but it is not a course I would advise them to take.  Caltrans eventually had to fold on exit numbering after 30 years.

Quote from: kalvado on February 01, 2018, 01:38:36 PMSo it took FHWA 5 years to start acting on something that is as bad as actively doing something FHWA objects?  OK, we'll wait for that nasty warning letter from FHWA in 2050 requesting exit number conversion to actually start by 2070 - or else!.....

It's been nine years since the latest MUTCD came out and KDOT still doesn't have exit numbering on non-Interstate freeways.  I'm waiting (admittedly not with bated breath) for FHWA to drop the hammer.

Quote from: empirestate on February 01, 2018, 04:48:38 PM
Hasn't happened in PA so far.

See how it gets abused in other states:

Hal Rogers Parkway (from the Daniel Boone Parkway)
Robert C. Byrd Interchange (x2)
Robert C. Byrd Appalachian Highway System
Robert C. Byrd Bridge (x2)
Robert C. Byrd Drive
Robert C. Byrd Expressway
Robert C. Byrd Freeway
Robert C. Byrd Highway

And the countless exits, roads, and bridges named after people in the military who hold no significance outside of local recognization. It's gotten to the point that when a bridge's sign falls, it's not replaced because those records are simply not kept - or in the worst case scenarios, are simply replaced with the name of another individual. There was an instance of the latter happening to what was essentially a culvert near my hometown.

You've got a full time job between me and JNWinkler - are you enjoying this yet?  :-P

Quote from: empirestate on February 01, 2018, 04:22:52 PM
OK. Is it too intrusive to include the name? (Check the Penna Turnpike for an example.) If so, then we can leave off the name–let's face it, most people assign some kind of name to interchanges anyway. ("Take the Circleville exit", "Get off at Church Street", and so forth.)

Aside from the fact that I was partially joking with my "non-intrusive" comment, I do feel including interchange names would typically be excessive. With regards to the Penna Turnpike, most (if not all) interchanges share names with the exit's destinations, which are in the body of the sign anyways. I view the wasting of sign space to say the same thing twice as rather cumbersome and inefficient.

QuoteBut they need to refer to it in some way. They need to say, "Take the Circleville exit" or "Take exit 226". So, I'm arguing that the first makes more sense, and I'm not seeing why the second is better. You've explained the advantage of mile-based numbering, and I don't dispute those, but I don't see how they assist in identifying the thing?

Here, it's of utmost importance that we distinguish between discussion and signage. In casual conversation, or even when giving directions, "get off at Circleville" works fine, and you could even argue that it's preferred. But when it comes to the motorist actually executing the plan and driving from A to B, they no longer care whether it's "Circleville" or "Squaretown" - it doesn't matter - they only care where it is, and how far away it is. It's therefore in the best interest of the motoring public to sign interchanges to that end.

QuoteAh–so there's the problem. It does indeed matter how unique it is, because we're dealing with the specific situation where you might have an "exit 106" on one part of the Thruway, and another "exit 106" on another part of it. So we see that mile-based numbering isn't completely unique. However, if the first exit were instead called "Circleville Interchange" and the other were called "Squaretown Interchange", then the identification is unique.

While true, that must be prefaced by the following:
1] The thruway is extremely unique in this regard. This is not at all reflective of the average mileage-based scenario. As such, the thruway alone is not substantial evidence against a numbering system that works perfectly well across the country.
2] No one would travel using solely the thruway from Batavia to downstate. I can't even imagine a scenario in which there is potential for confusion, given that all involved parties have at least a remote degree of contextual knowledge.
3] Most importantly, there are two different route numbers; I-87 and I-90. If there's one case in the whole nation where the route number (in addition to the road name, "thruway") must be specified, then so be it.

QuoteYou're right (other than that the interchange is in Circleville, obviously). But that's not what it needs to tell you–the name doesn't have that function.

But therein lies my point; simply by using a number instead of a name, voila! you now know the approximate location. That's still not the function of the number, but it's very handy to have that additional information built right in.

Quote
Why would they need to jump on board? Those that already show the numbers would simply continue to do so.

I was under the impression you were advocating the inclusion of a name and a number. JN has discussed this in greater detail, so either way I'll let it be  :coffee:

QuoteMileage-based, on the contrary, doesn't seem to help the Thruway situation much at all; indeed, it seems to greatly confuse the issue, as we have perpetually discussed over the years. So I don't think it's clear at all that that's the right change for that problem.

To this, I say the system that's both optimal and recommended across the country can work for the thruway. People (and perhaps roadgeeks especially) tend to over-hype this hypothetical. The confusing implications (which, let's be honest, really aren't all that confusing, nor are they likely to come into play) would dissipate both with AET and with time itself.

QuoteSpeaking more generally, I don't know that I have a strong opinion on what the change should be to, only that a change isn't warranted. There doesn't seem to be any current problem that would be solved by changing the exit identifiers, regardless of what new system might be selected.

There's two problems, to the extent you call them problems:
1] NY does not conform to the MUTCD or the nationwide precedent. As someone who places a very high premium on consistency, that's a major problem.
2] Motorists can't calculate the distance to their exit. At this point, I'll leave that as a standalone statement, presume the implications are self-explanatory, and call it a day  :clap:

Quote from: 1 on February 01, 2018, 04:36:13 PM
If we name interchanges, expect many to be named after local politicians (or corporations, if they pay for it).

Is this even a thing? I know there's the Circle Interchange in Chicago, but this other stuff is foreign to me.

No, naming interchanges is not a thing outside of some turnpikes (e.g., Penna Turnpike and I believe the Massachusetts Turnpike named their interchanges on their tickets back in the early 1980s (maybe?)).

Just empirestate and other arguing hypotheticals that will never come to fruition. :D

(for the record, naming intetchanges clutters up signage :D)

Then again, interchanges have been dedicated (e.g., Sgt. So-and-So Interchange) but in those cases not used for navigation.

Quote from: Rothman on February 02, 2018, 09:01:09 AM
Then again, interchanges have been dedicated (e.g., Sgt. So-and-So Interchange) but in those cases not used for navigation.

Every flipping interchange in Pennsylvania. Just look at their official map.

Quote from: Rothman on February 02, 2018, 09:01:09 AM
No, naming interchanges is not a thing outside of some turnpikes (e.g., Penna Turnpike and I believe the Massachusetts Turnpike named their interchanges on their tickets back in the early 1980s (maybe?)).

Just empirestate and other arguing hypotheticals that will never come to fruition. :D

(for the record, naming intetchanges clutters up signage :D)

Then again, interchanges have been dedicated (e.g., Sgt. So-and-So Interchange) but in those cases not used for navigation.

Never come? C'mon!
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/northeast/ny_thruway_toll_ticket_01.jpg)

Quote from: kalvado on February 02, 2018, 09:16:32 AM

Quote from: Rothman on February 02, 2018, 09:01:09 AM
No, naming interchanges is not a thing outside of some turnpikes (e.g., Penna Turnpike and I believe the Massachusetts Turnpike named their interchanges on their tickets back in the early 1980s (maybe?)).

Just empirestate and other arguing hypotheticals that will never come to fruition. :D

(for the record, naming intetchanges clutters up signage :D)

Then again, interchanges have been dedicated (e.g., Sgt. So-and-So Interchange) but in those cases not used for navigation.

Never come? C'mon!
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/northeast/ny_thruway_toll_ticket_01.jpg)

Nope.  Never given current federal guidance and no impetus whatsoever to run around naming interchanges for signage.

Why was Station No. 15 called "Woodbury"?  Woodbury Twp. is actually at Exit 16 and Exit 15 is at Suffern.

^ My guess is "Station 15" refers to the mainline booth just south of the Harriman interchange, since it's clear from the ticket that personal automobiles don't pay a toll south of there, as is the case today (Tappan Zee notwithstanding).

Quote from: J N Winkler on February 01, 2018, 07:51:38 PM

Quote from: empirestate on February 01, 2018, 04:48:38 PMI'm confused about why that would be a problem. In a mile-based system, the exit's identifier is the same as its milepost; the map just shows that number, whatever it is. If the exit's identifier were not its milepost, its milepost would still be the same and the map would still show that same number.

Nope.  In the Verona example, the map would show "33" instead of "252."  I would then have to refer to a separate resource (such as the Thruway cross-reference) to get the milepost.

Why would it show "33"? That's its current (sequential) exit number. But in the case where exits don't have numbers–they're named instead–the map would not show "33", it would show "Verona" (or whatever name is chosen). If the map also showed the exit's milepost, it would show "252" for that. Now, if we decide not to use names because of map clutter, then the map doesn't show the exit's name ("Verona"), it doesn't show its number ("33"), and all that's left is its milepost ("252").

QuoteThe advantage of distance-based exits is that if you know the number for your desired exit, then you can refer to the last milepost passed to estimate your distance to the exit.  This is not possible with a sequential system.

Of course. And if the exit doesn't have a number, but you know its milepost, the same applies. But that's not in dispute, is it? People keep mentioning this advantage of mile-based numbering, but I'm not sure why–we all agree that it has this advantage.

Quote

Quote from: empirestate on February 01, 2018, 04:48:38 PMRight, if the conversion could happen as signs are replaced anyway, my objection goes away. But I don't think you can roll out the change piecemeal; you'd have to change everything at once. Again, if the Thruway happened to replace every one of its exit signs at one time for some other reason, fine. But I don't think there's ever going to be a time when a whole state just happens to need new exit signs, so the only way to change to a different system is to do so deliberately. And as far as I can see, doing so would be an invention of which necessity is not the mother. ;-)

You might be surprised.  I follow signing construction (downloading and archiving plans, etc.) and every so often I encounter large contracts that are corridor-wide in scope, with literally hundreds of sign panel detail sheets.  Missouri I-49 received this treatment (one contract), as did the New Jersey Turnpike (two contracts).

Any entire states, though?

Quote

Actually, where maps are concerned, the hardships fall on the users (added map clutter) as well as the makers (added effort to find room for all the information that needs to be displayed).

And mileage-based to sequential is not quite the same as sequential to mileage-based from the roadside businesses' point of view.  In principle, they benefit from improved relatability between maps and signing making their establishments easier to find, and this is an ongoing gain that arguably offsets the onetime cost of changing from sequential to mileage-based.  Going in the other direction (mileage-based to sequential) is the same onetime cost, with no offset from better relatability.  And changing from one distance-based system to another (the situation in Arizona with I-19 and the proposed conversion from kilometer- to mile-based exit numbers) is similarly a worthless cost.

Well, OK, if you like. But now we've hit the point where we seem to really be reaching for both hardships and benefits. The hardship of having to read a map with names on it does not, to me, offset the benefit of them having names. And the benefit of "relatability" does not, to me, offset the undertaking of changing systems. Since this basically boils down to a subjective value judgement, that's probably the end of the line for the possibility of persuading me.

QuoteWhether a given set of circumstances represents a problem is, to an extent, a value judgment.  For example, I drive a 24-year-old car that lacks airbags other than a full-power one for the driver, and does not have automatic emergency braking, lane keeping assist, a backup camera, adaptive cruise control, or any of the other safety features that are increasingly becoming standard.  If I bought a new car equipped with these, I would derive ongoing gains from them, albeit at a steep upfront cost (about $30,000).  Is it a problem that I am foregoing both the expense and the benefits?  I do not consider it to be one, but I am sure plenty of others would disagree.

So it is with converting from sequential to mileage-based.  We have described benefits to this change that are separate from MUTCD compliance.  NYSDOT and NYSTA have the option of forgoing them if they can persuade FHWA not to enforce the distance-based exit numbering requirement.  I do not drive in New York often, so I will not be greatly inconvenienced if they continue to stick to sequential numbering, but it is not a course I would advise them to take.  Caltrans eventually had to fold on exit numbering after 30 years.

Ha! I hadn't yet read this part of your response when I wrote what I did above. Yes, we're thinking about this in exactly the same way (aside from one or two points where we're maybe not discussing quite the same situation). You've mentioned various advantages and disadvantages of both interchange naming and conversion of numbering systems, and I recognize them and find them not to be persuasive. (And in the case of naming, persuasion isn't necessary, as I can really take it or leave it either way.) If New York, ultimately, is forced to "fold" on this issue, it will likely be due to external pressure from the Federal government, not from any demonstrable necessity.

Quote from: empirestate on February 02, 2018, 10:27:08 AM

Quote from: J N Winkler on February 01, 2018, 07:51:38 PM
and every so often I encounter large contracts that are corridor-wide in scope, with literally hundreds of sign panel detail sheets.  Missouri I-49 received this treatment (one contract), as did the New Jersey Turnpike (two contracts).

Any entire states, though?

The key here is that states do not all have to convert at once. Roads do, but states don't.

Quote from: seicer on February 01, 2018, 09:37:10 PM

Quote from: empirestate on February 01, 2018, 04:48:38 PM
Hasn't happened in PA so far.

See how it gets abused in other states:

Hal Rogers Parkway (from the Daniel Boone Parkway)
Robert C. Byrd Interchange (x2)
Robert C. Byrd Appalachian Highway System
Robert C. Byrd Bridge (x2)
Robert C. Byrd Drive
Robert C. Byrd Expressway
Robert C. Byrd Freeway
Robert C. Byrd Highway

Almost none of those are interchange names. And the one (two) that is, is it actually used, or is it ceremonial? Are the other interchanges on the same highway(s) named as well?

But yes, if the implementation of interchange names permitted this kind of abuse, that would be an erroneous implementation. In most cases, ceremonial or memorial names wold not sufficiently particularize the identity of an interchange.

Quote from: webny99 on February 01, 2018, 10:47:51 PM
You've got a full time job between me and JNWinkler - are you enjoying this yet?  :-P

Well sure; shouldn't I be? :) I'm happy to explain why my view is what it is, and I certainly don't mind your attempt to persuade me to a different one. So far, that's been unsuccessful, but I don't in any way object to it.

QuoteAside from the fact that I was partially joking with my "non-intrusive" comment, I do feel including interchange names would typically be excessive. With regards to the Penna Turnpike, most (if not all) interchanges share names with the exit's destinations, which are in the body of the sign anyways. I view the wasting of sign space to say the same thing twice as rather cumbersome and inefficient.

OK, that's fine. As I've said, if naming is excessive, then leave it at that. I don't happen to believe it's excessive, but I also don't hold this view so strongly that I can't accept a different rationale. And, as we've both said, names happen anyway, because people do call the interchanges by some kind of name, whether it's deliberately devised or just comes from common usage. As such, it doesn't represent a problem that badly needs a solution.

QuoteHere, it's of utmost importance that we distinguish between discussion and signage. In casual conversation, or even when giving directions, "get off at Circleville" works fine, and you could even argue that it's preferred. But when it comes to the motorist actually executing the plan and driving from A to B, they no longer care whether it's "Circleville" or "Squaretown" - it doesn't matter - they only care where it is, and how far away it is. It's therefore in the best interest of the motoring public to sign interchanges to that end.

That's right–and I realize I haven't been so good at keeping the two strands of discussion clear and separate as we go along. The issue of names goes with the first part: discussion, reference, identification, cal it what you like. The issue of whether to convert to a mile-based system (or really, whether to convert at all) goes with the second part: navigation, executing the plan. My suggestion addresses both: give the interchanges names to solve part 1, and indicate their mileposts on signage to solve part 2.

Now, what's important about part 2 is this: changing the exit identifier from sequential numbers to mile-based numbers doesn't address part 1. It doesn't do a better job of identifying or referring to the interchanges. If you make the conversion, people will still refer to the "Circleville Interchange" and the "Squaretown Interchange", even if their official identifiers are "Exit 226" and "Exit 226", because there's a need to distinguish the two.

And while making the conversion does address part 2, it is not necessary to address. In my observation, there exists no problem with navigating from A to B; or, if it does exist, it isn't nearly important enough to justify the undertaking. It's not that I don't realize what the advantage of converting would be, it's that I don't care. You're welcome to rebut that, if you like, but I can't imagine it going very far–you would have to make the case that, in fact, I do care, and that of course is simply false. :)

QuoteWhile true, that must be prefaced by the following:
1] The thruway is extremely unique in this regard. This is not at all reflective of the average mileage-based scenario. As such, the thruway alone is not substantial evidence against a numbering system that works perfectly well across the country.
2] No one would travel using solely the thruway from Batavia to downstate. I can't even imagine a scenario in which there is potential for confusion, given that all involved parties have at least a remote degree of contextual knowledge.
3] Most importantly, there are two different route numbers; I-87 and I-90. If there's one case in the whole nation where the route number (in addition to the road name, "thruway") must be specified, then so be it.

Here, you seem to be arguing the question itself out of existence. We are specifically concerned with the Thruway system in this thread, and by extension, any hypothetical similar scenario. It's as if I asked the question, "How do you cross a river that has no bridge?" and you answered, "It doesn't matter, because most rivers have bridges."

Quote

QuoteYou're right (other than that the interchange is in Circleville, obviously). But that's not what it needs to tell you–the name doesn't have that function.

But therein lies my point; simply by using a number instead of a name, voila! you now know the approximate location. That's still not the function of the number, but it's very handy to have that additional information built right in.

But why does it have to be "instead"? OK–clutter, too much information, etc. But still, whether or not you choose to call the interchange "Circleville", people will call it "Circleville" anyway, when they need to distinguish it from "Squaretown". And when they need to know what milepost it's at, they'll say "226".

I guess what I'm saying is, I get your point, but I don't see how it applies. For part 1 (naming), why does being able to know the distance mean you can't also identify the interchange? (Other points address this, such as map clutter/too much info, but I don't see how this point does.) And for the second part (navigation), while the point does apply, you have to not only explain the benefit, but also show that it's important enough to justify the conversion. My view is that it isn't worth it, and since that's a subjective value judgement, I'm not sure how you can convince me otherwise, at least not without adding some new information.

Quote

QuoteWhy would they need to jump on board? Those that already show the numbers would simply continue to do so.

I was under the impression you were advocating the inclusion of a name and a number. JN has discussed this in greater detail, so either way I'll let it be  :coffee:

I advocated that in the field; I didn't state whether mapmakers should follow suit. As you say, others brought up maps in response to the idea, but I didn't myself advocate for mapmakers to do (or not do) any particular thing.

Quote

QuoteMileage-based, on the contrary, doesn't seem to help the Thruway situation much at all; indeed, it seems to greatly confuse the issue, as we have perpetually discussed over the years. So I don't think it's clear at all that that's the right change for that problem.

To this, I say the system that's both optimal and recommended across the country can work for the thruway. People (and perhaps roadgeeks especially) tend to over-hype this hypothetical. The confusing implications (which, let's be honest, really aren't all that confusing, nor are they likely to come into play) would dissipate both with AET and with time itself.

Yes; again, now we're talking about the merits of the question itself. While I offered a possible solution, I didn't get into whether the question itself was terribly consequential, and I agree with you that it's probably less so than it's typically made out to be.

Quote

QuoteSpeaking more generally, I don't know that I have a strong opinion on what the change should be to, only that a change isn't warranted. There doesn't seem to be any current problem that would be solved by changing the exit identifiers, regardless of what new system might be selected.

There's two problems, to the extent you call them problems:
1] NY does not conform to the MUTCD or the nationwide precedent. As someone who places a very high premium on consistency, that's a major problem.
2] Motorists can't calculate the distance to their exit. At this point, I'll leave that as a standalone statement, presume the implications are self-explanatory, and call it a day  :clap:

Yep, that pretty well sums it up. For [1], I don't place that high value on consistency, so I don't regard this problem to exist to any consequential extent. And for [2], well, actually that's just not true. Motorists have been calculating the distance to their exit in New York and other states for a long time, and they now have the aid of computers to do so. That they need additional help in doing so by converting to mile-based exit numbers is not a statement I agree with.

Quote from: Rothman on February 02, 2018, 09:01:09 AM
No, naming interchanges is not a thing outside of some turnpikes (e.g., Penna Turnpike and I believe the Massachusetts Turnpike named their interchanges on their tickets back in the early 1980s (maybe?)).

Just empirestate and other arguing hypotheticals that will never come to fruition. :D

That's right, it's not a "thing" as it stands today, it's an idea I put out in response to a possible duplication of exit numbers within the same toll system, and by extension, across any system where there is a need to distinguish two or more interchanges.

Though you may be overstating my position to say that I'm arguing for it...if you've followed the discussion, you'll see I haven't clung very tenaciously to the idea. For one thing, interchanges get de facto names as it is, whether or not they also have de jure names. (In light of which, it's also not entirely accurate to say it won't come to fruition–since it's already the case in certain respects, and as you've mentioned, even in some official situations.)

Whenever I think of named exits, this comically redundant example (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1095007,-75.294844,3a,75y,79.22h,91.57t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ss5MK2vGKIr5bNQ0kaBojTw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) is what comes to mind.

As for calculating distance in NY, I can do so on most of the Thruway's main ticket system as well as the occasional exit on I-81 north of Syracuse, I-88, and the southern part of the Northway, but otherwise no, I don't know what exits match up with what mile markers.  And if a roadgeek doesn't know, you can bet the general public doesn't.

QuoteSo it is with converting from sequential to mileage-based.  NYSDOT and NYSTA have the option of forgoing them if they can persuade FHWA not to enforce the distance-based exit numbering requirement.

As I've noted in other threads on milepost exit numbering, that ship has already sailed.  As soon as the Final Rule for the 2009 MUTCD was enacted, New York, Massachusetts, and the other remaining sequential states jointly sent a letter to FHWA requesting a waiver from the new requirement to convert to reference-based numbering.  This request was flatly denied.

Quote from: Rothman on February 02, 2018, 09:01:09 AMNo, naming interchanges is not a thing outside of some turnpikes (e.g., Penna Turnpike and I believe the Massachusetts Turnpike named their interchanges on their tickets back in the early 1980s (maybe?)).

Actually, it is not that uncommon for interchanges on untolled freeways to have names.  Arizona DOT, for example, names interchanges and references them by those names in construction plans sets.  On I-19, for example, the Continental TI (TI = traffic interchange) has Continental Road as the crossroad and gives access to the hamlet of Continental, which gets its name from a World War I-era attempt by the Continental Rubber Company to set up a grove of rubber-producing trees in case the US lost access to its supply of South American rubber.

What is unusual is to reference interchange names on signs, maps, toll tickets, and other customer-facing resources.  Arguably the Pennsylvania Turnpike should no longer be signing interchange names because relatability even to PennDOT's own official state map--let alone third-party commercial mapping--is poor.

Quote from: empirestate on February 02, 2018, 10:27:08 AMWhy would it show "33"? That's its current (sequential) exit number.

It would show "33" precisely because that is its signed exit number and maps undertake to display the exit numbers that are actually signed in the field.

Quote from: empirestate on February 02, 2018, 10:27:08 AMBut in the case where exits don't have numbers–they're named instead–the map would not show "33", it would show "Verona" (or whatever name is chosen).

It would not.  I know of no third-party commercial mapping service that shows interchange names on a single-sheet state map.  The Pennsylvania Turnpike has interchange names and I have never seen those shown in either commercial mapping or on the PennDOT official state map.

Quote from: empirestate on February 02, 2018, 10:27:08 AMIf the map also showed the exit's milepost, it would show "252" for that.

I know of no map that shows a milepost for an exit unless it is signed as the exit number.  For example, in Kansas non-Interstate freeways have milepointing with MUTCD-style mileposts, but because their exits are not numbered, exit mileposts are not shown on maps.

Quote from: empirestate on February 02, 2018, 10:27:08 AM

QuoteThe advantage of distance-based exits is that if you know the number for your desired exit, then you can refer to the last milepost passed to estimate your distance to the exit.  This is not possible with a sequential system.

Of course. And if the exit doesn't have a number, but you know its milepost, the same applies. But that's not in dispute, is it? People keep mentioning this advantage of mile-based numbering, but I'm not sure why–we all agree that it has this advantage.

The problem is simply this:  if all mapping that is easily available to the customer shows just the sequential exit number ("33" in the Verona case), then how is a customer to learn the exit milepost so that he or she can commit it to memory for purposes of distance-to-exit estimation while driving?  The advantage of distance-based exit numbering is that it relieves customers of the obligation to find and check obscure resources to convert a sequential exit number to an exit milepost.

Quote from: empirestate on February 02, 2018, 10:27:08 AMWell, OK, if you like. But now we've hit the point where we seem to really be reaching for both hardships and benefits. The hardship of having to read a map with names on it does not, to me, offset the benefit of them having names. And the benefit of "relatability" does not, to me, offset the undertaking of changing systems. Since this basically boils down to a subjective value judgement, that's probably the end of the line for the possibility of persuading me.

Strictly speaking, I only have to persuade a majority of New Yorkers.  And, frankly, many of the  counterarguments to converting to mileage-based exit numbering that you have raised perplex me, not at a conceptual level but simply because they are raised at all.  How much and what type of highway travelling have you done in states that have mileage-based exit numbering?  There is, after all, such a thing as the "Not Invented Here" syndrome.

I grew up in a state that has had mileage-based exit numbering for as long as I have been able to read guide signs.  (The Kansas Turnpike originally had exit numbers, and these were in sequence for the original exits, but out-of-sequence numbers were assigned to exits added after initial construction, and it is unclear whether exit numbers were signed at all before mileage-based exit numbering was introduced.)  I have also had non-roadgeek friends similarly positioned.  Our first contact with sequential numbering has been generally when crossing the Pennsylvania-Ohio border at a time when Pennsylvania still had sequential exit numbers, and we immediately realized we had lost the ability to use exit numbers for localization by distance.  In every case the reaction has been the same:  why are these (sequential-numbering) states still sticking to an inferior system?

Quote from: empirestate on February 02, 2018, 10:27:08 AMYou've mentioned various advantages and disadvantages of both interchange naming and conversion of numbering systems, and I recognize them and find them not to be persuasive. (And in the case of naming, persuasion isn't necessary, as I can really take it or leave it either way.) If New York, ultimately, is forced to "fold" on this issue, it will likely be due to external pressure from the Federal government, not from any demonstrable necessity.

That may very well be true.  There are nevertheless demonstrable benefits to mileage-based exit numbering versus sequential numbering.

Quote from: empirestate on February 02, 2018, 12:39:34 PM

Quote from: webny99 on February 01, 2018, 10:47:51 PM
You've got a full time job between me and JNWinkler - are you enjoying this yet?  :-P

Well sure; shouldn't I be? :) I'm happy to explain why my view is what it is, and I certainly don't mind your attempt to persuade me to a different one. So far, that's been unsuccessful, but I don't in any way object to it.

Of course - I can tell :-P I didn't expect you to have objections, I was simply noting that you're making two posts to my one.

QuoteOK, that's fine. As I've said, if naming is excessive, then leave it at that... it doesn't represent a problem that badly needs a solution.

I've condensed what you said here, as I agree.

QuoteThat's right–and I realize I haven't been so good at keeping the two strands of discussion clear and separate as we go along. The issue of names goes with the first part: discussion, reference, identification, call it what you like. The issue of whether to convert to a mile-based system (or really, whether to convert at all) goes with the second part: navigation, executing the plan. My suggestion addresses both: give the interchanges names to solve part 1, and indicate their mileposts on signage to solve part 2.

To a certain extent, part 1 happens anyways - people will use whatever they want to refer to and identify the interchange. But I fail to see why, in any context, signage is needed specifically to aid motorists with this. It doesn't ever matter to the motorist what it's called or if it even has a name - the name is just a reference point that happens to be used, that the DOT has no obligation (or reason) to sign.

QuoteNow, what's important about part 2 is this: changing the exit identifier from sequential numbers to mile-based numbers doesn't address part 1. It doesn't do a better job of identifying or referring to the interchanges. If you make the conversion, people will still refer to the "Circleville Interchange" and the "Squaretown Interchange", even if their official identifiers are "Exit 226" and "Exit 226", because there's a need to distinguish the two.

Related to what I said above, the DOT's obligation is totally unrelated to part 1 - however the average person wants to refer to the interchange in non-road settings is up to them. It doesn't matter if people still call them "Circletown" and "Squaretown" - if that's what they've always been called, so be it. The DOT's responsibility with regards to signage is to aid motorists in finding, and ultimately reaching, their destination, and using names or sequential numbers are both inferior ways to achieve this objective. In the case of a double "Exit 226", the exits can still be easily distinguished, even in the case of the thruway, by specifying either a]the general area, or b]the route number.

QuoteAnd while making the conversion does address part 2, it is not necessary to address. In my observation, there exists no problem with navigating from A to B; or, if it does exist, it isn't nearly important enough to justify the undertaking.

I view part 2 as the only part that has to be addressed by the DOT. Whether or not you approve of their handling it in New York state is, by nature, a very subjective matter. I don't believe sequential numbers are any great hindrance to motorists, but using them prevents the benefits of mileage-based numbering from being unleashed. As such, in my mind it's more of an obstacle than a real problem.

QuoteIt's not that I don't realize what the advantage of converting would be, it's that I don't care. You're welcome to rebut that, if you like, but I can't imagine it going very far–you would have to make the case that, in fact, I do care, and that of course is simply false. :)

If you don't care, that's fine; you have no reason to. But NYSDOT itself, as the true responsible party here, should definitely care enough to take the initiative; both to improve motorist guidance and to comply with the MUTCD.

QuoteHere, you seem to be arguing the question itself out of existence. We are specifically concerned with the Thruway system in this thread, and by extension, any hypothetical similar scenario. It's as if I asked the question, "How do you cross a river that has no bridge?" and you answered, "It doesn't matter, because most rivers have bridges."

No, my answer is, "you're dreaming - you missed the bridge sitting right before your eyes"  :-P The fact that the bridge is more obscure than most (hidden by trees, perhaps?) is not really relevant, because the bridge is most definitely there. Maybe there's just a bit more groundwork that needs to be done before it's ready for use, but that's not by any means a show-stopper.
Also, this thread is not specific to the thruway, but the state as a whole. Addressing a re-numbering of the thruway presents a unique set of challenges; challenges that appear larger-than-life, that are insignificant in the big picture, and that can be fairly easily overcome.

Quote

Quote
But therein lies my point; simply by using a number instead of a name, voila! you now know the approximate location. That's still not the function of the number, but it's very handy to have that additional information built right in.

But why does it have to be "instead"? OK–clutter, too much information, etc. But still, whether or not you choose to call the interchange "Circleville", people will call it "Circleville" anyway, when they need to distinguish it from "Squaretown". And when they need to know what milepost it's at, they'll say "226".

There's an off chance they'll say "226". More likely, you get looked at like you have three heads, and get a guesstimate - "200?"
And again, there really aren't that many cases where they need to distinguish - and if they do, there are other means, such as the route number or general area. 

QuoteI guess what I'm saying is, I get your point, but I don't see how it applies. For part 1 (naming), why does being able to know the distance mean you can't also identify the interchange?

It doesn't, but there's no reason for signage to identify the interchange, so why should it?

QuoteAnd for the second part (navigation), while the point does apply, you have to not only explain the benefit, but also show that it's important enough to justify the conversion. My view is that it isn't worth it, and since that's a subjective value judgement, I'm not sure how you can convince me otherwise, at least not without adding some new information.

You tend to view conformance as less of an issue than me. Because of this, I'll probably never convince you that it's worth the cost. I personally think it's important enough to justify the change, but a good chunk of that is just me being a roadgeek, and being nitpicky, and having an appreciation for consistency.

Quote

Quote
There's two problems, to the extent you call them problems:
1] NY does not conform to the MUTCD or the nationwide precedent. As someone who places a very high premium on consistency, that's a major problem.
2] Motorists can't calculate the distance to their exit. At this point, I'll leave that as a standalone statement, presume the implications are self-explanatory, and call it a day  :clap:

Yep, that pretty well sums it up. For [1], I don't place that high value on consistency, so I don't regard this problem to exist to any consequential extent. And for [2], well, actually that's just not true. Motorists have been calculating the distance to their exit in New York and other states for a long time, and they now have the aid of computers to do so. That they need additional help in doing so by converting to mile-based exit numbers is not a statement I agree with.

Motorists shouldn't need additional help to find their destination, but not everyone has the knowledge that you and I have. It's only acceptable that the DOT should provide that additional information when possible (and when it doesn't hinder the message being conveyed - which it doesn't, as we've established). Though it may not be true in either of our cases specifically, it's not incorrect to say the vast majority of motorists can't calculate the distance to their exit on their own based on head knowledge, nor can they do so with the combination of head knowledge and a sequential number.

And that concludes Round 3 :awesomeface:

I don't know how far it is between Exit 4 and Exit 11A on the Mass Pike. Should I have to remember a milepost for every single exit number?

Quote from: 1 on February 02, 2018, 04:05:36 PM
I don't know how far it is between Exit 4 and Exit 11A on the Mass Pike. Should I have to remember a milepost for every single exit number?

Just get a GPS navigator.

Quote from: 1 on February 02, 2018, 04:05:36 PM
I don't know how far it is between Exit 4 and Exit 11A on the Mass Pike. Should I have to remember a milepost for every single exit number?

Exit 2 and Exit 3 are 30 miles apart, the 7th longest gap between exits on an expressway in the US and the 5th longest on the Interstate system. Somerset-Bedford is the only longer gap in this part of the country (4th longest, ~35.5 miles). Exit 2 is 10 miles inside the state. That's not something most infrequent travelers have memorized. Hell, Exits 2 and 3 is THE prime example of why the Northeast needs distance-based numbers.

Not that I am against mile based exits - but there is a clear sign that indicates how far it is to the next interchange. There is also a service plaza in between. It's not as if people are going to starve.

Quote from: cl94 on February 02, 2018, 04:27:46 PM

Quote from: 1 on February 02, 2018, 04:05:36 PM
I don't know how far it is between Exit 4 and Exit 11A on the Mass Pike. Should I have to remember a milepost for every single exit number?

Exit 2 and Exit 3 are 30 miles apart, the 7th longest gap between exits on an expressway in the US and the 5th longest on the Interstate system. Somerset-Bedford is the only longer gap in this part of the country (4th longest, ~35.5 miles). Exit 2 is 10 miles inside the state. That's not something most infrequent travelers have memorized. Hell, Exits 2 and 3 is THE prime example of why the Northeast needs distance-based numbers.

Interestingly enough, you still need a "next exit XX" sign or a good look at the map to find out where the next exit is. 
Because,  considering  our example of exit 3 being 30 miles from exit 2  being a problem: in case of renumbered highway, next exit past exit would-be-12 is possibly exit 15 or - equally possibly - exit 42. There is no clear way of knowing that without additional information, and difference between "next exit XX miles" and "next exit YY"  signs is not that great.
So no real difference in terms of relayed message in this case - unless  driver needs that specific exit  :spin:
Don't get lost in your preset agenda, look at actionable items!

Quote from: J N Winkler on February 02, 2018, 01:08:06 PM
It would show "33" precisely because that is its signed exit number and maps undertake to display the exit numbers that are actually signed in the field.

What? No, no...we're explicitly talking about a case where the exit has no number. Let me see if I can reconstruct the quote sequence fully:

Quote from: J N Winkler on February 02, 2018, 01:08:06 PM

Quote from: empirestate on February 02, 2018, 10:27:08 AM

Quote from: J N Winkler on February 01, 2018, 07:51:38 PM

Quote from: empirestate on February 01, 2018, 04:48:38 PM

Quote from: J N Winkler on February 01, 2018, 01:08:08 PM

Quote from: empirestate on February 01, 2018, 11:32:45 AMBut what if the exits don't have numbers? Then there's no need to relate anything–the exit's milepost is its milepost, one and the same.

Mileage-based exits still need to be explicitly signed for map relatability, since the vast majority of maps show exit numbers but not mileposts, and mileposts are often hard to find even in online mapping services that offer driver's-eye photography of the physical roadway (like StreetView).

I'm confused about why that would be a problem. In a mile-based system, the exit's identifier is the same as its milepost; the map just shows that number, whatever it is. If the exit's identifier were not its milepost, its milepost would still be the same and the map would still show that same number. And if the identifier is a name, I suppose the map would also show the name; and you discuss that below.

Nope.  In the Verona example, the map would show "33" instead of "252."  I would then have to refer to a separate resource (such as the Thruway cross-reference) to get the milepost.

Why would it show "33"? That's its current (sequential) exit number.

It would show "33" precisely because that is its signed exit number and maps undertake to display the exit numbers that are actually signed in the field.

So you see, "33" isn't its signed exit number, because it has no exit number, and no exit number is signed in the field. There'd be no reason for a map to display "33". What the exit does have is a milepost; in this case 252. So that's what would display on the map. (The exit may or may not also have a name, which may or may not also be displayed on the map.)

Quote

Quote from: empirestate on February 02, 2018, 10:27:08 AMBut in the case where exits don't have numbers–they're named instead–the map would not show "33", it would show "Verona" (or whatever name is chosen).

It would not.  I know of no third-party commercial mapping service that shows interchange names on a single-sheet state map.  The Pennsylvania Turnpike has interchange names and I have never seen those shown in either commercial mapping or on the PennDOT official state map.

Well, you can't say it would not–it's a hypothetical and it's in the future. You can't really predict with certainty what mapmakers would do based on what they do today. But sure, let's say they do not. The point remains, they wouldn't show "33" either. If they don't show the name, the only thing left to display is the milepost; so, "252".

Quote

Quote from: empirestate on February 02, 2018, 10:27:08 AMIf the map also showed the exit's milepost, it would show "252" for that.

I know of no map that shows a milepost for an exit unless it is signed as the exit number.  For example, in Kansas non-Interstate freeways have milepointing with MUTCD-style mileposts, but because their exits are not numbered, exit mileposts are not shown on maps.

I don't know of one either, but see above. But again, sure, let's say this mapmaker decides not to show names or mileposts: in that case, it's just blank. It's definitely not "33".

Quote

Quote from: empirestate on February 02, 2018, 10:27:08 AM

QuoteThe advantage of distance-based exits is that if you know the number for your desired exit, then you can refer to the last milepost passed to estimate your distance to the exit.  This is not possible with a sequential system.

Of course. And if the exit doesn't have a number, but you know its milepost, the same applies. But that's not in dispute, is it? People keep mentioning this advantage of mile-based numbering, but I'm not sure why–we all agree that it has this advantage.

The problem is simply this:  if all mapping that is easily available to the customer shows just the sequential exit number ("33" in the Verona case), then how is a customer to learn the exit milepost so that he or she can commit it to memory for purposes of distance-to-exit estimation while driving?  The advantage of distance-based exit numbering is that it relieves customers of the obligation to find and check obscure resources to convert a sequential exit number to an exit milepost.

Right, but again, we both already know that advantage exists. What you have not persuaded me of is that it's worth converting a system in order to take this advantage. You don't need to inform me what the benefit is, you need to convince me that it's consequential.

QuoteStrictly speaking, I only have to persuade a majority of New Yorkers.

A majority of New Yorkers, why? Nobody but me has put forth this viewpoint, and a couple of you decided to rebut it; so, there's nobody to persuade but me. And, certainly, you don't have to persuade me–I'm perfectly content to keep my existing viewpoint. But since you took the initiative, I'm happy to participate. (However, please don't let it get to the point where it frustrates you–I have no interest in being combative, but I do want to answer any questions you have as long as you're still unclear what my view is, or why.)

QuoteAnd, frankly, many of the  counterarguments to converting to mileage-based exit numbering that you have raised perplex me, not at a conceptual level but simply because they are raised at all.  How much and what type of highway travelling have you done in states that have mileage-based exit numbering?

Extensive, and in every state save one. So–again–I'm not unaware of the advantage of mile-based numbering, and I'm far from unaccustomed to using it. But why should it follow that it needs to be adopted in my state, or any other? Why must anyone who has experienced mile-based numbering insist on it everywhere?

QuoteIn every case the reaction has been the same:  why are these (sequential-numbering) states still sticking to an inferior system?

Ah, but one of those cases was not me. Had it been, you'd have gotten a different reaction, as you've now been reading over these few pages.

QuoteThat may very well be true.  There are nevertheless demonstrable benefits to mileage-based exit numbering versus sequential numbering.

Yes, there are. And I nevertheless do not believe they warrant a conversion in New York. Unless there's new information I haven't yet considered, I just don't know what more there is to it than that.

Quote from: webny99 on February 02, 2018, 04:00:07 PM

Quote from: empirestate on February 02, 2018, 12:39:34 PM

Quote from: webny99 on February 01, 2018, 10:47:51 PM
You've got a full time job between me and JNWinkler - are you enjoying this yet?  :-P

Well sure; shouldn't I be? :) I'm happy to explain why my view is what it is, and I certainly don't mind your attempt to persuade me to a different one. So far, that's been unsuccessful, but I don't in any way object to it.

Of course - I can tell :-P I didn't expect you to have objections, I was simply noting that you're making two posts to my one.

Indeed; my work is certainly cut out for me. :-)

Quote

QuoteOK, that's fine. As I've said, if naming is excessive, then leave it at that... it doesn't represent a problem that badly needs a solution.

I've condensed what you said here, as I agree.

OK–although you do have a few words remaining on the subject: ;-)

QuoteTo a certain extent, part 1 happens anyways - people will use whatever they want to refer to and identify the interchange. But I fail to see why, in any context, signage is needed specifically to aid motorists with this. It doesn't ever matter to the motorist what it's called or if it even has a name - the name is just a reference point that happens to be used, that the DOT has no obligation (or reason) to sign.

The situation that this would address is the aforementioned scenario, where duplicate interchange numbers arise along a single road or facility. Whether you feel that's "needed" or whether it "matters" is akin to my feeling of whether an exit numbering conversion is "needed" or whether it "matters" that motorists can't judge distance from the exit number alone.

QuoteRelated to what I said above, the DOT's obligation is totally unrelated to part 1 - however the average person wants to refer to the interchange in non-road settings is up to them. It doesn't matter if people still call them "Circletown" and "Squaretown" - if that's what they've always been called, so be it. The DOT's responsibility with regards to signage is to aid motorists in finding, and ultimately reaching, their destination, and using names or sequential numbers are both inferior ways to achieve this objective. In the case of a double "Exit 226", the exits can still be easily distinguished, even in the case of the thruway, by specifying either a]the general area, or b]the route number.

Both parts have to do with signing and reference systems that apply to the roads overall, so they're both part of the DOT's responsibility–its area of concern. The question is whether they ought to take action on either part. You feel that they needn't address part 1, and I'm easily persuaded to accept that. Where we differ is that I feel the same about part 2 as you do about part 1: there's an action that could be taken within the DOT's bailiwick, but I feel it's unwarranted, whereas you feel it is warranted.

And yes, the double 226's would be addressed by people using the "common-law" names, in the absence of official ones.

QuoteI view part 2 as the only part that has to be addressed by the DOT. Whether or not you approve of their handling it in New York state is, by nature, a very subjective matter. I don't believe sequential numbers are any great hindrance to motorists, but using them prevents the benefits of mileage-based numbering from being unleashed. As such, in my mind it's more of an obstacle than a real problem.

We're of essentially the same mindset here. I agree that mile-based numbers would not be a hindrance; if New York had always had them, or if they were suddenly switched over magically and at no expense, I wouldn't consider it an injustice in any way.

QuoteIf you don't care, that's fine; you have no reason to. But NYSDOT itself, as the true responsible party here, should definitely care enough to take the initiative; both to improve motorist guidance and to comply with the MUTCD.

It is certainly NYSDOT's business and duty to consider the issue, and certainly they should care about handling the issues on their plate. From the information I have now, I disagree that they should take any action from a purpose-and-need standpoint. I do recognize that they may need to take action for bureaucratic reasons.

QuoteAlso, this thread is not specific to the thruway, but the state as a whole. Addressing a re-numbering of the thruway presents a unique set of challenges; challenges that appear larger-than-life, that are insignificant in the big picture, and that can be fairly easily overcome.

Not this entire thread (i.e., topic)–just this sub-thread regarding the renumbering of the Thruway and the confusion that could arise. My suggestion of names was specifically in response to that. And I do agree with you that the volume of discussion we've had about that over the years belies the relative unimportance of the subject. (I feel the same about Breezewood, as I mentioned over in that discussion.)

Quote

QuoteI guess what I'm saying is, I get your point, but I don't see how it applies. For part 1 (naming), why does being able to know the distance mean you can't also identify the interchange?

It doesn't, but there's no reason for signage to identify the interchange, so why should it?

OK, yeah, it's a different question. And we both accept that, perhaps, no, it should not.

QuoteYou tend to view conformance as less of an issue than me. Because of this, I'll probably never convince you that it's worth the cost. I personally think it's important enough to justify the change, but a good chunk of that is just me being a roadgeek, and being nitpicky, and having an appreciation for consistency.

Oh, I definitely appreciate those qualities–in fact, I'm a bit surprised at myself for being willing to accept deviations from orderly systems, such as sequential numbering and Breezewood. (I'm less accepting of Interstate numbering violations, but not debilitatingly so.) But what I've realized over the years is that conformity is lifeless without variation. Like yin without yang, a rule without exception is an incomplete cosmos.

QuoteMotorists shouldn't need additional help to find their destination, but not everyone has the knowledge that you and I have. It's only acceptable that the DOT should provide that additional information when possible (and when it doesn't hinder the message being conveyed - which it doesn't, as we've established). Though it may not be true in either of our cases specifically, it's not incorrect to say the vast majority of motorists can't calculate the distance to their exit on their own based on head knowledge, nor can they do so with the combination of head knowledge and a sequential number.

All of this I consider to be adequately addressed by modern navigation systems.

QuoteAnd that concludes Round 3 :awesomeface:

I feel like that pretty much wraps up the whole thing, really! Is there any outstanding point that lacks clarity? :clap:

Quote from: empirestate on February 02, 2018, 08:58:12 PM

QuoteAnd that concludes Round 3 :awesomeface:

I feel like that pretty much wraps up the whole thing, really! Is there any outstanding point that lacks clarity? :clap:

We're definitely getting there  ;-) Three things outstanding;

Quote1] All of this I consider to be adequately addressed by modern navigation systems.

GPS is "new" in relative terms, and not used universally. I'm of the belief that roads should be signed such that motorists can reach their destination without GPS technology. So do say more...

2] You declined to comment on a couple of things from my last post; namely, my extension of your bridge analogy (which I may have taken overboard [figuratively, of course] ), and my point that few motorists are going to know the milepost of any given exit off-hand.
As such, I can only assume that you fully concede these points.

Quote from: 1 on February 02, 2018, 04:05:36 PM
3] I don't know how far it is between Exit 4 and Exit 11A on the Mass Pike. Should I have to remember a milepost for every single exit number?

I'd be interested in your response to this comment from 1 upthread. I pre-emptively render all references to GPS irrelevant  :-P

And I think that's it from me  :thumbsup:

We aren't going for points here, so there is no reason that one has to "concede" any point. There are points to be made for both mile-based and sequential-based exit numbers, although I lean heavily towards the former and not the latter.

Some of these renumbering schemes are almost comical, though. Rhode Island is converting their exits to one based on mileage and because the state is so small, there isn't a huge difference in the sequential and mile numbers. And they are adding exit numbers to previously unnumbered routes, even when they are essentially stubs.

Quote from: empirestate on February 02, 2018, 08:16:44 PM

Quote from: J N Winkler on February 02, 2018, 01:08:06 PM
It would show "33" precisely because that is its signed exit number and maps undertake to display the exit numbers that are actually signed in the field.

What? No, no...we're explicitly talking about a case where the exit has no number. Let me see if I can reconstruct the quote sequence fully:

(Omitted for brevity)

So you see, "33" isn't its signed exit number, because it has no exit number, and no exit number is signed in the field. There'd be no reason for a map to display "33". What the exit does have is a milepost; in this case 252. So that's what would display on the map. (The exit may or may not also have a name, which may or may not also be displayed on the map.)

If the exit really has no number, then we are dealing with a situation comparable to that existing in California before 2002, or in the holdout states that still don't number exits on non-Interstate freeways.  The argument for years in California was that exit numbers were not needed because the cross street was enough (counterargument:  there were and still are freeways where a given cross street repeats at different interchanges).  Here in Kansas, I find that lack of exit numbering on non-Interstates leads to unhandy circumlocutions when trying to give directions to a specific exit in a way that allows a stranger driver to gauge his or her progress toward it.

Are you arguing that the status quo should be maintained because most of the benefit of mileage-based exit numbering can be secured by simply publicizing the milepost of each exit on paper maps and in mapping services without changing existing posted sequential exit numbers or posting exit numbers on roads that don't already have them?  If you are, then I would have to disagree, because relatability between mileposts on a map and mileposts in the field is a poor second best to relatability between a mileage-based exit number on a map and the same exit number on tabs secured to the signs actually pertaining to that exit.  Unlike the case with mileposts, which appear just once in a given mile, an exit tab on each large panel sign helps cue a driver looking to take that particular exit.  (The lack of this cueing function caused problems in California back when Caltrans was still operating under a policy that considered an exit number to be signed if it appeared on just one sign in the exit signing sequence, including the gore sign.)  Also, there may be multiple exits in the same mile, mileposts may be absent or obscured by large trucks or bad weather, etc.

Quote from: empirestate on February 02, 2018, 08:16:44 PMOf course. And if the exit doesn't have a number, but you know its milepost, the same applies. But that's not in dispute, is it? People keep mentioning this advantage of mile-based numbering, but I'm not sure why–we all agree that it has this advantage.

With all the palaver about interchange names and identifying exits by milepost without actually signing them using exit numbers based on those mileposts, it was unclear to me that there was agreement on this point.  Moving on!

Quote from: empirestate on February 02, 2018, 08:16:44 PMExtensive, and in every state save one. So–again–I'm not unaware of the advantage of mile-based numbering, and I'm far from unaccustomed to using it. But why should it follow that it needs to be adopted in my state, or any other? Why must anyone who has experienced mile-based numbering insist on it everywhere?

The advantages to navigation (independent of third-party aids such as GPS devices, which BTW are not fully accessible to deaf drivers behind the wheel) pay out in a steady stream over time, while the cost of converting from an existing system is usually a one-time expenditure.  This is why it is usually a technocratic decision to change from sequential to mile-based exit numbering systems and also to eliminate dual-posting ("Mile"/"Exit") systems.  So to object to the change, or to argue for its indefinite postponement in a particular jurisdiction, is effectively to apply a high time preference rate of discount.  If we continue the debate any further, it is more likely to be profitable if we agree in advance on a discount rate, and on ways to value the benefit to motorists, roadside businesses, etc. that accrue from the change.

On the basis of my own experience with exit numbering policy not just in the US but overseas, I will observe that New York has weaker excuses than most for not changing over on the Thruway and Northway.  They are based essentially on failure of route designations to line up with administrative control in such a way that both mileage-based exit numbering and the milepointing on which it is based can be 100% in compliance with the current MUTCD.  But the Thruway already has milepointing which could be used for mileage-based exit numbering if a solution not 100% compliant was deemed acceptable, in much the same way milepointing on the Kansas Turnpike overrides what would otherwise be provided on I-335 (should start at 0, starts at 127), I-470 (jumps from 6 to 177), and I-70 (jumps down from 366 to 182, then jumps back from 224 up to 410).

A country like Britain that sticks to sequential numbering has more of an excuse since there is no underlying milepointing that is fit for the purpose of distance-based exit numbering.  Carriageways are kilometerpointed separately while distance to an upcoming exit is given in miles, location reference signs are poorly designed for legibility and are more likely to be obscured by large trucks, etc.

I can't even keep up with the debate anymore. Someone needs to make a Cliff notes of this because it will take an hour to read the last couple of pages...

Quote from: Buffaboy on February 03, 2018, 04:41:49 AM
I can't even keep up with the debate anymore. Someone needs to make a Cliff notes of this because it will take an hour to read the last couple of pages...

Let me summarize it for you:

Mile-based exit numbering is the most logical system.

I may have gotten a slight bias, but I think it's a pretty good boil down.

Quote from: seicer on February 02, 2018, 11:27:17 PM
We aren't going for points here, so there is no reason that one has to "concede" any point.

I'm referring to a "point" in this case as an argument, not a unit of scoring. Obviously, empirestate has no obligation to concede my aforementioned points.

Quote from: Buffaboy on February 03, 2018, 04:41:49 AM
I can't even keep up with the debate anymore. Someone needs to make a Cliff notes of this because it will take an hour to read the last couple of pages...

MNHighwayMan said it pretty well ;-)
Empirestate is of the belief that it is not worth the cost for NYS convert to mileage-based exit numbers. JNWinkler and myself have been (individually, so far) attempting to understand and sufficiently dispel his concerns.
Many other details and smaller side-arguments have come into it, and my role in the whole thing is nearing conclusion, but I think that's the jist of it  :-P

Quote from: webny99 on February 02, 2018, 10:46:45 PM
We're definitely getting there  ;-) Three things outstanding;

Quote1] All of this I consider to be adequately addressed by modern navigation systems.

GPS is "new" in relative terms, and not used universally. I'm of the belief that roads should be signed such that motorists can reach their destination without GPS technology. So do say more...

I'm of the belief that the technology is widespread enough that it considerably offsets the benefit of mile-based numbering, because it offers the same capability. Even before GPS systems, mapmakers have always included mileages on their maps, and even at that time I'm not sure I would find a conversion warranted. Now that we do have GPS systems, their relative benefit is that much reduced and so I'm that much more sure of my conviction.

Quote2] You declined to comment on a couple of things from my last post; namely, my extension of your bridge analogy (which I may have taken overboard [figuratively, of course] ), and my point that few motorists are going to know the milepost of any given exit off-hand.
As such, I can only assume that you fully concede these points.

An incorrect assumption, as you've no doubt predicted. ;-)

The bridge analogy I didn't address because I took it to stem from your misunderstanding that I was referring to the entire subject of exit numbering systems, rather than the sub-discussion about the Thruway. Your other point, about motorists not knowing the mileage of exits offhand, I skipped because I have nothing to add. It's true, of course, and that fact is addressed by various things like maps, GPS systems, and mile-based signage. As I've said pretty thoroughly, I don't find this persuasive to warrant a conversion.

Quote

Quote from: 1 on February 02, 2018, 04:05:36 PM
3] I don't know how far it is between Exit 4 and Exit 11A on the Mass Pike. Should I have to remember a milepost for every single exit number?

I'd be interested in your response to this comment from 1 upthread.

Sure thing: No, you should not.

QuoteAnd I think that's it from me  :thumbsup:

OK, [phew]! Just one more to go. :)

Quote from: Buffaboy on February 03, 2018, 04:41:49 AM
I can't even keep up with the debate anymore. Someone needs to make a Cliff notes of this because it will take an hour to read the last couple of pages...

I can easily sum up my side of it:
1. Mileage-based numbering has certain advantages related to ease of navigation, calculating distances, etc. These advantages are not of sufficient value to warrant a wholesale conversion of an existing sequential numbering system, such as in New York. Various attempts to persuade me otherwise (by no means limited to this thread, I might add) have so far been unsuccessful.

2. Naming interchanges, rather than numbering them, would be a possible way to uniquely identify them in cases where a numbering system might lead to duplication. However, the need for such a solution appears to be limited enough, and the implementation of it to carry enough disadvantages (of information clutter, primarily), that it doesn't appear worthy of much serious consideration.

Quote from: empirestate on February 03, 2018, 09:18:36 AMI'm of the belief that the technology is widespread enough that it considerably offsets the benefit of mile-based numbering, because it offers the same capability. Even before GPS systems, mapmakers have always included mileages on their maps, and even at that time I'm not sure I would find a conversion warranted. Now that we do have GPS systems, their relative benefit is that much reduced and so I'm that much more sure of my conviction.

1] But in the case of someone without GPS, someone unable to use it, or a GPS failure, doesn't it still make sense for a certain degree of redundance/reinforcement on signage?
2] GPS does not offset the benefits, it simply makes them less noticed (though not less valuable) on average. When those benefits are needed, such as in any off the scenarios above, these benefits are still extremely valuable.

Quote

QuoteAs such, I can only assume that you fully concede these points.

An incorrect assumption, as you've no doubt predicted. ;-)

Indeed  :-P

QuoteThe bridge analogy I didn't address because I took it to stem from your misunderstanding that I was referring to the entire subject of exit numbering systems, rather than the sub-discussion about the Thruway.

My point was that mileage-based numbering can work just fine for the thruway - I wasn't beating around the bush like you made it seem in your analogy - I was touting mileage-based as an acceptable solution for the thruway specifically.

QuoteYour other point, about motorists not knowing the mileage of exits offhand, I skipped because I have nothing to add. It's true, of course, and that fact is addressed by various things like maps, GPS systems, and mile-based signage. As I've said pretty thoroughly, I don't find this persuasive to warrant a conversion.

My final question is this; do you think a conversion is inevitable? If so, why postpone it, thereby (unnecessarily) hindering the benefits from being unleashed?

Quote

Quote

Quote from: 1 on February 02, 2018, 04:05:36 PM
3] I don't know how far it is between Exit 4 and Exit 11A on the Mass Pike. Should I have to remember a milepost for every single exit number?

I'd be interested in your response to this comment from 1 upthread.

Sure thing: No, you should not.

Right; so as long as you realize that numbering by mile immediately eliminates the potential for you having to do so, then we're all clear  :thumbsup:

Quote from: webny99 on February 03, 2018, 12:41:28 PM

Quote

Quote

Quote from: 1 on February 02, 2018, 04:05:36 PM
3] I don't know how far it is between Exit 4 and Exit 11A on the Mass Pike. Should I have to remember a milepost for every single exit number?

I'd be interested in your response to this comment from 1 upthread.

Sure thing: No, you should not.

Right; so as long as you realize that numbering by mile immediately eliminates the potential for you having to do so, then we're all clear  :thumbsup:

Should I remember a list of exits once they are mile-based?

EDIT:

Quote from: Alps on February 03, 2018, 12:21:06 PM
The pages of long discussion of exit numbering have been moved to https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=22198.0 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=22198.0).

:thumbsup: Good idea; my response below belongs there, then. My browser had not yet refreshed to show the split while I was composing it.

---

Quote from: J N Winkler on February 03, 2018, 12:51:58 AM
If the exit really has no number, then we are dealing with a situation comparable to that existing in California before 2002, or in the holdout states that still don't number exits on non-Interstate freeways.  The argument for years in California was that exit numbers were not needed because the cross street was enough (counterargument:  there were and still are freeways where a given cross street repeats at different interchanges).

The difference with California was that the interchanges didn't have numbers, AND the mileposts weren't advertised. In our Verona example, the exit isn't numbered (it's named instead, possibly), but the milepost IS advertised.

QuoteAre you arguing that the status quo should be maintained because most of the benefit of mileage-based exit numbering can be secured by simply publicizing the milepost of each exit on paper maps and in mapping services without changing existing posted sequential exit numbers or posting exit numbers on roads that don't already have them?

In the Verona example? No, I'm arguing that identifying the interchange by name, rather than by number, is a more precise way to refer to it uniquely than either identifying it by sequential number (the status quo), or identifying it by its milepost–because either of the latter might be duplicated between different facilities, or even (in the case of the Thruway) within the same facility.

Speaking in general (outside of the Verona example), I'm arguing something similar to that, but not exactly. I'm arguing that part of the benefit of mile-based numbering (probably most, but at least part) is already secured by existing methods of showing point-to-point and/or cumulative distances on maps, as well as (and to a much greater extent) by using modern navigation systems. Whatever remaining benefit is not adequately secured by these methods is not significant enough to warrant any conversion on its own merit.

Quote

Quote from: empirestate on February 02, 2018, 08:16:44 PMOf course. And if the exit doesn't have a number, but you know its milepost, the same applies. But that's not in dispute, is it? People keep mentioning this advantage of mile-based numbering, but I'm not sure why–we all agree that it has this advantage.

With all the palaver about interchange names and identifying exits by milepost without actually signing them using exit numbers based on those mileposts, it was unclear to me that there was agreement on this point.  Moving on!

Ah–yes, sorry. As I mentioned, I realize I wasn't entirely clear in keeping those two threads separate.

QuoteThe advantages to navigation (independent of third-party aids such as GPS devices, which BTW are not fully accessible to deaf drivers behind the wheel) pay out in a steady stream over time, while the cost of converting from an existing system is usually a one-time expenditure.  This is why it is usually a technocratic decision to change from sequential to mile-based exit numbering systems and also to eliminate dual-posting ("Mile"/"Exit") systems.  So to object to the change, or to argue for its indefinite postponement in a particular jurisdiction, is effectively to apply a high time preference rate of discount.  If we continue the debate any further, it is more likely to be profitable if we agree in advance on a discount rate, and on ways to value the benefit to motorists, roadside businesses, etc. that accrue from the change.

And there's the rub–there's no easy way to determine the value, and probably just as many ways of calculating it to support a conversion as to oppose one. I'm not sure whether or how much research has gone into this, but presumably if a firm answer had been found, somebody would have cited it by now. So we just come back to the fact that, since I don't perceive a problem, I don't see the need even to study possible solutions.

QuoteOn the basis of my own experience with exit numbering policy not just in the US but overseas, I will observe that New York has weaker excuses than most for not changing over on the Thruway and Northway.  They are based essentially on failure of route designations to line up with administrative control in such a way that both mileage-based exit numbering and the milepointing on which it is based can be 100% in compliance with the current MUTCD.  But the Thruway already has milepointing which could be used for mileage-based exit numbering if a solution not 100% compliant was deemed acceptable, in much the same way milepointing on the Kansas Turnpike overrides what would otherwise be provided on I-335 (should start at 0, starts at 127), I-470 (jumps from 6 to 177), and I-70 (jumps down from 366 to 182, then jumps back from 224 up to 410).

I agree that solving the Thruway problem will be much easier than the common wisdom seems to suggest. But what's pertinent to my viewpoint isn't that the excuses for not changing are weak, it's that the excuses for changing are weak. To put it even more fundamentally than that, the whole issue just plain ain't that important.

Quote from: webny99 on February 03, 2018, 12:41:28 PM
1] But in the case of someone without GPS, someone unable to use it, or a GPS failure, doesn't it still make sense for a certain degree of redundance/reinforcement on signage?

Sure, just not a large enough amount of sense to justify a deliberate conversion.

Quote2] GPS does not offset the benefits, it simply makes them less noticed (though not less valuable) on average.

Perhaps "obviate" is a better word than "offset".

Quote

QuoteThe bridge analogy I didn't address because I took it to stem from your misunderstanding that I was referring to the entire subject of exit numbering systems, rather than the sub-discussion about the Thruway.

My point was that mileage-based numbering can work just fine for the thruway - I wasn't beating around the bush like you made it seem in your analogy - I was touting mileage-based as an acceptable solution for the thruway specifically.

OK. Then, in the bridge analogy, I think your viewpoint would be, "You don't need to get across the river."

QuoteMy final question is this; do you think a conversion is inevitable? If so, why postpone it, thereby (unnecessarily) hindering the benefits from being unleashed?

I'm not sure. Certainly, the current federal administration is advocating for the reduction of oversight and regulation, while also championing large-scale infrastructure investments. So, on the one hand, if the federal government gets out of the business of caring whether NY's exits are numbered correctly, the state will feel no need to change. On the other hand, if such a large infrastructure improvement happens in New York that it requires the replacement of all highway signs anyway, then the question of whether to convert solely for its own sake goes away. So, no, I guess I can't immediately foresee that a conversion is inevitable.

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote from: 1 on February 02, 2018, 04:05:36 PM
3] I don't know how far it is between Exit 4 and Exit 11A on the Mass Pike. Should I have to remember a milepost for every single exit number?

I'd be interested in your response to this comment from 1 upthread.

Sure thing: No, you should not.

Right; so as long as you realize that numbering by mile immediately eliminates the potential for you having to do so, then we're all clear  :thumbsup:

Good heavens, I should hope that's clear by now! I really don't think anybody's interested in reading any more of these huge posts where somebody informs me what the advantage is, and I remind them yet again that I already know what it is and that I don't find it persuasive. :-D

Quote from: empirestate on February 03, 2018, 05:29:24 PM
OK. Then, in the bridge analogy, I think your viewpoint would be, "You don't need to get across the river."

My take is that saying "you don't need to get across the river" is saying you don't need exit numbers at all. But that's no longer relevant, and pretty much moot at this point.

Quote

QuoteMy final question is this; do you think a conversion is inevitable? If so, why postpone it, thereby (unnecessarily) hindering the benefits from being unleashed?

I'm not sure. Certainly, the current federal administration is advocating for the reduction of oversight and regulation, while also championing large-scale infrastructure investments. So, on the one hand, if the federal government gets out of the business of caring whether NY's exits are numbered correctly, the state will feel no need to change. On the other hand, if such a large infrastructure improvement happens in New York that it requires the replacement of all highway signs anyway, then the question of whether to convert solely for its own sake goes away. So, no, I guess I can't immediately foresee that a conversion is inevitable.

OK, so that's, more or less, the end of the road for me trying to persuade you a renumbering for it's own sake would be worth it. Had you been affirmative, I could have gone down the route I alluded to above  ;-)
I should add that the state not feeling the need to change would be a less-than-ideal, in fact probably the worst situation.

Quote

Quote
Right; so as long as you realize that numbering by mile immediately eliminates the potential for you having to do so, then we're all clear  :thumbsup:

Good heavens, I should hope that's clear by now! I really don't think anybody's interested in reading any more of these huge posts where somebody informs me what the advantage is, and I remind them yet again that I already know what it is and that I don't find it persuasive. :-D

Firstly, I should note my statement cannot also be applied to maps or the likes; the immediacy and accuracy is unique to mileage-based numbers.
Secondly, I can't honestly say I understand exactly why you think a conversion is unjustified; unless you're considering solely your own case and not that of the motoring population at large. It's a one-time expense; not worth postponing. If it is to be done at all, the sooner the better. Permit me to ask outright; do you agree with that final statement?

Quote from: kalvado on February 03, 2018, 01:05:14 PM

Quote from: webny99 on February 03, 2018, 12:41:28 PM

Quote

Quote

Quote from: 1 on February 02, 2018, 04:05:36 PM
3] I don't know how far it is between Exit 4 and Exit 11A on the Mass Pike. Should I have to remember a milepost for every single exit number?

I'd be interested in your response to this comment from 1 upthread.

Sure thing: No, you should not.

Right; so as long as you realize that numbering by mile immediately eliminates the potential for you having to do so, then we're all clear  :thumbsup:

Should I remember a list of exits once they are mile-based?

Sure, if you like. Theres no real need to do so, but some of us roadgeeks, myself included, are apt to do so anyways  :-P

Quote from: webny99 on February 03, 2018, 06:20:11 PM

Quote from: kalvado on February 03, 2018, 01:05:14 PM

Quote from: webny99 on February 03, 2018, 12:41:28 PM

Quote

Quote

Quote from: 1 on February 02, 2018, 04:05:36 PM
3] I don't know how far it is between Exit 4 and Exit 11A on the Mass Pike. Should I have to remember a milepost for every single exit number?

I'd be interested in your response to this comment from 1 upthread.

Sure thing: No, you should not.

Right; so as long as you realize that numbering by mile immediately eliminates the potential for you having to do so, then we're all clear  :thumbsup:

Should I remember a list of exits once they are mile-based?

Sure, if you like. Theres no real need to do so, but some of us roadgeeks, myself included, are apt to do so anyways  :-P

Thing is, not remembering exit numbers negates most advantages of mile-based system. Instead of spacing between exits etc - it is distance to target one (if driver remembers that number, as opposed to "exit to Main st. in Sometown)

Anyone having more exposure to mileage-based system than me: can you, from the top of your head, list at least 10-15 numbers along your most traveled route?

Quote from: kalvado on February 03, 2018, 06:25:12 PMAnyone having more exposure to mileage-based system than me: can you, from the top of your head, list at least 10-15 numbers along your most traveled route?

Without cheating:

Kansas I-35

4--US 166 South Haven

19--US 160 Wellington

33--K-53 Mulvane

39--Haysville-Derby

42--I-135/I-235 South Wichita

45--US 54-400 Kellogg Ave.

92--K-177 Cassoday

127--Emporia (I-35 TOTSO)

147--US 56 Admire

177--US 75 South Topeka

182--East Topeka (I-70 TOTSO)

Kansas I-235

7A, 7B--US 54-400 Kellogg Ave.

10--Zoo Blvd.

Kansas I-70

250--I-135 Salina/Wichita

303--K-18 Manhattan

313--K-177 Council Grove/Manhattan

Oklahoma I-35

233--US 177 Braman

194--US 412 Enid/Tulsa

I can go on, but these 18 are among the specific numbers I have most firmly committed to memory because of past use for journey progress tracking.  I also have top mileposts memorized for certain frequently used Interstates (235 for I-35 in both Kansas and Oklahoma, 420-odd for Kansas I-70), as well as milepost ranges for certain metropolitan areas (220's for Shawnee Mission along Kansas I-35, 360's for Topeka along Kansas I-70, 130's for Oklahoma City along Oklahoma I-35).

I can't do any of this reckoning with a sequential system.  NYS, for example, will tell me a group of following exits is for a given city or region (e.g. "Adirondacks Exits 45 - 44 - 43 - 42 - 41," "Albany Exits 24 - 23"), but I don't see this signing until I have arrived, and even if I memorize those numbers for a later repeat visit, without also memorizing the corresponding exit mileposts I have no way of using mileposts to track my progress while I am still quite far out.

When I visited New York last summer, I used the mainline Thruway several times:  Amsterdam-Albany, Amsterdam-Utica, Rome (really Verona)-Rochester.  I had both Google Maps on my phone and a paper map (the NYS official state tourism map, as it happened).  I was able to estimate my total time/distance commitment for each leg in advance using both resources, but since there were no mileage-based exit numbers I could memorize and I didn't have the Thruway's cross-reference log downloaded to my phone, I could not track progress using the mileposts.  On the Amsterdam-Utica leg I was thinking "Is Utica just over the next hill?" for about 20 miles.

Quote from: SignBridge on January 30, 2018, 07:44:50 PM
Didn't the Illinois Tollway System (or some other state in the upper Midwest) actually operate that way years ago? Named interchanges with no exit numbers?

ISTHA used no exit numbers what-so-ever until 2010  Driving them was more like driving in California (which also did not have exit numbers till more recently).  However, unlike California and pre-1980 Kansas, ISTHA used (and uses) MUTCD-compliant mileposts, including half-mile mileposts (now every quarter mile).

Quote from: empirestate on February 01, 2018, 04:22:52 PM
Ah–so there's the problem. It does indeed matter how unique it is, because we're dealing with the specific situation where you might have an "exit 106" on one part of the Thruway, and another "exit 106" on another part of it. So we see that mile-based numbering isn't completely unique. However, if the first exit were instead called "Circleville Interchange" and the other were called "Squaretown Interchange", then the identification is unique.

False problem.  The Tri-State Tollway has two of the following exit numbers:
2 - Halsted Street (IL-1), and Rosecrans Road (IL-173).
8 - 147th Street, and Grand Avenue (IL-132).
27 - Waukegan Road (IL-43), and Ogden Avenue (US-34).

Yet, no one gets them mixed up.  Why?  Because one set belongs to I-94, and one set belongs to I-294.
If implemented on the New York Thruway, one set of exit numbers would be for I-90, and one set would be of I-87.  They could never get mixed up for the same reason the Tri-State Tollway exit numbers do not get mixed up.

Quote from: 1 on February 02, 2018, 04:05:36 PM
I don't know how far it is between Exit 4 and Exit 11A on the Mass Pike. Should I have to remember a milepost for every single exit number?

No, that's ridiculous.  That's also where distance-based exit show their superiority.  I drove in the northeast last year, and it was a right royal pain in the ass to figure out where the next exit was due to their moronic sequential exit numbering systems.

Quote from: kalvado on February 03, 2018, 06:25:12 PM
Anyone having more exposure to mileage-based system than me: can you, from the top of your head, list at least 10-15 numbers along your most traveled route?

Easy (without even touching a map, all by memory):
I-55
250 - I-80, Iowa/Indiana
251 - IL-59, Shorewood/Plainfield
253 - US-52, Shorewood/Joliet
257 - US-30, Aurora/Joliet
261 - IL-126, Plainfield
263 - Weber Road
267 - IL-53, Romeoville/Bolingbrook
268 - Joliet Road (originally 269)
269 - I-355

I-355
12 - I-55, Chicago/St. Louis
13 - Boughton Road
15 - 75th Street
17 - 63rd Street/Hobson Road
18 - Maple Avenue
20A - I-88, Aurora/Chicago (northbound only)
20B - US-34, Ogden Avenue (northbound only)
19 - US-34, Ogden Avenue (southbound only)
20 - I-88, Chicago/Aurora (southbound only)
22 - IL-56, Butterfield Road
24 - IL-38, Roosevelt Road
27 - IL-64, North Avenue
29 - Army Trail Road
31 - US-20, Lake Street
I-290 (unnumbered, but should be 32)

I-290
7 - I-355, Joliet
5 - IL-390
4 - Biesterfield Road
1B - IL-72, Higgins Road/Woodfield Road/IL-58, Golf Road (northbound only)

Any more, from lesser used freeways and tollways?

Empirestate, I believe the Illinois Tollways only have barrier tolls so the duplicate exit numbers may not interfere with tollkeeping records. But if you had duplicate exit numbers on the NY Thruway, how would the controlled toll-ticket system know which of the two exits with the same number you entered from?

Hmmm.........Maybe the toll system would record them with the exit number and the route number. So for instance, Exit-4 would be 87-4 or 90-4 on the toll record. That might work.

When I was in Columbus, I had most of the exit numbers on in the area memorized. Forgot most of them after not being there for 10 years. That being said I can remember more than 10...

I-70:
99: I-71 South/SR 315
100A-B: US 23/33
101A: I-71
101B: 18th Street
102: Miller Ave/Kelton Ave
103A: Main St
103B: US 33/Livingston Ave/Alum Creek Drive
104A: US 33 EB
104B: James Rd

I-71:
104: SR 104
121: Polaris Parkway

I-270
20: Sawmill Rd
22: SR 315
23: US 23 north side
26: I-71 north side
27: Cleveland Ave
29: SR 3 north side
30: SR 161 east side
32: Morse Rd
33: Easton Way
35: I-670/US 62

I know that when I spent a year in Albuquerque, I got to know the area's exit numbers on I-25 and I-40 very well.  Now 14 years later, I don't remember them. 

Even averaging just a couple trips a year on the roads, I am sure I could name 12-15 numbers right now, probably more if I only need to get within 1 or 2 miles, on I-75 in Florida, and quite a few numbers on I-95 in the Carolinas and Georgia.

Quote from: SignBridge on February 03, 2018, 09:32:56 PM
Empirestate, I believe the Illinois Tollways only have barrier tolls so the duplicate exit numbers may not interfere with tollkeeping records. But if you had duplicate exit numbers on the NY Thruway, how would the controlled toll-ticket system know which of the two exits with the same number you entered from?

Each toll plaza has a unique toll plaza number, that is not duplicated throughout the entire system, i.e.:
Boughton Road Plaza 89 on I-355 (main line toll plaza).
Willow Road Plaza 27 (Exit 48 on I-294).

Toll plazas 1 through 19 are on the Jane Addams (Northwest) Tollway (I-90).
Toll plazas 20 through 47 are on the Tri-State Tollway (I-94 and I-294).
Toll plazas 51 through 69 and 81* are on the Reagan (East-West) Tollway (I-88).
Toll plazas 73 through 101* are on the Veterans Memorial (North-South) Tollway (I-355).
Toll plazas 320 through 330 are on the Elgin-O'Hare Tollway (IL-390).

The original toll plazas (except IL-390) were all odd numbers only.  Even numbers and A and B suffixes are toll plazas added later.  the toll plaza numbers have nothing to do with the exit numbers or mileposts.
*Plaza 81 was built with I-355; however, it serves traffic to/from I-88 west from Ogden Avenue.

Quote from: SignBridge on February 03, 2018, 09:32:56 PMEmpirestate, I believe the Illinois Tollways only have barrier tolls so the duplicate exit numbers may not interfere with tollkeeping records.

ISTHA keeps toll records by plaza number, not milepost or number of any nearby exit.  Checking that an electronic toll has been correctly collected for a toll plaza transit usually entails finding the plaza number on a map.  Plaza numbers are signed (not in FHWA alphabet series) on toll canopies and ORT gantries, and at least some of them are shown on Google Maps (for example, it shows that at the I-80/I-294 merge near Hazel Crest, eastbound is Plaza 45 while westbound is Plaza 43).  But personally I prefer to go to the horse's mouth and download the ISTHA system map in PDF from their website.

(Brandon's post upthread--posted as I was composing this post--goes into more detail on the plaza numbering scheme.)

Quote from: SignBridge on February 03, 2018, 09:32:56 PMBut if you had duplicate exit numbers on the NY Thruway, how would the controlled toll-ticket system know which of the two exits with the same number you entered from?

One option for the Thruway is simply to repurpose the existing sequential numbers (which BTW are in multiple series) as plaza numbers.  This would entail no recordkeeping changes since exit numbers are already used as plaza numbers on ticketed segments while barrier tolls have their own descriptive codes (GIN = Grand Island North, GIS = Grand Island South), etc.

Quote from: Jim on February 03, 2018, 09:50:40 PMI know that when I spent a year in Albuquerque, I got to know the area's exit numbers on I-25 and I-40 very well.  Now 14 years later, I don't remember them.

I have never lived in Albuquerque and have passed through very infrequently in the last few years--just once in late September 2014 and again in early January 2017.  Yet I vaguely recall ABQ exits are in the 250's on I-25 and 150's on I-40.  The New Mexico exit numbers I remember best are 275 (Santa Rosa) and 311 (Montoya, because of the nasty S-curve there), both on I-40.

On the other hand, I really struggle to remember any Thruway exit numbers other than 33, and that only because I had to look it up to use it as an example earlier in the discussion.

I have Thruway exits memorized, but that's more because I drive the road so often. I haven't traveled on a distance-numbered road on a regular basis in over a decade.

The Pennsylvania Turnpike codes the plazas as 3 letters. Think a few others might as well. Wouldn't be too hard for New York to do this. Of course, the current plan is AET within 10 years, so it is probably a moot point.

As regards duplication of exit numbers, didn't the Thruway at some point use N18, N20, etc. for the Niagara Thruway, and a different letter prefix for the New England Thruway?  The cross-reference shows duplicate numbers on the mainline, Niagara, and New England segments, with only the Berkshire connector still having a B prefix (presumably because it is part of the same closed-ticket system as the mainline).

Quote from: webny99 on February 03, 2018, 06:17:26 PM
If it is to be done at all, the sooner the better. Permit me to ask outright; do you agree with that final statement?

I mean...not really. It should be done when the value in converting is greater than the value in staying the same, not before.

Quote from: Brandon on February 03, 2018, 09:14:56 PM

Quote from: empirestate on February 01, 2018, 04:22:52 PM
Ah–so there's the problem. It does indeed matter how unique it is, because we're dealing with the specific situation where you might have an "exit 106" on one part of the Thruway, and another "exit 106" on another part of it. So we see that mile-based numbering isn't completely unique. However, if the first exit were instead called "Circleville Interchange" and the other were called "Squaretown Interchange", then the identification is unique.

False problem.  The Tri-State Tollway has two of the following exit numbers:

"Problem", in this context, refers to a semantical aspect of the discussion itself, not to the duplication of exit numbers.

Quote from: SignBridge on February 03, 2018, 09:32:56 PM
Empirestate, I believe the Illinois Tollways only have barrier tolls so the duplicate exit numbers may not interfere with tollkeeping records. But if you had duplicate exit numbers on the NY Thruway, how would the controlled toll-ticket system know which of the two exits with the same number you entered from?

Dunno...presumably, any computer that's looking at your "ticket" has got the interchanges ID'd with some kind of code much longer and obtuse than the exit numbers we see on signs (down to the specific toll lane, no doubt). But as for human ticket collectors, they'd probably be looking at–and some of you ain't gonna like this answer–the interchange's name. :-D

Quote from: J N Winkler on February 03, 2018, 11:48:33 PM
As regards duplication of exit numbers, didn't the Thruway at some point use N18, N20, etc. for the Niagara Thruway, and a different letter prefix for the New England Thruway?  The cross-reference shows duplicate numbers on the mainline, Niagara, and New England segments, with only the Berkshire connector still having a B prefix (presumably because it is part of the same closed-ticket system as the mainline).

I think that the N was dropped after the barrier tolls on I-190 were removed. I know it had one at one point; this was done because it connected directly with the mainline Thruway.

No idea if the New England Thruway ever had prefixes, but the old signs with current numbers were button copy. Before 1980, exit numbering reset where NYSTA maintenance began, but I do not know if those had a prefix. None of the current numbers had prefixes. I strongly doubt that prefixes ever existed on the New England Thruway, as it was separate from the rest of the Thruway system until 1990.

Quote from: empirestate on February 04, 2018, 12:34:49 AM

Quote from: webny99 on February 03, 2018, 06:17:26 PM
If it is to be done at all, the sooner the better. Permit me to ask outright; do you agree with that final statement?

I mean...not really. It should be done when the value in converting is greater than the value in staying the same, not before.

But that fails to consider the accruing benefits of the conversion. You must not believe those values will ever be equivalent, whereas I believe that date is already long-since past, considering the benefits over time. Also, there are no benefits to staying the same, other than to avoid the one-time cost, which is insignificant and petty at best.

And from there it becomes subjective, so that's the end of the road. I'm far more interested in reading any further discussion you have with others than I am in prolonging this. (And if I've been distracting you from continuing your debate with JN, I owe my apologies to both of you).

Quote from: kalvadoThing is, not remembering exit numbers negates most advantages of mile-based system.

Not really; you don't have to remember all the numbers, just the one for your exit. For all other exits, the number is posted on signage for your use as needed - there's no need to know it beforehand, nor is there a need to remember it afterwards.

QuoteAnyone having more exposure to mileage-based system than me: can you, from the top of your head, list at least 10-15 numbers along your most traveled route?

Heck, I can almost do three sets of numbers for the thruway - current sequential, current thruway milepost, and "theoretical" I-90 mile starting at Ripley :-P

My $.02 on this:  I live in a state where mile markers are very sparse, and BGS mileage signs are virtually nonexistent.  As for NY, if they go mileage based on all highways and parkways, I would use the "OLD EXIT xx"  tabs much like PA, ME, and CT use.  RI's new ones kind of overdo it and the new ones on the portion of 95 becoming 295 in NJ are obnoxious.  As for the Thruway, the easiest solution to learn for most drivers would be internal mileage based, which would start at 1 in Yonkers and go up to 495 near the PA border.  Most drivers think of the Thruwayvas a whole rather than the individual interstates that comprise it.  Granted, I-87 and I-90 would be violating tradition in that exit numbers go DOWN on 90 as you move east to Albany before going up again to the MA border.  Meanwhile, the  I-87 divevfrom the Bronx to Albany would go to MP 8 then suddenly reset to 0 and go up to 148 to current exit 24.  What will really kill the traditionalists is if the Northway is re-mileposted and renumbered based on I-87 mileage from the Bronx.  Exits would start at 157 for I-90 East and go to 332 in Champlain.  What could be done is put 2 sets of mileposts along the Thruway: one set for Thruway mileage, and one set for either I-87 or I-90 mileage.   Also, a drive on I-90 and would be interesting, as exits would decrease from 495 to 148, then jump to 348 for Free 90.  I would renumber the Berkshire Spur exits to I-90 mileage so B1 would be 368, B2 would be 377, and B3 385.  However, the actual exit for B1/368 would not be for Free 90, as the current B1 is part of mainline 90.  it would be for Castleton-on-Hudson traffic much like the 95-93 connection in Canton, MA.

Long story short: keep the exits on the Thruway based on internal mileposts; renumber the Deegan, Northway, Free 90, and Berkshire Spur based on the individual highway, and put two sets of mileposts along the mainline, one for individual highway mileage and the other for internal Thruway mileage.  This makes you wonder if the NJTP will ever renumber to mileposts, and will the exits in the Fort Lee area be updated with I-95 completed?

Quote from: webny99 on February 04, 2018, 01:21:17 AM

Quote from: empirestate on February 04, 2018, 12:34:49 AM
I mean...not really. It should be done when the value in converting is greater than the value in staying the same, not before.

But that fails to consider the accruing benefits of the conversion.

How so? I said "the value in converting". That includes the immediate value, the accrued value, whatever. If there's any piece of that I haven't considered, it's because I don't have the information to consider. You guys have mentioned a lot of theoretical benefits–valid ones, to be sure–but I've never seen them quantified.

QuoteYou must not believe those values will ever be equivalent, whereas I believe that date is already long-since past, considering the benefits over time.

They might be, sure. I've already said that, if the conversion can happen as a side-effect of some other initiative, that alone might be enough of a value offset. Likewise with being bureaucratically forced to convert.

QuoteAlso, there are no benefits to staying the same, other than to avoid the one-time cost, which is insignificant and petty at best.

That may well be, but I don't need to be persuaded to stay the same, so I don't need to consider the value of doing so.

QuoteAnd from there it becomes subjective, so that's the end of the road. I'm far more interested in reading any further discussion you have with others than I am in prolonging this. (And if I've been distracting you from continuing your debate with JN, I owe my apologies to both of you).

Not in the least. The thread split put a little hiccup in it (it happened during the time I was writing my last lengthy reply to him, so one post is still stranded in the other thread), but hopefully everyone's following along OK. Everyone who cares to, that is... :-P

Quote from: webny99 on February 04, 2018, 01:21:17 AM
But that fails to consider the accruing benefits of the conversion. You must not believe those values will ever be equivalent, whereas I believe that date is already long-since past, considering the benefits over time. Also, there are no benefits to staying the same, other than to avoid the one-time cost, which is insignificant and petty at best.

And since we're talking about benefits.. is there a numeric value attached to those? Reduction of fatal crashes, reduction of accidents, reduced delays?.. Any other factors that materially benefit motorists?

Quote from: J N Winkler on February 03, 2018, 07:11:35 PM
When I visited New York last summer, I used the mainline Thruway several times:  Amsterdam-Albany, Amsterdam-Utica, Rome (really Verona)-Rochester.  I had both Google Maps on my phone and a paper map (the NYS official state tourism map, as it happened).  I was able to estimate my total time/distance commitment for each leg in advance using both resources, but since there were no mileage-based exit numbers I could memorize and I didn't have the Thruway's cross-reference log downloaded to my phone, I could not track progress using the mileposts.

Two lines of further inquiry;

Doesn't the NYS map show the distance between exits? If it doesn't, I'd be rather surprised, and certainly believe that it should include this information.

Also, my typical strategy when using the thruway is to take advance note of the milepost only of my final exit. I can thereby track progress to at least a certain degree. However, I've traveled the Buffalo-Syracuse segment so extensively that I cannot fairly compare my own case to that of someone out-of-state. And of course, I cannot use interim exits to track progress, nor can I find the final milepost (in cases where I don't know it already) with ease, as I could if it was also the exit number.

QuoteOn the Amsterdam-Utica leg I was thinking "Is Utica just over the next hill?" for about 20 miles.

It's entirely possible, due to the extremely boring and lackluster nature of that particular segment, that you may have had that thought regardless of the numbering scheme :sleep: ;-)

Quote from: J N Winkler on February 03, 2018, 11:05:11 PM
One option for the Thruway is simply to repurpose the existing sequential numbers (which BTW are in multiple series) as plaza numbers.  This would entail no recordkeeping changes since exit numbers are already used as plaza numbers on ticketed segments while barrier tolls have their own descriptive codes (GIN = Grand Island North, GIS = Grand Island South, etc.)

I am definitely a major advocate of this idea :thumbsup:
AET would eliminate this scenario anyways, but with the current setup, this is an excellent solution. Exits could be re-numbered based on the respective mileages of I-87 and I-90, and supplementary panels (perhaps yellow?) with the plaza number could be added.

Quote from: kalvado on February 04, 2018, 11:54:28 AM

Quote from: webny99 on February 04, 2018, 01:21:17 AM
But that fails to consider the accruing benefits of the conversion. You must not believe those values will ever be equivalent, whereas I believe that date is already long-since past, considering the benefits over time. Also, there are no benefits to staying the same, other than to avoid the one-time cost, which is insignificant and petty at best.

And since we're talking about benefits.. is there a numeric value attached to those? Reduction of fatal crashes, reduction of accidents, reduced delays?.. Any other factors that materially benefit motorists?

Given that the benefits are by-and-large intuitive ones, they would prove extremely difficult to quantify. The benefit to roadside businesses is the only one that comes to mind, and it has been discussed upthread to such an extent that I don't see a need to comment further  :-P
With that said, I see the qualitative benefits as much more important than the quantitative ones in this particular case. Exit numbers don't need to reduce crashes or the likes; they need to improve guidance and location identification, and those concepts prove too challenging to quantify in any meaningful or timely fashion.

Quote from: webny99 on February 04, 2018, 01:29:18 PM

Quote from: kalvado on February 04, 2018, 11:54:28 AM

Quote from: webny99 on February 04, 2018, 01:21:17 AM
But that fails to consider the accruing benefits of the conversion. You must not believe those values will ever be equivalent, whereas I believe that date is already long-since past, considering the benefits over time. Also, there are no benefits to staying the same, other than to avoid the one-time cost, which is insignificant and petty at best.

And since we're talking about benefits.. is there a numeric value attached to those? Reduction of fatal crashes, reduction of accidents, reduced delays?.. Any other factors that materially benefit motorists?

Given that the benefits are by-and-large intuitive ones, they would prove extremely difficult to quantify. The benefit to roadside businesses is the only one that comes to mind, and it has been discussed upthread to such an extent that I don't see a need to comment further  :-P
With that said, I see the qualitative benefits as much more important than the quantitative ones in this particular case. Exit numbers don't need to reduce crashes or the likes; they need to improve guidance and location identification, and those concepts prove too challenging to quantify in any meaningful or timely fashion.

Well, improved location awareness easily translates into accident reduction through reduction of last-second moves towards the exit and reduction of out-of-the way mileage.  Both are already achieved with existing signage.
And  if there is no quantification -  there are no real benefits of conversion. 

I don't know about being able to quantify a benefit, but as one who travels quite a bit outside of the sequential states of the northeast, and at the risk of rehashing the same things everyone else has said upthread, it is nice to be able to do the quick math.  I know I get off at exit 101, and I just passed exit 329 or MM 329 so I know how far I need to go and about how much longer it will be.  If I see a billboard that the next Zaxby's is at exit 220 I can tell how far it will be almost right away (within a minute I'll pass a MM).  If exit 101 was sequential exit 18 or exit 220 was sequential exit 25, I might know it's approximate MM and could do the same thing, but if the exit number can provide that information readily, why not?  On the Thruway, I know I get off right near Mile 173 for Exit 27.  But as a daily commuter on that route, the exit numbers aren't for me, they're for the traveler less familiar with the road.  Take down every sign and I can still get to and from work.

The only argument that holds any weight with me against a switch is that it costs money to do so at a time when there are so many projects that need the funds.  For me, the benefits are worth what I gather is a relatively small expense, and one that can be spread out over a few years and timed to coincide with signing projects happening anyway where possible.

All that said, I do sympathize with the special situation of New York, with the Thruway having its own MM and exit scheme.  I'd still be in favor of dumping the Thruway numbers and number correctly as I-87/I-90, but acknowledge that this adds to both the expense and the length of the temporary learning period as people become familiar with the new scheme.

Quote from: empirestate on February 04, 2018, 09:23:10 AM

Quote from: webny99 on February 04, 2018, 01:21:17 AM
But that fails to consider the accruing benefits of the conversion.

How so? I said "the value in converting". That includes the immediate value, the accrued value, whatever. If there's any piece of that I haven't considered, it's because I don't have the information to consider. You guys have mentioned a lot of theoretical benefits–valid ones, to be sure–but I've never seen them quantified.

My response to kalvado above is very pertinent here. How do you suggest we quantify any of the benefits?

Quote

QuoteAlso, there are no benefits to staying the same, other than to avoid the one-time cost, which is insignificant and petty at best.

That may well be, but I don't need to be persuaded to stay the same, so I don't need to consider the value of doing so.

Yes, you do; to prove that the value is greater than the value of converting. Surely you must be able to explain the benefits; I (and others) have done so extensively for the other side of the debate. Considering your certainty that we should leave the system unchanged, you must have at least some sort of reasoning that gives credence to doing nothing.

Quote

Quote(And if I've been distracting you from continuing your debate with JN, I owe my apologies to both of you).

Not in the least. The thread split put a little hiccup in it (it happened during the time I was writing my last lengthy reply to him, so one post is still stranded in the other thread), but hopefully everyone's following along OK. Everyone who cares to, that is... :-P

That post (which I indeed missed entirely) seems to be here now, so all is well  ;-) :thumbsup:

Quote from: kalvado on February 04, 2018, 01:58:01 PM
Well, improved location awareness easily translates into accident reduction through reduction of last-second moves towards the exit and reduction of out-of-the way mileage. Both are already achieved with existing signage.

How so? Mileage based clearly does more to help motorists identify their location than sequential.

QuoteAnd  if there is no quantification -  there are no real benefits of conversion.

If you're insinuating that qualitative benefits don't exist, well, that's just ridiculous  :-P

Quote from: webny99 on February 04, 2018, 01:16:32 PMDoesn't the NYS map show the distance between exits? If it doesn't, I'd be rather surprised, and certainly believe that it should include this information.

It does not.  In fact, it does not show point-to-point distances for any highway, an omission which I frankly find puzzling.  Utica is listed in the city distance table, but not Amsterdam or Rome.

Even if it did, calculating the distance between exits involves summing up the distances between any interim exits, unless the two exits of interest are considered sufficiently important that a single distance between the two is given (often in a color different from that used for shorter distances).  This is not usually as convenient as simply subtracting one mileage-based exit number from another.

Quote from: webny99 on February 04, 2018, 01:16:32 PM

QuoteOn the Amsterdam-Utica leg I was thinking "Is Utica just over the next hill?" for about 20 miles.

It's entirely possible, due to the extremely boring and lackluster nature of that particular segment, that you may have had that thought regardless of the numbering scheme :sleep: ;-)

It was pitch-black dark at the time, so I was actually happy for it to be fairly unchallenging in terms of curves.  New York is fortunate to have the easiest crossing of the Appalachians north of Alabama/Georgia and the Thruway was considered a model of good alignment design back in the 1960's because it was one of the few freeways that used long curves with extremely large curve radii (up to about 85,000 ft, if memory serves) rather than long tangents connected by shorter curves of lower radii.  And I could have made it easier for myself by taking a note of the milepost corresponding to each mileage sign and using that as the basis for distance-left estimation.  But when exit numbers actually correspond to the mileposts, the process becomes more intuitive.

Quote from: kalvado on February 04, 2018, 11:54:28 AMAnd since we're talking about benefits.. is there a numeric value attached to those? Reduction of fatal crashes, reduction of accidents, reduced delays?.. Any other factors that materially benefit motorists?

There are some big-data approaches that can be tried.  For example, each Thruway milepost has a corresponding latitude/longitude and there is a small latitude-longitude area where the milepost fits in StreetView "spill" (i.e., is visible in StreetView).  If Google Maps data suggests there is a significantly higher frequency of StreetView viewing of mileposts near exits along a freeway with sequentially numbered exits, then this is a sign customers are looking for information the signing does not already provide them.

An agency such as the Thruway also has access to customer feedback regarding the burden of having to cross-reference sequential exit numbers with mileposts, as well as hit counts for the existing exit number/milepost cross-reference.  It can also conduct surveys to measure the strength of customer preference for mileage-based exit numbering (disaggregating responses according to whether respondents live in or come from states that already have mileage-based numbering), and poll agencies in other states on their experiences converting to mileage-based numbering.

So, no, it is not impossible to develop quantitative evidence for benefits.  It becomes a little more difficult, but still not impossible, when it is desired to differentiate between stated and revealed benefits.  And the lack of existing evidence does not prove that there is no evidence to be found if it is searched for.  The large number of agencies that have started out with sequential numbering and changed to mileage-based in the absence of a federal mandate is in itself a significant willingness-to-pay argument.

As for the Thruway itself, I expect it to convert eventually, not on the strength of research into the benefits (I don't know if it is a research-driven organization), but simply because it will eventually run out of directors willing to back the rank-and-file's preference for the status quo.  This is essentially what happened to Caltrans.  The rank and file was bitterly opposed to exit numbering, except for engineers who had trained out of state.  Then Jeff Morales (former Illinois DOT head) became Caltrans director and that was it.

Since Cuomo has been governor, the Thruway has had an awful lot of directors--how many is it now?  Seven?  Eight?  That alone raises the odds someone will be brought in from a state with mileage-based numbering, just to avoid promoting a coffee-getter straight into the wood-paneled office.

In a previous post on exit numbering in NYS (I don't know if it has been ported to this thread), Rothman blasted a nameless Thruway official who proposed an over-elaborate conversion strategy calling for "New Exit" signing for a couple of years, followed by the actual changeover of exit numbers and then "Old Exit" signing for a further couple of years.  This idea may be moronic in terms of cost and compliance with MUTCD requirements, but it strikes me more as a move--straight out of Francis Cornford's Microcosmographia Academia--to kneecap exit number conversion by making it seem absurdly expensive.  One problem with such stratagems is that once you run out of true believers, they start to look like protesting too much.

Upthread, I suggested exit numbering conversion might happen under FHWA pressure, but this is not to discount the possibility of its occurring without HOTO sending any nastygrams to Albany.

Quote from: empirestate on February 01, 2018, 08:10:25 AM
But again, remember that we're addressing the specific problem of overlapping systems (I-90, I-87, Thruway, Northway, etc.).

The simplest solution to this problem would be to dispense with the overlapping systems. Cease and desist signing the New York State Thruway as a thing and just sign it as I-87 and I-90. Number all of the exits accordingly, and at the current location of exit 24 delineate what is the through route versus an exit accordingly.

This is how Connecticut solved this problem. It's a good solution.

Quote from: Duke87 on February 04, 2018, 03:15:11 PM

Quote from: empirestate on February 01, 2018, 08:10:25 AM
But again, remember that we're addressing the specific problem of overlapping systems (I-90, I-87, Thruway, Northway, etc.).

The simplest solution to this problem would be to dispense with the overlapping systems. Cease and desist signing the New York State Thruway as a thing and just sign it as I-87 and I-90. Number all of the exits accordingly, and at the current location of exit 24 delineate what is the through route versus an exit accordingly.

This is how Connecticut solved this problem. It's a good solution.

This. Not that hard of a concept.

Quote from: webny99 on February 04, 2018, 02:48:20 PM

Quote from: kalvado on February 04, 2018, 01:58:01 PM
Well, improved location awareness easily translates into accident reduction through reduction of last-second moves towards the exit and reduction of out-of-the way mileage. Both are already achieved with existing signage.

How so? Mileage based clearly does more to help motorists identify their location than sequential.

QuoteAnd  if there is no quantification -  there are no real benefits of conversion.

If you're insinuating that qualitative benefits don't exist, well, that's just ridiculous  :-P

Motorists passing exit X and targeting for exit X+1 are warned that exit is close enough to start planning for exit. E.g. changing lanes and slowing to speed limit +5. Of course this is not without glitches - but missing exit is unlikely, and signage is usually there. Mileage based has minor, if any advantage in that regards.
Qualitative benefits may exist, but until they cannot be expressed in terms of solid numbers, commiting to a multi-million process of renumbering is not warranted. Those money can be spent on other project leading to clear and quantifiable safety improvements - like bridge maintenance.

To make things worse, GPS navigator may be less than ideal tool - but directing to highway exit is almost 100% reliable. And as acceptance of technology goes up, even those qualitative benefits are reduced.

Quote from: J N Winkler on February 04, 2018, 03:00:04 PM
So, no, it is not impossible to develop quantitative evidence for benefits.  It becomes a little more difficult, but still not impossible, when it is desired to differentiate between stated and revealed benefits.  And the lack of existing evidence does not prove that there is no evidence to be found if it is searched for.  The large number of agencies that have started out with sequential numbering and changed to mileage-based in the absence of a federal mandate is in itself a significant willingness-to-pay argument.

With enough funding, data proving pretty much anything can be obtained. But there is not enough money in a system right now...
I, myself, got  lost in CA exits at some point, plainly due to the lack of marking. Getting straight to hotel instead of looking for someone who can give some directions would be a clear benefit for me at that point. Show me a person who got lost between Thruway sequential numbered exits, and now we're talking.

Quote from: kalvado on February 04, 2018, 03:23:34 PM. . . Commiting to a multi-million process of renumbering is not warranted . . .

Why multi-million?  Has an estimated cost of conversion actually been compiled, and if so, how does it break down?

Quote from: J N Winkler on February 04, 2018, 03:52:02 PM

Quote from: kalvado on February 04, 2018, 03:23:34 PM. . . Commiting to a multi-million process of renumbering is not warranted . . .

Why multi-million?  Has an estimated cost of conversion actually been compiled, and if so, how does it break down?

A somewhat close comparison: there are 500 Cuomo signs installed at a cost of $8M. Someone here commented that the cost is on a higher side, but within expected range.
If we talk  about replacing 1 sign per exit-direction, Thruway got about 100 signs; 50 for Northway, 50 for 88, 20 for free-90 (very rough numbers, but OK)
I believe there is more than 1 sign per exit-direction at least in some cases, as well as regional and attractions signs which would need to be updated.
So we're easily talking 300-400 signs overall - before 3DI comes into play, and not including I-81 where mileage may change due to rerouting in Syracuse..

Quote from: kalvado on February 04, 2018, 04:26:12 PM
I believe there is more than 1 sign per exit-direction at least in some cases, as well as regional and attractions signs which would need to be updated.

I'd figure a bare minimum of eight signs per interchange that display the exit number; a one mile advance sign and another sign at the exit for each direction, plus signs at the gore, as well as supplementaries (often at least two) including small towns/local attractions/etc.

Green-outs could probably work (though would not be optimal) on many of the smaller signs.

Empirestate, I think it was you who asked earlier if the New England Thruway ever had exit number prefixes? The answer is no. I started riding that road as a kid with my parents in 1960 right after it opened. And the original blue exit signs just had plain exit numbers beginning with Exit-1 at the Hutchinson Pkwy in the Bronx as that is where NYSTA maintenance began (as someone else pointed out above). I believe that is still the case with maintenance. Later the exits were renumbered starting at the NYC end of the Geo. Washington Br. and ending at the Connecticut state line.

Btw, thinking about it now, the New England always had duplicate exit numbers with the main-line Thruway and it must have not been a problem for toll record-keeping. I should have thought of that before.

Quote from: kalvado on February 04, 2018, 04:26:12 PM

Quote from: J N Winkler on February 04, 2018, 03:52:02 PM

Quote from: kalvado on February 04, 2018, 03:23:34 PM. . . Commiting to a multi-million process of renumbering is not warranted . . .

Why multi-million?  Has an estimated cost of conversion actually been compiled, and if so, how does it break down?

A somewhat close comparison: there are 500 Cuomo signs installed at a cost of $8M. Someone here commented that the cost is on a higher side, but within expected range.
If we talk  about replacing 1 sign per exit-direction, Thruway got about 100 signs; 50 for Northway, 50 for 88, 20 for free-90 (very rough numbers, but OK)
I believe there is more than 1 sign per exit-direction at least in some cases, as well as regional and attractions signs which would need to be updated.
So we're easily talking 300-400 signs overall - before 3DI comes into play, and not including I-81 where mileage may change due to rerouting in Syracuse..

I spoke to NYSDOT about I-81 last summer, no matter what happens in Syracuse with I-81 (more exits, less exits, rerouting), when the exits get renumbered it will be mileage based for the entire roadway.

Quote from: SignBridge on February 04, 2018, 08:31:48 PM
Empirestate, I think it was you who asked earlier if the New England Thruway ever had exit number prefixes? The answer is no. I started riding that road as a kid with my parents in 1960 right after it opened. And the original blue exit signs just had plain exit numbers beginning with Exit-1 at the Hutchinson Pkwy in the Bronx as that is where NYSTA maintenance began (as someone else pointed out above). I believe that is still the case with maintenance. Later the exits were renumbered starting at the NYC end of the Geo. Washington Br. and ending at the Connecticut state line.

Btw, thinking about it now, the New England always had duplicate exit numbers with the main-line Thruway and it must have not been a problem for toll record-keeping. I should have thought of that before.

The New England Thruway was always a barrier system with only one barrier. Think that's how they kept it separate. It is and always has been in the records as "New Rochelle". I also know that, even now, the NET is considered its own maintenance section. The spurs were always lumped in with nearby sections of the mainline.

Quote from: kalvado on February 04, 2018, 04:26:12 PMA somewhat close comparison: there are 500 Cuomo signs installed at a cost of $8M. Someone here commented that the cost is on a higher side, but within expected range.

I don't buy the Cuomo signs as a comparator, for these reasons:  (1) before $8.1 million was disclosed as the ultimate cost, the estimate was $1.8 million; (2) the work included furnishing and installing large sign panels, not just tabs and overlays; and (3) much of the work was done using overtime and emergency contracts (USA Today at one point reported going through 3000 pages of Cuomo signs contract documentation--AFAIK, the NYSDOT Cuomo signs contracts processed through the regular letting had a smaller aggregate page count).

NJDOT contract 17137 (I-295 redesignation between US 1 and SR 29) received bids (https://www.bidx.com/nj/apparentbids?lettingid=17091401) ranging from $1.2 million to $2 million.  This is for nine interchanges.  Even $1.2 million seems high to me, so I suspect the cost includes large sign panel replacement, though it is difficult to tell without access to the plans and schedule of quantities, both of which require a BidX subscription or OPRA request.

MassDOT's statewide exit numbering conversion contract (MassDOT project 608024 (https://www.commbuys.com/bso/external/bidDetail.sdo?docId=BD-16-1030-0H100-0H002-00000005477&external=true&parentUrl=bid)) had an engineer's estimate of $2 million and a low bid of $1.7 million.  That amount includes about 16,000 SF of new overhead sign panel and 19,000 SF of sign panel overlay, and covers both the new exit numbers and the "Formerly" tabs.  In scope and possibly also size it may be the closest available approximation to what would be involved in converting Thruway and Northway exit numbers.

Quote from: upstatenyroads on February 04, 2018, 09:34:14 PM

I spoke to NYSDOT about I-81 last summer, no matter what happens in Syracuse with I-81 (more exits, less exits, rerouting), when the exits get renumbered it will be mileage based for the entire roadway.

I'm thinking along the lines that mileage-based renumbering is not a good idea while exact mileage for half a road is still in limbo. Renumbering again once Syracuse is decided and built is somewhat stupid...

Quote from: J N Winkler on February 04, 2018, 11:05:13 PM

Quote from: kalvado on February 04, 2018, 04:26:12 PMA somewhat close comparison: there are 500 Cuomo signs installed at a cost of $8M. Someone here commented that the cost is on a higher side, but within expected range.

I don't buy the Cuomo signs as a comparator, for these reasons:  (1) before $8.1 million was disclosed as the ultimate cost, the estimate was $1.8 million; (2) the work included furnishing and installing large sign panels, not just tabs and overlays; and (3) much of the work was done using overtime and emergency contracts (USA Today at one point reported going through 3000 pages of Cuomo signs contract documentation--AFAIK, the NYSDOT Cuomo signs contracts processed through the regular letting had a smaller aggregate page count).

NJDOT contract 17137 (I-295 redesignation between US 1 and SR 29) received bids (https://www.bidx.com/nj/apparentbids?lettingid=17091401) ranging from $1.2 million to $2 million.  This is for nine interchanges.  Even $1.2 million seems high to me, so I suspect the cost includes large sign panel replacement, though it is difficult to tell without access to the plans and schedule of quantities, both of which require a BidX subscription or OPRA request.

MassDOT's statewide exit numbering conversion contract (MassDOT project 608024 (https://www.commbuys.com/bso/external/bidDetail.sdo?docId=BD-16-1030-0H100-0H002-00000005477&external=true&parentUrl=bid)) had an engineer's estimate of $2 million and a low bid of $1.7 million.  That amount includes about 16,000 SF of new overhead sign panel and 19,000 SF of sign panel overlay, and covers both the new exit numbers and the "Formerly" tabs.  In scope and possibly also size it may be the closest available approximation to what would be involved in converting Thruway and Northway exit numbers.

I was actually looking for MA contract.  It is a good comparison - and we land in several million territory anyway. And I suspect, NY has a bit more renumbering to do than MA.

Quote from: webny99 on February 04, 2018, 02:38:10 PM

Quote from: empirestate on February 04, 2018, 09:23:10 AM

Quote from: webny99 on February 04, 2018, 01:21:17 AM
But that fails to consider the accruing benefits of the conversion.

How so? I said "the value in converting". That includes the immediate value, the accrued value, whatever. If there's any piece of that I haven't considered, it's because I don't have the information to consider. You guys have mentioned a lot of theoretical benefits–valid ones, to be sure–but I've never seen them quantified.

My response to kalvado above is very pertinent here. How do you suggest we quantify any of the benefits?

The same, I guess...dollars, lives, that sort of thing.

Quote

Quote

QuoteAlso, there are no benefits to staying the same, other than to avoid the one-time cost, which is insignificant and petty at best.

That may well be, but I don't need to be persuaded to stay the same, so I don't need to consider the value of doing so.

Yes, you do; to prove that the value is greater than the value of converting. Surely you must be able to explain the benefits; I (and others) have done so extensively for the other side of the debate.

No, I don't, because I'm not trying to persuade anyone to adopt my viewpoint. I don't dispute the benefits of converting, and I don't fault anyone for coming to the conclusion that it should happen. You have indeed gone to great lengths to support your position, in the apparent hope that I'll come around to it. But I'm not asking the same of you.

Quote from: J N Winkler on February 04, 2018, 03:00:04 PM
Since Cuomo has been governor, the Thruway has had an awful lot of directors--how many is it now?  Seven?  Eight?  That alone raises the odds someone will be brought in from a state with mileage-based numbering, just to avoid promoting a coffee-getter straight into the wood-paneled office.

I wonder how much of the difference of opinion is simply this: being from a different state? You asked me if I had much experience navigation in mileage-based states, apparently with the idea that if I'd had very much, it would sway my opinion. Turns out I have, and it didn't...but how much of it has to do with simple exposure to the different systems, and how much with upbringing?

I grew up with my parents driving all over the Northeast, where nothing was mileage-based. They didn't navigate by exit numbers, and when I started driving myself, neither did I, having grown up instead following maps and just getting to know the territory. (And by "know the territory" I don't just mean memorizing the routes I frequently took, but also developing a sense of how the land and the roads are laid out, giving me the ability to predict what I might find along an unfamiliar route in similar territory.)

Once I got older and began to visit new areas with mile-based numbering, I did indeed see the benefit of their system–but I never came to rely on it, as I already had a different set of navigating skills ingrained. As Jim said above, being able to do the calculation in your head is "nice to have", but it's never risen above that level of importance for me; certainly not when I return to the Northeast where I can already guess with high accuracy how far apart the interchanges are.

But reading what you've written about navigating through Kansas and elsewhere, it does seem that you rely to a much greater extent on the exit numbers themselves, and that you'd find it a great hindrance to navigate without them. Certainly, the distances in a territory like Kansas are different than they are in the Northeast; and who knows, maybe if I had to navigate the Great Plains if they switched back to sequential exit numbers, I'd find it much more of a hardship than I would in an area that has always had them. But I'd be curious whether it's just a matter of what's "in our blood".

Quote from: Duke87 on February 04, 2018, 03:15:11 PMThe simplest solution to this problem would be to dispense with the overlapping systems. Cease and desist signing the New York State Thruway as a thing and just sign it as I-87 and I-90. Number all of the exits accordingly, and at the current location of exit 24 delineate what is the through route versus an exit accordingly.

This is how Connecticut solved this problem. It's a good solution.

The difference here is that CT's changes occurred long after tolls along the CT Turnpike were eliminated.  The NYS Thruway is still a tolled facility with ticketed interchanges in many locations.  A more appropriate example of what you're describing, and I don't believe I'm saying this, would be the PA Turnpike; particularly the main East-West (I-76/276) & the Northeast Extension (I-476).

Quote from: empirestate on February 05, 2018, 08:26:55 AM

Quote

Quote

QuoteAlso, there are no benefits to staying the same, other than to avoid the one-time cost, which is insignificant and petty at best.

That may well be, but I don't need to be persuaded to stay the same, so I don't need to consider the value of doing so.

Yes, you do; to prove that the value is greater than the value of converting. Surely you must be able to explain the benefits; I (and others) have done so extensively for the other side of the debate.

No, I don't, because I'm not trying to persuade anyone to adopt my viewpoint. I don't dispute the benefits of converting, and I don't fault anyone for coming to the conclusion that it should happen. You have indeed gone to great lengths to support your position, in the apparent hope that I'll come around to it. But I'm not asking the same of you.

Of course, and you don't have to persuade us of anything. But I guess the question is, why are you unwilling to accept an alternative viewpoint, if you don't even have any reasoning for the viewpoint you have?
I honestly am just interested in how you arrived at the concrete conclusion that value of doing nothing exceeds value of the conversion :hmmm: There must be at least some value we can easily assign to both sides of the coin, or else the whole discussion has been a total waste.

Quote from: webny99 on February 05, 2018, 10:33:57 AM

Quote from: empirestate on February 05, 2018, 08:26:55 AM

Quote

Quote

QuoteAlso, there are no benefits to staying the same, other than to avoid the one-time cost, which is insignificant and petty at best.

That may well be, but I don't need to be persuaded to stay the same, so I don't need to consider the value of doing so.

Yes, you do; to prove that the value is greater than the value of converting. Surely you must be able to explain the benefits; I (and others) have done so extensively for the other side of the debate.

No, I don't, because I'm not trying to persuade anyone to adopt my viewpoint. I don't dispute the benefits of converting, and I don't fault anyone for coming to the conclusion that it should happen. You have indeed gone to great lengths to support your position, in the apparent hope that I'll come around to it. But I'm not asking the same of you.

Of course, and you don't have to persuade us of anything. But I guess the question is, why are you unwilling to accept an alternative viewpoint, if you don't even have any reasoning for the viewpoint you have?
I honestly am just interested in how you arrived at the concrete conclusion that value of doing nothing exceeds value of the conversion :hmmm: There must be at least some value we can easily assign to both sides of the coin, or else the whole discussion has been a total waste.

Can we just let this die already?

Not until mileage-based exit numbers are installed in NY.

Quote from: seicer on February 05, 2018, 11:44:17 AM

Can we just let this die already?

Well, this is slightly more meaningful discussion than highway to Hawaii...

Quote from: kalvado on February 05, 2018, 07:37:48 AMI was actually looking for MA contract.  It is a good comparison - and we land in several million territory anyway. And I suspect, NY has a bit more renumbering to do than MA.

I suspect the cost works out about the same because the bulk of the mileage that would be renumbered in New York is rural freeways with fairly widely spaced exits like the Thruway and the Northway, while MassDOT is doing urban and suburban freeways like I-93, I-95, I-495, and I-290.  But I haven't actually drilled down to the level of detail that involves counting exits and checking which overlays and new tabs are applied to which signs.

Besides the expense involved in applying overlays and installing "Formerly"/"Old Exit" panels, I would expect it to cost at least a further $500,000 if NYSDOT and NYSTA decided to regularize milepointing on the Thruway and the Northway to secure 100% compliance with MUTCD requirements.

I would worry about these costs only if they were of the order of the final outturn cost of the Cuomo signs, which is easily enough to buy at least one bridge rehabilitation.  The bulk of signing work on freeways, both vertical and horizontal, is more about maintaining a certain minimum standard of service on an ongoing basis rather than investing in durable assets in the expectation of a precisely defined rate of return.  I suspect the cost of exit numbering changeover would be on roughly the same order as what the Thruway spends annually keeping the pavement striping nice and reflective.

Quote from: empirestate on February 05, 2018, 08:26:55 AMI wonder how much of the difference of opinion is simply this: being from a different state? You asked me if I had much experience navigation in mileage-based states, apparently with the idea that if I'd had very much, it would sway my opinion. Turns out I have, and it didn't...but how much of it has to do with simple exposure to the different systems, and how much with upbringing?

I grew up with my parents driving all over the Northeast, where nothing was mileage-based. They didn't navigate by exit numbers, and when I started driving myself, neither did I, having grown up instead following maps and just getting to know the territory. (And by "know the territory" I don't just mean memorizing the routes I frequently took, but also developing a sense of how the land and the roads are laid out, giving me the ability to predict what I might find along an unfamiliar route in similar territory.)

I was wondering the same thing, which is why I asked about your experience of mileage-based systems.  Having heard your answer, I think the relevant factor is having made one's home for decades in the heart of a sequential-numbering area, rather than experience per se.  I have visited 49 states (all except Hawaii) and have driven in 48 of them, but I have never come closer than 70 miles to living in a US jurisdiction that had sequential numbering at the time (suburban Maryland at a time when Pennsylvania still had sequentially numbered exits).

Quote from: empirestate on February 05, 2018, 08:26:55 AMBut reading what you've written about navigating through Kansas and elsewhere, it does seem that you rely to a much greater extent on the exit numbers themselves, and that you'd find it a great hindrance to navigate without them. Certainly, the distances in a territory like Kansas are different than they are in the Northeast; and who knows, maybe if I had to navigate the Great Plains if they switched back to sequential exit numbers, I'd find it much more of a hardship than I would in an area that has always had them. But I'd be curious whether it's just a matter of what's "in our blood".

I can cope (and indeed have coped) with sequential exit numbers, but it is a significantly less handy system for me since progress tracking entails dead reckoning on the basis of mileage signs of unknown reliability (as an example, KDOT and Oklahoma DOT disagree on the location of Wichita by about seven miles).  If Kansas went to sequential numbers, I can see myself relying more on basic facts of the underlying geography and signing practice, such as a typical Kansas county being 30 miles on a side, KDOT fighting not to provide more than one exit per community, and post-interchange confirmation signs typically listing the distance to the next exit, county seat, and (sometimes) AASHTO control city.  Along the Thruway corridor in upstate New York, I can easily see someone relying on the fact that major communities--Albany, Amsterdam, Utica, Syracuse, Rochester--are separated from each other by (a very crude approximation) 50 miles between consecutive towns.

In the US, BTW, my experience with sequentially numbered exits is all in Pennsylvania and the Northeast.  I never travelled by car any significant distance in Colorado, Florida, or Georgia when they still had sequential exit numbers.  I did drive in California before exit numbers, and I remember what an absolute disaster that was in terms of trying to figure out how far Los Angeles (my destination) was from the Colorado River along I-10.  (Caltrans still won't give up postmiles for actual MUTCD mileposts, but at least the fact Blythe is reached from Exit 241 gives me information I didn't have in 1998.)

I suspect one reason the Northeast is the last region to move away from sequential exit numbering is its much higher degree of urbanization:  the kind of dead reckoning that matters in rural areas is of much less value inside cities.  As an example, I don't really have all of the exit numbers on I-135 and I-235 in Wichita memorized, because I treat city trips separately from out-of-town trips--I know I can get anywhere in my quarter (NW) of the city within 15 minutes while it is better to budget 30 minutes for SW and NE and 45 minutes for SE.  But even with a much higher level of urbanization, the Northeast still has some relatively less populated corridors like the entire Southern Tier Expressway, the Thruway between Albany and Buffalo, the MassPike from Worcester westward, and free I-95 in Maine, where mileage-based exit numbering provides a noticeably higher level of service to motorists.

The fact people living in these areas are used to sequential numbering is not a guarantee a majority of them won't wake up to the added value of mileage-based numbering if it is introduced, and come to prefer it.

Quote from: kalvado on February 05, 2018, 07:35:19 AMI'm thinking along the lines that mileage-based renumbering is not a good idea while exact mileage for half a road is still in limbo. Renumbering again once Syracuse is decided and built is somewhat stupid...

I think the realignment that is being considered for Syracuse--moving I-81 to the I-481 bypass, thus creating a "gumboil" in an existing relatively direct route--is stupid at a conceptual level, but that is really a separate discussion.

In other jurisdictions that have found it necessary to establish milepointing for a route that has not been built all the way back to its predefined zero point, two basic approaches are used:  (1) identify a reasonably direct and feasible-to-build routing between zero point and start of existing route, and establish office milepointing for it, or (2) establish milepointing along an existing reasonably direct route between the zero point and start of existing route (Caltrans calls this a "traversable routing").  If the routing actually built ends up being longer or shorter than projected by either of these two methods, then the difference is covered by a mile equation.

Situations where the difference would be great enough to result in repeated exit numbers for a given route are rare.  Situations where mileage-based exit numbers are off by more than a mile or so are also uncommon--Utah I-15 is the only example I know of where exit numbers have had to be revised as a result.  I-10 in Arizona is a bit longer than originally projected in 1970, when exit numbering (mileage-based from the start) was introduced in Arizona, because the original plan was for it to follow the Durango Street corridor in west Phoenix while the eventually adopted routing runs midway between Roosevelt Street and McDowell Road, two miles north, adding about 2 1/4 miles to the total length of I-10 in Arizona.  The I-10 gap in Phoenix was not closed until about 1990.  As a result total length of route (per FHWA) is 392.33 miles, first milepost westbound in Arizona is 391, and first exit westbound (Cavot Road) is Exit 390.  There is presumably a mile equation somewhere around Phoenix, probably in an area where exit spacing is greater than two miles.

Syracuse is a purer example of self-sabotage because the added distance will be larger than typical exit spacing within urban Syracuse and will therefore be too great to paper over with a mile equation in the middle of nowhere.

Quote from: kalvado on February 05, 2018, 07:35:19 AM

Quote from: upstatenyroads on February 04, 2018, 09:34:14 PM

I spoke to NYSDOT about I-81 last summer, no matter what happens in Syracuse with I-81 (more exits, less exits, rerouting), when the exits get renumbered it will be mileage based for the entire roadway.

I'm thinking along the lines that mileage-based renumbering is not a good idea while exact mileage for half a road is still in limbo. Renumbering again once Syracuse is decided and built is somewhat stupid...

My guess is that this would be a renumbering as a result of whatever happens in Syracuse, so I don't see why it would be done before things are decided.

Quote from: seicer on February 05, 2018, 11:44:17 AM
Can we just let this die already?

You don't have to read it all  :-P Also, this -

Quote from: Rothman on February 05, 2018, 11:54:38 AM
Not until mileage-based exit numbers are installed in NY.

---

Quote

Quote from: J N Winkler on February 04, 2018, 03:00:04 PM
Since Cuomo has been governor, the Thruway has had an awful lot of directors--how many is it now?  Seven?  Eight?  That alone raises the odds someone will be brought in from a state with mileage-based numbering, just to avoid promoting a coffee-getter straight into the wood-paneled office.

I wonder how much of the difference of opinion is simply this: being from a different state? You asked me if I had much experience navigation in mileage-based states, apparently with the idea that if I'd had very much, it would sway my opinion. Turns out I have, and it didn't...but how much of it has to do with simple exposure to the different systems, and how much with upbringing?

I imagine it's related to those factors to quite an extent. I personally can get along just fine in New York with sequential numbers; but that comes from the experience I have driving our interstates; knowing many of the mileposts anyways, knowing the approximate distance between exits, etc.

I might make a rather interesting observation that those who grew up on mileage-based system seem to find it a real hardship to do without in places such as New York - but those who grew up on sequential get the bonus of having mileage-based systems almost everywhere they travel. As such, you and I have never had to deal with a sequential system in territory we are completely unfamiliar with. So I can't fully understand the loss experienced by out-of-state travelers in New York, as I've never taken the system used elsewhere for granted.

Quote from: webny99 on February 05, 2018, 10:33:57 AM

Quote from: empirestate on February 05, 2018, 08:26:55 AM
No, I don't, because I'm not trying to persuade anyone to adopt my viewpoint. I don't dispute the benefits of converting, and I don't fault anyone for coming to the conclusion that it should happen. You have indeed gone to great lengths to support your position, in the apparent hope that I'll come around to it. But I'm not asking the same of you.

Of course, and you don't have to persuade us of anything. But I guess the question is, why are you unwilling to accept an alternative viewpoint, if you don't even have any reasoning for the viewpoint you have?

Who says I'm unwilling? I understand the alternative viewpoint, I accept it; I just don't share it.

QuoteI honestly am just interested in how you arrived at the concrete conclusion that value of doing nothing exceeds value of the conversion :hmmm: There must be at least some value we can easily assign to both sides of the coin, or else the whole discussion has been a total waste.

I haven't arrived at that concrete conclusion; I guess maybe you misunderstand my position. I'm saying, there is no perceivable need to convert the numbering system in New York, so there is no solution that needs to be considered. Other people have said they do perceive a need, and they've explained why. I understand their reasons and I don't dispute them, nor do I think they're wrong for holding those views. But I don't also hold that view.

So, it remains that I see no problem that needs to be solved, so there's nothing for me to weight against. And just to remain the same involves no action, so I don't have to consider the relative benefits or disadvantages of any action.

Maybe the best way for me to put it is this:

Quote from: seicer on February 05, 2018, 11:44:17 AM
Can we just let this die already?

For me, it was dead before it was born. And it's still dead. :-D

Quote from: empirestate on February 05, 2018, 04:18:39 PM
Maybe the best way for me to put it is this:

Quote from: seicer on February 05, 2018, 11:44:17 AM
Can we just let this die already?

For me, it was dead before it was born. And it's still dead. :-D

We'll leave it at that  :-P :thumbsup:

Here's an aspect of the discussion I am interested in continuing:

Quote
I might make a rather interesting observation that those who grew up on mileage-based system seem to find it a real hardship to do without in places such as New York - but those who grew up on sequential get the bonus of having mileage-based systems almost everywhere they travel. As such, you and I have never had to deal with a sequential system in territory we are completely unfamiliar with. So I can't fully understand the loss experienced by out-of-state travelers in New York, as I've never taken the system used elsewhere for granted.

Quote from: J N Winkler on February 05, 2018, 12:28:45 PM
I suspect one reason the Northeast is the last region to move away from sequential exit numbering is its much higher degree of urbanization:  the kind of dead reckoning that matters in rural areas is of much less value inside cities.

I suspect this, too, and it probably explains why I see the problem as far less important than you do: because where I live and was raised, it genuinely is less important. And while it appears most of the forum members from the Northeast probably agree with the need to convert to mile-based numbering, I'm going to guess that my view is closer to that of the the general motoring public–you know, those who don't ever go onto internet bulletin boards and discuss the subject of exit numbering systems. :-)

QuoteThe fact people living in these areas are used to sequential numbering is not a guarantee a majority of them won't wake up to the added value of mileage-based numbering if it is introduced, and come to prefer it.

Well, I think what's more likely is that those few of them who even notice these things might look up and say "oh, that's kinda neat. Wonder why we never did that before?"–and then just go back and plug the destination into their GPS anyway.

Quote from: webny99 on February 05, 2018, 02:47:14 PM
I might make a rather interesting observation that those who grew up on mileage-based system seem to find it a real hardship to do without in places such as New York - but those who grew up on sequential get the bonus of having mileage-based systems almost everywhere they travel. As such, you and I have never had to deal with a sequential system in territory we are completely unfamiliar with. So I can't fully understand the loss experienced by out-of-state travelers in New York, as I've never taken the system used elsewhere for granted.

Well, but again, we're talking only about that small segment of the public who actually navigates by these older methods. I can't think of the last time I took a trip to an unfamiliar place with a non-roadgeek who figured the distances using any other method than Google Maps. So to whatever extent there's a hardship to any group of people, that group is going to be only a small subset of the general population.

I think the general motoring public didn't understand the need to change in any state, let alone Northeastern states.  That said, long-distance drivers surely did and do.

Someone wanted the benefit quantified.  Fine:  On a five-point likert scale, where 1 is useless and 5 is most useful, mileage-based exit numbers score a 4.

Quote from: Rothman on February 06, 2018, 11:59:19 AM
I think the general motoring public didn't understand the need to change in any state, let alone Northeastern states.  That said, long-distance drivers surely did and do.

Someone wanted the benefit quantified.  Fine:  On a five-point likert scale, where 1 is useless and 5 is most useful, mileage-based exit numbers score a 4.

Where I grew up (Queensbury), it probably scores a 5. Why? Amount of out-of-area tourists. Biggest tourist exits on the northbound Northway are 20-31. 23-24 and 29-30 are 10 mile gaps. 30-31 is 13 miles, one of the longest on I-87 and shorter than only a couple on the Thruway. Do you know how many times I have seen idiots frantically get over after 23/29/30 and then get off at 24/30/31 during tourist season? Quite a few. Yes, most of the population in this state lives places where the sequential numbers are close to what the distance would be. But in the tourist areas, they sure as heck aren't.

Quote from: empirestate on February 06, 2018, 11:20:00 AM
And while it appears most of the forum members from the Northeast probably agree with the need to convert to mile-based numbering, I'm going to guess that my view is closer to that of the the general motoring public–you know, those who don't ever go onto internet bulletin boards and discuss the subject of exit numbering systems. :-)

Unlike the general motoring public, though, you are aware that mileage-based systems exist, and you are aware of the benefits.

QuoteWell, but again, we're talking only about that small segment of the public who actually navigates by these older methods. I can't think of the last time I took a trip to an unfamiliar place with a non-roadgeek who figured the distances using any other method than Google Maps. So to whatever extent there's a hardship to any group of people, that group is going to be only a small subset of the general population.

That's fine - but can we just leave google maps and GPS out of it?  :pan:
You've never taken a mileage based system for granted the way people in other states do, so in that sense, you can't speak for out-of-state travelers in New York. Further, we get the benefit of mileage-based systems whenever we travel out-of-state ourselves.

So what I'm saying is that it's a double hit - out-of-state travelers have mileage-based numbering at home (where they need it least - but this also causes them to take it for granted/depend on it), and they don't have it when traveling in NYS, when they actually need it, expect it, and would use it, the most.
NYS residents, on the other hand, get two bonuses; not taking mileage-based for granted, but also having it when we need it most - in other states. I know that's very poorly worded, but you get the point - it's only fair that we keep up with the standard.

Quote from: cl94 on February 06, 2018, 12:32:00 PM

Quote from: Rothman on February 06, 2018, 11:59:19 AM
I think the general motoring public didn't understand the need to change in any state, let alone Northeastern states.  That said, long-distance drivers surely did and do.

Someone wanted the benefit quantified.  Fine:  On a five-point likert scale, where 1 is useless and 5 is most useful, mileage-based exit numbers score a 4.

Where I grew up (Queensbury), it probably scores a 5. Why? Amount of out-of-area tourists. Biggest tourist exits on the northbound Northway are 20-31. 23-24 and 29-30 are 10 mile gaps. 30-31 is 13 miles, one of the longest on I-87 and shorter than only a couple on the Thruway. Do you know how many times I have seen idiots frantically get over after 23/29/30 and then get off at 24/30/31 during tourist season? Quite a few. Yes, most of the population in this state lives places where the sequential numbers are close to what the distance would be. But in the tourist areas, they sure as heck aren't.

Certainly valid points.  Mileage based exits certainly would work.  The question is whether the natives will resist the movement to re-milepost the Northway based on I-87 mileage from the Bronx rather than from Albany?  Doesn't make a difference for tourists, but those familiar with the area it certainly does.

The Thruway Authority has annual revenue of about $700 million.  The best estimate for the cost of "pure" exit numbering conversion we have been able to come up with is around $2.5 million.  ("Pure" here means that it includes no expenses that are not actually necessary for the conversion itself, one example of such an excluded cost being wholesale replacement of large sign panels.)  I can guarantee that the Thruway is spending many times this sum annually on goods and services for which the value-for-money concept is much hazier than it is for mileage-based exit numbering.

One reason I am able to do so is that the Thruway is a public agency like any other, and as such, procures some of its goods and services through RFPs with evaluation matrices that do not assign all, or even the majority, of their weighing toward an explicit value-for-money measure.

Quote from: Rothman on February 06, 2018, 11:59:19 AM
Someone wanted the benefit quantified.  Fine:  On a five-point likert scale, where 1 is useless and 5 is most useful, mileage-based exit numbers score a 4.

I'd probably rate it similarly. However, we need a scale of importance, not usefulness. We also need a scale to measure how much of a problem it is that NY doesn't have mileage-based numbering. I'm at a '1' on such a scale.

I also think you're correct to show that scales like this are probably the closest we'll get to actually quantifying the issue.

Quote from: cl94 on February 06, 2018, 12:32:00 PM
Where I grew up (Queensbury), it probably scores a 5. Why? Amount of out-of-area tourists. Biggest tourist exits on the northbound Northway are 20-31. 23-24 and 29-30 are 10 mile gaps. 30-31 is 13 miles, one of the longest on I-87 and shorter than only a couple on the Thruway. Do you know how many times I have seen idiots frantically get over after 23/29/30 and then get off at 24/30/31 during tourist season? Quite a few. Yes, most of the population in this state lives places where the sequential numbers are close to what the distance would be. But in the tourist areas, they sure as heck aren't.

Just so I understand, you're saying that mileage-based numbering would prevent unsafe lane changes?

Quote from: webny99 on February 06, 2018, 12:41:13 PM

Quote from: empirestate on February 06, 2018, 11:20:00 AM
And while it appears most of the forum members from the Northeast probably agree with the need to convert to mile-based numbering, I'm going to guess that my view is closer to that of the the general motoring public–you know, those who don't ever go onto internet bulletin boards and discuss the subject of exit numbering systems. :-)

Unlike the general motoring public, though, you are aware that mileage-based systems exist, and you are aware of the benefits.

That's right, because I go onto internet bulletin boards and discuss subjects like exit numbering systems.

QuoteThat's fine - but can we just leave google maps and GPS out of it?  :pan:

Not if we're still on the topic of the value of conversion, or of establishing that a problem exists. But if we've moved off to a pure discussion of whether someone's upbringing affects their reliance on mile-based systems, then yes, we can.

Quote from: J N Winkler on February 06, 2018, 12:48:32 PM
The Thruway Authority has annual revenue of about $700 million.  The best estimate for the cost of "pure" exit numbering conversion we have been able to come up with is around $2.5 million.  ("Pure" here means that it includes no expenses that are not actually necessary for the conversion itself, one example of such an excluded cost being wholesale replacement of large sign panels.)  I can guarantee that the Thruway is spending many times this sum annually on goods and services for which the value-for-money concept is much hazier than it is for mileage-based exit numbering.

Good point–there are doubtless many things on which the Thruway spends millions that can't be shown to have a return value of millions, so you can see why I don't think exit renumbering should be added to that list.

Quote from: empirestate on February 06, 2018, 01:16:26 PM

QuoteThat's fine - but can we just leave google maps and GPS out of it?  :pan:

Not if we're still on the topic of the value of conversion, or of establishing that a problem exists. But if we've moved off to a pure discussion of whether someone's upbringing affects their reliance on mile-based systems, then yes, we can.

I'm looking forward to (and was under the impression that we would) do just that. My further point, on which you declined to comment, was made with that in mind.

Quote
Good point–there are doubtless many things on which the Thruway spends millions that can't be shown to have a return value of millions, so you can see why I don't think exit renumbering should be added to that list.

[sits back and watches] :popcorn: :popcorn:

That's not what I'm saying, per se. I'm saying it would stop the "oh, crap, my exit is coming up!" you get now. In most of the country, an exit number difference of 1 implies the exits are a mile apart and most people act accordingly.

Quote from: webny99 on February 06, 2018, 12:41:13 PM

QuoteWell, but again, we're talking only about that small segment of the public who actually navigates by these older methods. I can't think of the last time I took a trip to an unfamiliar place with a non-roadgeek who figured the distances using any other method than Google Maps. So to whatever extent there's a hardship to any group of people, that group is going to be only a small subset of the general population.

That's fine - but can we just leave google maps and GPS out of it?  :pan:

Of course, we cal leave GPS, maps, locals, tourists, drivers, truckers, governor, thruway, elections, traffic, roads out of it.
(checking what's left)
It's a nice weather, isn't it?

I don't think it is fair to characterize mileage-based exit numbering as a niche technical concern.  It has surfaced even in this very normie context:

http://blogs.artvoice.com/avdaily/2014/01/31/things-to-ask-the-new-york-state-thruway-authority/

The flip side of the "exit numbering is not very important" argument is that it is also weak as an argument against spending 0.625% of the annual operating budget on a change that does noticeably improve convenience and user-friendliness for a significant segment of the motoring public.  And if it temporarily displaces expenditures in other areas where value for money is more questionable, so much the better.

Ultimately, exit numbering conversion is not as momentous a change as railroad gauge conversion, which is a costly change at a very basic level of the infrastructure and requires careful balancing of the initial capital commitment against returns arising from improved network utility and the like.

It's also worth noting that many parts of the state were unnumbered for a long time.  Rochester didn't have any exit numbers until the 80s when I-490 and I-390 were finally finished.  I-88 didn't have any until completion either.

Interestingly, NY almost converted to mile-based numbers in the 70s.  The only thing stopping the conversion?  The US was slated to go metric soon and nobody wanted to renumber the exits soon after to km-based numbers.

I'm not so sure the general public isn't aware that mile-based numbers exist.  My Uncle once asked in a Facebook comment "when will NY change the numbers to be based on distance like the rest of the world?" (cue a bunch of comments from roadgeeks about sequential numbering in Europe).

Quote from: J N Winkler on February 06, 2018, 01:32:46 PM
The flip side of the "exit numbering is not very important" argument is that it is also weak as an argument against spending 0.625% of the annual operating budget on a change that doesn't noticeably improve convenience and user-friendliness for a significant segment of the motoring public, but definitely would please a small group of roadgeeks.  And if it temporarily displaces expenditures in other areas where value for money is more questionable, so much the better.

Ultimately, exit numbering conversion is not as momentous a change as railroad gauge conversion, which is a costly change at a very basic level of the infrastructure and requires careful balancing of the initial capital commitment against returns arising from improved network utility and the like.

FTFY

Quote from: vdeane on February 06, 2018, 01:33:50 PM
I'm not so sure the general public isn't aware that mile-based numbers exist.  My Uncle once asked in a Facebook comment "when will NY change the numbers to be based on distance like the rest of the world?" (cue a bunch of comments from roadgeeks about sequential numbering in Europe).

I can only assume this comment was mainly for my benefit. I should note I was referring to the public in NYS specifically.

Quote from: vdeane on February 06, 2018, 01:33:50 PMInterestingly, NY almost converted to mile-based numbers in the 70s.  The only thing stopping the conversion?  The US was slated to go metric soon and nobody wanted to renumber the exits soon after to km-based numbers.

I suspect this is the main reason conversion to distance-based numbering is not on the table in Britain.  Motorways are distance-marked in kilometers but signing is still based on miles.  As there is a vociferous anti-metric lobby, but official government policy is still that metric conversion will be carried through "once everybody has had a metric education," anything signing-related that touches on the underlying units system controversy languishes with minimum action other than dual-posting of clearances and the use of metric-based weight limit signing (both either required by the EU or provided for the specific purpose of accommodating lorry traffic from the rest of the EU).

I think driver location signs came about largely because the UK did not want to seem like a laggard to North America in using enhanced location reference markers for incident response, but did not want to develop a separate distance-marking system (thereby inviting controversy as to whether it should be based on miles) for this application.

Quote from: kalvado on February 06, 2018, 01:42:07 PMFTFY

The underlying point (which I will say directly instead of slipping it in as a post repair) is that sticking to the existing system pleases an even smaller group of roadgeeks.

Quote from: J N Winkler on February 06, 2018, 01:48:02 PM

Quote from: kalvado on February 06, 2018, 01:42:07 PMFTFY

The underlying point (which I will say directly instead of slipping it in as a post repair) is that sticking to the existing system pleases an even smaller group of roadgeeks.

I don't know if you remember - there was another round of Thruway bashing sometime ago, regarding county lines being posted. It was much more enthusiastic compared to this thread, but pretty much the only valid argument for posting those was that NWS provided severe weather alert by county. I believe they switched since then. SO I am a bit skeptical about opinions..
And as an old wise man said, if it ain't broke, don't fix it

Quote from: J N Winkler on February 06, 2018, 01:48:02 PM

Quote from: kalvado on February 06, 2018, 01:42:07 PMFTFY

The underlying point (which I will say directly instead of slipping it in as a post repair) is that sticking to the existing system pleases an even smaller group of roadgeeks.

We could narrow it down further, to one or two roadgeeks (status pending, at that), but perhaps we shouldn't  ;-)

Quote from: webny99 on February 06, 2018, 01:47:18 PM

Quote from: vdeane on February 06, 2018, 01:33:50 PM
I'm not so sure the general public isn't aware that mile-based numbers exist.  My Uncle once asked in a Facebook comment "when will NY change the numbers to be based on distance like the rest of the world?" (cue a bunch of comments from roadgeeks about sequential numbering in Europe).

I can only assume this comment was mainly for my benefit. I should note I was referring to the public in NYS specifically.

My Aunt and Uncle lived near Rochester until a few years ago.  Now they live in the 1000 Islands, with a winter house in Florida.  I guess it's a judgement call whether they still count as "NYS driving public" or not.

Quote from: kalvado on February 06, 2018, 01:52:57 PM
I don't know if you remember - there was another round of Thruway bashing sometime ago, regarding county lines being posted. It was much more enthusiastic compared to this thread, but pretty much the only valid argument for posting those was that NWS provided severe weather alert by county. I believe they switched since then. SO I am a bit skeptical about opinions..
And as an old wise man said, if it ain't broke, don't fix it

How about the fact that it feels really weird to go from one county to another without a sign (I also get a similar feeling if I cross a state boundary without a sign)?

Quote from: webny99 on February 06, 2018, 01:54:00 PM

Quote from: J N Winkler on February 06, 2018, 01:48:02 PM

Quote from: kalvado on February 06, 2018, 01:42:07 PMFTFY

The underlying point (which I will say directly instead of slipping it in as a post repair) is that sticking to the existing system pleases an even smaller group of roadgeeks.

We could narrow it down further, to one or two roadgeeks (status pending, at that), but perhaps we shouldn't  ;-)

You see, "keep it as is" approach can cause problems - but it is often an easier solution...  So I am claiming a benefit of "ain't broken" here. And feel free to point your finger at me, if that helps :)

Quote from: kalvado on February 06, 2018, 01:52:57 PMI don't know if you remember - there was another round of Thruway bashing sometime ago, regarding county lines being posted. It was much more enthusiastic compared to this thread, but pretty much the only valid argument for posting those was that NWS provided severe weather alert by county. I believe they switched since then. So I am a bit skeptical about opinions..

I understand your point of view.  I do remember that discussion and although I don't think I participated in it, I really do appreciate having county line signs.  I personally find them more valuable than the signs the Thruway posts to say that E-ZPass works in all toll lanes (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1057554,-75.1710752,3a,15.5y,324.87h,90.79t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1svuQWvGJwkNkr0qPij0uvvQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).  The Thruway is the only toll road with ETC where I have seen these signs, and I'm skeptical about how well they serve their apparent purpose of encouraging E-ZPass holders to use the cash lanes when the E-ZPass lanes are backed up.  I would expect drivers instead to subject themselves to some inconvenience to avoid a gated lane or the possibility of sideswiping a toll collector who leans out to take a ticket that is not coming.

Quote from: J N Winkler on February 06, 2018, 04:32:38 PM

Quote from: kalvado on February 06, 2018, 01:52:57 PMI don't know if you remember - there was another round of Thruway bashing sometime ago, regarding county lines being posted. It was much more enthusiastic compared to this thread, but pretty much the only valid argument for posting those was that NWS provided severe weather alert by county. I believe they switched since then. So I am a bit skeptical about opinions..

I understand your point of view.  I do remember that discussion and although I don't think I participated in it, I really do appreciate having county line signs.  I personally find them more valuable than the signs the Thruway posts to say that E-ZPass works in all toll lanes (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1057554,-75.1710752,3a,15.5y,324.87h,90.79t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1svuQWvGJwkNkr0qPij0uvvQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).  The Thruway is the only toll road with ETC where I have seen these signs, and I'm skeptical about how well they serve their apparent purpose of encouraging E-ZPass holders to use the cash lanes when the E-ZPass lanes are backed up.  I would expect drivers instead to subject themselves to some inconvenience to avoid a gated lane or the possibility of sideswiping a toll collector who leans out to take a ticket that is not coming.

Whatever it worth.. I twice ended up with a delay in a non-EZpass lane - once on a Masspike and once on a Thruway. So I do pay attention to those "in all lanes" signs ever since.
Did you ever got into a wrong county because of lack of signage?

Quote from: webny99 on February 06, 2018, 01:25:28 PM

Quote from: empirestate on February 06, 2018, 01:16:26 PM

QuoteThat's fine - but can we just leave google maps and GPS out of it?  :pan:

Not if we're still on the topic of the value of conversion, or of establishing that a problem exists. But if we've moved off to a pure discussion of whether someone's upbringing affects their reliance on mile-based systems, then yes, we can.

I'm looking forward to (and was under the impression that we would) do just that. My further point, on which you declined to comment, was made with that in mind.

OK, well just so you know, I won't necessarily quote and respond to every last thing you write; if I don't have anything further to add, I'll just leave it at that. The reason I didn't include your following comment is because you said something like "it's only fair that we keep to the standard," which I took to be a continuing argument in favor of converting. Since I thought we'd both agreed it was time to wrap up that line of discussion, I left it out.

Quote from: cl94 on February 06, 2018, 01:31:18 PM
That's not what I'm saying, per se. I'm saying it would stop the "oh, crap, my exit is coming up!" you get now. In most of the country, an exit number difference of 1 implies the exits are a mile apart and most people act accordingly.

I guess I don't quite follow you, then. In a sequential system, the numbers are always 1 apart, so you'd think motorists would be constantly ready for their exit, always thinking it was a mile away.

Quote from: J N Winkler on February 06, 2018, 01:32:46 PM
I don't think it is fair to characterize mileage-based exit numbering as a niche technical concern.  It has surfaced even in this very normie context:

http://blogs.artvoice.com/avdaily/2014/01/31/things-to-ask-the-new-york-state-thruway-authority/

Can't get the link right now for whatever reason, but yeah; I agree that "niche technical concern" isn't the right characterization. My opinion of it is better represented by how I phrased it earlier: an invention of which necessity is not the mother.

QuoteThe flip side of the "exit numbering is not very important" argument is that it is also weak as an argument against spending 0.625% of the annual operating budget on a change that does noticeably improve convenience and user-friendliness for a significant segment of the motoring public.  And if it temporarily displaces expenditures in other areas where value for money is more questionable, so much the better.

Also agreed, assuming the premise (indicated by my added emphasis) is true. As of now, I haven't come to view it as such, and so it does not enter my thinking as to whether the argument is weak or not.

Quote from: webny99 on February 06, 2018, 01:54:00 PM

Quote from: J N Winkler on February 06, 2018, 01:48:02 PM
The underlying point (which I will say directly instead of slipping it in as a post repair) is that sticking to the existing system pleases an even smaller group of roadgeeks.

We could narrow it down further, to one or two roadgeeks (status pending, at that), but perhaps we shouldn't  ;-)

Well, don't look here. :-) Like I said before, this issue was dead for me before it came up, and it still is. I definitely admire you guys for your persistence in arguing for your position, but it's a bit of a quixotic goal if you're trying to change my mind from my current position to yours, because when you come right down to it, my position is the absence of a position. I see no problem, so I don't need to consider any solutions; therefore, I have no strong position on any solution, whether that be the one you favor, or some other one. It's not that I think keeping sequential numbering is the better solution to the problem; it's that I think there's no problem. Or, if we want to come back to the bridge analogy, you're saying "a bridge is the best way to get across the river," whereas I'm saying, "We don't need to get across the river." (But if we did, sure; a bridge would be ideal.) ;-)

Quote from: J N Winkler on February 06, 2018, 04:32:38 PM
I understand your point of view.  I do remember that discussion and although I don't think I participated in it, I really do appreciate having county line signs.  I personally find them more valuable than the signs the Thruway posts to say that E-ZPass works in all toll lanes (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1057554,-75.1710752,3a,15.5y,324.87h,90.79t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1svuQWvGJwkNkr0qPij0uvvQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).  The Thruway is the only toll road with ETC where I have seen these signs, and I'm skeptical about how well they serve their apparent purpose of encouraging E-ZPass holders to use the cash lanes when the E-ZPass lanes are backed up.  I would expect drivers instead to subject themselves to some inconvenience to avoid a gated lane or the possibility of sideswiping a toll collector who leans out to take a ticket that is not coming.

Yeah–after all, this is the same species where there will be a row of fourteen unlocked doors all leading the same place, but every single person will file in–and out!–through the same single door that happens to be open already. :-D

Sequential exits are not always sequential. You have, in many instances, Exit 1, 2, 2A, 2B, 3, 4A, 4, 5 or other variants because of exits that were added after the numbering system was devised. In other words, sequential numbering is not future proof.

Even worse is when competing systems don't agree with each other, so you have Exit 1, 2, 2A, 1, 2... for Interstate 95 in New York.

Quote from: seicer on February 06, 2018, 07:33:47 PM
Sequential exits are not always sequential. You have, in many instances, Exit 1, 2, 2A, 2B, 3, 4A, 4, 5 or other variants because of exits that were added after the numbering system was devised. In other words, sequential numbering is not future proof.

Even worse is when competing systems don't agree with each other, so you have Exit 1, 2, 2A, 1, 2... for Interstate 95 in New York.

Plus, NY, CT, VT, NH, and (for a different reason), the NJTP, might be the only places that use directional suffixes.  For example, the I-91 exits for CT 9 are Exits 22S and 22N, which would be Exits 27 A-B in a mileage based system. The exits for I-84 on I-684 are 9E and 9W, which would (interestingly enough) also be 27 A-B.  The NJTP only uses it to differentiate between spurs (15X was added later).  The GSP used "155P" as a suffix for the NJ 19 exit northbound, but it has since been changed to a conventional 155A.  In the alphabet city section of Kansas, 2E does not denote an exit to the eastbound roadway of a route, but is just an exit number between 2D and 2F.

On I-84 in CT, you have both Exits 25 and 25A, and 39 and 39A. In both instances, the A exit was added later, and each is about a mile apart from the plain number.  In a mileage system, all would have different numbers; 25 would be 35 EB and 36 WB (the exits are for the same area but about a mile apart), 25A would be 37, 39 would be 54 EB and 54B WB (partial Exit 38 would be 54A), and 39A would be 55.   You would never have that in a mileage based system 

Quote from: empirestate on February 06, 2018, 07:07:30 PM
OK, well just so you know, I won't necessarily quote and respond to every last thing you write; if I don't have anything further to add, I'll just leave it at that.

Likewise  :-P

Quote

Quote from: cl94 on February 06, 2018, 01:31:18 PM
That's not what I'm saying, per se. I'm saying it would stop the "oh, crap, my exit is coming up!" you get now. In most of the country, an exit number difference of 1 implies the exits are a mile apart and most people act accordingly.

I guess I don't quite follow you, then. In a sequential system, the numbers are always 1 apart, so you'd think motorists would be constantly ready for their exit, always thinking it was a mile away.

This cracked me up  :-D You've basically just helped summarize a major issue with sequential numbering.

Advance signage is only usually posted a mile in advance; it rarely overlaps the previous interchange in rural areas. As such, the average motorist/tourist has no idea when their exit will be, only that it's 60, and therefore must come after 59. If they're in the left lane expecting a long distance and suddenly those two exits are in quick succession - then crap - we have a problem.

QuoteIt's not that I think keeping sequential numbering is the better solution to the problem; it's that I think there's no problem.

OK. Let me phrase it this way. Sequential numbering has no problems on its own merits - it works, it serves its purpose, and people make do. It's fine - some of us could proabably use it forever without batting so much as an eyelash. But it just so happens that it's inferior; there's a much better, more advanced, universally accepted, solution.

Similarly, there's no "problem" with typewriters. At some point, you come to grips with the fact that even though the typewriter is still in mint condition, working great, you should invest in a computer. It should be obvious -
it doesn't have to be broken before it's worth considering an upgrade. Progress is inevitable; an integral part of the world we live in. Like it or lump it, it's happening before your very eyes.

And that, in raw, simplistic terms, is the real crux of the issue with the stance that there isn't a problem.

Quote from: webny99 on February 06, 2018, 10:05:28 PM

Advance signage is only usually posted a mile in advance; it rarely overlaps the previous interchange in rural areas. As such, the average motorist/tourist has no idea when their exit will be, only that it's 60, and therefore must come after 59. If they're in the left lane expecting a long distance and suddenly those two exits are in quick succession - then crap - we have a problem.

There is a line right below your username in right coloumn, I think it is the proper answer to your concerns...

Quote from: webny99 on February 06, 2018, 10:05:28 PMAdvance signage is only usually posted a mile in advance; it rarely overlaps the previous interchange in rural areas. As such, the average motorist/tourist has no idea when their exit will be, only that it's 60, and therefore must come after 59. If they're in the left lane expecting a long distance and suddenly those two exits are in quick succession - then crap - we have a problem.

A variation of this problem with some (not all) sequential numbering schemes is skipped numbers.  Pass Exit 58, bed in for a cruise, mile . . . mile . . . OMG, next exit is 60! (often because Exit 59 exists only in the other direction).  And this can surprise even the wary driver who is prepared for a rapid-fire succession of exits.

Quote from: kalvado on February 06, 2018, 10:15:31 PM
There is a line right below your username in right coloumn, I think it is the proper answer to your concerns...

I'd love to think I could cruise 50 miles on the Northway without using the left lane. I'd love to think everyone else could too  :-P
If they're passing, I have no objections to them being there.

Quote from: J N Winkler on February 06, 2018, 10:23:18 PM
A variation of this problem with some (not all) sequential numbering schemes is skipped numbers.  Pass Exit 58, bed in for a cruise, mile . . . mile . . . OMG, next exit is 60! (often because Exit 59 exists only in the other direction).  And this can surprise even the wary driver who is prepared for a rapid-fire succession of exits.

Extremely good point; and I find myself quite surprised that this has not been mentioned upthread.

I-490 is a prime example of this; the westbound numbering scheme is 29-27-26-25-23-21. This excludes three numbers (all of which are used eastbound) and as such must be hopeless at best for long-distance travelers.

Especially the absence of 22, since 21 is a major double-split junction with I-590. Combined with the lack of advance signage for 21, this leads to a lot of last minute weaving. Here all these years people have been merging right at the last second, and I've been blaming them for intentionally cutting the queue  ;-)

Also, what about the Thruway case south of Albany? Say you're going NB and looking for 21B. Think it'll be after 21A? Nope! The sequence is 21-21B-21A-22. And 22 is less than a mile north of 21A.

And as far as skipped numbers, TONS of cases of that in this state. Because of partial exits, I-190 jumps from 14 to 11 SB, NY 17 jumps from 126 to 129 SB, and there are a few other huge jumps throughout the state. I-87 (Northway) Exit 3, I-190 Exit 10, and NY 17 Exit 88 just don't exist. At least Massachusetts will post a "No Exit XX" sign in the event a number is skipped.

Exit 3 on the Northway is coming. :D

Quote from: Rothman on February 07, 2018, 07:44:48 AM
Exit 3 on the Northway is coming. :D

They've been saying that for 20 years  :-D .

Quote from: webny99 on February 06, 2018, 10:05:28 PM

Quote from: cl94 on February 06, 2018, 01:31:18 PM
That's not what I'm saying, per se. I'm saying it would stop the "oh, crap, my exit is coming up!" you get now. In most of the country, an exit number difference of 1 implies the exits are a mile apart and most people act accordingly.

I guess I don't quite follow you, then. In a sequential system, the numbers are always 1 apart, so you'd think motorists would be constantly ready for their exit, always thinking it was a mile away.

This cracked me up  :-D You've basically just helped summarize a major issue with sequential numbering.[/quote]

Who, me or cl94? Or both of us?

QuoteAdvance signage is only usually posted a mile in advance; it rarely overlaps the previous interchange in rural areas. As such, the average motorist/tourist has no idea when their exit will be, only that it's 60, and therefore must come after 59. If they're in the left lane expecting a long distance and suddenly those two exits are in quick succession - then crap - we have a problem.

Right, but if they're accustomed to mile-based numbering, then they'd tend to think 59 and 60 are closer together than they might actually be. So I don't see why there'd be a problem with exits coming up too quickly?

QuoteOK. Let me phrase it this way. Sequential numbering has no problems on its own merits - it works, it serves its purpose, and people make do. It's fine - some of us could proabably use it forever without batting so much as an eyelash. But it just so happens that it's inferior; there's a much better, more advanced, universally accepted, solution.

Similarly, there's no "problem" with typewriters. At some point, you come to grips with the fact that even though the typewriter is still in mint condition, working great, you should invest in a computer. It should be obvious -
it doesn't have to be broken before it's worth considering an upgrade. Progress is inevitable; an integral part of the world we live in. Like it or lump it, it's happening before your very eyes.

And that, in raw, simplistic terms, is the real crux of the issue with the stance that there isn't a problem.

Right, and that crux leads you to believe a conversion is necessary, and me to believe that it isn't. Pages and pages later, we still come back to that simple subjective decision. But it looks like you're still holding out for trying to persuade me, so maybe the simplest way to put is is this: Is there something you think I've got wrong? Some point I haven't grasped that, if I did, would lead me to change my view?

Quote from: J N Winkler on February 06, 2018, 10:23:18 PM
A variation of this problem with some (not all) sequential numbering schemes is skipped numbers.  Pass Exit 58, bed in for a cruise, mile . . . mile . . . OMG, next exit is 60! (often because Exit 59 exists only in the other direction).  And this can surprise even the wary driver who is prepared for a rapid-fire succession of exits.

But of course, this situation exists with all mile-based systems. So, if it's a problem, it's one that's less likely to exist in a sequential system.

Quote from: webny99 on February 06, 2018, 10:43:10 PM
Especially the absence of 22, since 21 is a major double-split junction with I-590. Combined with the lack of advance signage for 21, this leads to a lot of last minute weaving. Here all these years people have been merging right at the last second, and I've been blaming them for intentionally cutting the queue  ;-)

I've always attributed this kind of last minute weaving to each driver's belief that he is better than everyone else at being faster than everyone else, and therefore expects to arrive at each exit ahead of any other given vehicle. Has this kind of behavior been shown to exist less in mile-based areas?

Quote from: cl94 on February 06, 2018, 11:01:58 PM
Also, what about the Thruway case south of Albany? Say you're going NB and looking for 21B. Think it'll be after 21A? Nope! The sequence is 21-21B-21A-22. And 22 is less than a mile north of 21A.

Yup, as I said before, that's an example of something I'd consider a much bigger problem than the lack of a mile-based system. You could quite easily persuade me that changing this is worthwhile.

Quote from: cl94 on February 07, 2018, 10:45:47 AM

Quote from: Rothman on February 07, 2018, 07:44:48 AM
Exit 3 on the Northway is coming. :D

They've been saying that for 20 years  :-D .

Butbutbut NYSDOT did Phase 1 already!

Quote from: Rothman on February 07, 2018, 02:14:36 PM

Quote from: cl94 on February 07, 2018, 10:45:47 AM

Quote from: Rothman on February 07, 2018, 07:44:48 AM
Exit 3 on the Northway is coming. :D

They've been saying that for 20 years  :-D .

Butbutbut NYSDOT did Phase 1 already!

OK, so it is one phase per 20 years?

Quote from: empirestate on February 07, 2018, 01:47:31 PMRight, but if they're accustomed to mile-based numbering, then they'd tend to think 59 and 60 are closer together than they might actually be. So I don't see why there'd be a problem with exits coming up too quickly?

This is not the problem Cl94 is talking about.  The issue is drivers accustomed to sequential systems inside cities (where exit spacing is typically at or close to the one-mile minimum) cutting back in unnecessarily to take an exit that they think is coming up in less than a mile when in fact there are many more miles still to go.

This issue does not surface with mileage-based exit numbering because then the difference in exit number corresponds to the actual distance between the exits.

Quote from: empirestate on February 07, 2018, 01:47:31 PM

Quote from: J N Winkler on February 06, 2018, 10:23:18 PMA variation of this problem with some (not all) sequential numbering schemes is skipped numbers.  Pass Exit 58, bed in for a cruise, mile . . . mile . . . OMG, next exit is 60! (often because Exit 59 exists only in the other direction).  And this can surprise even the wary driver who is prepared for a rapid-fire succession of exits.

But of course, this situation exists with all mile-based systems. So, if it's a problem, it's one that's less likely to exist in a sequential system.

No.  Sequential exit numbering has the potential to create a false expectation of one-by-one progression in exit number from one exit to the next.  With mileage-based exits, there is no such expectation.  Both systems are equally susceptible to the problems that arise from an exit that exists in only one direction being shown on a map in exactly the same way as an exit that exists in both directions.

Quote from: empirestate on February 07, 2018, 01:47:31 PM

Quote from: cl94 on February 06, 2018, 11:01:58 PM
Also, what about the Thruway case south of Albany? Say you're going NB and looking for 21B. Think it'll be after 21A? Nope! The sequence is 21-21B-21A-22. And 22 is less than a mile north of 21A.

Yup, as I said before, that's an example of something I'd consider a much bigger problem than the lack of a mile-based system. You could quite easily persuade me that changing this is worthwhile.

Then on that basis you should support a change to mileage-based exit numbering.  Barring (very unusual) major changes in freeway centerline alignment, mileage-based numbers are futureproofed, cannot be out of sequence, and cannot create a false expectation that Exit X + 1 exists and follows Exit X.

Quote from: empirestate

Quote from: webny99
This cracked me up  :-D You've basically just helped summarize a major issue with sequential numbering.

Who, me or cl94? Or both of us?

Cl94 was trying to summarize the issue, and you helped, as summarized by JN in the first paragraph of his post above. Anyways, moving on...

QuoteRight, but if they're accustomed to mile-based numbering, then they'd tend to think 59 and 60 are closer together than they might actually be. So I don't see why there'd be a problem with exits coming up too quickly?

The point is that they have no idea how far apart the exits are. On a road like the Northway, it can go either way. They can be overly prepared and hang out on the right for twenty miles, or they can zip right by 59 (or 58  :-P) without realizing that 60 is quite close.

QuoteRight, and that crux leads you to believe a conversion is necessary, and me to believe that it isn't. Pages and pages later, we still come back to that simple subjective decision.

I guess I fail to see how it's even subjective; in the same way that I'd fail to understand you continuing to use a typewriter when someone offered you a computer.

QuoteBut it looks like you're still holding out for trying to persuade me, so maybe the simplest way to put is is this: Is there something you think I've got wrong? Some point I haven't grasped that, if I did, would lead me to change my view?

I don't know what to say. I mean, you say you don't have a position because there's no problem, but that just seems like an obsolete stance to take. It really doesn't matter if there's a problem with the current system or not; if there's something better, why not go for it?

Quote

Quote from: J N Winkler on February 06, 2018, 10:23:18 PM
A variation of this problem with some (not all) sequential numbering schemes is skipped numbers.  Pass Exit 58, bed in for a cruise, mile . . . mile . . . OMG, next exit is 60! (often because Exit 59 exists only in the other direction).

But of course, this situation exists with all mile-based systems. So, if it's a problem, it's one that's less likely to exist in a sequential system.

JN has discussed this above, but with a mile-based system, drivers expect missing numbers.

Quote

Quote from: cl94 on February 06, 2018, 11:01:58 PM
Also, what about the Thruway case south of Albany? Say you're going NB and looking for 21B. Think it'll be after 21A? Nope! The sequence is 21-21B-21A-22. And 22 is less than a mile north of 21A.

Yup, as I said before, that's an example of something I'd consider a much bigger problem than the lack of a mile-based system. You could quite easily persuade me that changing this is worthwhile.

This could not possibly occur with a mileage based system, as I'm sure you're aware  ;-)

Oh. My. God. Please stop already. Not everyone has to like your posts or has to like your position.

Quote from: webny99 on February 07, 2018, 05:59:39 PM
I don't know what to say. I mean, you say don't have a position because there's no problem, but that just seems like an obsolete stance to take. It really doesn't matter if there's a problem with the current system or not; if there's something better, why not go for it?

Some people take the view "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".  This entire thread can be boiled down to that sentence and the quoted bit.

This is still going on back and forth?  Ok, maybe there needs to be a visual of how the Thruway mainline would look with mileage based exits, using individual highway mileage in the second column and Thruway mainline mileage.  For individual highways, I left 24 unnumbered because each ramp is part of a mainline highway (I-87 going orth, I-90 going east).  You be the judge which works best.

CURRENT                                   INDIV.                        INTRN.
1                                          9 (A SB)                        1(A SB)
2                                          9B                                1B
3 (NB)                                  10A                                2A
4                                          10B                                2B (2 B-A SB)
5                                          11                                 3
6 (N/S SB)                                  12 (A/B SB)                 4 (A/B SB)
6A                                          13                                 5
7                                          16                                 8
7A                                          19                                 10
8                                          20 (A SB)                         11
8A                                          20B                                 12
9                                          21                                 13
10                                          25                                 17
11                                          26                                 18
12                                          27                                 19
13 N/S                                  29 A/B                         21 A/B
14                                          31                                 23
14A                                          32                                 24
14B                                          36                                 28
15                                          38                                 30
15A                                          40                                 31
16                                          54                                 46
17                                          68                                 60
18                                          84                                 76
19                                          100                                 91
20                                          110                                 101
21                                          122                                 114
21B                                          133                                 125
21A                                          142                                 134
22                                          143                                 135
23                                          150                                 142
24                                          NO #                                 148
25                                          343                                 154
25A                                          337                                 159
26                                          334                                 162
27                                          322                                 174
28                                          314                                 182
29                                          302                                 194
29A                                          285                                 211
30                                          276                                 220
31                                          264                                 233
32                                          253                                 243
33                                          243                                 253
34                                          235                                 262
34A                                          219                                 277
35                                          217                                 279
36                                          213                                 283
37                                          212                                 284
38                                          210                                 286
39                                          206                                 290
40                                          192                                 304
41                                          176                                 320
42                                          169                                 327
43                                          156                                 340
44                                          149                                 347
45                                          145                                 351
46                                          134                                 362
47                                          117                                 379
48                                          106                                 390
48A                                          94                                 402
49                                          79                                 417
50                                          76                                 420
50A                                          75                                 421
51 E/W                                  74 A/B                         422 A/B
52 E/W                                  73 A/B                         423 A/B
52A                                          71                                 425
53                                          70                                 426
54                                          68                                 428
55                                          67                                 429
56                                          64                                 432
57                                          60                                 436
57A                                          51                                 445
58                                          40                                 456
59                                          29                                 468
60                                          11                                 485
61                                          1                                 495

B1                                            368*                                7
B2                                            377                                  15
B3                                            385                                  23

*= number is assigned to ramp from Free 90 EB to WB spur, EB spur to WB Free 90, and WB spur for thru traffic, as the current B1 ramp is part of the 90 mainline. 

Quote

Quote from: webny99 on February 06, 2018, 10:43:10 PM
Especially the absence of 22, since 21 is a major double-split junction with I-590. Combined with the lack of advance signage for 21, this leads to a lot of last minute weaving. Here all these years people have been merging right at the last second, and I've been blaming them for intentionally cutting the queue  ;-)

I've always attributed this kind of last minute weaving to each driver's belief that he is better than everyone else at being faster than everyone else, and therefore expects to arrive at each exit ahead of any other given vehicle.

This is really a separate discussion entirely, hence the separate post.

I do believe there are certain drivers who think they have priority over everyone, and that everyone else must be subject to their rip-roaring, queue-cutting behavior. There are enough of these drivers that use the aforementioned intersection that I find myself irked at times, and in fact on several occasions have taken to my horn and the gas pedal to shut them out.

However, I don't think all drivers are motivated by the desire to beat everyone else, nor by the belief that they can. In fact, JNWinkler's post regarding missing sequential numbers was very enlightening (even to me) in this regard. I now see that drivers unfamiliar with I-490 could easily end up acting like the budgers I so despise, and yet it is no fault of their own - they were expecting an exit 22 when there was none, and were not prepared to take the exit, much less join the end of a forming queue. The lack of signage, which I mentioned in passing, adds to this dilemma, since the first advance warning is a mere half-mile away.

QuoteHas this kind of behavior been shown to exist less in mileage-based areas?

Well, New York is the source of all aggressive drivers, so data aside, convential wisdom says yes  :-D
We have the "me first" drivers as well as the "crap - here's my exit" drivers. Many other states have neither - they have both mileage-based exits and more polite drivers, virtually eliminating this behavior.

Was a decision ever made about the mainline Thruway exit numbers for when the state goes mileage based? No one drives (well, no one should) drive the Thruway in its entire length, so the use of mileage-based exits exclusive for the mainline Thruway would be impractical. At worse, it would result in a haphazard numbering scheme that's even more confusing than what's out there now. The system-only exit scheme doesn't work well in its current form, nor does it work well for the New England Thruway/Interstate 95 which is a bureaucratic mess.

Just imagine of the Kentucky Turnpike, which was sequentially based, still had Exit 1 in Elizabethtown in 2018!

Quote from: vdeane on February 07, 2018, 08:07:14 PM

Quote from: webny99 on February 07, 2018, 05:59:39 PM
I don't know what to say. I mean, you say you don't have a position because there's no problem, but that just seems like an obsolete stance to take. It really doesn't matter if there's a problem with the current system or not; if there's something better, why not go for it?

Some people take the view "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".  This entire thread can be boiled down to that sentence and the quoted bit.

I fully agree. I should have used that wording eight pages ago  :-D

Quote from: J N Winkler on February 07, 2018, 03:04:36 PM

Quote from: empirestate on February 07, 2018, 01:47:31 PMRight, but if they're accustomed to mile-based numbering, then they'd tend to think 59 and 60 are closer together than they might actually be. So I don't see why there'd be a problem with exits coming up too quickly?

This is not the problem Cl94 is talking about.  The issue is drivers accustomed to sequential systems inside cities (where exit spacing is typically at or close to the one-mile minimum) cutting back in unnecessarily to take an exit that they think is coming up in less than a mile when in fact there are many more miles still to go.

I see. And to be honest, I've already forgotten the difference between this and whatever I was thinking. :-D Anyhow, definitely still in the not-really-a-problem category for me.

Quote

Quote from: empirestate on February 07, 2018, 01:47:31 PM

Quote from: J N Winkler on February 06, 2018, 10:23:18 PMA variation of this problem with some (not all) sequential numbering schemes is skipped numbers.  Pass Exit 58, bed in for a cruise, mile . . . mile . . . OMG, next exit is 60! (often because Exit 59 exists only in the other direction).  And this can surprise even the wary driver who is prepared for a rapid-fire succession of exits.

But of course, this situation exists with all mile-based systems. So, if it's a problem, it's one that's less likely to exist in a sequential system.

No.  Sequential exit numbering has the potential to create a false expectation of one-by-one progression in exit number from one exit to the next.  With mileage-based exits, there is no such expectation.  Both systems are equally susceptible to the problems that arise from an exit that exists in only one direction being shown on a map in exactly the same way as an exit that exists in both directions.

Ah–nobody had mentioned the expectation part of it yet. That's the real problem, then: the expectation, not the skipping of numbers per se. If–once again–it's actually a problem. ;-)

Quote

Quote from: empirestate on February 07, 2018, 01:47:31 PM

Quote from: cl94 on February 06, 2018, 11:01:58 PM
Also, what about the Thruway case south of Albany? Say you're going NB and looking for 21B. Think it'll be after 21A? Nope! The sequence is 21-21B-21A-22. And 22 is less than a mile north of 21A.

Yup, as I said before, that's an example of something I'd consider a much bigger problem than the lack of a mile-based system. You could quite easily persuade me that changing this is worthwhile.

Then on that basis you should support a change to mileage-based exit numbering.  Barring (very unusual) major changes in freeway centerline alignment, mileage-based numbers are futureproofed, cannot be out of sequence, and cannot create a false expectation that Exit X + 1 exists and follows Exit X.

I don't understand how that follows. Because one thing is a bigger problem than another thing, I should support solving both things?

Quote from: webny99 on February 07, 2018, 05:59:39 PM

Quote from: empirestateRight, and that crux leads you to believe a conversion is necessary, and me to believe that it isn't. Pages and pages later, we still come back to that simple subjective decision.

I guess I fail to see how it's even subjective; in the same way that I'd fail to understand you continuing to use a typewriter when someone offered you a computer.

That's basically it, yes. I'm able to understand that, so I'm able to arrive at that different viewpoint.

Quote

QuoteBut it looks like you're still holding out for trying to persuade me, so maybe the simplest way to put is is this: Is there something you think I've got wrong? Some point I haven't grasped that, if I did, would lead me to change my view?

I don't know what to say. I mean, you say you don't have a position because there's no problem, but that just seems like an obsolete stance to take. It really doesn't matter if there's a problem with the current system or not; if there's something better, why not go for it?

Because it's not worth the undertaking. I get that you don't see it my way, and that's fine; I'm not asking you to. But that's how I see it! :)

Quote

Quote from: cl94 on February 06, 2018, 11:01:58 PM
21-21B-21A-22

This could not possibly occur with a mileage based system, as I'm sure you're aware  ;-)

Of course. But again, it's not worth changing the whole system over just to fix these two exits.

Quote from: seicer on February 07, 2018, 07:18:31 PM
Oh. My. God. Please stop already. Not everyone has to like your posts or has to like your position.

Hehe–persistent, ain't they? To be fair, that is the whole reason this thread exists as it was split off from another topic. (Though maybe the subject line should be changed to more accurately reflect that–ah, there we are, that's better.) :-D

But yeah, I'm hoping it's about time to wind down, now. And to be honest, it's probably been a little while now since I reached the point of purposely not changing my mind under any circumstances, just because. :sombrero:

EDIT: And just in case anyone's still holding out hope about swaying me, I've been clinging fast to my opinion for at least 18 years...and that means I'm now 18 years older and stodgier.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/misc.transport.road/nw$20perry$20sequential$20numbering%7Csort:date (https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/misc.transport.road/nw$20perry$20sequential$20numbering%7Csort:date)

Well, you can't say I wasn't persistent in my appeals to logic and reason and common sense  :sombrero:
If I didn't admire you so much for sticking to your guns, I'd call you nothing other than stuck in a rut. And to keep that narrow-minded viewpoint is your loss.

My final effort, if I were to make one, would be to minimize the size of the undertaking in your mind. It must loom far larger than life to you, but I'd best not try to change that - the rest of us know $2.5 million is as a drop of water in the mighty Mississippi  ;-)

I've offered several other tangents in this thread not directly related to persuading you to have a change of opinion. If any of those pick up, I may be back, but for now,  :wave:

Quote from: empirestate on February 07, 2018, 10:51:54 PMBut yeah, I'm hoping it's about time to wind down, now. And to be honest, it's probably been a little while now since I reached the point of purposely not changing my mind under any circumstances, just because. :sombrero:

I wonder if this discussion would have gone on as long as it has if you had indicated early on--perhaps even at the start--that you were not persuadable on this issue, and had undertaken to make that your last post in the thread.  Sometimes it is kinder not to encourage others to keep on rolling the dice.

Quote from: webny99 on February 07, 2018, 11:13:09 PM
Well, you can't say I wasn't persistent in my appeals to logic and reason and common sense  :sombrero:
If I didn't admire you so much for sticking to your guns, I'd call you nothing other than stuck in a rut. And to keep that narrow-minded viewpoint is your loss. [...] I've offered several other tangents in this thread not directly related to persuading you to have a change of opinion. If any of those pick up, I may be back, but for now,  :wave:

Let's have a big eye roll here. Stop being obtuse and obsessive about this topic. I'd love to continue this discussion as I have other relevant tangents I'd love to discuss, but it keeps getting drowned out in a cascade of quotes and posts that drags an entire conversation down.

Quote from: seicer on February 08, 2018, 12:33:37 AM

Quote from: webny99 on February 07, 2018, 11:13:09 PM
Well, you can't say I wasn't persistent in my appeals to logic and reason and common sense  :sombrero:
If I didn't admire you so much for sticking to your guns, I'd call you nothing other than stuck in a rut. And to keep that narrow-minded viewpoint is your loss. [...] I've offered several other tangents in this thread not directly related to persuading you to have a change of opinion. If any of those pick up, I may be back, but for now,  :wave:

Let's have a big eye roll here. Stop being obtuse and obsessive about this topic. I'd love to continue this discussion as I have other relevant tangents I'd love to discuss, but it keeps getting drowned out in a cascade of quotes and posts that drags an entire conversation down.

Then continue the goddamn conversation any way you please. It's a forum, not a room. You can post what you like and people will respond to it. Stop being obtuse and obsessive about denigrating other forum members.

Quote from: J N Winkler on February 08, 2018, 12:01:07 AM

Quote from: empirestate on February 07, 2018, 10:51:54 PMBut yeah, I'm hoping it's about time to wind down, now. And to be honest, it's probably been a little while now since I reached the point of purposely not changing my mind under any circumstances, just because. :sombrero:

I wonder if this discussion would have gone on as long as it has if you had indicated early on--perhaps even at the start--that you were not persuadable on this issue, and had undertaken to make that your last post in the thread.  Sometimes it is kinder not to encourage others to keep on rolling the dice.

I'm thinking it would have...webny99 seems quite dedicated to the cause. ;-)

But, to be sure, it wouldn't have been accurate early on to say that I was unpersuadable: I've been genuine in everything I've said about not seeing it as a problem, not being worth the value to convert, etc. And believe it or not, this whole time I've been thinking hard about what exactly you all might say, what new perspective you could provide, that would change my mind. I only started to feel intentionally stubborn at the end, as the conversation started to lose its novelty and I needed some way to stay interested in it.

And, in truth, I was actually a bit surprised at myself to read how obstinate I was about the subject way back in the MTR days...kidding aside, it appears I'm actually more open-minded about it now–or at least more fair-minded–than I was then. I guess I've had a lot of time over the years to actually justify my position to myself, and I think I've done a pretty good job of that. :-)

So yeah, I had every of intention of being persuaded, if possible, until a page or so ago; and of course, I'll still consider any earth-shattering new perspective that might come up in the future. Otherwise, it's only fair to state that the threshold for persuasion has now officially closed for me. :wave:

Dont all be surprised at this one.  We had that diesel mechanic from Chicago on here who kept threads going on as long as this one, however most would end as moderators would get tired of insult trading and lock them.

One thing from what I have read, this guy is not like the other user and hitting hard words and insulting people outside of Chicago and those who do not see the need for the Edens Spur to have full interchanges and of course that hypotenuse nonsense. 

QuoteSo yeah, I had every of intention of being persuaded, if possible, until a page or so ago.

Is the timing a coincidence? I think not ;-)

Quote from: roadman65 on February 08, 2018, 11:12:17 AM
Dont all be surprised at this one.  We had that diesel mechanic from Chicago on here who kept threads going on as long as this one, however most would end as moderators would get tired of insult trading and lock them.

This has not involved insult trading; both parties are too mature for that  :D

QuoteOne thing from what I have read, this guy is not like the other user and hitting hard words and insulting people outside of Chicago and those who do not see the need for the Edens Spur to have full interchanges and of course that hypotenuse nonsense. 

And now this will open up a whole new can of worms, and I'll sit back and watch and see what everyone else has to say about me.  :popcorn:

 :DNo I actually complimented you.   You did not trade insults at all, but you have to remember this that many subjects die early and many on here want to move on.  Not to be a critic at you was not the intention, but others have to also see some bright sunny skies in some of what they may think is the worst.

To me personally I will let NY deal with their own problems.  I do not live there, and despite the fact mile based numbering is my preference, its not that dyer of a need to change over for me.  So I could care less about this whole thing.  Yes its a good topic, but not one that is on top of a list of priorities for me (and for others I will guess as well). 

Post as you like as long as you stay within the bounds. :D

Over the past few pages, I have personally been trying to move beyond the specific topic of applying mileage-based exit numbering to the freeways in New York that currently have sequentially numbered exits, and look more generally at the wrinkles in both systems.  Here are a few issues that might provide seeds for more productive discussion:

Unbuilt mileage to zero point

One of the arguments traditionally advanced for sequential exit numbering is a lower likelihood of subsequent renumbering being needed in cases where a route has unbuilt mileage toward its zero point.  The underlying rationale is that it is easier to determine access points along an unbuilt length than it is to identify a centerline for milepointing purposes that will not subsequently be altered for reasons not known or knowable at the planning stage, such as adverse ground conditions and the like.

How many examples are there actually of freeways that have had mileage-based exit numbers adjusted as a result of ultimately built length being greater or less than originally projected?  In this thread two examples have been presented:  I-10 in Arizona (2 1/4 miles longer than originally projected, exit numbers not adjusted), and I-15 in Utah (3 miles shorter than projected, exit numbers adjusted).  Are there any others?  Is it a fair generalization that the "trigger point" for renumbering exits is milepointing being off by, say, 2 3/4 miles?  Are there any precedents for discrepancies in milepointing arising otherwise than by locating the freeway in a corridor several miles away from what was initially planned?

Relation of choice of exit numbering system to completion percentage of ultimate freeway network

The stylized fact is that as the freeway network in the US has aged, with original Interstate construction tailing off as outstanding segments are completed and relatively little new freeway being built on an ongoing basis, state DOTs have been converting from sequential to mileage-based exit numbering.  It is usually assumed that this is because as the freeway network in a given state matures, the risk of centerline mileage along a given freeway changing goes down, and state DOTs become more willing to accept an ever-smaller risk of having to renumber exits.

This raises several questions.

First, how common is it that exits are actually renumbered under either sequential or mileage-based schemes, aside from Interstate redesignations like I-376 in Pennsylvania, I-295 around the I-95/Turnpike interchange, I-785 in North Carolina, etc.?

Second, what strategies have state DOTs used in cases where it is desirable to have exit numbers on certain freeways that are essentially complete but others are largely unfinished?  One approach I have been told was common (in Arizona, Ohio, etc.) was for temporary signing to be erected, either by state forces or by the paving contractor for a given segment, that omitted exit numbers.  Then, when the freeway was finished, a single permanent signing contract would be let to remove all the temporary signs and install new ones with exit numbers.  Another approach (favored by Georgia) was to install the permanent signing, including blank exit tabs, as part of the paving, and then come back later and populate the blank exit tabs with exit numbers once the freeway was finished (or firmly located) throughout its entire corridor.

Have any state DOTs have ever gone from mileage-based to sequential exit numbering?  ISTR it being reported in MTR (but have not myself confirmed) that Georgia originally had mileage-based numbers, went to sequential in the 1970's, and converted back to mileage-based around 2000.  I also suspect (but have not confirmed) that when Colorado abandoned a dual-posting system, the initial transition was to sequential exit numbering only, with a conversion to mileage-based exit numbering following a few years later.

Actual prevalence of revising sequential exit numbers

Two main strategies exist for accommodating new exits on a freeway with sequentially numbered exits:  reserving unused numbers for exits thought likely to be added in the future (often with the result that gaps in numbering persist for decades), and assigning suffixed numbers to the new exits.  Are there any cases of freeways having their exit numbers changed wholesale to accommodate new exits or clean up longstanding jumps in exit number?

Dual posting

How many states experimented with dual-posting systems and, besides the added cost and message loading, what were their reasons for ultimately abandoning them?

I-40 in TN is 4 miles longer than originally planned because of Overton Park.  The exit numbers were not adjusted.

The NYSDOT and PANYNJ portions of I-95 have mile-based numbers; about 15 years ago, NYSDOT tried and then aborted a conversion to sequential numbers.  The northbound PANYNJ portion still has the sequential numbers (SB 1 finally changed back to 1A as part of the Alexander Hamilton Bridge project).

I believe I've read that RI experimented with dual posting.  No idea why it was ended.

Not aware of any wholesale sequential renumberings, but I am aware of a minor one.  On NY 17/I-86, when the new exit east of Lowman was opened, exit 58 was renumbered to 57 and the new exit became exit 58.  I-278 also has a partially done renumbering (since cancelled I think, so there's a permanent gap between 35 and 39), though that wasn't because of new interchanges, but because of interchanges that had the same number were to be renumbered to have separate numbers (29A and 29B would have become 30 and 31, for example) (old I-278 (assuming I didn't get any numbers wrong) (http://nysroads.com/1999/i278list.php) and current I-278 (http://nysroads.com/i278list.php)).

Quote from: vdeane on February 08, 2018, 02:05:58 PM
I-40 in TN is 4 miles longer than originally planned because of Overton Park.  The exit numbers were not adjusted.

The NYSDOT and PANYNJ portions of I-95 have mile-based numbers; about 15 years ago, NYSDOT tried and then aborted a conversion to sequential numbers.  The northbound PANYNJ portion still has the sequential numbers (SB 1 finally changed back to 1A as part of the Alexander Hamilton Bridge project).

I believe I've read that RI experimented with dual posting.  No idea why it was ended.

Not aware of any wholesale sequential renumberings, but I am aware of a minor one.  On NY 17/I-86, when the new exit east of Lowman was opened, exit 58 was renumbered to 57 and the new exit became exit 58.  I-278 also has a partially done renumbering (since cancelled I think, so there's a permanent gap between 35 and 39), though that wasn't because of new interchanges, but because of interchanges that had the same number were to be renumbered to have separate numbers (29A and 29B would have become 30 and 31, for example) (old I-278 (assuming I didn't get any numbers wrong) (http://nysroads.com/1999/i278list.php) and current I-278 (http://nysroads.com/i278list.php)).

I-690 was completely renumbered from sequential to sequential back when the new interchange with the Thruway was built, 1988 or so?  I think the numbers shifted by 5 and the interchange with I-81 still did not receive a number at that time. You can see the overlays on the folded up signs used during the State Fair.

Quote from: empirestate on January 30, 2018, 09:07:57 AM

Quote from: upstatenyroads on January 25, 2018, 10:08:13 PM

Quote from: Rothman on January 25, 2018, 09:21:51 AM
The funny thing is that when there was an upswell to switch over at NYSDOT some years ago, a rather...singularly intelligent... office director suggested NEW EXIT XX signage, I kid you not.

I remember hearing that and discussing it with some folks I know in NYSDOT. Wasn't that plan to post NEW EXIT XX for like 5 years and then switch them around and post FORMERLY EXIT XX for the next five or something like that?

Heck, why not just name the interchanges instead of numbering them? Seems like it would be a lot easier to keep the designations unique, and it probably matches more closely the way we actually navigate these days.


iPhone

Like in California, before they retro-fitted the BGSs to include exit numbers a few years back?

Quote from: vdeane on February 08, 2018, 02:05:58 PM
I believe I've read that RI experimented with dual posting.  No idea why it was ended.

The dual posting "MILE XX  EXIT YY" option was included as a "may" condition in the 1971 MUTCD.  The idea was to provide improved guidance to unfamiliar drivers in states that used sequential exit numbering.  It was subsequently removed from the 1978 MUTCD.  My guess is that somebody determined that the extra legend didn't necessarily improve navigation for drivers, and added to message clutter on BGS panels.

"MILE XX EXIT YY' tabs were included on the BGS panels installed on I-93 between Somerville and Methuen during the roadway upgrade projects in the mid-1970s.  These signs lasted until the panel replacement projects in 1991 and 1992.

As to the whole "sequential versus reference post" debate, it's interesting to note that the 1971 MUTCD refers to the desire to get states to convert to reference point numbering as an AASHO (now AASHTO) initiative.  It's equally interesting that neither the 1978 nor 1988 editions of the MUTCD make any reference to "sequential vs. reference post", and that the language allowing either as an option - but emphasizing that reference post based numbering was preferred - did not appear until the 2000 MUTCD and was repeated in the 2003 MUTCD.

Quote from: vdeane on February 08, 2018, 02:05:58 PMI-40 in TN is 4 miles longer than originally planned because of Overton Park.  The exit numbers were not adjusted.

I've looked at the area in Google Maps and it appears the difference is finessed by using "long miles" along the I-240 routing that was adopted when the plan to build through Overton Park was abandoned.  E.g., Exits 8A-8B (SR 14 Austin Peay Highway) is 10 miles from the Arkansas state line, while Exit 16 (SSR 177 Germantown) is 20 miles from the Arkansas state line.  I wonder how the "long miles" work now that TennDOT has ARTIMIS-style enhanced location reference markers with nominal spacing of 0.2 mile.  Progression seems normal, so I suspect each marker represents one-fifth of a "long mile" rather than a true statute mile.

Quote from: vdeane on February 08, 2018, 02:05:58 PMI believe I've read that RI experimented with dual posting.  No idea why it was ended.

Wikipedia has a photo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exit_numbers_in_the_United_States#/media/File:Mile_tabs.jpg).  Colorado's format was similar.

Quote from: roadman on February 08, 2018, 03:12:05 PMThe dual posting "MILE XX  EXIT YY" option was included as a "may" condition in the 1971 MUTCD.  The idea was to provide improved guidance to unfamiliar drivers in states that used sequential exit numbering.  It was subsequently removed from the 1978 MUTCD.  My guess is that somebody determined that the extra legend didn't necessarily improve navigation for drivers, and added to message clutter on BGS panels.

Did FHWA provide any encouragement to agencies to dual-post other than explicitly describing it as an option in the MUTCD?  (I feel a TRIS search coming on, to see if the effectiveness was actually studied before the option was withdrawn in the 1978 MUTCD.)

Quote from: webny99 on February 08, 2018, 11:25:13 AM

Quote from: empirestate on February 08, 2018, 10:00:48 AM
So yeah, I had every of intention of being persuaded, if possible, until a page or so ago.

Is the timing a coincidence? I think not ;-)

Coincident to what?

Quote from: empirestate on February 08, 2018, 05:15:03 PM

Quote from: webny99 on February 08, 2018, 11:25:13 AM

Quote from: empirestate on February 08, 2018, 10:00:48 AMSo yeah, I had every of intention of being persuaded, if possible, until a page or so ago.

Is the timing a coincidence? I think not ;-)

Coincident to what?

Coincident to me finally finding a way to express my point, in such a way that listening to reason or being stubborn were the only options you had  ;-)

---

To add to the above discussion, is there anyone here who is actually in favor of dual posting? Using multiple systems, it seems to me, would cause unnecessary sign clutter, and potentially confuse motorists as they try to take in high volumes of information, not all of which is strictly necessary.

Quote from: webny99 on February 08, 2018, 05:44:24 PM

Quote from: empirestate on February 08, 2018, 05:15:03 PM

Quote from: webny99 on February 08, 2018, 11:25:13 AM

Quote from: empirestate on February 08, 2018, 10:00:48 AMSo yeah, I had every of intention of being persuaded, if possible, until a page or so ago.

Is the timing a coincidence? I think not ;-)

Coincident to what?

Coincident to me finally finding a way to express my point, in such a way that listening to reason or being stubborn were the only options you had  ;-)

Oh!–no; sorry.

(Which were you thinking of, the typewriter thing?)

Quote from: upstatenyroads on February 08, 2018, 02:18:39 PM
I-690 was completely renumbered from sequential to sequential back when the new interchange with the Thruway was built, 1988 or so?  I think the numbers shifted by 5 and the interchange with I-81 still did not receive a number at that time. You can see the overlays on the folded up signs used during the State Fair.

Can't believe I totally forgot about I-690!  :banghead:

Quote from: J N Winkler on February 08, 2018, 03:20:19 PM
I've looked at the area in Google Maps and it appears the difference is finessed by using "long miles" along the I-240 routing that was adopted when the plan to build through Overton Park was abandoned.  E.g., Exits 8A-8B (SR 14 Austin Peay Highway) is 10 miles from the Arkansas state line, while Exit 16 (SSR 177 Germantown) is 20 miles from the Arkansas state line.  I wonder how the "long miles" work now that TennDOT has ARTIMIS-style enhanced location reference markers with nominal spacing of 0.2 mile.  Progression seems normal, so I suspect each marker represents one-fifth of a "long mile" rather than a true statute mile.

Looks to me like they're just using I-240 numbers/mileage for the rerouted portion and the planned mileage/numbers for everything else.  Note that the I-240/I-40 interchange is either exit 10 or exit 12 depending on which direction you go, with both 10 and 12 repeating with adjacent interchanges.

Didn't they use "A" milemarkers on I-40 in Memphis to fudge things?  (e.g., Mile 1, Mile 1A, Mile 2...)  I could swear I saw at least a couple of those once.

Edit: Found it....I kinda remembered.  There is 1, 1A, 1B, then 2 for milemarkers.  I can't remember if there are other lettered ones but it would take looking around online--been too long since seeing in person to remember well.

Looks like they use the suffixed miles to differentiate between the parts that use I-40 and I-240 mileage.  The exit numbers are interesting as the adjacent numbers are suffixed at the I-40/I-240/Sam Cooper Blvd interchange but the adjacent duplicates are not, and some of the I-240 ramps aren't accessible from I-40 anyways.  Someone just traveling through might never notice that the exit numbers jump around, unless they go both ways and pay enough attention to notice that the interchange is exit 10 WB but exit 12 EB.

The main reason why NY has not switched to distance-based exit numbers is because they tried doing this with highways in NYC and Schenectady, where the scheme didn't work well because many exits were spaced very close together. According to the NY DOT website, they do not plan to implement this system statewide until (1) the federal government makes it mandatory, or (2) spare funding is available.

As a compromise, I could accept a system where exit numbers in major urban areas retain the sequential system (at least temporarily) while those in rural areas get changed to distance-based numbers. For example, I'd much rather see "Exit 495" for the Interstate 90 interchange at Ripley instead of "Exit 61."

From what I understand, there was a plan to convert in the 70s, but at the time, the US was slated to go metric within 10 years, so it wasn't considered practical to switch only to have to change the numbers again.

NYSDOT (there is no NYDOT) didn't really give up on metric conversion until well after Reagan killed it, and then you have Rothman's story of managers trying to make conversion as expensive as possible.

(personal opinion)

Quote from: TML on February 28, 2018, 12:43:40 PM
spare funding is available.

That's a riot, considering how much money was spent installing and then defending the Cuomo signs - and how much they could stand to lose if the state doesn't comply with the MUTCD.

If exits are closely spaced, that's what letter suffixes are for.  As an example, I-90/94 (Kennedy Expressway) in Chicago has exits 51a through 51i.

The idea that the Sheridan and I-890 were used as experiments goes back to a memo that NYSDOT used to rely upon to deflect people who wanted mileage-based numbering.  I even shared it with the Yahoo group once a long time ago.

To accept this party line is rather ridiculous, though.  The real opposition is in the fact NYSDOT would rather spend its money on other things and from businesses worried about advertising changes.

FHWA doesn't seem to be that forceful about the conversion, either.  Until they take action, either through penalties or allocating money for it, NYSDOT probably won't on its own.

Mileage based exit numbering already is mandatory in the MUTCD. The FHWA just hasn't been aggressively enforcing it. Sec. 2E-31, Par.4 reads: Exit numbering shall use the reference location sign exit numbering method. The consecutive exit numbering method shall not be used. That's all folks!

Pennsylvania changed over from sequential to mile-based exit numbering around 15 years ago.  If it wasn't a big deal for them then, then why is it now for New York State?  Is the hold-up with NYSDOT or with the Thruway Authority?

Quote from: SignBridge on February 28, 2018, 06:10:03 PM
Mileage based exit numbering already is mandatory in the MUTCD. The FHWA just hasn't been aggressively enforcing it. Sec. 2E-31, Par.4 reads: Exit numbering shall use the reference location sign exit numbering method. The consecutive exit numbering method shall not be used. That's all folks!

OK, OK, send us another neck breaking $150,234 fine and lets move on.

Quote from: 02 Park Ave on February 28, 2018, 06:35:30 PM
Pennsylvania changed over from sequential to mile-based exit numbering around 15 years ago.  If it wasn't a big deal for them then, then why is it now for New York State?

It isn't; that's the whole point. It's a very non-important issue.

If/when NY renumbers their exits, will I-90 use its own set of numbers, or will it use numbers that follow the Thruway mileage?

Quote from: empirestate on February 28, 2018, 06:57:09 PM

Quote from: 02 Park Ave on February 28, 2018, 06:35:30 PM
Pennsylvania changed over from sequential to mile-based exit numbering around 15 years ago.  If it wasn't a big deal for them then, then why is it now for New York State?

It isn't; that's the whole point. It's a very non-important issue.

And the whole reason this thread exists is because it is important to some of us, regardless of the importance (or lack thereof) on a macro- scale. As mentioned over on the off-topic board, it seems that some important figures in NY have an irrational fear of mileage-based exits  :)

Quote from: Roadwarriors79 on February 28, 2018, 07:16:52 PM
If/when NY renumbers their exits, will I-90 use its own set of numbers, or will it use numbers that follow the Thruway mileage?

This, too, has been a frequent subject of discussion on the forum. In large part, this is because there is no known (or predicted) answer. Hence :fight:

The possible conversion of the Thruway to AET is among the many variables at play here. Needless to say, I'd much prefer the former, which would become the more likely scenario with AET.

Is Governor Cuomo aware of this problem?

I'm sure he has bigger issues to worry about than mileage based exits (as much as I am a proponent of them).

Governor Cuomo obviously doesn't care what the FHWA or the MUTCD says. He does whatever he wants as in the blue advertising signs. He's in his own little world as are most politicians.

Quote from: Roadwarriors79 on February 28, 2018, 07:16:52 PM
If/when NY renumbers their exits, will I-90 use its own set of numbers, or will it use numbers that follow the Thruway mileage?

Remains to be seen if the Thruway exits would be numbered on internal mileage (from the NYC line) or individual highways.  Free 90 would go with I-90 mileage (348-368), but another question is would the Berkshire Spur exits be based on I-90 mileage or spur mileage? Big difference if B3 became Exit 23 or Exit 385.

Quote from: jp the roadgeek on March 01, 2018, 12:28:05 AM

Quote from: Roadwarriors79 on February 28, 2018, 07:16:52 PM
If/when NY renumbers their exits, will I-90 use its own set of numbers, or will it use numbers that follow the Thruway mileage?

Remains to be seen if the Thruway exits would be numbered on internal mileage (from the NYC line) or individual highways.  Free 90 would go with I-90 mileage (348-368), but another question is would the Berkshire Spur exits be based on I-90 mileage or spur mileage? Big difference if B3 became Exit 23 or Exit 385.

I imagine if NY ever renumbers it's because its hand has been forced by FHWA, so in that case numbering would follow the Interstate highway the entire way.

To be perfectly fair, NYSDOT has recently listed the conversion as an eventual goal.  So, it isn't like it is ignoring it completely.  Like I said, as long as there are other priorities, it isn't going to be done.  FHWA's enforcement on the Cuomo Signs while none on exit numbering shows thay they care about scoring political points over actual enforcement of the MUTCD.

The whole I Love NY signage trouble is somewhat baffling, but have to say Cuomo has a gift for damage control in that regard.  Really hasn't lessened his position that much.  FHWA's dissimilar responses to 1) the signs and 2) the welcome centers indicates to me the signage flare up was more about a federal Republican administration poking at a Democratic governor than actual concern about compliance with regulations.  The I Love NY signage was low-hanging fruit in that regard.

(personal opinion emphasized)

I would prefer that the NY Thruway maintain its current exit numbering directional scheme while switching to distance-based exit numbers. Here are my calculated new exit numbers for the 87-90 Mainline:

Old Exit	New Exit
1	1A
2	1B
3	2A
4	2B
5	3
6	4
6A	5
7	8
7A	10
8	11
8A	12
9	13
10	17
11	18
12	19
13N-S	21A-B
14	23
14A	24
14B	28
15	30
15A	31
16	45
17	60
18	76
19	91
20	101
21	114
21B	125
21A	134
22	135
23	142
24	148
25	154
25A	159
26	162
27	174
28	182
29	194
29A	211
30	220
31	233
32	243
33	253
34	262
34A	277
35	279
36	283
37	284
38	286
39	290
40	304
41	320
42	327
43	340
44	347
45	351
46	362
47	379
48	390
48A	402
49	417
50	420
50A	421
51E-W	422A-B
52E-W	423A-B
52A	425
53	426
54	428
55	429
56	432
57	436
57A	445
58	456
59	468
60	485
61	495

Quote from: Rothman on March 01, 2018, 12:42:22 AM
To be perfectly fair, NYSDOT has recently listed the conversion as an eventual goal.  So, it isn't like it is ignoring it completely.  Like I said, as long as there are other priorities, it isn't going to be done.  FHWA's enforcement on the Cuomo Signs while none on exit numbering shows thay they care about scoring political points over actual enforcement of the MUTCD.

The whole I Love NY signage trouble is somewhat baffling, but have to say Cuomo has a gift for damage control in that regard.  Really hasn't lessened his position that much.  FHWA's dissimilar responses to 1) the signs and 2) the welcome centers indicates to me the signage flare up was more about a federal Republican administration poking at a Democratic governor than actual concern about compliance with regulations.  The I Love NY signage was low-hanging fruit in that regard.

(personal opinion emphasized)

Well, as far as I remember, there is some review of rest area regulations at federal level. Looks like restriction on service areas outlived itself - big service complexes at exits can be connected to highway with very little effect on things. Besides, state operated "taste NY" facilities don't create significant conflict of interests or preferential treatment issues. Those rest areas never were a safety issue, they were commercial thing to begin with. And since no local businesses complain about that (not that I heard of)...
Signs loaded with fine print - and with many of them in a row - are a significant distraction, so I can understand calling those a safety issue.

Quote from: 02 Park Ave on February 28, 2018, 09:04:53 PM
Is Governor Cuomo aware of this problem?

Governor Cuomo is very aware of all the issues associated with aging infrastructure. Promoting investment into infrastructure projects are among top priorities of his administration - as evidenced by new  Gov. Mario Cuomo bridge, replacing and old structure; On-going renovation of LaGuardia airport, construction of Second Avenue subway line - and many other smaller projects. Another example of Governor Cuomo dedication to promoting economic growth is a very successful tourism development campaign, covering entire state. Anyone traveling in NY can learn about local attractions using "I love NY" app, freely available for most personal electronic devices, and can sample local produce at "Taste NY" centers located all over the state.
Under the leadership of Gov. Cuomo, NY is dedicated to development of infrastructure, investment in our future. His administration appreciates constructive cooperation of federal authorities in areas of funding, regulation and promoting safety in all modes of travel.
And after that you dare to question some stupid numbering scheme?

Quote from: kalvado on March 01, 2018, 07:20:53 AM
Besides, state operated "taste NY" facilities don't create significant conflict of interests or preferential treatment issues. Those rest areas never were a safety issue, they were commercial thing to begin with. And since no local businesses complain about that (not that I heard of)...

Certain commercial activities have been prohibited by FHWA regulation in new rest area facilities.  I will just say that I stand by my statement that FHWA's inconsistent enforcement speaks volumes.

(personal opinion emphasized)

Quote from: Rothman on March 01, 2018, 08:36:46 AM

Quote from: kalvado on March 01, 2018, 07:20:53 AM
Besides, state operated "taste NY" facilities don't create significant conflict of interests or preferential treatment issues. Those rest areas never were a safety issue, they were commercial thing to begin with. And since no local businesses complain about that (not that I heard of)...

Certain commercial activities have been prohibited by FHWA regulation in new rest area facilities.  I will just say that I stand by my statement that FHWA's inconsistent enforcement speaks volumes.

(personal opinion emphasized)

Few things:
1. FHWA is willing to take another look at those regulations:  https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/09/27/2016-23269/commercial-activities-on-interstate-rest-areas - that can explain lax enforcement.
2. "Taste.." is not a safety issue, and as such can have lower priority
3. There was some action by FHWA. Not much, but still.

Quote from: kalvado on March 01, 2018, 07:28:54 AM

Quote from: 02 Park Ave on February 28, 2018, 09:04:53 PM
Is Governor Cuomo aware of this problem?

Governor Cuomo is very aware of all the issues associated with aging infrastructure. Promoting investment into infrastructure projects are among top priorities of his administration - as evidenced by new  Gov. Mario Cuomo bridge, replacing and old structure; On-going renovation of LaGuardia airport, construction of Second Avenue subway line - and many other smaller projects. Another example of Governor Cuomo dedication to promoting economic growth is a very successful tourism development campaign, covering entire state. Anyone traveling in NY can learn about local attractions using "I love NY" app, freely available for most personal electronic devices, and can sample local produce at "Taste NY" centers located all over the state.
Under the leadership of Gov. Cuomo, NY is dedicated to development of infrastructure, investment in our future. His administration appreciates constructive cooperation of federal authorities in areas of funding, regulation and promoting safety in all modes of travel.
And after that you dare to question some stupid numbering scheme?

That just reads like a handout.

But about Cuomo - infrastructure projects are big wins to any party affiliate if they are built within budget and have no drastic issues. Many of these pet projects that have been built - partly done for maximum political impact, were long ago proposed with plans long ago in place. He just made it happen. Nothing wrong with that.

While I didn't like the rapid succession of I Love New York signs, the branding effort has worked, partly because it was part of a larger tourism scheme. If those issues are resolved, with regional entrance signs (that I personally favor), it'll be another win for Cuomo.

Quote from: kalvado on March 01, 2018, 09:02:11 AM

Quote from: Rothman on March 01, 2018, 08:36:46 AM

Quote from: kalvado on March 01, 2018, 07:20:53 AM
Besides, state operated "taste NY" facilities don't create significant conflict of interests or preferential treatment issues. Those rest areas never were a safety issue, they were commercial thing to begin with. And since no local businesses complain about that (not that I heard of)...

Certain commercial activities have been prohibited by FHWA regulation in new rest area facilities.  I will just say that I stand by my statement that FHWA's inconsistent enforcement speaks volumes.

(personal opinion emphasized)

Few things:
1. FHWA is willing to take another look at those regulations:  https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/09/27/2016-23269/commercial-activities-on-interstate-rest-areas - that can explain lax enforcement.
2. "Taste.." is not a safety issue, and as such can have lower priority
3. There was some action by FHWA. Not much, but still.

Let's just say I had a front row seat to what went on (well, second row, anyway).  That's why I am not going into a heck of a lot more detail.

As a tourist in New York, with some awareness of MUTCD issues but no access to the theatre (let alone the front row) for the Cuomo signs controversy between FHWA and NYSDOT, I have a hard time believing that the Cuomo signs moved the needle in terms of tourism promotion.  I am aware that their installation coincides with an increase in tourism revenue, but I suspect this is the result of a recovering economy nationally and would have happened without the signs.

As regards New York being forced by FHWA to convert exit numbers, another sign of FHWA's enforcement priorities is that, AFAIK, no state that currently does not number exits on non-Interstate freeways (as the 2009 MUTCD now requires) has been forced to do so.

Quote from: TML on March 01, 2018, 01:12:21 AM
I would prefer that the NY Thruway maintain its current exit numbering directional scheme while switching to distance-based exit numbers. Here are my calculated new exit numbers for the 87-90 Mainline:

I'd prefer the miles be based on the I-87 and I-90 mileage. Not only is this consistent with what is done in other states, it would ensure the miles count up from the appropriate points - the southern and western termini of said routes.

Quote from: J N Winkler on March 01, 2018, 11:22:55 AM
As regards New York being forced by FHWA to convert exit numbers, another sign of FHWA's enforcement priorities is that, AFAIK, no state that currently does not number exits on non-Interstate freeways (as the 2009 MUTCD now requires) has been forced to do so.

I wonder which of the two - mileage based numbers, or numbers on non-interstate freeways, is more likely to be enforced.

Quote from: webny99 on March 01, 2018, 12:32:30 PM
I wonder which of the two - mileage based numbers, or numbers on non-freeways, is more likely to be enforced.

I don't think numbers on non-freeways will ever be enforced, because standard intersections shouldn't have exit numbers anyway.

Quote from: 1 on March 01, 2018, 12:35:24 PM

Quote from: webny99 on March 01, 2018, 12:32:30 PM
I wonder which of the two - mileage based numbers, or numbers on non-freeways, is more likely to be enforced.

I don't think numbers on non-freeways will ever be enforced, because standard intersections shouldn't have exit numbers anyway.

Oh my  :-D Thanks for that - I meant non-interstate freeways. Fixed.

Quote from: J N Winkler on March 01, 2018, 11:22:55 AM
As a tourist in New York, with some awareness of MUTCD issues but no access to the theatre (let alone the front row) for the Cuomo signs controversy between FHWA and NYSDOT, I have a hard time believing that the Cuomo signs moved the needle in terms of tourism promotion.  I am aware that their installation coincides with an increase in tourism revenue, but I suspect this is the result of a recovering economy nationally and would have happened without the signs.

Second that. The app advertised by those signs is also less than very useful for a stranger.

Don't know if this was mentioned, but NYSDOT began a signage replacement project in 2016 on the Taconic State Parkway, which included mile-based exit numbers. The interchanges had been unnumbered previously. The last I saw, they got up to mile/exit 45 in Lagrange. The second phase of the project (880911) should be done in 2019. Hopefully this will also install mile markers on the northern-most reaches since they disappear and only reference markers are posted.

Excited by this, I asked NYSDOT if they were going to replace the aging signs on the Palisades Parkway and add mile-based exits. They said they have no plans to replace the signs, but when they do, the exit numbers will be in accordance with federal guidelines (read: yes).

Project 880914 shows sign replacements for Interstate 84, so hopefully the exit numbers will move to mile-based as well.

Quote from: crispy93 on April 06, 2018, 09:46:22 AM
Don't know if this was mentioned, but NYSDOT began a signage replacement project in 2016 on the Taconic State Parkway, which included mile-based exit numbers. The interchanges had been unnumbered previously. The last I saw, they got up to mile/exit 45 in Lagrange. The second phase of the project (880911) should be done in 2019. Hopefully this will also install mile markers on the northern-most reaches since they disappear and only reference markers are posted.

Excited by this, I asked NYSDOT if they were going to replace the aging signs on the Palisades Parkway and add mile-based exits. They said they have no plans to replace the signs, but when they do, the exit numbers will be in accordance with federal guidelines (read: yes).

Project 880914 shows sign replacements for Interstate 84, so hopefully the exit numbers will move to mile-based as well.

I-84 isn't getting mile-based exits. Not gonna happen unless the Feds force it. The Palisades is a strange case, because mileage resets but exit numbers do not. I won't hold my breath there, either.

Did they change the Palisades mileage?  The little brown milemarkers in the 2016 street view show mileage continuing from NJ.

That does bring up an interesting theoretical: if the NY exits did change to mile-based, would the NJ exits also (at least eventually) change?

Quote from: vdeane on April 06, 2018, 01:24:49 PM
Did they change the Palisades mileage?  The little brown milemarkers in the 2016 street view show mileage continuing from NJ.

That does bring up an interesting theoretical: if the NY exits did change to mile-based, would the NJ exits also (at least eventually) change?

I thought it was continuous mileage, too. Wikipedia says it resets. Continuous mileage would be another issue with renumbering. Can someone who has used it recently confirm?

Quote from: cl94 on April 06, 2018, 01:37:33 PM

Quote from: vdeane on April 06, 2018, 01:24:49 PM
Did they change the Palisades mileage?  The little brown milemarkers in the 2016 street view show mileage continuing from NJ.

That does bring up an interesting theoretical: if the NY exits did change to mile-based, would the NJ exits also (at least eventually) change?

I thought it was continuous mileage, too. Wikipedia says it resets. Continuous mileage would be another issue with renumbering. Can someone who has used it recently confirm?

Speaking as someone who has recently used it...no, I cannot. :-P

(Only thing I can be sure of is that reference markers reset at the state line, as they always would at any county line. But I honestly haven't noticed whether the mileposts do.)

I recall MP 19 being just north of the Thruway.  That would suggest the mileposts do not reset.

The PIP is maintained by a separate commission not affiliated with NYSDOT or NJDOT, so if numbers are going to be changed to mileage based numbers, it would have to go through a single commission.  The question is whether or not the numbers and MP's would reset at the NY line or whether the highway is a separate single entity that is exempt from the state line rule.

Quote from: jp the roadgeek on April 07, 2018, 06:04:46 AM
The PIP is maintained by a separate commission not affiliated with NYSDOT or NJDOT, so if numbers are going to be changed to mileage based numbers, it would have to go through a single commission.  The question is whether or not the numbers and MP's would reset at the NY line or whether the highway is a separate single entity that is exempt from the state line rule.

The state line is not a "rule". The MUTCD recommends, but does not require, mileposts to reset.

Quote from: crispy93 on April 06, 2018, 09:46:22 AM
Don't know if this was mentioned, but NYSDOT began a signage replacement project in 2016 on the Taconic State Parkway, which included mile-based exit numbers. The interchanges had been unnumbered previously. The last I saw, they got up to mile/exit 45 in Lagrange. The second phase of the project (880911) should be done in 2019. Hopefully this will also install mile markers on the northern-most reaches since they disappear and only reference markers are posted.

Excited by this, I asked NYSDOT if they were going to replace the aging signs on the Palisades Parkway and add mile-based exits. They said they have no plans to replace the signs, but when they do, the exit numbers will be in accordance with federal guidelines (read: yes).

Project 880914 shows sign replacements for Interstate 84, so hopefully the exit numbers will move to mile-based as well.

I think "the exit numbers will be in accordance with federal guidelines" doesn't really indicate the move to distance based numbering in this instance. I'd be very surprised to see numbers be switched during a sign replacement project without a large scale renumbering project in progress across the entire state.

Quote from: Alps on April 07, 2018, 01:32:40 PM
The state line is not a "rule". The MUTCD recommends, but does not require, mileposts to reset.

The mile markers on I-495 (Capital Beltway) at the American Legion Bridge do not reset.  They continue to increase to the Springfield Interchange (I-95/I-395/I-495), where they reset to follow the I-95 miles (zero milepost at the North Carolina border south of Skippers) to the Woodrow Wilson Bridge.

Quote from: Rothman on March 01, 2018, 08:36:46 AM

Quote from: kalvado on March 01, 2018, 07:20:53 AM
Besides, state operated "taste NY" facilities don't create significant conflict of interests or preferential treatment issues. Those rest areas never were a safety issue, they were commercial thing to begin with. And since no local businesses complain about that (not that I heard of)...

Certain commercial activities have been prohibited by FHWA regulation in new rest area facilities.  I will just say that I stand by my statement that FHWA's inconsistent enforcement speaks volumes.

(personal opinion emphasized)

My suggestion (also personal opinion) is to help the FHWA by ending all federal regulation of what may (and what may not) be done at rest areas on (mostly federally  funded) Interstates and other freeways with  federal funds in them.  The states should be able to decide if they want the rest areas to remain as they are, or add activities like Taste of New York or add services similar to what are provided by concession holders on older toll-funded freeways. 

Whatever the states decide can be subject to a pro-forma sign-off by the state FHWA Division Office.

I'll second that!

Quote from: cpzilliacus on April 07, 2018, 05:06:54 PM

Quote from: Alps on April 07, 2018, 01:32:40 PM
The state line is not a "rule". The MUTCD recommends, but does not require, mileposts to reset.

The mile markers on I-495 (Capital Beltway) at the American Legion Bridge do not reset.  They continue to increase to the Springfield Interchange (I-95/I-395/I-495), where they reset to follow the I-95 miles (zero milepost at the North Carolina border south of Skippers) to the Woodrow Wilson Bridge.

Beltways get a different treatment in the MUTCD. Those that are multi-state do get to hold onto their numbers.

Quote from: Alps on April 08, 2018, 02:37:16 AM
Beltways get a different treatment in the MUTCD. Those that are multi-state do get to hold onto their numbers.

Thanks.  I was not aware that beltways got special treatment, though I-435 around the Kansas City, Kansas and Kansas City, Missouri area also has exit numbers that ignore the crossings of the state line.

Quote from: cpzilliacus on April 08, 2018, 01:13:49 PM

Quote from: Alps on April 08, 2018, 02:37:16 AM
Beltways get a different treatment in the MUTCD. Those that are multi-state do get to hold onto their numbers.

Thanks.  I was not aware that beltways got special treatment, though I-435 around the Kansas City, Kansas and Kansas City, Missouri area also has exit numbers that ignore the crossings of the state line.

As does the I-275 beltway in Cincinnati that crosses 2 state lines.

Yet, there are differing beltway cases.

I-255 (IL/MO) carries over the exit numbering and mileposts from Missouri into Illinois and changes only when it becomes IL-255 at I-270; however...
I-270 resets at the Mississippi River and I-270's exit numbering and mileposts carry into I-70 across Illinois.